POLITICS: ECOWAS Saves Democracy In Togo/ Succeeds Where "1st World" Fails

The Economic Community of West African States is lifting sanctions on Togo effective immediately, because they have succeeded. The sanctions were imposed after the military installed the son of the deceased president instead of the speaker of the parliament as called for by the constitution. President Faure Gnassingbe has now agreed to step down and the constitutional amendments made to install him are being negated. It has taken only three weeks to achieve these results.



It's amazing how quickly this worked, but the reason for that seems clear: nobody gave aid or comfort to the illegitimate regime. ECOWAS made clear demands, set firm deadlines, stated clear consequences, and stood by all of those things. The UN cooperated as well, nobody broke the rules or secretly told the pretender that they would be his friends. This is an Example- capital E. If the "first world nations" of the UN Security Council could do the same against nations which violate international law it would solve the problems that Americans are always griping about while preventing the wars that Europeans are always griping about.

Crud, I accidentally hit the alert button and lost 10 points. that sux.

I've never heard of ECOWAS before...I'm gonna go research them. Anyone know anything about them?

P.S. what does the alert button do?

[edit on 26-2-2005 by 00PS]

Yeah, but you got them back by posting a reply. Easy Come, Easy Go. You might want to edit your post just a tad though, because its an off-topic oneliner (that's like -20 points isn't it?). I'd hate to see that happen.

Anyway, I'll CYA for myself ass well so that I don't get an offtopic warning. Am I the only person here who is chomping at the bit to see ECOWAS try more efforts like this and clean up the neighborhood? There's some major trouble in Eastern and Central Africa that ECOWAS could really help the UN get a grip on if they could get the UN to help the way they did with Togo.

EDIT:
The alert button shows the submission to a moderator. It's reserved for breaking news which should be upgraded immediately.

[edit on 26-2-2005 by The Vagabond]

Here is some info on ECOWAS...

www.eia.doe.gov...

The Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) was created on May 28, 1975 in Lagos, Nigeria. ECOWAS was established to promote cooperation and integration in order to create an economic and monetary union for promoting economic growth and development in West Africa. ECOWAS has encountered many problems in the process of regionally integrating West Africa, including: political instability and lack of good governance that has plagued many member countries; the insufficient diversification of national economies; the absence of reliable infrastructure; and the multiplicity of organizations for regional integration with the same objectives. Several ECOWAS-member countries are currently part of the West African Monetary Union (UEMOA), a regional economic and monetary union which shares a common currency (the CFA Franc). The Francophone-countries of Benin, Burkina Faso, Cote d'Ivoire, Mali, Niger, Senegal and Togo, with Guinea Bissau (Lusophone), comprise UEMOA.

news.google.ca...:en-USfficial&sa=N&tab=nn&oi=newsr

www.ecowas.info...

Wow...that's why I've never heard of them. That place has had conflict for ages and ECOWAS hasn't ever done anything have they?

My parent's have some friends who are missionaries there, one night in their camp, a raid party stormed all the tents and cut off their fingers to steal their wedding rings. OMG

Originally posted by 00PS
Wow...that's why I've never heard of them. That place has had conflict for ages and ECOWAS hasn't ever done anything have they?

My parent's have some friends who are missionaries there, one night in their camp, a raid party stormed all the tents and cut off their fingers to steal their wedding rings. OMG

They are a long way from perfect (for example there has basically been an informal invasion of Cote d'ivoire by muslim rebels from Burkina Faso, backed by France no less.) but they have seemed to pick up steam in recent years and they do accomplish some.

ECOWAS did most of the work in Liberia for example when Charles Taylor was removed. (unfortunately ECOWAS member Nigeria was permitted to give him assylum.)

Vgabond!

Shows tagoya that missiles are NOT required.

Sure is nice that some people give peace a chance - and prove it can work.


.

Just to be fair though, it only worked because 1. it was made to work. 2. it was firm enough that it may have implied the threat of force.

Sanctions can't work in Iran as long as Russia, China, France, and even America (the American company Halliburton specifically) conduct business with Iran.

ECOWAS: Has one voice which comes from a mouth full of sharp teeth
UN: Has many contradictory voices which come from a mouth which spends most of its time kissing your butt.

EDIT to add:
As I said, if the UN would act like this, both America and Europe would get what they want out of eachothers foreign policies.

[edit on 26-2-2005 by The Vagabond]

I think the reasons sanctions wont work against Iran is because noone can agree whether or not Iran has actually committed any breach of International Law - the IAEA says no, the US says yes, the EU says 'lets try and circumvent the situation anyway'. Personally I dont think they did, but lets get back on topic.

If everyone in the UN agreed to abide by decisions made by it and the Security Council, either for or against them, then things would get done - thats what the UN is supposed to be all about. But this doesnt happen, and thats the cause of the UNs inability to resolve certain situations - countries go on and do what they want anyway when decisions go against them.

Nice hidden jibe at the EU tho.

Originally posted by RichardPrice
I think the reasons sanctions wont work against Iran is because noone can agree whether or not Iran has actually committed any breach of International Law

I think the problem itself runs deeper than that, although the Iran example is limited by circumstances. Take Iraq for example. The UN consistently failed to be explicit about enforcement and consequences and all sides (US included) failed to yield to the authority of the Security Council. It seems to be pretty clear that the UN is incapable of producing results because
1. Its individual members have all demonstrated a willingness to make themselves an accessory to international crimes whenever it is profitable.
2. Many nations (not limited to Europe) have developed cultural aversions to war to such a tremendous extent that they will not even pose a serious threat of war when the threat itself represents the best chance to avoid actual war.
The UN as a whole has no teeth, economic or military, and as a result can't outperform ECOWAS in a manner reflective of its relative size, wealth, and overall capability.

Nice hidden jibe at the EU tho.

That sounds like a guilty conscience to me. I never singled Europe out for anything. I didn't even lean very heavily on the aversion to war until this post, which I will note is not uniquely European. The Japanese seem to have sworn off of militarism and the Chinese have virtually no history of foreign aggression in their entire history, even to the point that South Korean military officers have been known to take great exception to US military assessments of China as a threat.

If you think that I see the EU as duplicitous self-serving cowards who ruin the UN you either have a guilty conscience or have done an incomplete job of reading my mind. I do in fact think that, I just happen to think that they are joined by the US, China, and virtually every other nation on Earth in that same catagory. I never actually said it exclusively about the Europeans though, because I never thought it exclusivly about the Europeans.

Originally posted by The Vagabond

1. Its individual members have all demonstrated a willingness to make themselves an accessory to international crimes whenever it is profitable.

I agree. The sum of the individuals always come out worse when the individuals arent pristine.

2. Many nations (not limited to Europe) have developed cultural aversions to war to such a tremendous extent that they will not even pose a serious threat of war when the threat itself represents the best chance to avoid actual war.

And many countries CANNOT wage war on another country under their own law (Japan is one that springs to mind, and Im pretty sure Germany has some laws against it put in place during its occupation).

That sounds like a guilty conscience to me. I never singled Europe out for anything. I didn't even lean very heavily on the aversion to war until this post, which I will note is not uniquely European. The Japanese seem to have sworn off of militarism and the Chinese have virtually no history of foreign aggression in their entire history, even to the point that South Korean military officers have been known to take great exception to US military assessments of China as a threat.

If you think that I see the EU as duplicitous self-serving cowards who ruin the UN you either have a guilty conscience or have done an incomplete job of reading my mind. I do in fact think that, I just happen to think that they are joined by the US, China, and virtually every other nation on Earth in that same catagory. I never actually said it exclusively about the Europeans though, because I never thought it exclusivly about the Europeans.

I apologise if I misread you, my comment was based around the wording of this sentance:

If the "first world nations" of the UN Security Council could do the same against nations which violate international law it would solve the problems that Americans are always griping about while preventing the wars that Europeans are always griping about.

which, if read the way I read it (I dont know if anyone else did), put the blame on the recent Iraq invasion on the European countries that blocked it in the security council. If you want a deeper explanation of my reasoning, I can give one. If this wasnt your intent then I will withdraw my above statement (I wont edit my post tho, I beleive that if I did this it would make subsequent posts ... look pointless )

[edit on 26/2/2005 by RichardPrice]

[edit on 26/2/2005 by RichardPrice]

2. Many nations (not limited to Europe) have developed cultural aversions to war to such a tremendous extent that they will not even pose a serious threat of war when the threat itself represents the best chance to avoid actual war.

And many countries CANNOT wage war on another country under their own law (Japan is one that springs to mind, and Im pretty sure Germany has some laws against it put in place during its occupation).

The laws of these nations can hypothetically be superseded by their commitment under international law to support whatever emergency measures the Security Council takes under Article 7. This means that although Germany may impose pacifism on itself under most circumstances, Germany can legally be compelled to cooperate with emergency interventions in the name of the UN when it is in the interest of global peace and stability. There would be nothing illegal whatsoever about pacifist nations associating specific consequences, including military ones, with failure to obey UN resolutions.

I apologise if I misread you, my comment was based around the wording of this sentance:

If the "first world nations" of the UN Security Council could do the same against nations which violate international law it would solve the problems that Americans are always griping about while preventing the wars that Europeans are always griping about.

I highlighted "first world" nations in order to contrast with the "third world" African nations, nothing more. It is ironic that self-styled "leaders" of the international community who built the UN (not just the Europeans) are the very nations which undermined the success of UN efforts in Iraq, while the impoverished and less stable "third world" nations which the UN might normally presume to correct have successfully organized such a diplomatic success as this.

which, if read the way I read it (I dont know if anyone else did), put the blame on the recent Iraq invasion on the European countries that blocked it in the security council. If you want a deeper explanation of my reasoning, I can give one. If this wasnt your intent then I will withdraw my above statement (I wont edit my post tho, I beleive that if I did this it would make subsequent posts ... look pointless

)

Not at all. The Europeans enjoy a hefty share of the blame to be certain, because they were equal partners in the disrespect for UN authority which lead to the failure of sanctions. All the same, it can not really be laid at their feet because the war itself was an inverse and equal disrespect for UN authority, perfectly mirroring the wrongs which came before it.

I believe this whole discussion only serves to further exalt the success of the effort in Togo over the mismanagement of Iraq, because it demonstrates the egocentricity and attendant division among UN nations, while the ECOWAS effort was a concerted one carried out with a focus on what was right for the people of their fellow ECOWAS state.