Before the meeting began the contents of Mbeki’s letter to the participants was made public. Mbeki requested that President Gbagbo use the powers contained in Article 48 of the Constitution to order that Article 35 of the Constitution be amended by decree instead of the referendum required by law. Article 48 allows the president to take extraordinary measures when national institutions or territorial integrity are at stake. However, nothing in Article 48 says anything about using one part of the constitution to amend or abrogate any other part of the constitution. It is a legal nonsense that empowering the President in times of emergency to suspend civil liberties or declare a state of emergency is the same route by which electoral law is changed. In no country of the world which is governed by a constitution is there the provision that the need for conducting emergency measures to defend the state or the territorial integrity of the country is the same as redrafting voting eligibilities.

The demand to amend the constitution and change Article 35 to allow Alassane D. Ouattara to run for the Presidency in October is a political move, not a legal one. Allowing Ouattara and others to participate in the presidential elections has been a key demand of the rebel movement. Ouattara was barred twice before from presenting himself in previous elections on the grounds that he is not a full-blooded Ivorian. However, he and his party voted for the passage and ratification of the very constitution he now decries. This demand to change the Constitution has been the key demand of the rebels over the past two years. Ouattara, if Gbagbo follows Mbeki’s ruling, will be free to contest the October 2005 election if it is every held.

Local reaction in Abidjan was blunt. The ruling party newspaper Notre Voie said "It's an upheaval of all social norms". "Now, in Cote d'Ivoire, a non-Ivorian crook, an acknowledged thief, rapist, killer, and forger can be a presidential candidate".

Mbeki’s logic is clear. If the hurdle of Article 35 is cleared up then the rebels will have nothing more to fight over. If their demand is met, there will be peace. This may be logical but it flies in the face of reality. The rebels do not want peace; they have never wanted peace. They are disgraced military rejects who attempted a coup and failed to win the whole country. They are hanging on by their teeth with the support of the French. The local population whom they enthrall wants peace, but in order to negotiate it is necessary to have a program. The rebels have never had a program, nor have they pretended to. They have stayed on longer than they had hoped and are happy to continue doing so.

The level of Africa Union hypocrisy on this issue is high. When the President of Togo died, his son manipulated the Togolese Constitution so that the succession bypassed the Speaker of the House and he took over as President. This caused outrage and widespread pressure to obey the Constitution. He was forced from office and a new election is scheduled for later this year. Why is following the Constitution correct for Togo and incorrect for the Ivory Coast?

It is not surprising at this meeting yesterday that nothing was achieved other than scheduling another meeting for Saturday, the 16th. With the question of Ouattara out of the way the rebels were supposed to start discussions on how they were going to disarm. They indicated that they were not ready to disarm. Some of the rebels at the meeting indicated that disarmament was far from their mind. They cited the increase of what they call ’armed militias’ as the next challenge. Indeed, both Wattao and Sindou Cisse raised the issue that the rebels wouldn’t disarm until all the ‘militias’ are disarmed.

These militias, especially in the West, are composed of Ivorian patriots who are convinced that the division of the country has gone on too long. They are frustrated by the endless delays in the disarmament required under Linas-Marcoussis. They are joined by the Young Patriots who were able to keep a French column from moving out of San Pedro yesterday by blocking the road. Some Bangladeshi UN soldiers were fired upon in the West.

The other stumbling point is the continued presence of the French troops. The French troops have behaved very badly over the last year, shooting and killing unarmed Ivorian citizens and destroying the air force. The very same Phillipe Pouchet of the French Forces has been actively planning coups against the FPI Government; the latest on March 22, was prevented with some difficulty. Chirac stated in Senegal and subsequently that he would pull the French troops out of the Ivory Coast if the local government asked him to. Indeed, the FPI voted to ask the French troops to leave. The ONUCI (the UN Ivory Coast peacekeeping force) mandate ran out on 4 April. It was renewed for one month. Surely it is time for the Ivory Coast Government to ask the French to leave, before the mandate is renewed.

Friends of the Ivory Coast and much of the Ivory Coast Diaspora cannot understand why the French have not already left. What else do the French have to do to inspire the government to make this request? If murdering civilians, bombing the air force, aiding and rearming the rebels and plotting coups and assassinations aren’t enough, what is?

The people of the Ivory Coast are awaiting some real progress on disarmament by the rebels. This does not seem likely. The only redress is likely to be violent, unpleasant and dangerous. There is no downside at the moment for the rebels except among ‘militia groups’ and patriot groups. If the initiative is not to pass to them then some forceful leadership is required by the government. This situation will become more difficult to control as time goes on. The rebels are not going to take positive steps, so someone else must.

-----------------------------------