Should the West have intervened sooner in the Ivory Coast?

After four months of fighting following the African nation's disputed election, U.N. help finally brings the conflict close to its end. Could the bloodshed have been stopped sooner?

An armored UN truck patrols the streets in the Ivory Coast: President Laurent Gbagbo still refuses to cede power as violence continues.
(Image credit: Corbis)

The violent crisis in the Ivory Coast appeared to be nearing a decisive moment Thursday, as forces loyal to the country's elected president, Alassane Ouattara, surrounded the home of his rival, former President Laurent Gbagbo, who still refuses to cede power. Four months of fighting have created a humanitarian crisis, with accusations of massacres by both sides. Ouattara's forces surged to the brink of victory this week as France and the United Nations sent helicopter gunships to bomb Gbagbo's arms depots. So if that's all it took, shouldn't the West have gotten involved sooner?

Yes, our inaction cost lives: Ivory Coast was already in turmoil when the Western allies started bombing Libya, says Simon Akam in The New Republic. The difference is Libya has oil; Ivory Coast has cacao. "Even if Gbagbo is ousted and Outtara finally takes power, no thanks to the West, it's likely that thousands have died, and untold suffering certainly has rained down on the Ivorian people." All that could have been avoided if the West had "shown some stomach," and acted earlier.

Subscribe to The Week

Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.

SUBSCRIBE & SAVE
https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/flexiimages/jacafc5zvs1692883516.jpg

Sign up for The Week's Free Newsletters

From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.

From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.

Sign up