Shame on YOU!!! 37 Regime Changes w/out UN Approval

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

Dreadsox

ONE love, blood, life
Joined
Aug 24, 2002
Messages
10,885
Commentary: Regime change a la Francais
By Arnaud de Borchgrave
UPI Editor at Large
From the International Desk
Published 3/14/2003 6:37 PM
View printer-friendly version


WASHINGTON, March 14 (UPI) -- There was a time when France was not so squeamish about regime change.

In fact, France has intervened militarily -- either to change regimes in sub-Saharan Africa or to restore deposed strongmen -- no less than 37 times since 1960. In some cases, Foreign Legion paratroopers were dispatched because a local leader (like the Central African Republic's Bokassa before he crowned himself emperor) was afraid his enemies were getting ready to dump him.

There was never any thought of going to the U.N. Security Council when France's national interest was deemed to be at stake in its former colonies.



In early September 1979, France's legendary spy chief, the late Alexandre de Marenches, informed President Giscard d'Estaing during their weekly t?te-?-t?te (no note takers) that Bokassa was in Libya and 72 Libyan "military advisers" had arrived in his capital, Bangui. Marenches' conclusion was that Bokassa was about to switch puppet masters and become Col. Moammar Gadhafi's stooge. Giscard did not respond. Marenches explained that he had a plan of action ready, "53 steps in less than one hour to put a new man in power -- David Dacko would be my preference -- and my men will be out of there in less than one hour." Giscard feigned disinterest, and France's two most powerful men went on to talk about other global hot spots.

Before leaving Giscard's Elysee Palace office, Marenches said, "Do I have your green light, Monsieur le President?" Giscard shrugged his shoulders without saying a word. Marenches took that to mean, "Yes, if you can guarantee success, and if you fail, it's your hide, not mine."

As head of the French CIA -- the Direction G?n?rale de la S?curit? Ext?rieure or DGSE -- Marenches had his own special forces. Late afternoon Sept. 19, 1979, they put David Dacko, an exiled political leader from the Central African Empire, in a limousine aboard a Transall transport plane with a dozen commandos. A second Transall carried two jeeps and a score of France's best soldiers.

Marenches had also created a phony African news service that put out a story about an attempted coup in Bangui, the capital. AFP, the French news agency, immediately picked up the story and the duty man at the French Foreign Ministry woke up the French ambassador in Bangui and asked him what was happening. "Let me turn off the air conditioning as I can't hear anything," said the ambassador. Marenches had ordered the line tapped and was listening to the conversation. The ambassador said all was quiet in the streets. The spy chief merely wanted to test the country's military reaction to rumors of a coup.

When he determined there was none, he ordered the two planes to land.

Dacko was driven to the Bangui TV station to broadcast a proclamation that had been written for him by Marenches. It said that the "the bloody tyrant Bokassa has been deposed and I have assumed full powers as your new president." Marenches had also taken the precaution of pre-recording the proclamation -- as he later put it -- "in case Dacko got cold feet at the last minute."

Dacko ended his speech by announcing: "I have appealed to France to send troops immediately to ensure security in our capital."

One of the two jeeps carried satchels of francs, as they knew that Bokassa's imperial guards had not been paid in two months.

When they arrived at the palace, the French Special Forces shouted, "We have the money Bokassa stole from you." The guards quickly dropped their weapons and plunged into the money bags. Dacko's limousine then pulled up and drove through the gates. The mammon from Paris had done the trick.

As Marenches promised Giscard, his men had re-boarded the two Transall aircraft and were airborne on their way back to a French base in Senegal 58 minutes after they had landed. By dawn, David Dacko's appeal to France had been answered and Operation Barracuda was under way. Two companies of French Foreign Legion paratroopers landed in Bangui at dawn. Gadhafi's military advisers were flown home, and Bokassa went into exile.

It was Libya, not the diamonds Bokassa once gave Giscard, that triggered the French regime change operation in Bangui. Paris intervened militarily on two separate occasions to save Zaire's late kleptomaniac President Mobutu. In 1977, French Foreign Legionnaires dropped into Kolwezi, the capital of Shaba province, to try to keep Mobutu's country from falling apart. The next year, the French returned to Shaba, this time ferrying Moroccan troops to keep the peace. In 1991, a thousand French paratroopers were dispatched to Kinshasa, the capital of Zaire (now called the Democratic Republic of the Congo), to protect Mobutu against his rioting population.

Today, the French military are trying to separate rebel from government forces in the Ivory Coast. They have saved both French and American lives there.

When it comes to French national interests, the United Nations does not exist, and regime change is always an option. In Chad, from 1968 to 1972, French forces helped defend President Tombalbaye against the Tibesti rebellion led by Hissene Habre. Then in 1983-84, the French threw their weight behind regime change with some 4,000 men -- Operation Manta -- to prop up Hissene Habre. In 1986, the French came back with 900 men -- Operation Hawk -- for more prop work.

France has been a self-appointed African cop on the sub-Saharan beat ever since French West Africa and Equatorial Africa spawned 13 independent states in 1960.

French public opinion has demonstrated in countless surveys that it isn't too interested in regime change operations in black Africa.

Iraq is a different story.
 
The fun starts when two countries which both have committed many crimes in their past start accusing each other who?s worse. What a nice detailed story, Dreadsox.

Bottom line: France?s past forced regime changes don?t give the U.S. the right to continue with theirs, do they. It would be like saying "My neighbor has committed lots of crimes and wasn?t charged, so I may continue to commit my crimes as well". And the U.S. past forced regime changes don?t give Saddam the right to continue with his crimes, do they - bearing in mind that a regime change should be approved by the people of the country and accomplished by them - you just made a perfect example, Dreadsox.

I wonder, will our beloved United Kingdom ever get accused of its crimes?
 
Last edited:
diamond said:
whats conviently left out is not mentioning France's hypocrsy.

DB9

Yes, you are right. France is a hypocrite country. Shame on you France.


Glad that France try to learn from the past,....
 
Rono said:

Glad that France try to learn from the past,....

France is currently intervening in the Ivory Coast without UN approval. How is that learning from the past. BTW, the US is supporting their Ally in this intervention.

This is just my observation and I am not saying I am opposed to it, just pointing out that you cannot say France has learned from their past about interventions when they are intervening in another countries Civil War. One of the major arguments on this board is that the US should allow the Iraqi's to overthrow Saddam if they wish. Here is an example of French intervention in a CIVIL WAR in which no UN approval was given.
 
Almost every Western country has a history of committing horrendous crimes around the world. We only have to look at the slave trade, for instance, to see that Western countries have been screwing over the rest of the world ever since we noticed they were there.

I don't believe that because France has acted without UN approval on numerous occassions (and let's not forget that it's far from the only country to do so. US intervention in Chile, Nicaragua, Cuba, Vietnam, etc, etc, etc. British invasion of the Falklands, etc) means that the US is justified in ignoring the UN now. Would we equally argue that because Israel has violated numerous UN resolutions ordering it to leave the occupied territories, that Iraq has a similar right to ignore resolutions against it?

That was a really interesting article though, Dreadsox. I don't agree with the author's intention in writing it, but I do think it's interesting to read about those events.
 
Yes....but, did the French ask for permission before that when they sent their troops in. I suppose, the Security Council can post date it?
 
FizzingWhizzbees said:
I don't believe that because France has acted without UN approval on numerous occassions (and let's not forget that it's far from the only country to do so. US intervention in Chile, Nicaragua, Cuba, Vietnam, etc, etc, etc. British invasion of the Falklands, etc) means that the US is justified in ignoring the UN now.

Right.
 
Not really, as the article states....37 times...and the Ivory Coast is still an example, they acted and then asked for permission.

Maybe this sets the stage for the US to act and then ask permission after the fact.

But we are both entitled to our opinions.

Peace
 
Dreadsox said:

Maybe this sets the stage for the US to act and then ask permission after the fact.


But the US did ask for UN authorisation and it was refused (or looks likely to be refused) so if they act now they'll be violating the will of the UN, not just seeking UN authorisation after the event.
 
Klaus, to be honest....I don't know much about the situation. I just bumped into this editorial. Thought it was interesting that according to this person, France has intervened on the continent of Africa at least 37 times without UN support.
 
Dreadsox: i'm not good in these old things, but i'm also unsure how the legal situation was in this moment, were the french colonies part of france and therefore it was self defense? I'm unsure about the legal aspect either, but the fact that noone of us has heared about that might lead into the direction that someone (the author of the editorial) might leave out some facts to make it seem that invading other countries (and hereby violating international laws - the UN Charta) is pretty normal for democracies and you shouldn't be affraid that the USA does this the first time with the current Bush administration..

Klaus
 
Back
Top Bottom