<<previous  |  index  |  next>>

VI. Hate Media

The use of xenophobic hate speech by Ivorian state media during the November 2004 crisis incited the pro-government militias to commit serious crimes against foreigners, bringing widespread condemnation from the international community.

President Gbagbo’s government backed its air and ground offensive against the New Forces in November with a media blitz against northerners, immigrants and the French.  The barrage of hate speech and incitement to violence was preceded by a campaign of intimidation and sabotage to silence opposition and independent voices.¹²⁰  On November 4, the government locked out senior staff of the state television and radio broadcaster RTI and removed its director. On the same day the FM relay transmitters of foreign broadcasters Africa Number One, BBC, RFI and VOA were sabotaged by an unspecified military unit.¹²¹ Groups of Young Patriots burned or ransacked the offices of four pro-opposition newspapers, and the government ordered the main distributor to halt deliveries of six independent and opposition dailies.¹²²

In the days prior to the Ivorian air force attacks on the French base the press whipped up anti-French sentiment and questioned the loyalty of northerners and those of non-Ivorian descent. The pro-FPI paper Le National Plus singled out Côte d’Ivoire’s thriving Lebanese business community as profiting from the war and aiding the rebels.

“The Lebanese, the rebels’ accomplices, will soon be denounced and will pay for working with those who have plunged Ivorians into mourning.”¹²³ Another pro-Gbagbo newspaper, Le Temps, accused those who supported France or members of the G7 opposition coalition of coming from tainted bloodlines. “Once again today we can speak unashamedly of impure bloodlines. Every one of those descendants of mixed blood who defend the colors of France through the rebellion of the G7 should be aware of it. They come from unclean blood.”¹²⁴

The flood of invective reached full spate after the French air raid. RTI replayed clips of speakers urging Ivorians to take to the streets to save the country from the rebels and French invaders. The television blended rumor, rhetoric and news reports to produce a stream of xenophobic, rabble-rousing discourse which lasted for days.¹²⁵ The television endlessly looped patriotic songs and gory footage of the victims shot by French soldiers outside the Hotel Ivoire on November 9. “All this contributed to the atmosphere of revenge and violence,” said an opposition journalist who went into hiding after the offensive started. “The message was foreigners support the rebels.” ¹²⁶

State broadcasting managers defended their coverage against criticism from the U.N., Western governments and international press freedom groups saying the country was under attack. “I strongly believe that the management of public media is different in times of crisis than it is in times of peace," said Jean-Paul Dahily, who was made head of a crisis committee running RTI. "It is there to serve the institutions of the republic and not the enemy.”¹²⁷

In response to concerns about the use of incitement during the November 2004 crisis, UN Security Council Resolution 1572 demanded that “the Ivorian authorities stop all radio and television broadcasting inciting hatred, intolerance and violence.” The resolution went on to request that UNOCI “strengthen its monitoring role in this regard.”  In early 2005, UNOCI set up a unit within the section of the Public Affairs section to track the media for hate speech. However, at this writing it has a staff of just one full-time monitor with two assistants. It also lacks clear guidelines about what constitutes hate speech.¹²⁸  “We don’t know in any meaningful or legal way where opinion ends and hate speech begins,” said one UN source. “We need a set of rules.”

UNOCI is also unclear as to whether it should act to block broadcasts or other forms of media which incite hatred and violence against civilians. At this writing, UNOCI has no technical ability to block such transmissions. Rather, its emphasis appears to be on accountability: “Where the international community could make a difference is on the issue of accountability,” said one UN official.¹²⁹ “The [U.N.] sanctions committee could make it known it is looking at perpetrators of hate speech. Editors should know that they too, as well as their proprietors and political masters, will be held to account for what they put in their newspapers and on the airwaves.” While this is important, it is also imperative that UNOCI, together with the Security Council, elaborate written guidelines for establishing at which point it is justified, in the interest of civilian protection, to block such transmissions and indeed to have at their ready the technology needed to do so.

Monitoring broadcasts in French as well as in local languages is the most crucial part of the U.N. work, since newspapers are read by only a minority of Ivorians whereas radio reaches nearly everyone. During the height of the hate speech in November opposition supporters in Abidjan, a city surrounded by lagoons, called RTI “Radio Mille Lagunes”, a reference to the Radio Mille Collines broadcasts which stoked the genocide in Rwanda 10 years earlier. “The potential for a Rwanda situation is there,” said a senior diplomat. “Some of the things that need to happen have happened. Sustained, virulent propaganda against a particular group is a precursor to violence. The big difference between now and then is that we are aware of the danger.”¹³⁰