The Government ~ backed by the USA ~ ordered a crackdown on protests by unarmed people. The Army refused to fire on the citizens. Instead they told the President ~ backed by the USA ~ to resign. When he didn't they deposed him and allowed the Opposition Leader ~ NOT backed by the USA ~ to take over. So the USA stopped aid. Typical unwarranted American interference in the internal affairs of another country.
Who, or what leader, would the USA give aid to? You, Brian, are interfering in the affairs of other countries by simply posting this message. Baron Max
It was a coup, Brian. A coup. Should foreign countries continue to give non-humanitarian aid to a leadership brought in by a violent coup to depose the elected leader? The so called "opposition leader" never even ran for the top office.
Yeah, whatever, I thought I was simply posting a thread on a forum, but......... Maybe you ought to read why the military deposed him, very similar to Venezuela. In this case the military werent to happy about shooting dead their own civilians on the orders of a US stool pidgeon.
You mean the protesters that the ex DJ fired into a frenzy of violence in his bid to depose the leader? Why did the ex DJ (who declared himself President a month ago without ever running for the office) refuse to accept a referendum or even an election? Instead, preferring to send in innocent civilians with the army to storm the Presidential palace, while he stood back and fired the crowd, while standing behind a bunch of bodyguards? Did you know that Rajoelina had already declared himself President a month or so ago? That he never even ran for office, instead choosing his path to power through fear and intimidation and feeding into the poverty of those in Madagascar? Why didn't he accept a referendum? Why didn't he demand an immediate election and run in said election? Why did he choose the bloodiest and most violent path he could find, which cost innocent civilians their lives to get himself into power? I think you need to start answering those questions before you start praising him or demanding that the world community recognises a tyrant in the making.
Did you know Marc Ravalomanana originally contested the elections result of 2002, which he lost and had his supporters provoke strikes and demonstrations and many killings? Then the US ambassador in Madagascar, Wanda Nesbitt, presented Ravalomanana with a letter from President George W. Bush, recognising him as president..
I would suggest you learn to read your own links, Brian. He actually won his election.. Ratsiraka had refused to accept that he had lost and that sparked protests and resulted in the deaths of many civilians.
this just says that the president who resigned was nothing more but a marionette of US that did nothing but listen to instruction of US.
Do you know how easy it is to fake elections? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Especially with US' aid.
"At the OAU talks held in Senegal in April, both sides admitted there could be no accurate recount because many voting papers had been destroyed or lost since the election" proves my point. This is the way US does it. Calls it fair election even...
*Sigh* Why do you think it wasn't recognised? Could it be because the guy who lost refused to accept defeat? Could that be it, you think? Honestly.. it's not really that hard.
Yes, how dare the US recognise a President who actually won the majority of the votes. How dare the US recognise a new President and not the outgoing buffoon who saw fit to almost start a civil war, hold the capital to ransom, "denying food supplies" to enter the capital, destroying infrastructure such as bridges that connected the country areas to the cities.. How dare the US, the AU and the world community, support the winner of the election against a loser who attempted to hire mercenaries to help him overthrow the Government who won the election.. This current crisis will raise the ire of the world community because it is a coup. An individual with his own axe to grind, with his own thirst for power feeds into the fear of the population during a time of economic unrest in the country, using those individuals as his means to gain office.. by stirring up the population through fear and driving them to rage and fight.. while he stands behind his bodyguards cheering them on to violence. And this is an individual who didn't even run in the last election. Have you ever been to Madagascar? I have. As a child. And one thing that stuck in my mind about that country is the simple fact that the people tend to allow themselves to be easily led. And the baby faced former DJ who has taken power was not only not the opposition, but someone who wanted power and he used the people to get it, through violence and intimidation, feeding fear and hatred. He held the country to ransom and they gave in to avoid the bloodshed. But there is one thing you haven't even mentioned yet. The US, yes that dreaded animal, is not the only country to have halted non-humanitarian aid to the country. The African Union is also refusing to recognise this new self imposed leader. Do you know why? Because he staged a coup and overthrew the democratically elected Government. In fact, they suspended Madagascar from the AU and are also considering sanctions. Do you know why? Because it was not constitutional. Coup's usually aren't. And what of the democratically elected President? You know, the one who was ousted in a coup you are gleefully clapping your hands about and supporting the individuals who overthrew the Government? Well he has disappeared and there are fears for his safety.
Again you have not even bothered reading what I sourced. There was no way of telling who actually won the election . You better read your own links: There was no military coup with soldiers storming Parliament, the Military simply refused to carry out orders that entailed them to suppress civilian protests. The President resigned realizing he had no popular support, and his orders to suppress the civilians with military force were not being obeyed by the military. The unconstitutional claim comes from the fact that the new President under the Constitution is 6 years to young to be eligible to hold the office of President.
The initial results pointed to the winner. You have only started looking at the politics in Madagascar now because the US and the world community has weighed in with their condemnation at the recent coup. You haven't really kept up with the politics of the country until recently. Is your head in the sand? It was a coup. The military did storm the Parliament and the residential palace of the President. Such actions are unconstitutional because the laws in Madagascar state that changes of Government must come from a democratic election or if the President resigns, as he was forced to do so in this instance, then proper procedure needs to take place to ensure the change of Government is constitutional. This did not happen in this instance. The former DJ removed the leadership of the country via a military coup and his actions were unconstitutional. Oh, and from what you seem to have missed from my link.. Then of course we have the newly self-imposed leader who wants to change the Constitution so he can take power.
They military stormed nothing your article refers to events on Monday, Andry Rajoelina was inaugurated as President 2 days prior on the Saturday, Mr Ravalomanana had long since quit the Capital some 6 days before that event .
