Liberian rebel groups. Guinea’s main link with the Ivorian war has been as a major recipient of refugees. An issue of particular concern in relation to the Ivorian crisis has been Guinea’s reluctance to admit certain ECOWAS nationals, even in transit, into its territory. As a result of the government’s refusal to allow Burkinabé nationals entry, thousands of Burkinabé civilians and others displaced from western Ivory Coast were trapped within Liberia for weeks, and remain dispersed in eastern Liberia without access to humanitarian assistance or protection. This example presents anew the need for regional governments to uphold their obligations to refugees and displaced civilians fleeing conflict zones, regardless of ethnicity or nationality. The regional actors: ECOWAS The ECOWAS countries quickly recognized the gravity of the Ivorian situation, touching as it did the economic heart of the region. Although a commitment to send in ECOWAS troops was hampered by funding and stalled for almost two months after it was made on October 29, members of ECOWAS made consistent efforts to broker cease-fires, set up peace negotiations and bring the parties to conflict together in Lomé, Dakar, and Accra in numerous meetings and forums. ECOWAS concerns largely centered on the economic impact of the crisis and the risks to regional stability posed by the conflict. The Ghanaian, Togolese, and Senegalese heads of state played the most active roles in mobilizing troops for the ECOWAS contingent and attempting to defuse the conflict. As of late-May, 2003, approximately 1,300 ECOWAS troops were in place in Côte d’Ivoire, where they coordinated with French forces in monitoring the cease-fire line. The ECOWAS community—and the African Union—has been notably weak in terms of systematically condemning human rights abuses by regional governments. This weakness is very likely due in part to the dubious human rights records of many of the ruling governments in their home countries. Strengthening the regional human rights mechanisms and the human rights commission of the African Union would be an important step towards creating greater accountability within member states and the region. The United Nations Security Council From the start of the conflict, the United Nations has often deferred to France on political and military matters concerning Côte d’Ivoire. A Security Council resolution in February 2003209 condemned human rights abuses in the conflict and conferred Chapter VII authority on French and ECOWAS forces, but United Nations forces have otherwise played a minimal role. A U.N. mission to Côte d’Ivoire, MINUCI, was proposed in late-April and approved in early May. The mission included military observers and liaisons and a vital human rights monitoring component, but the Security Council cut human and financial resources for the mission’s civilian components, based mainly on U.S. concerns over the budget and staffing. This response by the United States was seriously short-sighted given the urgent need for a human rights monitoring framework in Côte d’Ivoire. Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) An OHCHR mission to Côte d’Ivoire in December 2002 produced a public report on the situation and highlighted many of the key issues, including the contentious underlying land and nationality debates. A follow-up mission in March evaluated the feasibility of a future commission of inquiry and established several benchmarks for the launching of such a mission. Pushing for an international inquiry or a credible local mechanism backed by international efforts and personnel is vital if justice and accountability are to be achieved in Côte d’Ivoire, and the OHCHR should be closely engaged in the human rights monitoring component of MINUCI and any future commission of inquiry. 209 United Nations Security Council Resolution 1464, February 4, 2003, S/RES/1464 (2003). Human Rights Watch 53 August 2003, Vol. 15, No. 14 (A)