Washington, DC — United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan called on the Security Council last week to seek "an early solution" to escalating fighting in Liberia, "whose deleterious effect is fast spreading throughout an already troubled sub-region."
An international contact group established last September to seek a resolution has scheduled two days of meetings later this month in Paris in a renewed effort to end the conflict. Some 60 percent of the country is thought to be under rebel control, Annan reported. At least half the country's population has been uprooted by the most recent fighting, a continuation of unrest that has persisted for more than two decades.
Although elections are scheduled for October 14, "conditions for free and fair elections are absent," the International Crisis Group reported this week, both because of spreading conflict and because opposition parties are subject to widespread harassment by forces loyal to Charles Taylor, who was elected president in a controversial 1997 contest following seven years of devastating civil war.
The contact group includes Ghana, Nigeria, Morocco, the African Union, the European Union, the Economic Community of West African States (Ecowas) and the United Nations, along with three permanent Security Council members - Britain, France and the United States. The two European former colonial powers are already engaged in peacekeeping in the region - Britain in Sierra Leone and France in Cote d'Ivoire. But the United States has not shown a willingness to follow their example in Liberia, a traditional American ally.
Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, who heads the Unity Party, was Taylor's principal challenger in the 1997 poll as leader of the largest opposition party in the National Assembly. She has been in Washington this week seeking U.S. assistance for the peace effort. Sirleaf was also a prominent critic of the country's previous leader, Samuel Doe, who seized power in a 1980 coup and orchestrated an election victory in 1985, before being executed by a rebel faction during the civil war Taylor started in 1989. Earlier this week, the chief investigator of the Special Court for Sierra Leone, Alan W. White, an American, warned that Taylor could face prosecution if he fails to hand over two indicted Sierra Leonean war criminals he believes to be hiding in Liberia. There has been much speculation that Taylor himself could face indictment as a war criminal for being the chief sponsor of the Sierra Leonean rebel force, the Revolutionary United Front (RUF).
Excerpts from her interview with AllAfrica's Charles Cobb Jr. and Akwe Amosu:
Is it possible that we are getting closer to serious peace negotiations, as well as to 'regime change' in Liberia?
I think so. I think you can call it being very close to an endgame. Mr. Taylor is under great pressure, not only military pressure but domestic pressure from the people at large - all calling for peace and negotiation with the dissident forces. I think he just has to make some concessions and go to the peace table now.
I don't know the nature of that change, but change is coming. And it is in the interests of Mr. Taylor to make concessions and compromises if he wants to make sure that he is a part of this endgame.
I hope that we can all give serious consideration to Bishop Francis's suggestion that maybe it's now time for a government of national unity. [Ed: Michael Kpakala Francis is Roman Catholic Archbishop of Monrovia.]
What do you think might come out of the next round of peace talks, scheduled for later this month in Accra?
The agenda is very clear and that is the ceasefire that has been called by the international contact group on Liberia. The meeting will include a certain number from civil society and from opposition parties, as well as the ruling party leadership. But the focus is on a ceasefire and stabilization force.
I recognize that there are many difficulties with such a force, but the Liberian people are calling for it because of the security situation. We will also be talking about creating an environment for creating free and fair elections.
When pressured in the past, Taylor has always managed to focus attention elsewhere. Why is he on the ropes now?
I just think that the pressure is coming from so many sides. First of all, the Liberian people have been on the streets demanding peace - and we'd like to applaud them and encourage them. The students are beginning to rally around and to send petitions. There's the international community, through UN sanctions. There's the international contact group, and there is the war in Cote d'Ivoire.
Taylor, when he is under great pressure, attempts to compromise and make concessions, and when the pressure is off he goes back to the old habits. But with the pressure of an indictment facing him this time, I think he knows it is for real. His options are very few.
If he wants to be a part of whatever emerges from these pressures, then he has to make concessions. If he doesn't, he may not be a party to what follows. I think Taylor wants to live there after all, like anybody else.
Do you think that Taylor should be a party to whatever comes next?
No, quite frankly in the best interests of the country, Mr. Taylor should not be a part of whatever change is emerging simply because I do not think he can work as a part of a team. He is a great commander, dictator. This is why, when it comes to elections, many of us feel that if Mr. Taylor is a candidate, we're just inviting a process in which nobody is allowed to win.
At the same time, we recognize the reality that he is there, and we've got to deal with him, and so we may not get the ideal solution. We'll look for what is the next best solution that saves the country and enables us to bring the suffering of the people to an end.
Would the ideal scenario be for Taylor to go into exile under protected circumstances and leave the field clear for you and others to contest the elections in the fall?
Yes, that is the ideal solution and perhaps in his best interests. Certainly it is in the national interest, but I don't think it is in Mr. Taylor's personality to go quietly.
What role do you as political leaders have in the peace process?
We are supposed to be a part of the meeting - both civil society and party leadership. When it comes to negotiating a ceasefire, obviously we are not parties to that. That will be the government and the dissident forces. But we are supposed to be right there so we can facilitate and encourage that on both sides, and when the agreement is reached, we go into the next round of talks.
What we must do is create the conditions for free and fair elections. If we do not look where people's rights are being denied, where they are being excluded from the political processes, where the system does not allow equal opportunity, then we are setting the stage for failure.
What are the elements you want to see in a peace agreement?
We want the security forces to be re-organized and inclusive, with all the dissident movements of the past put into one army, along with the training that the government has requested. We'd like to see these militia groups run by the government totally dissolved.
We then want to address the social needs and start talking about getting kids back into schools. Today there is a major conscription on the streets, in the villages. Young kids, 13 or 14, against their will, are being taken to the frontlines. Some of them do not know how to shoot. They are going there to die, and it's those kinds of things that we have to stop and address.
Of course we'll also talk about elections. Those who are thinking that they are going to disqualify strong contenders are setting the stage for problems, because, if they do, peace will not be sustained. We are not going to accept it. Those are the things we are saying - we want to remove all these obstacles.
Can Mr. Taylor respond to that in such a way that would mean constraining the absolute powers that he has exercised until today? I am not sure. Talk is cheap and we do not just want talk. We want to see action take place, even before we go to the peace talks.
At the peace talks we want a serious government commitment - government announcements and government policy actions. If we do not see that, we cannot get sustainable peace.
Is it possible to have peace without having either some kind of truth and reconciliation commission, as they did in Sierra Leone and South Africa, or a war crimes tribunal that would clearly involve Taylor?
One of the mistakes of the past is that we've promoted peace without justice. That hasn't worked. It's Mr. Taylor's own folly that he did not respond to the calls for a truth and reconciliation commission right after the elections of 1997. Had he done that, perhaps we might have overcome some of the tensions in the society, and he would have gone a long way towards true reconciliation, which really hasn't happened.
There has to be justice. We have to find ways for those who have been offended and aggrieved to have a means of expressing it and confronting those who have wronged them. Whether it is going to be some court system or whether it is going to be a truth and reconciliation commission is the type of thing that we should be discussing as we look forward to the future.
If the war crimes tribunal in Sierra Leone decides to indict Taylor, could that possibly create more problems - cause him to dig in his heels and refuse to co-operate and thereby make a settlement more difficult?
I don't see how much worse it could get. Right now, our economy has totally collapsed and the unemployment rate is 85% plus. In Monrovia, we've got seven displaced-people camps and the rains are coming. People don't have proper shelter or food and throughout the country. The villages are empty because of the rebel movements now on two fronts. There is not much left, which is why people take guns and go from house to house and kill.
At this stage, the Liberian people are saying, "Whatever is out there, let it happen. Let's take the short-term pain so that we can start the process of healing and rebuilding."
Does Taylor have a constituency and, if so, what happens to those people in a new Liberia?
He has a true constituency, and many hundreds of young rebels who lived with him in the bush see him as a father figure for what he has done for them. I do believe, however, that they can be brought around once he's gone and the control he has over them is relieved. One can assure them that they are Liberians and that they will fit into the society again and be given the opportunity for schooling and for jobs. And that even if we have a system for justice that it'll be a legal one with due process and there will be forgiveness coming out of a truth and reconciliation commission. So where he has a following, I think that following can be turned around, and they can live normal lives again, away from his control.
What about the U.S. role? The administration seems to have been much more outspoken about abuses in Zimbabwe than in Liberia.
It is widely believed that the U.S. supported Taylor in the 1997 elections, but I think now they too are exasperated with the failures to meet the people's needs - the corruption and human rights abuses.
They have been taking some strong positions, but they still have not set forth very strong conditions, as they have done with Zimbabwe, and they have not followed the strong statements with action.
The United States is looked on as the one to take the lead in resolving Liberian problems, as the UK did in Sierra Leone and France is doing in Cote d'Ivoire. They have not stepped up to the plate on this one.
Why is that?
There is a lack of interest. The relationship has been long, and we had a coup d'etat - it's now 20 years plus, and we haven't found the way to start the process of rebuilding. I think there is fatigue with us.
Besides that, we lost our strategic importance [as a communications relay point] several years ago with new technology, and so all of that added together has meant that there are priorities elsewhere.
What about resources required for a transition and a stabilization force? Can Ecowas pay for this? From what you have heard here in Washington, do you think the United States will contribute?
I hope so, but in the consultations I've been having on Capitol Hill, everyone's telling me 'don't think we're going to put up a stabilization force and pay for it'.
We've looked at other types of options. Maybe there can be some re-deployment of the force in Sierra Leone as a regional force, recognizing that the problem now is regional. Of course, that means going to the UN and getting them involved. Ecowas is still a possibility, but it has funding problems, even for the force they have in Cote d'Ivoire right now.
We also know that Liberia has resources, even though there is a lot of exploitation for private gain right now. If those resources can be pledged to cover any investment that is made today in the stabilization force and in a peace process, that is something we will do. We know that there are other institutions and countries that would like to be helpful to Liberia. They don't have the might of the United States, but if the U.S. gets involved and says resources are needed, I believe we could then see the possibility of finding the means of paying for the force, from the European Union and others.
Taylor said the other day that he did not really want a peacekeeping force but he wanted an international force with interventionist capacity? What do you think he means?
I don't care what you call it. We need a force that brings security to our people. They don't want elections unless there is a force to protect them. If Mr. Taylor wants a force to help restructure the security forces and train them, if that can be added on to their functions, there is nothing wrong with that. But we need that force.
Sign up for free AllAfrica Newsletters
Get the latest in African news delivered straight to your inbox
A new group, known as Movement for Democracy in Liberia (MODEL), has joined the fighting. Do they need to be included in the negotiations?
Frankly, if this new group is not included in the peace deal, then it will not work. This group is making some very serious inroads. It includes former AFL [Armed Forces of Liberia] people and certain dissidents elements of the Lurd [the leading rebel group, Liberians United for Reconciliation and Democracy]. If indeed, as we have heard, they've entered Sinoe County and many of the logging operations have stopped, this is serious.
The international contact group and Ghana, which is leading it right now, should really make sure that this group is involved in the peace talks. Otherwise, peace will not come.
Is what's happening in Cote d'Ivoire a serious threat to peace in Liberia?
Yes. The reports that we're getting now are that the Ivorian part of the rebel movement in Cote d'Ivoire is moving against the Liberian segment on the basis that Liberians are looting, destroying and raping. The whole thing is very complicated and messy and, at the same time, is endangering the safety and lives of a whole lot of innocent civilians on both sides.
We hope that the meeting between Mr. Taylor and President Gbagbo [of Cote d'Ivoire] to put joint forces on the border takes place, though neither of them actually control the borders. Let's hope that the peace talks do come off and everybody who's concerned gets to the table, and we can move from there with some understanding.
A broader question emerges: how should leaders in Africa, working through the African Union (AU) and regional groupings, respond when rebel movements take up arms to coerce more or less legitimately elected governments to make concessions?
The reality on the ground is that dissident groups pose a real challenge, and the only way to stop wars is sometimes to accommodate them. The principle of that is wrong, but you've got to get to the root causes. Governments have to open up. They have to allow more freedom. They have to address the economic needs of the population, stop human rights abuses and exclusiveness that bring the tension.
No matter what kind of resolutions they pass in the AU, if governments do not address the needs of their people, then those resolutions are worthless, as the experience is now showing. Nobody pays any attention to them, not even the governments who pass them, because if they want to survive they must be ready to accommodate the rebels.
But can peace be achieved without sufficient resources - for job creation and economic development in general? Most of the peace agreements we've seen have been made in the absence of any significant input of resources.
I do not buy the resource argument. I don't accept that there is a scarcity of resources for Africa to address its problems. It is just a question of wrong priorities. If the resources that Africa has, natural and human, were used in the right way, properly allocated, properly utilized, we would go a long way in addressing our problems.
Yes, external aid may be required, but we've got enough to address the root causes and make a lot of progress that would stop the tensions and the wars that come from exclusion and depravation. We're making too many millionaires out of the resources that we have and not using it on the needs of the people.
