From an ordinary Sierra leonean standpoint,and from a commonality of perspective with Francois Grignon,the real chance to "boost the peace" in our country is rested with the leaders of government.The leaders must not only talk,but also,show the good examples and exhibit the best ethical practices in the overall discharge of constitutional and state responsibilities even when there are no viewers.Sierra leone's backwardness then and now has been the effect of unbriddle corruption. What makes it more painful to the bearing and viewing public is the display of the loot by high level government functionaries with attitude,the remote and immediate reason for the over ten years of brutal war seem like not a lesson enough.Unless and until the uncontrolled impulse to steal state money, a condition affecting the personel of every facet of the government, is treated seriously,to make sure any one who steals from the public's purse commits a capital offence,I am afraid, the progress and development of our small republic will still be a far fetched dream

Who are the leaders of the territorial state of Sierra Leone? That is not a sixty four million dollar question for me, if a negative answer be deemed an answer.

EBK is not the leader of the proto fascist state of Sierra Leone. That is the negative answer.

The relationship between political power and money is nothing new: it is as old as any any poitical entity, whether it be a republic, an empire, a Kingdom or a nation state or, in the case of Sierra Leone, a territorial state. I shall not revisit here my thesis that Sierra Leone is NOT a nation state. The arguments in favor of the thesis can be found elsewhere.

The interesting issue that arises out the current consciousness that the financial contributors to the "one soup" parties are active within the structures of the societal state power in the territorial state of Sierra Leone is misplaced.

As I have maintained elswhere, the one soup parties are proxies of socio-ideological principals behind the scenes. The last thing a man or woman with money connected with the ample opportunities of illegal enrichment seeded in a territorial state is DIRECT INVOLVEMENT in the machinery of a governing party.

Accordingly, the theory that financial contributors are visible in the governing structure is patently false.

The theory that the soupist parties are proxies is supported by the empirical fact that the monied interests in pre-independent Sierra Leone are still there: monied and secure.

One of these elements was Jamil. Naive, he bucked the heuristic of political anonymity: his fate proves that the money bags who front monies to the 'contributing politicians' have corroborated their modus operandus: fund the proxies, let them duke it out, and laughing all the way to the bank, they go, invisible to the peoples of Sierra Leone.

My friends, I should think that the locution "our leaders" is now a "governa gate" ambiguity, or you think not?

My friend, Mr. imunu, having studied your postings, I have concluded that you care about the destiny of Sierra Leone. Accordingly, please accept my comments infra in a spirit of problem solving.

As I have stated in several postings, the leaders of the demo/fascist state occupying the territory of Sierra Leone are not autonomous: they are proxies of hidden principalities of dirty money. Respectfully---qccordingly---the expectation that such soupist leaders, the current one inclusive, are not choreographed by the structural conditions of existence of an occupying territorial state is, at best, naive.

It is not EBK who mandates violence, but the territorially grounded state power, which, as we know, is, even in national states, a depository of societal violence that is distributed among the military, the police, the judiciary and sanctioning administrative instrumentalities.

The solution to the problem is obvious: no element of of the captured populace attached to the soupists parties, their supporting tails, en facon parler, inclusive can stem the violence.

Truth be told, both soupist parties are experts in the PRODUCTION of violence.

Accordingly, only that part of the captured population devoid of soupist sentiments can stop the violence systematically and strategically produced by the soupist parties and their tails cum thugs.

Francois Grignon's summary and commentary August 7, 2008 based on the recent report on Sierra Leone by the International Crisis Group is certainly worth consideration. The report itself is available in pdf format at http://www.crisisgroup.org/library/documents/africa/west_africa/143_sierra_ leone___a_new_era_of_reform.pdf. It comes not long after another report by Suliman Baldo of the International Center for Transitional Justice. Both are focused on political efforts needed at the top, which are important. Creative efforts at the grass roots are also important. For example, the work of a grass roots organization known as Fambul Tok (family talk) is helping villages revive traditional reconciliation/cleansing ceremonies. Their work was recently featured in The Christian Science Monitor (www.csmonitor.com).

Press Inquiries Press Releases ICTJ in the News Publications Features Newsletter Annual Reports Events Audio and Video Files Features June 3, 2008

Sierra Leone: A Way Forward

While the government of Sierra Leone has taken strides toward peacebuilding since a 1999 peace agreement ended a brutal civil war, it is still struggling to secure human rights and a lasting peace, in part because of a lack of government expertise and resources.

Sierra Leone is ranked at the bottom of the UN's Human Development Index. Because of prolonged conflict and a history of bad governance, the country is by almost any measure a degraded state.

But there also are opportunities, including draft legislation that would strengthen the country's anti-corruption commisison, the prospect of enacting legislation to pay reparations to victims of the violence and holding orderly, peaceful elections on July 5. Suliman Baldo, director of the ICTJ's Africa Program, spoke about conditions there to the UN Peacebuilding Commission.

The full text of the speach follows. To download the speech in PDF, click here.

To learn more about the ICTJ's work in Sierra Leone, click here.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----

--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----

Sierra Leone:

A Way Forward

United Nations Peacebuilding Commission, May 2008

Remarks by Suliman Baldo

For Sierra Leone, the Lomé peace agreement of 1999 was the most critical step towards ending a devastating 11-year war, and committing the country to a number of accountability measures, including a truth and reconciliation commission. When rebels later attacked, killed and abducted UN troops, the reestablished democratic leadership requested help from the United Nations to create a Special Court to try those most responsible for the war.

The ICTJ began work in Sierra Leone in 2001 and aided the truth and reconciliation commission (TRC) from the commission's first days to the end of its work. The TRC had a mandate to address impunity, break cycles of violence, provide a forum for both the victims and perpetrators of human rights violations to tell their story, and prevent future conflict. The ICTJ helped it devise an approach to reparations and provided advice on the relationship with the Special Court for Sierra Leone. More recently the ICTJ has worked closely with national partners in Sierra Leone to use the opportunity of the Peacebuilding Commissions' engagement in the country to re-energize efforts to implement the commission's recommendations.

The TRC Report, released in 2004, is strikingly comprehensive, identifying the conflict's underlying causes as "bad governance, endemic corruption and the denial of basic human rights." The report not only provides a detailed history of the conflict and Sierra Leone's decline but also lists the names and fates of many of the victims, and identifies many of the high level perpetrators-and offers a vision for the future of Sierra Leone.

It is, in fact, a blueprint for peacebuilding, including 236 recommendations, ranked by their priority.

The Truth and Reconciliation Act signed by the Government of Sierra Leone in 2000 requires the Government to carry out the recommendations directed to state bodies, and to encourage other parts of society to take other recommended steps.

The Present

While progress has been slow, the government is to be applauded for moving forward on a number of the TRC recommendations: A Human Rights Commission was established in 2006; critical legislation on gender equality, including bills on inheritance, child rights, matrimonial rights of women, and land access, were passed in 2007; legislation on child rights in Sierra Leone came into force; and advances have been made in security sector review and reform and in the management of mineral resources.

As the Officer in Charge of the United Nations Integrated Office in Sierra Leone said in May, "Almost everything we are doing in this country is related to the TRC recommendations." The international community, most notably the United Kingdom, the US, and the UN, has been instrumental in supporting and facilitating these relief and recovery efforts in Sierra Leone.

The engagement of the Peacebuilding Commission in Sierra Leone since 2006 has been a galvanizing force for redirecting international attention to Sierra Leone. By working with the government to develop a framework for peace building priorities and actively advocating with donor countries to support the framework, the Peacebuilding Commission has taken critical steps towards fulfilling its mandate.

The $35 million committed to Sierra Leone by the Peacebuilding Fund is meant to be a catalyst for further funding as well as a demonstration of the commitment of the international community. For example, the commission - thanks to the Peacekeeping Fund - is credited for helping to turning on the lights in Freetown. After an initial lack of enthusiasm, the PBC recognized that the government's inability to provide electricity was a peacebuilding and national security issue.

But the situation remains dire: Sierra Leone is at the bottom of the Human Development Index. It has the highest child mortality rates in the world. Capacity in critical areas of governance is extremely low-in the justice sector, for example, there are 11 prosecutors for the entire country of approximately 4.9 million.

There are also new threats to security in Sierra Leone, including regional threats exemplified by the country's complicated relationship with Guinea, and the growing threats of food and fuel insecurity. In December, a bag of rice cost about 68,000 Sierra Leonean leones ($23 dollars U.S.) in Freetown; today it costs about 120,000 Sierra Leonean dollars ($41 U.S. dollars) - almost a 100% increase.

Challenges

Important steps have been taken, but how will these steps transform from commitments to actions that have positive effects?

In May, ICTJ and the Sierra Leone Court Monitoring Programme, together with the Human Rights Committee of the Sierra Leonean Parliament and Civil Society Peacebuilding Engagement Committee organized meetings that gave members of parliament an opportunity to comment on the plans and progress in the key peacebuilding areas.

From these meetings, and together with members of parliaments and civil society representatives, we have identified three broad challenges. These challenges very much support those identified by Ambassador Frank Majoor of The Netherlands on the occasion of his recent trip to Sierra Leone.

Lack of strategies and government capacity

In most priority areas, ministries have not outlined a national strategy. Even where a strategy has been developed, for example for Youth Capacity Building and Employment, and in Justice and Security Sector Reform, there is no-one considering how these strategies may overlap or be in tension with each other. The new government has yet to unveil a coherent approach showing how it intends to coordinate these strategies, although there are discussions of an oversight body attached to the Office of the Vice President that would play this role.

Capacity to absorb international assistance is also a problem. Projects funded by the Peacebuilding Fund are meant to last 12 months. But various projects have take 12 to 18 months between the approval of projects to the actual disimbursement. UNDP is ultimately responsible for the slow disbursement, but the program is overextended in Sierra Leone and requires dedicated staff and additional resources to keep things moving.

The inability of the government to provide a coherent vision is exacerbated by the lack of coordination within the international community. The government is required to meet the benchmarks of a dozen or more donors and international organizations-all with different systems of reporting. Given the low capacity of the state, members of the international community working in Sierra Leone must work together to find ways to lessen the burden of meeting the various donor requirements.

Finally, the delay in the appointing an Executive Representative of the Secretary General to lead the international community's effort in the implementation of the Peacebuilding Fund on the ground leaves a vacuum at the top.

Reconciliation

Peacebuilding does not only depend only on rebuilding the institutions of governance; it also involves building bridges across societies and communities that have been divided by hatred as a result of violent conflict and marginalization. The post-conflict peacebuilding regime cannot forget the victims.

It is over five years since the war was declared over and the disarmament, demobilization and re-integration process declared complete. Victims of the atrocities, however, often compare their situation with that of the ex-combatants. While the victims' needs remain unaddressed by the government, the perpetrators have benefited from well financed programs.

The TRC offers a strategy for reparations that is acceptable to most victims. As suggested by the TRC, part of the program's cost could be defrayed by Sierra Leone's mineral wealth. Last year, Sierra Leone exported $140 million worth of fine gems, but with an export tax of only 3 per cent. Since diamond sales helped fund the war, they could, at the least, be made to bear some of the costs of reparation to its victims.

Furthermore, recent elections left many communities divided. The government has an opportunity now to take the lead in reconciling communities by offering public programs and political appointments that transcend ethnic and regional lines.

Another potential contribution for reconciliation is the legacy of the Special Court. The international community is spending millions of dollars each year to try nine defendants. At the least, the Special Court should contribute to a national justice system that respects human rights and delivers justice to all instead of a few Sierra Leoneans. There is still time to make sure that proposals for the transfer of the Special Court's facilities to the government are carried out in a way that increases a sense of ownership over its resources and facilities.

Accountability

In order for peacebuilding efforts in Sierra Leone to take firm root, all stakeholders in the peacebuilding processes and especially those handling financial and other programmatic issues should offer transparency and accountability to partners and beneficiaries of the programs.

Our recent seminars for parliament and civil society helped identify a large number of problems in this area. Members of parliament acknowledged a lack of understanding about the workings of the Peacebuilding Commission and the Peacekeeping Fund. They are not aware of the content of the various programs and projects being supported by the fund.

Given that they have oversight responsibility on government programs and in order for them to effectively perform that function, it is important that they are fully informed and kept with program development. Members of Parliament stated their interest in being part of the process, not merely rubberstamping the final bill.

An indispensable and indefatigable partner of the peacebuilding process is civil society. While civil society in Sierra Leone is poorly organized, it has shown willingness to come together over particular issues and for capacity building opportunities, and in the past, demonstrated a strong commitment to democracy and good governance. We must continue to invest in a vibrant civil society that can enhance legitimacy and local ownership of the peacebuilding process.

Conclusion

These challenges can be met only with government commitment, government leadership, investment, and transparent, accountable processes. Upcoming opportunities for the government to move this agenda forward and demonstrate its commitment to its people include these:

A draft bill focused on the Anti-Corruption Commission, seeking to strengthen the commission's independence and its effectiveness. The legislation would give the commission prosecutorial powers; allow it to prosecute without approval form the attorney general and minister of justice, guarantee the commissioner tenure in the post; and require public officials to declare their assets. President Ernest Bai Koroma renewed his commitment to the revised National Anti-Corruption Bill Parliament will soon get a chance to reaffirm its own commitment to anti-corruption.

Making a commitment to enact legislation on reparations as a matter of urgency.

Holding orderly, peaceful local elections on July 5. Local government elections that increase local participation in governance will both strengthen the decentralization process and enhance peacebuilding.

These measures are important, but Sierra Leone still presents special challenges to the international community. Due to prolonged conflict and history of bad governance, Sierra Leone remains a degraded state. Sustained commitment by the international community is necessary for these measures to be transformed into practical efforts that make a serious difference in the lives of Sierra Leone's people. And only those efforts will guarantee sustained peace and a commitment to human rights and dignity. Back to overview Printer Friendly Enlarge Text Smaller Text PDF

E-Mail this Subscribe Links of Interest Sierra Leone Anti-Corruption Commission UN Peacebuilding Commission Previous Feature 27 May 08: South Africa: Violence tied to Zimbabwe

Copyright 2008 Designed by Designlounge | Powered by Ruby™

"PROGRESS TO WHAT?

The ideology or prejudice of "progress" was hatched by the propandists of the so-called 'European' Englightenment, whose singular task was to debunk any and all traditions in in any and all social sites that could not be "ratified" in the "court" of "reason." The political correlate was the development of republican forms of goverment in the 'autonomous' cities by burghers of a Europe then fully anchored in the hegemony of Kingdoms and the Catholic Church.

Hence, progress discourse is historically situated in a site that refused to plant the same discourse and its institutional 'images' in African territories conquered by European Imperialism; in the case of the territory of Sierra Leone, BRITISH IMPERIALISM.

It is a safe bet that despite philosophical claptrap about "post-modernism" by Euro-American eggheads that Euro-American institutions, including the UN and other institutions inhabiting the same genre, are intoxicated with the bourgeois prejudice of progress.

Accordingly, suspicion is authorized by averments and deeds of the heirs of the PRIMI AUTORES of the prejudice of progress, heirs individual or institutional. Africans, and I care not about their 'leaders,' should always view the discourse of progress from the perspective of presumptive falsehood, at best, and presumptive hypocrisy, at worst.

That said, within the Euro-American horizon, a legitimate question can be raised about the narrative of progress, namely "progress to what?" The fathers of the Englightenment's answer was VIA NEGATIVA: AWAY WITH ALL TRADITIONS UNAUTHORIZED BY "REASON." Historically, of course, "reason" has a history, and that history reveals different shades of "reason."

Nobody living in what the ideologues of the Englightenment imagined was the 'age' of "traditionally founded authority," thought that the zone in which life was lived, in which life was 'spent,' was suckled by unreason.

Although the Englightenment piggybacked on Italian humanistic textual-critical based critique of tradition, neither movements were truly historically informed in the sense the self-conscious, fully fledged historical-philological historical consciousness of 19th century European historians. Hence, both ideational structures were unhistorical, and this is attested by the projections they tendered for "progess."

The Italian humanists were guided by the "return to 'pagan' sources of knowledge," while the Englightenment pushers urged a "return to pure reason," by which they meant "reason" expurged of the falsifications of layers and layers of traditions of what they wrongheadly called "the dark ages" of European humanity, a notion that makes sense if and only if a conscious negation of the continuity of the Roman Empire ecclesiastically and secularly is asserted. Compare the Protestants' battle cry of the "return to the CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST (even though there is no historically reliable record that Jesus founded a church) and the apostles, a cry hurled at the allegedly corrupt traditions of the Roman Catholic Church.

The point?

The heirs of the ideology of progress have not transcended the blinders of their benefactors: their definition of progress is STILL WRAPPED IN THE CLOTH OF THE VIA NEGATIVA: absence of poverty, disease, bla, bla, bla.

We need an answer to the question of the purpose of the beloved and glorified ABSENCES.

I have not found an answer among the 'experts' of progess, which is now cloaked in the lexeme 'development.'

PROGESS TO WHAT?: ENCORE!

The 'development' experts have no answer to the question posed. Development, as contrued by them, is a directive from the 'West' on the 'proper' archaeology and architecture of economy, society and politics.

Their fatal error is the historically vacuous assumption of the existence of nations in the African countries they 'administer.' I have developed elsewhere bulldozers of this wrongheaded assumption: a dangerous assumption, to boot.

These experts, clones of Harvard and Oxford savants, are really full of it: historically dense, they assume that the destiny of the "West" OUGHT to be the destiny of African countries. And, this hubris is based on money.

But no nation has ever sacrificed its honor on the basis of money; another argument in favor of my hypothesis of the dearth of nations in 'sub-saharan' Africa. Bottom line: they may play their silly intellectual games with the political leaders of the territorial states. I am confident that an old farmer will, without much effort, can expose the valley deep holes in their economic transfer strategems.

They preach development. Ask them what the West is developing towards. There will be an answer when the Sahara desert becomes the Amazon forest. Look, the notion of development, founded on the concept of progress of "the Englightenment" is without legs. Let me reverse the question: unless "the West" assumes that it has captured the golden age, it must answer, through its institutional structures, the question of the endpoint of its development.

IT CANNOT, because it would have to project a metaphysics of finality, similar to the Christian endpoint of the "second coming," which was decisively rejected by the historical and contemporary bourgeois states of the "West."

An argument could be made that the endpoint is the elimination of poverty and other themes that rock in the same key. Now, this argument is economically silly. The Nation States of the West are committed, theoretically and practically, to the doctrine of the capitalist organization of human economic energy. Poverty, albeit a relative term, can never be eliminated, given the foundational postulate of a capitalist theoretical formation: SCARCITY.

Assume that the opposite is affirmed: capitalism morphs into the theortetical projection of Marx's "heaven on earth," which LIFE, thus far, has refuted.

Accordingly, the technical argument now gallops into the realm of GRAND THEORY: THE DESTINY OF MANKIND. Two theories of human destiny have been unequivocally and decisively rejected by the West: the universal redemption proferred by the Christian Church and 'Marxism.'

You might be tempted to proffer "capitalism." Capitalism and its CONTINGENT correlate, democracy, are NOT destiny theories: destiny theories claim to eviscerate human conflict. Capitalism and democracy MANAGE human conflict.

I await a 'REASONED' response from the "bookmen and women" of the "West," OR THEIR CLONES AMONG AFRICANS.

PROGESS TO WHAT? ACES DEUCE: PATRIACAL VIOLENCE---NON UND NEIN.

Since the experts have decided to go "mumu," I'll rumble alone.

Have you noticed that most African social formations are patriachal, and that these formations were whopped by British and other imperialisms, bloodied while the men ran the show?

Have you also regarded the unacceptable levels of violence against family members, what the "West" ambiguously calls "domestic violence," in African social formations in general, and the population of the territorial state of Sierra Leone in particular? The point I want to make is that the GRAND DEFEAT may have something to do with this syndrome, which I shall explore strategically in a proper context.

Now, the recognition of the other qua another human being begins, without delving into technical phenomenlogical details, with myself: I can recognize myself as an other to myself. This is obvious in a reflection, anchored in memory, of 'my' past, my 'spent life.' It follows that memory, in which the contents of remembering are localized, is a trigger of the identification not only of the self, the self as other, and the other as pure other, i.e. another human being (henceforth "the other.")

As humans, generally, the first encounter with the other occurs in the family, a material whole in a cultural formation, which is, itself a whole of a higher order, but which is equally based or, technically, one sidedly founded on the family.

Values, which I deem as "operators of exchange", are first given withing the family. By "operators of exchange" I mean that the answer to the question of what you would give up to get what UNIQUELY determines a value. Please do not expect a citation to the definition proffered: I made it up, and having made it up, reflecting on my experiencel, I immediately see that it makes sense, and that is good enough FOR ME, WHATEVER A WEBSTER OR A SOCIOLOGICAL EGGHEAD MAY THINK.

Violence is a value, under the above postulate. Generally "public" values are based or, again, one-sidedly founded, adopting, the bourgeois imagined construction of the social realm, on "private" values. Public values may be construed as 'microbes' of private values. (I am aware of the problematization of the bourgeois razor sharp 'distinction' of the "private" and the "public" by, among others, Prof. Kennedy (Harvard Law School) of the philosophical naive and obscuantist Critical Legal Studies movement, but I don't take legal theorists seriously, since they dogmatically de rigeur adopt unclarified philosophical clap trap to push their legal 'dependent' theories.

Now the bomb: The political violence rampant in the public realm of political transactions in the demo-fascist territorial state of Sierra Leone is a reflection of the the endemic violence in the family formations of the captured population, or do you disagree?

It is strange that an incident centering on the 'invasion' of the territory of Sierra Leone by an alleged cocaine hauling airplane has set off a series of reflective productions that challenge the attribution of nationality to most African countries; Sierra Leone, in particular.

Stranger still is the dearth of a productive engagement on the issue, excepting Mr. imunu. Surprised, I am not; bouyed by the silence of the grave, I am.

Dazzling, in my opinion, is the weak theoretical structure of Sierra Leone politics: even a child in reflection could have come up with my SOUPIST THEORY and its irrascible social implications, chief among which is the DELEGITIMATION of the soupist party puppets: the "A-S" parties, my new characterization of the unified APC and SLPP in project "loot the treasury of the occupied territory of Sierra Leone."

It would be amusing to engage a correspondent who disagrees with my theoretical construction: but sometimes, it is hard, if not impossible or, even suicidal to engage an irrefutable theory. Perhaps, this is an exemplary instance.

Be that as it may, I must continue the labor of reflection: alone.

Piggybacking on the FACT of the territorial occupying state of Sierra Leone is the deference to Western scholarship in the West and its clones among Africans. I now direct my ire at these structures.

FIRST POSTULATE: it is a fact of history that intercultural interactions are the prime motors of social change within a cultural community. Examples are legion: Rome, Italian grounded humanism, and, sadly for Africans the European archaic imperialist interactions between Africans and Europeans, beginning with the Portuguese and the Spanish of the 15th centurey, who, through the Catholic Church, were even xenophobic against the French, the Germans and other "Protestant" KINGDOMS.

The explicated postulate should allay any theoretical fears that the AGENDA I now proclaim---AUTONOMOUS AFRICAN REFEECTION---is not informed by the history of thought formations, such as that of the West or say, the Arab world.

The nuanced point is that intercultural induced change is always RELATIVE, EXECEPT, FOR A REASON THAT I HAVE YET TO FATHOM, IN THE INTERCULTURAL INTERACTION BETWEEN AFRICANS AND THE DIFFERENT DESPOTIC EUROPEAN IMPERIALISMS.

Clearly, it is not that the cultural practices, mostly inscribed in non-literary traditions OF THE DEFEATED AFRICAN POPULATIONS were ignored by the majority of Africans; rather, they were simply made IRRELEVANT by the conquering European imperialists.

Hence, the first task of THE MOVEMENT OF AUTOMONOUS AFRICAN RELECTION is not, to condemn the DEED of Europe's imperial agents in Africa, but to reflect on the consequences of the averred delegitimation of African cultural practices, and from there to boldly project a theorized structure that NEGATES Europe's DEED.

My movement is not xenophobic: Europeans are welcome, for scholarship, while it is,for the most part, culturally conditioned, does have arguable traces of universality.

Accordingly, I begin a historical and systematic interpretation of scholarship in the natural and the human sciences, modalized into historical and sytematic sciences (economics, for example). This project is not anchored in the chimerical nonsense of "pure knowledge." There is no such animal, for every act of knowledge making is archaelogized in the PRESENT CONDITION of the seeker of knowledge, and present conditions always and everywhere call for action, including the action of cognition, and action is a mode of APPLICATION; but where there is application, talk of 'knowledge for the sake of knowledge' is manifest nonsense.