This Day (Lagos)

Nigeria: Charles Taylor - a Man Betrayed

opinion

Lagos — FEMI FANI-KAYODE argues that it's all well and good to try Charles Taylor for war crime atrocities, but that Tony Blair and George W. Bush should get the same treatment

"AU leaders had an agreement that facilitated peace in Liberia. It's shameful how Obasanjo threw Charles Taylor under the bus after pressure from the Europeans and America (not a signatory to the so-called UN court).

For four years Iraq went through a wave of brutal ethnic cleansing, I don't see the UN Court going after the Iraqi Cleric, Muqtada al-Sadr and co as well as those brutal Afghan tribal war lords; all of whom the US States Department and other foreign powers struck deals. I believe African leaders need to grow more "spine", there will be more ridiculous demands by Western countries and the UN to change some part of our constitution in a few years."- Yele Odofin-Belo.

In many respects Mr Yele Odofin-Belo is absolutely right. This was the betrayal of the century. But I do not believe that President Olusegun Obasanjo was amongst those that betrayed anybody. To be fair to Obasanjo he was in fact the last man standing and he resisted the pressure until it all came to a head during a state visit to America when George W. Bush refused to see him until Taylor was produced.

Ironically, the real traitor was not Obasanjo but rather President Sirleaf-Johnson of Liberia. The agreement with Taylor was put in place before she was elected but she was fully aware of it it's terms. She was actually the American and Nigerian candidate for that election and she worked very closely indeed with the Americans, Obasanjo and Nigeria before she was elected to power.

The deal was simple and clear and the terms were as follows. Taylor would be persuaded to step down as President of Liberia by the ECOWAS leaders and the African Union and he was to be given a safe haven in Nigeria after doing so. He would not be harassed, he would not face prosecution in Liberia, Sierra Leone or at the International Court at The Hague, and Nigeria would not be pressured or harassed by anyone to extradite him anywhere.

On his part, Taylor was expected to live quietly in Calabar with his relatives, under the direct supervision and care of Donald Duke, the then Governor of Cross Rivers state and he was to stay out of Liberian politics. All went according to plan and once the African Union endorsed the whole thing no less than 7 African Heads of State went to Liberia and physically accompanied Taylor back to Nigeria and to what was to be his new home and final point of destination for many years.

As a consequence of this concession and sacrifice which was made by Taylor the civil war in Liberia came to an immediate end, peace returned to the land and eventually a free and fair election was conducted in which Mrs. Johnson Sirleaf emerged as the new President as had been planned all along. However after the lady came to power everything changed. She ditched Obasanjo and Nigeria, turned her back on ECOWAS leaders and the African Union and became even closer to Bush.

Johnson Sirleaf forgot all about the sacrifices that Nigeria had made for her country in the past and started to talk only to the Americans. And of course the Americans wanted Taylor's blood. At the end of it all everything boiled down to money. Johnson needed financial support, aid, grants, loans and funding from the international monetary institutions and from the United States directly for her small country and obviously she needed American support to get this. The Americans gave her one condition before any help could come her way.

She was to formally ask for Charles Taylor to be returned to Liberia by Nigeria in order to face allegations of genocide and funding the brutal civil war in Sierra Leone at the International Criminal Court at the Hague. Yes the Americans did a complete u-turn, broke their word, violated the previous agreement and sought to turn all the African leaders that had guaranteed it, including Nigeria, into a bunch of unreliable and spineless liars.

And sadly the lady called President Johnson Sirleaf, played along with the Americans, capitulated and did precisely what they wanted to the utter shock and chagrin of virtually every African leader of that day and in total violation of the agreement and understanding that had been originally entered into by all the parties concerned and by all the major players including the Americans. After the formal request was made to Nigeria by Liberia, America now picked up the gauntlet and turned on Obasanjo compelling and threatening us in initially very subtle and eventually very direct tones and ways. The message was simple and clear.

We were to release Taylor and send him back to Liberia or Nigeria was to be brought to her knees. President Obasanjo stood firm and resisted their threats for a very long time and took the matter to the other ECOWAS leaders and the AU who of course supported us wholeheartedly because they had been privy to and were indeed part of the original agreement and understanding that had been established between all the relevant parties and stakeholders.

After this there was a long stalemate and eventually the whole matter turned a little nasty and became the subject of a loud and acrimonious spat between our government and the administration of President George W. Bush. And of course I was deeply involved in that public spat as one of the Presidential spokespersons. Things eventually came to a head when Obasanjo went on a state visit to America and a final demand was made for Taylor. President Obasanjo's argument, and it was a good one, was that no one or no country would ever believe, trust or take Nigeria seriously again if we breached our word to Taylor and that this is not a Nigerian position but rather it is an African Union position. The old man fought the matter out long and hard and I assure you he did his very best.

When the pressure got too much and President Johnson Sirleaf made a final and public demand for Taylor to be returned to Liberia by Nigeria, Obasanjo ordered that he should be dropped at some border post and allowed to go wherever he wanted rather than for us to formally hand him over to anyone. He was on a state visit in America at the time and when it was announced to the world that Taylor had suddenly disappeared from the face of the earth and was no longer with the Nigerians all hell broke loose and everyone panicked.

It was at that point that George W.Bush point blank refused to see Obasanjo whilst he remained in Washington unless and until Taylor was traced, found and handed over to the Liberians.

In my view Obasanjo could have stood his ground, left America immediately and called their bluff, especially since by that time we were engaged in a full-scale verbal war on the international airwaves with the White House and the American government over this issue. Our hand was quite strong then because virtually the whole of Africa was fully behind us with the exception of President Johnson Sirleaf.

Anyway all of a sudden, and very mysteriously, Taylor resurfaced, was arrested and was handed over to the Liberians who I believe flew him to either Liberia or Sierra Leone, from where he was promptly and immediately flown to the International Court of Criminal Justice at The Hague to face charges of genocide and crimes against humanity.

The greatest irony of all of this is that the nation of America herself, who fought for and orchestrated all of this, is NOT a signatory to that Court and therefore no former or serving American President, leader, citizen or even soldier can ever be brought before it to face any charges of crimes against humanity. That tells you just how unfair and ridiculous the whole world system is.

My position is that if you want to try the likes of President Charles Taylor for committing atrocities that is fine and by all means go ahead. However it is only right and proper for you to then do the same to all the living American and Western leaders who have also done the same thing in various parts of the world. This is especially so given the fact that they, more than any other set of leaders in the history of mankind, have been responsible for the most barbaric crimes against humanity that have ever been committed.

The law is surely no respecter of persons. After all it was not an African leader that dropped nuclear bombs on Nagasaki and Hiroshima, with its attendant and horrific consequences, after the Second World War. It was not an African leader that committed terrible atrocities in Iraq by slaughtering hundreds of thousands of defenceless Iraqi women and children when bombing Baghdad, all in the name of regime change and the prosecution of an illegal and barbarous war.

It was not an African leader that killed the defenceless Arab women and children of Sabra and Chatilla in Southern Lebanon just a couple of decades ago. It was not an African leader that enslaved a whole continent and pillaged its resources and sold its people into slavery for hundreds of years. I could go on and on.

I have said this earlier and I repeat it here today, unless and until I see Tony Blair and George W. Bush being prosecuted by that same court at the Hague for their own undeniable and irrefutable acts of genocide and crimes against humanity, I cannot in any way be impressed with what they are doing to Charles Taylor or anyone else there.

Chief Fani-Kayode, a former Minister, writes from Lagos


Copyright © 2010 This Day. All rights reserved. Distributed by AllAfrica Global Media (allAfrica.com). To contact the copyright holder directly for corrections — or for permission to republish or make other authorized use of this material, click here.

AllAfrica aggregates and indexes content from over 130 African news organizations, plus more than 200 other sources, who are responsible for their own reporting and views. Articles and commentaries that identify allAfrica.com as the publisher are produced or commissioned by AllAfrica.

Comments 1 to 5 of 5 Post a comment

  • Endurance
    Sep 8 2010, 15:07

    As a student of History and International Relations, I am beginning to accept the motion hat the western world till date have no regards for African Leaders or continent and until Africa as a whole look inwards for resources to develop her continent, there will continue to be cases of this nature.

    The United Nations needs to see to the global equality to all benefits.

  • Zobong
    Sep 8 2010, 16:29

    Endurance,

    A total reliance on the UN system for what you trying to achieve for African countries will not be the solution. The very unfortunate maxim in this case is that might makes right. Africa is still a net borrower to the international financial and development system. The rebalancing of power in the international system beginning with the Security Council is paramount to give Africa and the developing world a greater voice in setting the global agenda for countries like Liberia.

    Let me provide you with some information on the enormity of this challenge.

    Some important facts below:

    According to the World Bank, the United States accounts for slightly more than 27 percent of global GDP, but is assessed only a 22 percent share of the UN regular budget and 26 percent of the UN peacekeeping budget, which includes a surcharge for permanent members of the Security Council. Meanwhile, other member states are assessed more than their share of the global economy in order to compensate for the reduction given to the United States.

    On the other hand, the UN had a 2008-2009 regular budget of approximately $4.2 billion (just over $2 billion per year) and the July 2007-June 2008 peacekeeping budget totaled $6.8 billion. By comparison, the annual budget of the New York City Department of Education is approximately $17 billion. In addition, recent reports by the US Office of Management and Budget, the US Government Accountability Office, and the RAND Corporation have all found UN peacekeeping operations to be highly effective and efficient.

    Relocation of UN Headquarters

    By: Aaron Popp (apopp@uni.edu)

    Background

    The headquarters of the United Nations is currently located in New York City. Built in 1948, it is a 16-acre site that is considered international territory, meaning that it belongs to no specific nation. The complex contains four main buildings: the General Assembly building, the Secretariat building, the Conference building, and a library. It has been a popular tourist destination since its construction; over 37 million people total have taken guided tours (3+4).

    A treaty between the United Nations and the United States allowed for the construction of the headquarters in New York City. Section 23 of the treaty states, “The seat of the United Nations shall not be removed from the headquarters district unless the United Nations should so decide.” Section 24 of the treaty states,

    This agreement shall cease to be in force if the seat of the United Nations is removed from the territory of the United States, except for such provisions as may be applicable in connection with the orderly termination of the operations of the United Nations at its seat in the United States and the disposition of its property therein (6).

    Hence, the United Nations has discretion as to where its headquarters is located, and United Nations Headquarters may be moved out of the United States.

    At a global summit on hunger in September of 2005, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez questioned the legitimacy of the United States’ war with Iraq, and stated that the United Nations should move out of the United States based on accused violations of United Nations resolutions. "That's why we propose to this assembly that the United Nations leave this country, which is not respectful of the very resolutions of this assembly," Chavez said. Chavez proposed that United Nations Headquarters be moved to an international city, preferably in the Southern Hemisphere where many of the world’s developing countries are located (1).

  • hatibtaylor
    Sep 9 2010, 03:39

    Stupid article! If the AU was against extradition it would only be those leaders who were corrupt and criminals. Not the ordinary people, who can recognise a tyrant when they see one.

    How could Nigeria shelter a criminal who was responsible for the deaths of thousnds of their soldiers in Sierra Leone, let lone thousands more in Sierra Leone, Liberia and Ivory Coast.

    What Bush and Blair did is irrelevant to the trial of Charles Taylor. Wrong though their war in Iraq was, at least they did not come to power through the power of a gun.

  • KAA ENOCH
    Sep 9 2010, 18:59

    I think the real issue is not wether Taylor was right or wrong, but the process which brought an end to his government in Liberia. The intergrity of our Nation is at hand, because Nigeria and the rest of the leadership of the various Nations that make up the AU then agreed not to hand him over nor extradite him for trial, they fail in that agreement which was greatly champion by our Nation.When we speak , we should be able to stand by our words or when we make commitments we should be able to stand by it. Were they making that commitment to betray Charles Taylor, or to lure him out of Liberia and hand him over? That i cannot answer.

    We all dont support what happen in Liberia, and the neighbouring Nations, but my question to US and all those who strongly mounted pressure on Nigeria to hand over Taylor is this while didnt they get to Liberia then and arrest Taylor so he will be tried for the charges level against him? My concern is the fact that Nigeria was used, which has also put a qquestion on our intergrity , because there is no way the issue of Taylor will be discus without this questions been asked

    It also call for caution to our leaders who make decisions and commitment for our Nation on the International front, to seek for proper consultations before taking those steps

    The issue of Taylors trial is also getting very funny, because of the trend and direction which the whole case is going especially for last week and his 20th defence witness, It looks like his defence lawyers are doing a good job, and they appear to have a good case base on his defence witnesses. Wether he will be set free or not is the decision of the court at the Hague. However, Taylors case, the US, President Ellen johnson and AU is a good lesson Nigeria and Nigerians should learn from.

  • dil4real
    Sep 18 2010, 22:39

    I am amazed at your article!! Why should a man responsible for so many maimed people, 2 civil wars and so many atrocities have a haven in Calabar .... Wow were was the haven for the 100s of thousands of people displaced, maimed and raped children, men and women eh?

    It's a shame that this article was even placed in the public Arena