Washington, DC — When Liberia's political parties, warring factions and government agreed last month on a ceasefire to halt the fighting that was engulfing their capital, Monrovia, they gave themselves thirty days to negotiate a comprehensive peace plan.
Under the auspices of the 15-nation Economic Community of West African States (Ecowas), representatives of 17 Liberian political parties, the two rebel groups, the government and various nongovernmental organizations have been meeting in Ghana to draw up a blueprint for the transition, following the projected departure of President Charles Taylor, who, under pressure from regional governments and the United States, has agreed to leave the country and take up residence in Nigeria.
With the 30-day timetable expiring today, the parties have agreed on a number of crucial issues. But several key questions remain unresolved. General Abdulsalami Abubakar, the former Nigerian military head of state who is the Ecowas chief negotiator, is trying to forge consensus on the mandate and composition of the interim administration that will replace the Taylor regime and guide Liberia to democratic elections in 18 to 24 months.
The interim government will have executive, legislative and judicial branches, but no mechanism has yet been agreed on how those posts will be filled. What has been agreed is that the president who serves during the transition will not be eligible to run for the office when elections are held, sometime in the next two years.
One prominent participant in the Ghana talks is Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, who heads the Unity Party and was Taylor's chief rival in the 1997 elections, when he won 75 percent of the votes and Sirleaf received just under 10 percent. "The elections were administratively free and transparent, but were conducted in an atmosphere of intimidation, as most voters believed that Taylor's forces would have resumed fighting if he had lost," the U.S. Department of State concluded.
Sirleaf, who served as Liberia's finance minister during the 1970s and was jailed on treason charges in 1985 for criticizing Samuel K. Doe, the staff sergeant who came to power in a bloody 1980 coup, is an investment banker and former assistant secretary general of the United Nations, where she headed the Africa Bureau at the UN Development Programme.
Interviewed by telephone from Accra, she described the current negotiations and discussed her interest in heading the transition.
The 30 days are up - what issues remain to be resolved?
A lot of progress has been made, and we're now at the place where we're coming together to endorse the things on which we agree, to isolate the few things on which we disagree - and those things are major. And hopefully we can resolve those disagreements within the next two or three days.
We still have some difficulties agreeing on all the elements. That's because in terms of the structure and the composition of the interim government, there are still some wide differences.
There's virtual agreement on the security aspects of the plan. There's virtual agreement on the mandate and tenure of the transitional government. However, we still don't have agreement on the structure, and certainly we don't have agreement on the composition.
The political parties favor a structure that comes close to the Constitution. The government wants a continuation of the current structure, minus Mr. Taylor. The warring parties are seeking a high-level decision-making role, something closer to the structure agreed for the DRC [the Democratic Republic of the Congo, where each rebel group was given a vice presidential position in the power-sharing government that will take office in Kinshasa today.]
Why haven't you been able to finalize an agreement?
We have to conclude we have wasted a lot of time. We've been here for six weeks. Yes, we have strong disagreements but I think we might have worked harder, focused much more, and we could have gotten stronger assistance from our support team. The fact is, we set the deadline - no one else did. I think the challenge now is to quickly make up for lost time and resolve those issues on which we have disagreement.
Can that be accomplished soon?
I think it must. Ecowas has been very helpful to us. Those who are helping to finance this have been supportive of us. Our hosts, the Ghana government and the Ghanaian people, have tolerated us. It is time we get our business done, so we can start addressing the serious needs of our people by going home and getting the transitional government in place.
But we cannot go home until the regime is changed. Mr. Taylor's presence in Liberia has been an obstacle to us reaching an early understanding. It's a big shadow hanging over everybody, particularly those that represent him. The sooner Mr. Taylor leaves the sooner the process of reordering our society can commence.
What would you foresee happening next?
The Accra peace talks we should try to bring to an end by this week. I hope that Ecowas would be in a position to meet its promise of having the advance international stabilization force in Liberia sometime next week.
We have all agreed that Mr. Taylor's term comes to an end August 1, when his six years are over, and a transitional government should be ready to go on August 2. But clearly that government cannot take over until Mr. Taylor departs.
The government delegation says Taylor should be succeeded by the vice president, Moses Blah, to serve until January when they say the term expires? Is that acceptable to other parties?
I don't think that position is supported by any of the participating stakeholders. Mr. Taylor was inaugurated on August 1, 1997, for a six-year term. If free and fair elections could be held in October, then the inauguration of the new government would take place next January. But the Constitutional requirements for an election cannot be met, so Mr. Taylor has served the six years for which took he took the oath of office, and, in terms of the Constitution, his term ends on August 1, 2003.
What is the mood inside Liberia?
There is a lot of anxiety on the part of our compatriots at home. We know they are getting increasingly concerned and frustrated that this process has taken so long. We just have to say to them that this is not an easy road. It's difficult when you have people representing disparate groups and a government that is weak and on its way out. I was personally involved in the Inter-Congolese Dialogue, and that took a year or more. This hasn't taken as long as that, and we believe it is coming to a close.
Can the ceasefire hold? What if Taylor leaves, what then?
I hope, based on our continuing interactions with the warring factions and the government here, that the ceasefire will hold. Any infraction is probably caused by nervousness, fatigue and frustration and is not the result of any decision by the leaders to restart the fighting.
I do not share the view that there would be chaos if Mr. Taylor left. I think Mr. Taylor's departure would actually help the process of ending the war, because, when the Accra peace talks end, we hope that all combatants - those under the government control and those under the warring factions control - have the assurance that they will be treated equally. They will be part of the process of reintegration, which follows disarmament and demobilization, and they should be able to know that there will be no vindictiveness.
There may be justice that will take place is a very orderly legal way and will affect everybody. But I don't think any group, particularly those from the government, need to be fearful that they will suffer any retribution when Taylor goes. I think they will be much safer, because they won't be subject to any more intimidation. They will join all of the ex-combatants and there will be program to deal with their needs.
How will the members of the transitional structures be chosen?
There is a slight disagreement, which I hope we can resolve. The political parties are trying to come together with a mechanism that will involve voting by all the accredited delegations. I think the warring parties want a bigger role in selecting or electing the executive. But I think we will find common ground and in the end, we will have to go the democracy route as much as possible to lend legitimacy to what we do. We are a very small group anyway.
What is the role for the proposed peacekeeping force from Ecowas, and how important is U.S. support for the peacekeeping operation?
The stabilization force is very key. It will provide assurances to the people that the war is over and will enable a transitional government to go in and get to work.
We welcome what we understand to be the decision of the U.S. government to support Ecowas. Everybody still hopes for a much more meaningful U.S. direct presence than what we understand will be the case, but at least the U.S. has put a lot of attention on the Liberia tragedy, and they are beginning to give some support.
Mr. Bush's own determination, and his statements on the departure of Mr. Taylor, consistently, give us a lot of encouragement. The appointment as the UN Secretary General's special envoy of a U.S. national with experience in post-conflict matters gives us additional encouragement that the U.S. is indeed going to play a meaningful role, even if they don't have thousands of 'boots on the ground'.
Your name has been mentioned prominently for the post of interim president. Are you a candidate for the post, or would you prefer to run again for president in 2004 or 2005?
I'm a candidate [for the interim post] - but only if the tenure and mandate of the interim government gives me the opportunity to make a meaningful difference in the lives of the Liberian people. I do not see myself as a caretaker, and if the interim government's role is reduced to one of simple caretaking, then I will simply prepare myself for the elections. And I am sure I have the constituency to win.
There are those who argue it should be a caretaker government because it lacks a democratic mandate.
That is correct in principle. However, we are dealing with a country that is totally destroyed, with a people that have nothing, with law and order that has broken down, with all infrastructure destroyed. If the interim government does not have the means to respond to the basic needs of the people -- ensuring basic services like water and sanitation and lights -- and if the interim government is not allowed to take some of the hard decisions that will make it easier for an elected government to govern, then we're going to have two years of extreme hardship. People will just be there, waiting for an elected government, continuing without basic services, without jobs. And I wonder if disgruntled people won't resort to other means.
Sign up for free AllAfrica Newsletters
Get the latest in African news delivered straight to your inbox
Why do you think this transition should take two years?
It is not decided yet. It is still be negotiated. But the suggestion from the political parties is that two years is needed because of the time that it takes when you have thousands and thousands of people under arms who have to be disarmed and reintegrated. When you are dealing with a population that is 50 per cent displaced, either internally or in refugee camps - it takes time to get them back and to have some form of voter registration or census.
Based on the experience of other countries, we know these things don't happen quickly. We want the democratically elected government to be able to consolidate the gains of the interim government and take the country forward.
What will prevent the interim government from postponing elections and holding onto power for itself?
The new international order just does not allow governments to stay in power by fiat. There would be tremendous pressure if something like that were attempted.
How will the transition be financed?
I think it is only fair to assume there will be some significant international assistance, particularly when it comes to disarmament, demobilization and integration. But when it comes to the other types of productive endeavors that produce the jobs and the restoration of basic services and infrastructure, there is the potential to have that come from the country's resources and from private capital.
Who should control the country's resources during the transition?
If it is a caretaker arrangement, it means they won't be able to do much about the resources other than put some restrictions on them. If the mandate is broader, some of those resources can be used to provide basic services. I believe the mandate must allow private capital to come in, if indeed it can be attracted, based on the credibility of the interim government. I would not like to see restrictions on private investment as long as it does not imply the use of scarce government resources and does not infringe upon the laws and policies of the country.
