Liberia's Taylor: The Despot We Can Live With

A scalding indictment of Liberia’s Taylor, as well as a mention of everyone’s favorite, Pat Robertson. Do you get the impression that the world has sort of given up on Africa these days?

Liberia’s Taylor: The Despot We Can Live With

By Douglas Farah
Sunday, August 3, 2003; Page B01

The despotic president, indicted by a U.N. tribunal for crimes against humanity, came to power by forcibly recruiting young boys and turning them into killers. His troops manned checkpoints lined with human skulls, where the roadblocks were made out of human intestines, the disemboweled victims left by the roadside. For a decade the despot has systematically pocketed the wealth of his country, leaving his people in abject poverty. He has done millions of dollars’ worth of business with al Qaeda and Hezbollah. His son is a brutal thug, feared for his executions and proclivity for kidnapping young women and raping them.

Iraq under Saddam Hussein? No, Liberia under Charles Taylor.

Yet as Taylor clings to power, the international community continues to dither over what should be done. Despite Taylor’s history of atrocities, the Bush administration has couched the debate about whether to send troops to Liberia only as a humanitarian crisis, as if the country’s misery was an act of God, like flood or famine. In building the case for even limited action, administration officials have remained strangely silent on Taylor’s terrorist ties, his execution of political rivals, his policies of torture, and the shutting down of the free press.

And while the United States put a price on the heads of Hussein’s notorious sons, it has been mum about Taylor’s son Chuckie.Yet Chuckie runs Liberia’s intelligence services and commands the elite Anti-Terrorist Unit (ATU). It is the only group whose loyalty to Taylor is unconditional because its members not only get paid, but they get to keep what they loot. Chuckie is so violent that he was removed from his ATU command two years ago when even his troops couldn’t stomach his antics. Now, with the regime under threat, Chuckie is back and the West African nation is descending into another round of mayhem.

Taylor senior is betting that he will never have to face justice, even if he’s eased from power. Yet the charge sheet against him is long. Besides the U.N. indictment and extensive press reporting, Taylor’s record has been documented by Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and the State Department. U.N. investigators found Taylor traded diamonds for weapons with the same gunrunner who supplied the Taliban in Afghanistan. The United Nations has banned Taylor, his family and entire cabinet from traveling outside Liberia because of their criminal conduct.

The administration’s preferred policy on Liberia might have been to just walk away. But with Bush’s trip to Africa last month, it would have looked awkward to ignore the plight of an African nation settled by freed American slaves. By casting the crisis as a humanitarian affair, the administration can justify “peacekeeping lite,” a mission where the United States plays the risk-free role of providing a few million dollars and some communications equipment while demanding ill-trained troops from destitute African nations to step up.

It is not necessarily a bad policy, but it is a dishonest one. It stands in contrast to senior administration officials’ statements that intervention in Iraq would have been justified if only to get rid of Saddam’s murderous regime. Not only are there mass graves in Liberia, but those maimed and crippled by Taylor’s forces still bear eloquent witness to the brutality. In three years covering West Africa, I have witnessed the price the entire region has paid for his rule.

Ivory Coast, Guinea and Burkina Faso have all suffered at Taylor’s hands, but his prime victim outside Liberia has been Sierra Leone – a target because of its rich diamond deposits. Taylor joined up with Foday Sankoh, a Sierra Leonean he’d met while training in one of Moammar Gaddafi’s Libyan revolutionary schools in the 1980s. In the 1990s, Taylor armed and trained Sankoh’s Revolutionary United Front, which launched an invasion of Sierra Leone in an attempt to seize the diamond fields. It became one of the most brutal forces on the continent.

Like Taylor’s troops in Liberia, the RUF thugs didn’t just slaughter civilians. They carried out campaigns of rape across the country. They abducted thousands of children, as young as 7 years old, and turned them into killers, fueled by a lethal mixture of cocaine and amphetamines. And just as Taylor formed the children into special, elite combat corps, the Small Boys Units, who acted as his personal bodyguards, the RUF also organized child soldiers.

The signature RUF atrocity was hacking off the hands, legs, lips and ears of civilians who did not support the rebels. Today in Sierra Leone the thousands of amputees still mostly live in makeshift camps strewn with trash and bisected by open sewers. They are unemployable and the world’s attention, focused for a brief time on them in 1999, has shifted elsewhere. Meanwhile, Taylor made millions of dollars from Sierra Leone’s diamonds.

Taylor was indicted for crimes against humanity on March 7 by the U.N.-backed Special Court for Sierra Leone. The indictment alleges Taylor “supported and encouraged all actions of the RUF,” as part of a “joint criminal enterprise” to reap wealth from the diamond fields. The crimes include murder, abduction, slavery, rape, use of child soldiers and looting.

Special Court prosecutor David Crane, who earlier served as senior inspector general in the Pentagon, and his chief investigator Alan White, a former cop and Pentagon investigator, have found compelling evidence that al Qaeda was active in the profitable diamond trade Taylor controlled. In the months before 9/11, al Qaeda sought to protect its financial assets by buying millions of dollars of diamonds from Taylor. Taylor got money in bank accounts in Switzerland and elsewhere, while al Qaeda got its money out of the banking system, where it would have been seized easily in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks. Diamonds, by contrast, are hard to trace and easy to move.

In 2001 I began writing stories about the al Qaeda ties there – and as a result, U.S. and European intelligence officials warned me that Taylor was plotting to kill me. As a result, my pregnant wife, young child and I left our base in the Ivory Coast. Global Witness, European intelligence sources and the BBC all pursued and verified the terrorist ties I had reported. But it was the court investigations, conducted by professionals with broad access to information and sources on the ground, that carried special weight. The evidence amassed includes numerous eye-witness accounts, telephone records of calls to Afghanistan, bank records and other documents. That is far more than any evidence presented on Saddam’s ties to Osama bin Laden.

But try as they might, Crane and White have been unable to get the CIA or FBI to undertake a serious investigation of the al Qaeda ties. Amazingly, their evidence is largely ignored and dismissed. Only a few members of Congress have picked up the cause and demanded action.

Part of the administration’s unwillingness to confront Taylor may be that the dictator still retains powerful and influential friends. Taylor’s staunchest defender is the Rev. Pat Robertson, the owner of the Christian Broadcasting Network and host of “The 700 Club.” Robertson has invested more than $8 million in a gold mine in Liberia under the name of Freedom Gold Limited, registered in the Cayman Islands. In recent weeks Robertson, on his TV show, has been extolling Taylor’s virtues as a “fellow Baptist” and “a fine Christian.” In a recent interview with The Washington Post, Robertson, who has never been to Liberia, said Taylor’s indictment “is nonsense and should be quashed.” And he has portrayed Liberia’s civil war as primarily a fight between Muslims and Taylor’s Christians, an analysis not shared by anyone remotely familiar with the country. Taylor “definitely has Christian sentiments, although you hear all these rumors that he’s done this and that,” Robertson said.

Other ardent Bush supporters have economic interests in Liberia. Richard DeVos, co-founder of the Amway Corp., has invested several million dollars in AmLib United Minerals, a gold exploration company there. DeVos, a billionaire, is one of the Republican Party’s largest individual contributors and a big donor to the Bush campaign. But unlike Freedom Gold and Robertson, AmLib and DeVos have not publicly defended Taylor and are not closely identified with his regime.

(edit for length)

Or maybe the reluctance to talk about Taylor is due to the fact that the mayhem he wreaks is in impoverished sub-Saharan Africa and not enough people really care. To acknowledge the murderous nature of Taylor’s regime and its ties to terrorists might prompt public demands for U.S.-led intervention and peacekeeping. While U.S. troops would likely face little resistance, rebuilding Liberia would make Iraq seem like a picnic. The nation has been mired in conflict since 1989. Monrovia, the bombed-out capital, has had no running water or electricity for seven years. There is only one hospital; there are no public schools. There is no garbage collection or sewage system. The rest of the country is worse. Sorting out the players and engaging long enough to restore a genuine political process could take years and billions of dollars. That is the true cost of intervening in Liberia and the true cost of taking on Taylor. And that is why it might never be done.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A11142-2003Aug1.html

This guy should have emphasized that there is much of oil resource unexplored and poooof next thing we'll know that Taylor is gone.

I find it interesting that this guy writes his article now and titles it "The Despot We Can Live With." Obviously, he's not a despot we can live with since I know of no country that is supporting his regime and everyone has asked him to go.

You've also got to question this guys own biases. Frankly, I'm fairly well read and heard virtually nothing about Liberia until fairly recently. As I understand it, Taylor came to power in 1997 and has pretty much been a despot since then. Much of his war crimes indictment stems from stuff done in Sierra Leone before GW took office in January 2001. This author talks about "this administration's" unwillingness to confront Taylor and wants to attribute that to economic interests of Bush supporters. ** Well, why didn't the previous administration confront Taylor? ** Did Clinton not want to confront him because of economic interests of Bush supporters too?

That Taylor is a despot and needs to go is pretty clear. It's also pretty clear that this author is trying to make this an anti-Bush issue when it clearly is not.

Fighting broke out in Liberia in 1990, Clinton wasn’t in power at the time, as we know Bush Sr. was. The fact is that the Clinton administration urged the United Nations to place economic sanctions on Liberia for Taylor’s role in assisting the rebels of Sierra Leone.

The good news is that the UN has authorized force…

UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - The U.N. Security Council authorized on Friday a multinational force to intervene in Liberia for the purpose of implementing a cease-fire to end the country’s bloody civil war.

The vote in the 15-nation council on the U.S.-drafted resolution was 12-0 with France, Germany and Mexico abstaining because Washington insisted on a provision allowing any crimes committed by peacekeepers to be prosecuted only by the peacekeepers’ own governments.

“I hope this implies a new political will, a will that I think has been absent among the international community,” U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan said after the vote. “Now that this resolution is passed, I hope we will move ahead with urgent and determined action to help the Liberian people.”

With Nigerian troops expected to arrive in Liberia Monday, the resolution lays the groundwork for an African force as well as U.S. involvement but does not spell out what role, if any, American soldiers would play.

http://reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=3207320

Armies of Compassion?](http://tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20030818&s=trb081803)

Since Liberia hit America’s front pages roughly two months ago, it has sparked a debate over compassion, not justice. The press often calls Liberia a “humanitarian crisis.” It’s a familiar phrase in reporting on Africa, and it encourages people to think apolitically. Famine and aids are described as “humanitarian crises.” So are civil wars of indeterminate origin. “Humanitarian crises” provoke sympathy but also fatalism, since their causes seem vaguely beyond anyone’s control. And, thus, the U.S. discussion over Liberia has been largely about charity rather than blame.

But Liberia is no more a “humanitarian crisis” than was Bosnia or Kosovo. As in the former Yugoslavia, a dictator came to power in the waning days of the cold war, and his thirst for wealth and power led him to sponsor vicious, ethnically based proxy wars throughout the region. In the Balkans, the U.S. media assumed that any ultimate solution to those wars would require justice for Slobodan Milosevic and his henchmen. To suggest that all the people of Sarajevo needed was food, shelter, and a cease-fire would have been considered insulting.

But, in Liberia, justice for Charles Taylor–who Richard Holbrooke aptly called the Milosevic of Africa–is an afterthought. Although the U.N.-backed Special Court for Sierra Leone has indicted Taylor for war crimes, the Bush administration has not called for him to be put on trial. Indeed, the United States is encouraging Taylor to go to Nigeria, despite its clear intention not to hand him over to the court. The U.S. media rarely suggests that Liberians, and other West Africans, may have trouble peacefully reconstructing their societies if the men responsible for mass rape, murder, and torture are living with impunity in their midst. Taylor has even suggested that his exile in Nigeria would be merely a “cooling-off period” before his return to politics.

Why do Americans view Bosnia as a political crisis requiring justice but Liberia as a humanitarian crisis requiring a cease-fire and the Red Cross? Partly, it’s a matter of knowledge. It’s hard for Americans to assign blame when most commentators, and even many government officials, are only vaguely aware of the facts. In the 1980s, Ronald Reagan famously called Liberia’s leader, Master-Sergeant Samuel Doe, “Chairman Moe.” On “FoxNews” two weeks ago, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz misstated the name of the Economic Community of West African States, the organization sponsoring Liberia’s Nigerian-led peacekeeping force.

But the problem is deeper than a lack of information. As I noted in this space four years ago (see “War Fair,” May 31, 1999), Americans–and Westerners in general–don’t naturally view African conflicts politically because, until the 1960s, the discipline of political science entirely ignored the continent. Under colonialism, the West viewed Africa primarily through the lens of anthropology. This was in part due to the British policy of “indirect rule”–the practice of leaving a colonized tribe’s social structure intact so it could be governed by a relatively small number of colonial officials. In order to maintain tribal structures, Britain needed anthropologists to study them. And, given that the ultimate goal of this study was preservation, it tended to depict African societies as static. This, in turn, predisposed Westerners to see African conflict as a primordial state of affairs immune to remedy rather than as the product of political decisions by individual leaders. And, if a conflict is primordial, no one is truly to blame.

Such thinking colored the U.S. debate over the Balkans, too–where antiinterventionists often explained the violence of the 1990s as the product of ethnic hatreds that stretched back to the mists of time. But, on Bosnia, that rhetoric of moral equivalence competed with a different one, in which interventionists demanded to know how the world could permit another genocide in Europe and compared Milosevic to Hitler. The implication was that the peoples of the Balkans–as Europeans–were not culturally programmed for endless brutality and could change under better leadership, just as the Germans had.

That view is largely missing from the Liberia debate. And it not only lets Taylor off the hook, it lets the United States off as well. Liberia’s current civil war doesn’t have ancient roots. Indeed, the country was stable for most of its history. The seeds of the current crisis were laid in the '80s, during the dictatorship of Doe, who destroyed civil society and sowed ethnic hatred by blatantly favoring his own tribe. Rather than use its enormous leverage in Liberia to force Doe to relinquish power, the United States propped him up as an anti-communist client. After Doe blatantly rigged his 1985 reelection, then-Secretary of State George Schultz said Liberia was making “genuine progress” toward democracy. Between 1980 and 1987, according to Michael Clough’s book Free at Last?: U.S. Policy Toward Africa and the End of the Cold War, Liberia’s annual GNP spiraled downward at an annual rate of 5.2 percent, despite substantial U.S. aid.

In late 1989, Taylor, gathering troops from ethnic groups Doe had oppressed, led an army to the suburbs of the capital, Monrovia. With Liberia’s strategic importance diminished by the end of the cold war, the United States refused to intervene. To prevent Taylor–who had already developed a reputation for horrifying crimes–from taking power, Liberia’s neighbors sent in peacekeeping troops. They stayed for roughly six years, with little U.S. support or guidance, brutalizing the population themselves. In 1997, the West Africans finally left, leaving Taylor free to win a sham election. He quickly exported horror throughout the region, backing rebel groups whose child- soldiers destabilized four of Liberia’s neighbors. Finally, starting in 2000, those neighbors turned the tables, creating the Liberian proxies that are now on the verge of capturing power.

American commentators often talk of America’s historic links to Liberia; but they rarely discuss America’s culpability in its political descent. And this assumption of U.S. innocence undergirds the common view of Liberia as a charity case ravaged by the same vague forces that seem to ravage so much of Africa. But Liberia doesn’t need charity. It needs justice for the man who destroyed it and responsibility from the historic patron that let it happen. There has been too much pity in the U.S. debate over Liberia and too little anger.

Liberia’s Taylor Leaves, Vows to Return](Yahoo News: Latest and Breaking News, Headlines, Live Updates, and More)