What exactly is happening in Liberia?

by iosaf Sat Aug 02, 2003 14:35

I touched on it briefly in an appendix (comment) to a fluffy piece on ETA bombing July 23.
http://www.indymedia.ie/newswire.php?story_id=60530
since then, there have been statements from the diplomats that Taylor is to be offered a place in exile.
But really David is the truth is that none of the factions control the guns. The situation is exactly as I described in the comment.
There is Guardian supplement on Liberia which will attempt to put a "conflict between groupings" analysis, but it's crap. One reason why all peace brokering has failed, is that none of the factions has demonstrated an ability to negotiate a ceasefire.
To compare to somewhere else, ireland say, if none of the "political voices" discussing with the "government voices" had been able to stop the use of weapons, it would appear like Liberia?

and on the ETA side... since July 23 there have been more attacks including Santander Airport. In the last four days, "quartermasters" were arrested with 400kg of explosives.

by Chekov Sat Aug 02, 2003 16:04

Long answer:

It is virtually impossible to find out what is really going on, who is pulling the strings and all that in somewhere like Liberia, because there are very few sources of current information. The international media is not interested until it reaches crisis and once that has happened, it is really too late to find out, they can't travel outside Monrovia and they only really report on the humanitarian crisis aspect of things. However, there are certain things that you can say for sure about Liberia that allow you to make a pretty good guess about what is going on.

Liberia was established, by the order of President Monroe (hence Monrovia) by a small number of slaves repatriated from the US after the abolition of slavery in the US. These ex-slaves were consciously established as a local ruling class to serve US interests. They quickly subjugated the tribes of the interior and practically recreated the slavery which they had come from, this time with them as the masters. Curiously enough, the fashions of late 19th century Southern US still survived until very recently among the Liberian elite. Rich folk live in plantation style mansions and wear top hats and waistcoats. Anyway, since the basis of their power was almost entirely external, their was no limits to their corruption, and Liberia has always been one of Africa's most messed up countries.

In the 1980's Charles Taylor seized power, after a saga of brutal feuds among the ruling class. Taylor is no more than a violent gangster, ruling the country like a godfather, but for a long time he was tolerated by the US since he was useful to them. For example he was one of the main conduits for illicit US aid to UNITA in Angola, in particular laundering their 'blood diamonds'. He was also a useful US bridgehead in a region where France's colonial hold is still strong.

Although there has long been a diamond industry in Liberia, in the 1990's there were discoveries of large deposits of kimberlite (a mineral which indicates the presence of diamonds) in the region along the border of Sierra Leone, Guinea and Liberia. When I was in the region in 2000, I met a de Beers geologist who had just finished a stint of exploration along the Guinea border. He had just bought an island off the coast of Mozambique and was retiring there - in his mid-30's!

Taylor let his gangster instincts go to his head and started getting way to uppity for his overlords' liking. In the late 1990's he backed Foday Sankoh's RUF guerillas in Sierra Leone, little more than a gang of diamond thieves, to the annoyance of the British and yanks. It wasn't until about 1999, after the intervention of Ecomog and south african mercenaries that the RUF were driven out of their diamond mines. Ecomog is essentially cover for the Nigerian military, the regional strong man, and also global capitalism's enforcer of choice in the region. At the same time Taylor was skirmishing with the Guineans along their border, again going after their diamond producing areas. In late 2000 a rebel army invaded Liberia from Guinea. Although this army claimed to be an independent body of Liberian exiles, everybody knew it was armed, trained and mobilised by the Guinean government, almost certainly taking orders from Paris.

Finally, the straw that broke the camel's back was Taylor's meddling in the civil war that broke out in Cote D'Ivoire earlier this year. A rebellion broke out in the North of the coutry against Gbagbo's governent - a staunch french ally. The rebellion has, in my opinion, the backing of the US who have been long trying to wrest influence away from the French in this coutry which is effectively the capital of French West Africa. At a time when the rebels were advancing on Abidjan, Taylor screwed things up by backing a third force which invaded Cote D'Ivoire from the West and took the regional capital of Man.

The US has made it abundantly clear that they want Taylor out. In fact they openly state that the first precondition for peace in the country is Taylor's resignation and they refuse to even talk to him about a negotiated settlement. The invading force simply must be armed and financed from Washington, although the aid is probably funneled through Sierra Leone, Cote D'Ivoire and Guinea. The rebels are currently beseiging Monrovia where Taylor's loyalists are making their last stand. The US is playing its classic double game. On the one hand they do not want to get involved in any fighting so they are waiting until Taylor has been removed before they get directly involved. At the same time they are letting everybody know, in a clear but subtle way, that they are backing the rebellion. It is interesting to note that the rebels are copying UNITA's tactics in Angola - use terror to empty the countryside of people and make them all seek refuge in the city, in the hope that the resulting humanitarian crisis will cause the regime to collapse.

They have created this humanitarian catastrophe, in a calculated and scientific way, which they will do nothing to resolve. But at the same time they have started drumming it up in the media. This is paving the way for their intervention - but only when things have reached a favourable balance of power and the war has effectively been won. At this stage they will send in peacekeepers to safeguard their conquest of power, to make sure that the latest warlords don't go getting any big ideas, and to mop up any remaining resistance to their monopoly on diamond production. This will probably initially involve some US troops but they will cede the job of occupation to Ecomog. They don't want to have to deal with the unpopular side of being an occupying army. The Ecomog 'peacekeeping' troops in Sierra Leone were far from popular and suffered many losses, despite the fact that they had driven out the hated RUF. A UN report into their mission found that they had been involved in extensive diamond smuggling, rape, murder and all that other stuff that always goes with occupation. A notable aside is that the Indian general who produced the report was forced to resign immediately afterwards and no changes were made to the occupation. Peacekeepers in Liberia will doubtless do the same.

The story is horrific, but it is not atypical. In general this is what intervention and peacekeeping means. Peacekeepers can't be deployed against the wishes of the permanent members of the UN security council, who also happen to be the big imperialist powers. In general they are only employed to maintain the status quo once it has reached a balance favourable to the big powers. Humanitarian catastrophes are a favourite ploy, not only to justify intervention to the world, but to depose an unwanted ruler without actually having to fight against him and to decimate the society to such a point that not only will there be no resistance, but they will be welcomed with open arms.

So that is my opinion. It is quite possible that I am wrong in several important details, since I haven't been following the situation in West Africa too closely for the last year or so and th e information is from memory. However, I'd be very surprised indeed if the essence was other than what I have described.

by David Sat Aug 02, 2003 16:49

It was a really comprehensive report. I appreciate it

by Paul Sat Aug 02, 2003 19:41

Liberia wasn't a colony founded by ex-slaves, it was founded by an abolitionist colonist society in America for slaves.

What's going on there is the same thing that goes on in any African colony, be it South Central Ls Angeles or the neighbourhoods of NYC. Tribal warfare and thuggery.

There's no Whites left to kill and blame, like they did in old Republic of 'Haiti', South Africa, Rhodesia, Harlem, Compton, etc. So they kill each other.

The White Man left and they want him back. They can't run their own country.

by Chekov Sat Aug 02, 2003 21:47

That's brilliant! Why didn't I see that it was so simple. There was me thinking that you had to try to discern the facts about the situation, when the answer was staring me in the face all along - racial inferiority! I must say, with insightful, intelligent, well-informed arguments like that, I'll wager that you are one of the superior, genetically pure pink humans. I can't figure out why somebody hasn't appointed you world president yet, so you can set all them damn inferior peoples straight.

by Kev - white boss/black boss = same shit Sat Aug 02, 2003 22:57

dont call him 'pink'.

he might explode with rage. "ain't no gawddam faggot"

he is obviously white and proud!!!

so every time white people kill each other is this because they have no blacks left to kill?

by Lone Gunman Sun Aug 03, 2003 01:23

Ho HUmmmm.....Wonder when and if the USA could do ANYTHING right for the hairies of the world.
If we dont go into shit holes of the world it is the USA is welching on its commitments to the one world superstate police force AKA the UN. If we do go in it is war mongering,raping,killing sprees,etc etc, for multinational profit!
Well,actually the USA is getting tired of playing world policeman.We are tired of sending our troops to God awful places to fight the next tin pot dictator,wearing a funny hat!It is about time the EU and UN got off their collectivist, beureacratic,holes and started policing these shit holes if they dont like the evil USA doing it. But lets face it the UN has managed to prevent massacres and restore order in such places as. Congo, Bosnia,Yougoslavia,etc etc.Last time i saw UN troops they were being used by Serb troops as human shields.
seeing that there is always grumbles and groans about any intervention in Africa by anything white.i suggest we let them sort it out in their own way.Ever wonder why it is called the savage continent?

by Seáinín Sun Aug 03, 2003 02:45

Americans are not exactly impressed with the way the EU sat back and watched the Balkans implode with genocide happening on our doorstep. They're bound to make a better go of Liberia than we did of the Balkans.

by Kev Sun Aug 03, 2003 03:38

if Seainin and LG are the same person?

"the USA is getting tired of playing world policeman"

Lets hope so - tho' I doubt it

"the next tin pot dictator"

So you now agree that Hussein was a tin pot dictator, and not 'the new hitler'.

jaysus you could at least get you arguments straight.

Checkov btw, good analysis, tho to be fair i know fuck all about liberia, so you may be wrong on points - which you did acknowledge. but at leat you added something intellignet to the debate.

by simon Sun Aug 03, 2003 11:41

http://www.hrw.org/wr2k3/africa7.html

by lone gunman Sun Aug 03, 2003 13:29

You the real Kev or the Kev who likes calling police motherfuckers and then moans about "police brutality" after the police question him about his opinions of their sexual preferences? Or you suffering from split personality?

anyway,Kev,what have YOU contributed to the debate? I never said Saddo was the next Hitler,although he was doing a good job of it,and was a great admirer of Adolf. Suggest either of you try reading the post again.Its pretty simple.
And no we are not the same.LG and Seanin that is.

by david Sun Aug 03, 2003 14:03

saddam was a great supporter of hitler? really? where did you find this little nugget?

America and Europe interfere in international affairs every day by selling the horrific weapons to the armies and governments that use them against their populations. they sabbotage popular uprisings against dictators, through their interactions with the rest of the world they keep the balance in favour of co-operative regimes whether they are good for their country or not.

by Drbinoche Sun Aug 03, 2003 18:11

Well of course america and europe are the ones selling the arms around the world. I mean that is obvious when you see the rebels and the armies of these regions walking around armed with.......AK47s and RPGs, weapons not made by either region, but made only in the former Soviet Union. I have yet to see one of the guys on the news [the rebels] walking around with M16s or with MP5s. I am not going to get into why Liberia is self-destructing, but I would doubt it very much if it is american caused, but then again most of you people don't want to hear that, as it then means that america is not the great satan.

by Seáinín Sun Aug 03, 2003 20:55

BTW, whatever about Saddam and Hitler, I do know that Saddam wasa great admirer of Stalin, he liked his tactics.

I was amazed reading Chekov's article that he appears to absolve local African groups of all responsibility for their horrifying crimes, preferring instead to shunt the blame (tenuously) onto the US. There's racism if ever I've seen it. Are not Africans judged by the same moral standards as the rest of the world?

by Seáinín Sun Aug 03, 2003 20:56

BTW, whatever about Saddam and Hitler, I do know that Saddam wasa great admirer of Stalin, he liked his tactics.

I was amazed reading Chekov's article that he appears to absolve local African groups of all responsibility for their horrifying crimes, preferring instead to shunt the blame (tenuously) onto the US. There's racism if ever I've seen it. Are not Africans judged by the same moral standards as the rest of the world?

by Chekov Sun Aug 03, 2003 23:05

which, by the way, I'd recommend to some of you US flag wavers. Doesn't it make y'all feel a little uncomfortable blindly cheerleading the US, in a situation where you openly admit to knowing absolutely nothing about what's going on? I mean, even if somebody wrote an article criticising my mother, I'd try to investigate the claims before leaping to her defence! Do y'all really trust your government so much that you think that it's always doing good and you don't even have to bother finding out what it's up to?

Since I wrote the comment, Charles Taylor has announced that he is quiting, followed closely by the security council vote to "authorise a multi-national force"[Sunday Tribune]. "The United States pushed for the vote" and "US ambassador John Negroponte has said the Bush administration wants the force being assembled by...Ecowas to take the lead, with the United States providing support." Pretty much exactly what I predicted. Again I could be entirely wrong, I don't have enough information to be certain, but it's a pretty good indication when a theory is useful in predicting the future.

What's more I am interested to see that France abstained from the vote. They cited the ICC as the reason, but I'd say that imperial rivalry is a more likely explanation. Another interesting titbit that I saw was this, from an aid worker writing in the Tribune, "Almost everywhere we go people call out for food...how are they supposed to understand why the four aid agencies left in the country don't 'do' food? Even I don't quite get it, and I've been doing this work for years. ... shortage is not the issue. So what went wrong? simple really: they left all their eggs in one basket, at the port which is now controlled by the rebels. Strange really, when every other agency which had stocks in that part of town had moved a good portion of them to the other side of town in case of future attacks." To me it's not so strange, indeed it sounds very much like my description of a consciously manufactured humanitarian crisis. Just in case any of the flag wavers happen to go off and actually read something about Liberia (faint hope), I'll answer their objections in advance. Yes, the agencies responsible for the food distribution are from the UN (principally the WFP) but they effectively take orders from the US embassy in Liberia.

Then a few quotes from the human rights watch document linked above: "Although U.S. pressure on the Liberian government to address human rights abuses remained strong, the U.S. failed publicly to condemn both abuses by LURD rebels and the government of Guinea for providing logistical and some military support to LURD. The closest it came to doing so was in a March 1 statement by the U.S. ambassador in Monrovia condemning the renewed fighting in Liberia, and calling on the Liberian government to take steps to respect human rights and the rule of law. Although the statement stopped short of naming Guinea, the statement did call on 'all parties in the region to cease supporting any group that seeks political change through violence and to respect their neighbor's borders.'

The U.S. government's silence on LURD abuses and Guinea's support for LURD was particularly notable given that the U.S. government began a U.S.$3 million program to provide training and non-lethal equipment to the Guinean military in May 2002."

Again, very close indeed to my analysis above. The one point of error being that Guinea is acting as an agent of the US in Liberia, rather than of France. Makes more sense that way I suppose, and the Guinean government has long been the most difficult of France's charges in the region.

To answer Drbinoche's objection about the lack of M16s. When we say that country A arms country B, we don't mean that they put a load of weapons in a box and ship them off directly with a return to sender address! In general when you are supporting an armed faction in Africa you don't want to make it that obvious. To create an armed faction you need two things, money and a supply route. The money is trifling, with a few millions you can buy enough arms to destabilise most african regimes. The supply route is more difficult, you have to get a government in the region to launder the arms. This entails this third party buying them on the international market and covertly exporting them to their intended destination. In general the arms bought are always of the AK47/RPG variety, because they are cheap and readily available on the international market, regardless of the source of the money. Although the governments of the region are always scheming against each other and arming factions in each other's countries, this is almost always with the approval of one of the two big imperialist powers in the region, the US/UK or France. If you disobey them, you get ousted - a la Taylor.

Once you have the money and arms supply, it is very easy to start the insurrection. With unemployment (in terms of paid labour) running at 90% plus in most of West Africa, there are always a plentiful supply of recruits among the youth. Early teens are preferred as they make better killers, lacking the ability to contextualise their deeds.

If you are smart you will channel your money through an existing ethnic strong man, who will recruit exclusively from a particular 'tribe' and thus gain leverage from existing ethnic tension. If you are really smart, and rich, you will fund a few of them simultaneously as the chance of any particular strong man losing his way is quite high. If they become too corrupt they will not give a good return of suffering for your dollar, on the other hand the power may go to their heads and give them notions of independence.

To answer a couple of objections:

a) No this is not anti-americanism. For a start I'm talking about what the US government is doing. As you are all making abundantly clear, this is done with pretty much zero knowledge on the part of the population. In fact in Africa in general, but particularly West Africa, the French government has had a much worse effect, basically because they've had the chance. Whereas the US deliberately blocked any intervention to stop the genocide in Rwanda, France eventually intervened to protect the remnants of the Interahamwe! Interestingly Giscard d'Estaing, the big EU man is personally complicit in some of their worst crimes. He used to go elephant hunting with Bokassa in the CAR - a name which even surpasses Amin in terms of depravity. Not that the US/UK aren't doing their best. UNITA has to have been one of the most brutal movements the world has ever seen to name but one of the horrors they have unleashed upon Africa.

b) I am not absolving Africans of blame. I am merely asking why this is happening. There are, of course, a large number of Africans deeply guilty. It really has nothing to do with race. Give me a country with a similar economic situation to Liberia, give me a few million and a supply route for arms and I'll destroy it. Doesn't matter where it is, doesn't matter what colour the people are, it's easy. History has shown, time and again, that, with power, you can manipulate situations so that people will do the most horrific things to each other. This does not absolve the immediate actors of blame. The various killers in Liberia are just as guilty as those complicit in the nazi regime were (incidentally a much higher proportion of the population than in Liberia). Although, as with the nazis, the greatest blame clearly lies with those who give plan everything and give the orders.

c) To refute Paul's argument, you only need to mention auschwitz, two world wars, the slave trade ... Actually, for somebody like Paul, probably the best refutation is a look in the mirror or listen to your own dumb arguments, no genetic superiority there, that's for sure!

d) Seanin's accusation of me being racist is hilarious. Seanin, I'd have thought that 'racist' was a compliment in your book. Well, you've found me out, I think blacks are superior to whites. For this reason I hate and pity myself, my family, most of my friends, my girlfriend and the vast majority of the Irish population. If only we were black, I repeat over and over.

Finally, I'd really love if some of you pro-US government 'no matter what it does', types went off and tried to refute some of these arguments. In places like Liberia they often don't bother to cover their tracks too well. They can rely on the deep racism of the media and establishment. In general most people just assume that this type of thing is 'just what Africans do'. Even among left-leaning types this type of thinking is endemic. It is very rare indeed for people to visit these region from the west, without being part of one of the complicit bodies. I was fortunate enough to spend a year or so in the region and was particularly shocked at what the NGOs are actually doing there. Read more at the link supplied.

by james Mon Aug 04, 2003 01:13

Glad you put those racists in their place. Excellent articles, particularly the point about the ingrained racist mentality that pervades western media, whether about Africans or Arabs or Asians. Thanks for the excellent analysis on Liberia, I was wondering what greedy angle was interesting the greediest country on Earth, and also why the Liberian flag was so similar lookingto the yankees.
Slan,
James

by da researcher - - a dank archive Mon Aug 04, 2003 02:51

"Since the U.S. occupation of Iraq, the American powers that be have begun exploring the possibility of grabbing Africa from the economic sphere of its rivals as well.

"While Liberia itself does not contain oil, the nearby Gulf of Guinea does. West African oil is growing increasingly important to the U.S. As much as 15 percent of America's oil now comes from West Africa - about the amount imported from Saudi Arabia. By next year, the West African portion is expected to jump to 20 percent. Also, West Africa has long been the playground of French imperialism, who through numerous troop deployments and meddling in the affairs of West African countries, has been able to reap the harvest of the region’s natural resources. But now Washington is maneuvering to outflank Paris in its own backyard. It is casting around looking for bases and a foothold from which to dominate existing oil fields, such as those in Nigeria, and to begin exploiting the untapped reserves in the Gulf of Guinea.

"The civil war in Liberia is indeed a tragedy, but it won’t be ended by U.S. intervention. The U.S. government is not motivated by humanitarian concerns, and the setting up of a pro-U.S. puppet in Monrovia will not end the suffering of the Liberian people."

http://www.geocities.com/youth4sa/liberia.html

"Speaking to reporters at the White House Rose Garden during a meeting with Palestinian prime minister Mahmoud Abbas, Bush cast the military deployment in humanitarian terms. “We’re deeply concerned that the condition of the Liberian people is getting worse and worse,” he said. “Aid can’t get to the people. We’re worried about the outbreak of disease.” These claims notwithstanding, the administration has in its sights newly discovered oil fields in the Gulf of Guinea off the West African coast, as well as other petroleum resources in the rest of the continent.

"TV and press journals have been filled with graphic descriptions of the civilian carnage, including bodies stacked outside the U.S. embassy in Monrovia, the country’s capital, by Liberians pleading with Washington to intercede to halt the bloodshed. The U.S. rulers are taking advantage of the steady swell of prominent political figures and humanitarian organizations who have issued calls for the administration to send in troops “to stop the killing.”

"The decision to deploy troops to the Liberian coast was announced the same day a front-page article appeared in the New York Times headlined, “Pentagon Leaders Warn of Dangers for U.S. in Liberia.” Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Richard Myers warned of a possible lengthy military involvement. Alluding to the ongoing civil war Myers said, “It’s not going to give way to any instant fix. Whatever the fix is going to be is going to have to be a long-term fix.”"

http://www.themilitant.com/2003/6727/672705.html

"Although never formally a US colony, Liberia was effectively under American control from the 19th century on. It became a major source of rubber for the Firestone corporation from the 1920s, when the regime provided cheap labour to work the extensive plantations. Its huge iron ore deposits were exploited during the Second World War and afterwards. Whilst the population lived in poverty the US provided economic and military aid to its ruling elite throughout the postwar period. In absolute terms it received the fourth highest level of aid in sub-Saharan Africa (after Ethiopia, Congo and Sudan), and in per capita terms the highest level.

"Its importance increased during the Cold War, as it became the site of US communications facilities that spied on the whole African continent. In 1980 an army coup seized power from the William Tolbert regime. Led by Master Sergeant Samuel Doe, it had gained support because of growing poverty, a result of the declining demand for iron ore and rubber. The new elite proved even more useful to the US, with aid payments under President Reagan increasing from the $20 million of the late 1970s to a peak of $95 million—a total of $402 million between 1981 and 1985.

"Liberia became the centre for the massive CIA covert operations of that period, especially directed against Colonel Gaddafi, including operations to back the Chadian leader Hissene Habre in the war against Libya. Doe was singled out to receive special US security support, similar to that given to Mobutu in the Congo, and his clampdown against all political opponents was conveniently ignored.

"Aid to Doe’s regime was cut back at the end of the Cold War and the Liberian economy was allowed to collapse, as the US administration had no further use for it. The country descended into civil war by the 1990s.

"Charles Taylor, then the leader of the main rebel faction, agreed with US Assistant Secretary Cohen in 1990 that he would take part in a US-brokered truce. But Cohen was overruled and Washington refused to mediate, especially as Taylor had been given support by Libya. The war was allowed to continue and several rebel factions emerged. The unpaid Nigerian peacekeeping force engaged in the same policy of looting and terrorising the population as the rebels. In the end the US supported a peace deal in which Taylor—as leader of the dominant faction—was backed to take power after rigged elections in 1997.

"By 1999 the LURD had started operations out of Guinea. Overall some 200,000 people have been killed in the civil war."

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/jun2003/lib-j18.shtml

"What are the economic stakes in this conflict? Diamonds and gold are abundant in Liberia and neighboring Sierra Leone. Does the current US administration have allies or campaign donors who have an interest in Liberian diamonds and gold? Yes, none other than Pat Robertson and his Christian Coalition. Greg Palast reported in a recent C-Span interview that Pat Robertson is rarely seen praying off camera. However, he notes one exception. During a trip to Liberia, he told one group, before journeying to one of his mines, “Let’s pray for diamonds.” Robertson’s ties to the Bush administration and his interest in Liberian diamonds and gold have been well documented. So the question arises: What role has the Christian Coalition played in the Bush decision to send troops to Liberia at this time? Is the current instability in Liberia jeopardizing the Christian Coalition’s diamond holdings? Does the instability threaten a major Bush campaign funding source?"

http://www.melbourne.indymedia.org/news/2003/07/49961.php

And two more interesting articles can be found at

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=2&ItemID=3906

and

http://www.socialistnigeria.org/paper/2003/july-aug/6.html

by Seáinín Mon Aug 04, 2003 03:35

Thanks for your wordy comments. It seems to me that you claim the US has committed two offences:

1. Manufacturing a humanitarian crisis. This quote from the Tribune really tells me nothing. The 4 remaining aid agencies "put all their eggs in one basket" and lost their warehouses to the rebels after being ordered to do so by the US embassy. You claim that the NGOs are controlled by the US. How come not one single employee of any of those organisations (undoubtedly people of conscience) has come forward with this news? Obviously it takes some months to create a disaster and yet not one NGO employee has pointed the finger at the US and said "they're trying to starve the people". Just prior to the most recent outbreak of violence in Monrovia, 11 out of 27 NGOs were looted.


2. "Failing to condemn" LURD for Human Rights abuses. A sin of omission, maybe they forgot!
The US view on human rights abuses is well known and it has made this clear with regard to Liberia countless times. It's no secret either that they want Taylor out, they've made this clear too.

Chekov, your theories are fantastical and seeing that you link to an Anarchist website it's obvious that you are one of these people who are against everything but with absolutely no idea of what to replace it with.

As for "da researcher", his conribution consists of Cold War stories and conjecture about the future.

by Elinor Mon Aug 04, 2003 06:48

For people who want to keep up with African news from an African perspective, check this site:
http://www.allafrica.com
It displays stories from a wide range of African newspapers, as well as UN reports. Though of course you have to watch for bias, it's a treasure trove of detail.

(Nice analysis, Chekov and da researcher. No one can understand Africa today if they don't understand Africa in the Cold War--kudos!)

by Lone gunman Mon Aug 04, 2003 14:03

Yes, Checkov.And No I am not flag waving or cheerleading the USA.I am just getting tired of the immediate blind sweeping statements that ALL the worlds problems are caused by the USA. You do know that France,Russia,Cuba and Isreal ,not to mention South Africa and Co are meddling around Africa as well?

You are very correct about the arms running and third end users. As well as how to overthrow a African country.However would you care to give some PROOF that the CIA or whomever is involved in the current situation? Also would you care to comment as to who orginally flooded Africa with cheap arms. ?

To reiterate my point.If the world doesnt want the USA to go to Africa,fine.. Will the EU and the UN go in instead?[Proably,maybe,if, but, it doesnt interfere with our other arms deals,paling with the current dictator of that region. can we afford it??Is the Sun in the right position in the cusp of Aquarius?]

In short the UN and the EU procrastinate ,debate too much to ever get anything done properly.See Yougoslavia,etc etc.

Again it took NATO under US command to sort out Bosnia,and the whole Balkan mess.Like it or not the US is the only force on the planet that is capable of moving troops and material to conflict zones,quickly and efficently.
How much does this all cost? Billions? Is it the US intrest to go to Liberia,when this could be done by a proxy state of the US in Africa?

In short.What is the greater of the two evils
Do you want the USA sorting out Liberia and getting SOME sort of stability and aid into the area? Or
[b] The USA staying out of it,let Europe and the UN sort it out ,sometime.After there is another few million massacred,or sub option b let the Africans sort it out themselves,and watch a holocaust occur?
If you can do it better ,please do so.

BTW whoever asked where I got the gem of Saddos admirer of Adolf.Saddo said it himself in a few interviews back in the Eighties during the Iran iraq war.Think it is also in the book The secret life of Saddam.Proably comes from the idea of the enemy of my enemy is my friend. [very pouplar sentimentin the Arab world when dealing with Jews and Isreal.]

by Moron with access to internet Mon Aug 04, 2003 20:55

Read Chekov's posts again: he attributes more blame to France than to the USA. The reason that he gives is because France had more opportunity. Take your hand off your dick, your head out of your ass, then straighten up and lose the chip from your shoulder. You'll find the change of perspective refreshing.

by Seáinín Tue Aug 05, 2003 01:27

These characters have no interest in actual solutions, they're happy to sit around discussing "perspectives" and "analyses". They like it just he way it is. Capitalist governments have improved the lives of billions of people beyond recognition in the last century. In comparison, any other form of government has been a dismal, murderous failure.

With regard to Liberia, it's better that an African peacekeeping force restores order than to have the old colonial powers being seen to offer a condesceding hand. Maybe then, other Africans can feel empowered to solve their own problems rather than relying on the North.

by mr. aggro Tue Aug 05, 2003 11:14

I suppose that Shauneen considers the lives of Irish peasants to have been "improved" by the laisse-faire capitalism of the British Government, particularly during the period 1845-49 .......

by Lone Gunman Tue Aug 05, 2003 12:04

is up to its censoring tricks again.I had a reply to Moron with an internet connection.Which is mysteriously not present!!
I thought this was supposed to be a site that promotes "free speech".But only if it is in the PC range of leftism

by David Tue Aug 05, 2003 12:29

Seanin, you really have absolutely no idea what the principles of anarchism entail?

Did you look it up in a pocket dictionary and now believe yourself to be a leading auhority?

"In comparison, any other form of government has been a dismal, murderous failure"
Anarchists are not trying to impose or bring about a change in the system of government. There should be no government. It's of course much more complex than that, but it really is a very convincing and well thought ideology that properly implimented would stop once and for all the reign of despots and the ultra powerful self interests created and perpetuated by capitalism and any authoritarian system.

You said Chekov had no idea what to replace capitalism with? Read what he has written and you will see that he has countless ideas, many of them very well crafted and thought out.

by Malatesta Tue Aug 05, 2003 13:26

is the most atupid idea ever conceived.

by Gaillimhed Tue Aug 05, 2003 16:19

No Anarchism isnt the most stupid idea ever thought up, but get this, democracy also...( to kinda quote david...)" is a very convincing and well thought ideology that properly implimented would stop once and for all the reign of despots and the ultra powerful self interests created and perpetuated by capitalism and any authoritarian system"
but we dont live in a democracy do we? We live in a free-market economy, not a society. nah lets not get into that now, stick to the point.

Seanin et al's arguments in favour of those peace loving egalitarian humanists, the US of A, arent really convincing anyone open minded enough to read without dogmatic blinkers, But they do have one common position that no-one has answered. What reasonable alternative can be proposed to avert what is unfolding once again on the colonial battlefields of the African continent?
That is much harder to tackle than the question of who is at fault.

by IMC Editorial Group - IMC Ireland Tue Aug 05, 2003 18:31

no comment by you has yet been removed on this thread. Try pressing the "publish" button after the " preview before publishing". Hope this helps.

by Seáinín Tue Aug 05, 2003 18:32

It's a scheme based on so much wishful thinking and assupmtions of how people will behave that only the young could ever take it seriously.

Have you ever wondered why Anarchists are overwhelmingly young people and that capitalism appeals to middle aged people?

As for dogma, the great thing about cpaitalism is that there is no dogma. There are no directions telling people how they should live and what they should think. People are trusted to know for themselves how to conduct themsleves. Because there is no dogma, no Marx or Bakunin of Capitalism, it is infintely adaptable and perfectible, as we have seen over the course of the 20th century.

by Gaillimhed Wed Aug 06, 2003 16:41

yeah thats OK seanin, but we were having some sort of discussion about liberia and the issue of American direct and covert interference in international affairs.
The Dogmatic blinkers i was referring to relate to your naive and 'to the hilt' support of american foreign policy and your refusal to believe that anything American could be bad, '
good ole USA, nation of the free. Jesus man what pile of sand are you keeping your head in.
what the fuck country are you from anyway, havent you read history, even your own, jesus man all you have to do is read the paper, are you not getting this... building a US Global empire is not the way to a peaceful and prosperous world, do you really think the 'US of Earth' is going to be a nice place to bring up your kids.
Liberia is just another victim, more destruction and death caused by empire and colionialism and the belief in the bottom line, profit .
In case you hadnt noticed the US is rapidly becoming a bigger and more avaricious imperial colonist than anything ever seen before.
Open your eyes man.
and irt will not end with iraq or liberia or n. korea, syria, iran, palestine, afghanistan, colombia, mexico, canada, chile, venezuela, indonesia... ...... ......... ... ..

by Ga9illimhed Wed Aug 06, 2003 17:33

http://pinr.com/report.php?ac=view_report&report_id=67

by Seáinín Wed Aug 06, 2003 20:27

** Raises the Finger**

Silly boy.

by simon Thu Aug 07, 2003 11:25

God, Seanin apart from your notions and dreams you are a really irritating person. Are you making these points and jibes just to get attention or something!!!!

by Chekov Thu Aug 07, 2003 14:56

First off, I'm won't bother replying to Seanin, as he seems to be intent only on trying to waste people's time on indymedia. I will point out a couple of things from his posts though. For somebody who is so simple minded when it comes to opinions, you have to hand it to him that he is pretty sophisticated when it comes to smearing and mud slinging. We've had the full range of trivialisations, meaningless generalisations, insinuations against the author and so on, without so much as the tiniest informed opinion. I'd advise everybody on indymedia to avoid Seanin and his ilk. The only reason for arguing with somebody like that is to convince the audience, and Seanin doesn't convince anybody.

Lone Gunman, you say:

"To reiterate my point.If the world doesnt want the USA to go to Africa,fine"

"Do you want the USA sorting out Liberia and getting SOME sort of stability and aid into the area?"

The point is that the US _is_ already in Liberia and it _is_ sorting it out - although stability and aid are not the aim.

Liberia is, and has been since its inception, a US controlled state. There is simply a mountain of evidence to support this claim of which I'll just give one little bit: it is one of the most popular flags of convenience for US ships - especially the big supertankers. Something like 120 of the biggest US tankers are registered in Liberia so they can avoid tax. Flags of convenience are _always_ vassal states of the big powers - you can't go letting an independent entity have any control of a vital resource like shipping. Other examples of US flags of convenience are the Marshall islands and Belize, basically countries where all of the important decisions are normally made in Washington and the local parliaments decide what colour to paint the sidewalks - and Liberia is in this class. Of course the local parliament / strong man sometimes forgets his role and has to be replaced (a la taylor). I could go on and give umpteen more examples of US control over Liberia, but there's little point. Anybody who knows anything about West Africa _knows_ that Liberia is US 'turf', it's just so glaringly obvious that if you are interested in the truth, rather than blindly waving flags, you can't escape the conclusion.

This most recent upsurge in suffering in Liberia is an example of the US sorting the place out rather than an example of why they should sort the place out. The US _is_ involved in Liberia and they are by far the most powerful actor there - their policy decisions are the most important factors in shaping what happens in Liberia. The humanitarian crisis (and the TV cameras) are a tool for the US to replace the government with somebody more obedient without getting into an armed battle with Taylor which they want to avoid at the moment for obvious reasons. It now seems (again based on scanty evidence) that Taylor is proving to be a tough cookie to crack. The LURD probably don't have enough heavy arms to take the Monrovia bridges and, knowing this, Taylor is haggling over leaving - he presumably wants immunity from prosecution, a safe haven, and a US guarantee not to freeze his bank accounts. The yanks will have to choose between this potentially embarrassing deal and going in with a few bits of big hardware to finish him off.

I probably didn't emphasise enough the significance of the human rights reports quoted above:

"The U.S. government's silence on LURD abuses and Guinea's support for LURD was particularly notable given that the U.S. government began a U.S.$3 million program to provide training and non-lethal equipment to the Guinean military in May 2002."

In my experience, it is very unusual to see something as clear as this in an NGO report. For understandable reasons NGOs have to be very coy about criticising the big powers. I would translate this from NGO speak as follows:
"The US spent $3 million on training the LURD".

Again in the other report by the NGO worker:
"Strange really, when every other agency which had stocks in that part of town had moved a good portion of them to the other side of town in case of future attacks". I'd very strongly suspect that what he is saying (in language just about obtuse enough to keep his job) is:
"The crisis was manufactured"

Another point to emphasise the manipulations behind the scenes in this type of crisis: How many TV reports have we seen from Congo-Kinshasa in the last few years? More people have died in that war than the entire population of Liberia. Why have the TV cameras suddenly arrived in Monrovia en masse when they have been ardently ignoring the much bigger, bloodier and strategically important war in Central Africa?

Finally to answer Gallimhed: "What reasonable alternative can be proposed to avert what is unfolding once again on the colonial battlefields of the African continent?" It comes down to the question of what the West can do for Africa. Firstly we must realise that the West _is_ already doing something for Africa, in fact all of the most important decisions that affect the future of Africa are made in the West. Leaving Africa to its own devices has not been tried since the West first sent sail ships down the Western cousts.

If we think of Africa as a drowning man, the best thing we can do is to try to make our governments take their foot off his head.

by Seáinín Fri Aug 08, 2003 02:48

Do you really expect that not one employee of an NGo would not speak out about a "manufactured crisis"?

You're in fantasy land boyo. Well, considering that you believe in Anarchy it's not surprising.

by ec Fri Aug 08, 2003 03:33

and she got fired

by eoin Fri Aug 08, 2003 10:38

whats your take on French and British involvement in the reigon? On newsnight on BBC last night the Liberian rebel spokesman was talking from paris. The British also have troops in Sierra Leone, and the French already have troops in DRC. Is there going to be more intervention?

by Concerned Fri Aug 08, 2003 12:19

What ngo's are working there? Chekov has written about how the ngo's are basically tainted by corruption and for whatever reason are helping to bring about the humanitarian crisis. But which ones? There are a lot of ngo's in the world. Many work in Africa. You said there are 4 working there at present who are they? I don't doubt that it may be true but I would like to know who they are. I looked at the related link but I couldn't find the information. Please try to answer this. I work with ngo's and I want this information as it is important for me to know about who I support.

by lone gunman Fri Aug 08, 2003 13:42

Checkov,
So what that 120 supposedly supertankers are registerd in Liberia?If they are then they are Liberian registerd.Not US registerd. Take that up with the ships owners,and cost cutting. Nearly every rust bucket is registerd in either Liberia ,the Bahamas,or Panama.[No doubt you will claim all under the influence of the evil USA.]
It is laughable to suggest that the USA controlls the asset of the worlds shipping.Try ,Sth Korea, Japan or Thailand. They have the most tonnage on the seas. Liberia is a cheap,corrupt way of keeping hulks afloat and trading,nothing else. liberian regd ships are VERY unwelcome in US ports due to their shoddy state.Shouldnt it be the other way around if this is a protected US intrest?
As for Liberia being a US intrest.Funnily enough shouldnt it be a protectorate then like Puerto Rico.? It was bought from local tribal cheifs in 1822 by freed American slaves.[Not by the white massas,as you might errounsly suggest].Bought for by the blacks from the blacks for; a barrell of nails, three pairs of shoes,four umbrellas, three walking sticks,,mirrors,and a box of soap.

Ok ,now as you suggest that there is mountains of evidence to suggest that Liberia is US controlled ,could you give us some other example apart from straw arguements about shipping?
If you suggest that the rebels are so under equipped to take the bridges,funnyily it would be NO trouble for the CIA or whomever to tool up the rebels pretty quickly?
As for the Congo situation,please enlighten us as to the US connection with somthing verifable.
Well your heros the UN are now in Monrovia.Lets see what sort of messes appear from there now.
You really have got to get over your US hate.

by Graham Caswell Fri Aug 08, 2003 14:18

I lived in Sierra Leone for 2 years between 1992 and 1994. Since them I've kept in touch (as best I can) with friends from both Sierra Leone and Liberia (the Liberians were refugees from Liberia living in UNCHR camps in SL at the time. Today, 10 years later, they are in Morovia - still refugees and still in a UNHCR camp).

At the time, Charles Taylor's influence had started spilling accross the border to Sierra Leone where he supported Foday Sankoh and his Sierra Leoneon rebels. Sankoh's rebels took over the diamond-producing areas of Sierra Leone and diamond sales were financing the rebel movements in both Sierra Leone and Liberia.

Its difficult to grasp how chaotic and murderous these 'rebels' were. They had a lot more in common with gangs of thugs than with any organised military force - there was little dicipline and the combination of drugs, weapons and teenage ego was highly unstable. Rebel checkpoints would have skulls with bits of flesh still sticking to them on sticks. I remember a jeep of these thugs tearing around a village I was visiting with a human head/skull wired to the radiator. Rape, mutilation, juju rituals and whatever other horror you can or can't imagine was going on. It was Lord of the Flies meets Jeffery Dalhmer.

The (kleptocratic) government of Sierra Leone was overthrown in a 1992 coup. In 1995 (or 96?) a South African private army called 'Executive Outcomes' was hired by the government to take back the rebel-held areas (needless to say, there was no other international help available) and were paid for from diamond revenues. These guys consisted of 200-300 mostly white, mostly SA, well-trained, well equipped mercenaries. They had their own ship and their own helicopter fleet and they took back the rebel areas within 6 months (killing a lot of people in the process). They showed what a small, well trained and equipped professional force could do.

Sierra Leoneons were estatic and the Executive Outcomes mercenaries were heros. (Remember, the world didn't want to know what was happening in SL. There was NOTHING about the horror in the media, never mind offers of help). The situation was stablised so much that elections were held. However the elected government dispensed with Executive Outcomes and the rebels (again with Taylor's support and involvement) quickly took over much (and later all) of the country again, shooting, raping and hacking off hands and arms as they went.

After years of a hell that is unimaginable to us, and after the whole nightmare being almost completely and utterly ignored by the world, the situation was saved by British military intervention followed by what is now the largest UN peacekeeping mission in the world (19,000 blue helmets, I believe. The rebels first negotiated and then effectively collapsed and Sierra Leone is now slowly getting back together again.

According to a Sierra Leonean friend (a barrister who is very politically involved), Sierra Leone has been effectively recolonised by the British - and this is a very positive thing. The effective heads of the police and army are both British, and there are many British police and army trainers in the country.

The situation was and is even more complex than I've outlined. There was a strong, mostly Nigerian, ECOWAS presence in SL while I was there (don't ask!). Many 'rebels' were also 'soldiers' in the government forces as well.

However the main point is that small, professional overseas military intervention (first by the Executive Outcomes mercenaries, later by the British army) was VERY positive for Sierra Leone.

Today, Liberia is a disaster and the Liberian people are calling out for intervention. The Americans have the professional force and the equipment to effectively engage in Liberia - much more so than the Nigerians with their checkered history in Liberia and elsewhere. One thousand US marines could turn Liberia around. The UN wants them in, the Liberian people want them in, anybody who knows anthing about the situation wants them in.

The Americans SHOULD engage in Liberia - as as quickly as possible.

by Joe Fri Aug 08, 2003 15:10

So Graham like Cecil Rhodes you reckon imperialist occupation is the best method to sort out those crazy Africans. Tally ho!

by Maxibillion Kurtz (Mr. Kurtz to you) - VC, Propaganda/Sapper Regiment D-69 Fri Aug 08, 2003 16:19 A tunnel underneath your mom's house.

Ok, I've read this whole string of arguments and here's my take...... I don't bother with doing dumb shit like research, it just gets in the way of passionate rhetorical appeals. So I shall confine my arguments, like the great anthropologist Franz Boas, to issues of common knowledge to most people with half a brain. I'd also like to mention that there will be people on both ends of the spectrum that will hopefully be offended by this little diatribe, hopefully it will provoke some laughs as well, and if you don't like my opinions, well, you or one of your loved ones can suck on my...anyways, you get the cut of my jib.


I consider myself an anarchist,( i identify with the greens most readily, but who cares) but i believe also that the vast majority of the West today are soft, useless, SUV-driving soccer-moms and their progeny, who do nothing except consume and reinforce lame power structures. Hopefully the infrastructure will collapse after all of the fossil fuels hae run out, or after the third world stops sending us all of their produce and manufactured goods. I am looking forward to mass starvation. The soil will be rich with the flesh of millions of small-minded people who never had to take any responsibility for the actions of the elites in their own culture. Not that they were ever informed of these actions. Too bad. Innocents suffer. Usually at the hands of well-equipped, well fed troops, flown in at astronomical expense to protect economic & political interests instead of humanitarian ones. Human rights do not exist, or rather they exist for the worthless elites of the West at the expense of everyone else. I look forward to the day when smog clouds no longer blow up from the south, and I can walk down interstate highways choked with rusting Lincoln navigators driven nowhere by mummies.
Of course, maybe none of these scenarios will come to pass, and we'll have to equip and mobilise like in the olden days, and waste all of the people like Shawneen and the Lone Gunman. Unfortunately, I get the impression that there are quite a few people like this around, so in order not to waste ammo on scumfucks like them, we'll have to do it Khmer Rouge-style, with a heavy blow to the back of the head or neck, perhaps a machete, axe-handle or even big rocks. We can even eat 'em afterwards, if needed. Honestly, America has vastly exceeded the carrying capacity of its own territories, and, like Rome, can only sustain its empire at the expense of the cultures which it has subjugated. They, like the Roman provinces, will eventually get pissed off, pick up AK's (which, although cheaper than the M16, are also simpler, more reliable under adverse conditions, and fire a heavier round of larger calibre, giving more effective range and increased tissue shock. Maybe Shawneen and LG should get some nice American hardware, go over there themselves and see what they can do personally to solve the problems of Liberia. Maybe they could help convince the poor people of Liberia that they are racially inferior, and thus are in dire need of a big white American sugar daddy. Maybe Shawneen and LG would then feel firsthand the tactical virtues of Mr. Kalashnikov's fiendish invention. Blaming the presence of weapons in Africa on the Soviets is hilarious. Africa was the KGB and the Company's little fuckin' softball field during the Cold War. The African nations were auxilliary imperial troops, given the weapons of their respective empires, to waste eachother while the spymasters and statecraftsmen sat back and drank girlie drinks over nice, big tables. I should really do something more productive than type inflammatory messages on indymedia, but this is my first time and i have soooo much more stuff in my head to piss fuckers off with. Because if you try to respond with some sort of rational, well-researched theories (which I ain't got to worry about from some fuckin' toothless flag-waving fascists. I'm an anti-fascist as well, which means I'll stoop to their level for the moment it takes to get off a burst), I'll respond with nonsense, zany jokes, complete bullshit, and lewd, tasteless taunts directed at the family members of all who oppose me. In summation, I would like to say:

Fuck Empire.
Some of my best friends are Americans, but, then again, some americans i would waste
quicker than I'd do a mosquito with rabies.
Save the Environment - Kill Yourself.
Big Religion Sucks Ass. Yours, and theirs too.
(your religion, I mean, not your ass)

Stay Tuned!
Victory to the People's Counteroffensive!

by graham Fri Aug 08, 2003 16:41

No, Joe, I don't think that 'occupation' or 'imperialist occupation' is a solution to anything and I don't think Africans are crazy.

I'm simply giving my opinion after having lived in the area for two years and the opinion of my friends who still live there.

British and UN intervention in Sierra Leone has saved that country from a hell you cannot imagine. American intervention in Liberia would save many, many lives and prevent much human misery.

Ideally a UN army would do these things under the authority of a democratically elected security council. But in the meantime people are dying.

by gc Fri Aug 08, 2003 16:45

Imagine if Asians had taken over Europe 500 years ago and different Asian countries had carved up Europe into Asian colonies. Imagine if the Japanese-speaking 'country' that we lived in consisted of Munster, part of Leinster, Cronwall and Devon, bits of France and the North of Spain, while Ulster/Connaught was part of a Chinese-speaking country including what we think of as Scotland, Denmark and Norway. Imagine the wars and ethnic tension that would generate.

Imagine if the language of almost all your government, your media, your education and your public life was Japanese and to be literate meant being literate in Japanese. Imagine how many people would be illiterate!

Imagine if Europe only appeared in world media as a 'basket case' or as photos of 'starving Europeans' from Asian charities and aid agencies. Imagine if anti-white racism was endemic and even institutionalised in Asia and even in post-colonial Asian institutions in Europe. Imagine if the height of sophisticated dress was a kimono while European clothes were a sign of impoverished ignorance. Imagine if the social elite spoke Japanese, travelled to Tokyo regularly and ate sushi and sake while most of us poor, ordinary people lived a completely diferent lifestyle.

Well, that's what happened to Africa.

by iosaf Fri Aug 08, 2003 16:48

It's three weeks since I first wrote of Liberia saying that it was beyond reason, a simple story of what happens when children are systematically armed. I wrote that Marcus Garvey would roll in his grave, and left those thoughts as a comment to a non news article. I didn't really believe that anyone here would come out with facts, analysis and well written thoughts. Chekov Well Done!
I stick by that comment that it is so odd that at base any military intervention in Liberia will primarily restore "order" by dis-arming teenagers.
And it is so ironic that the same mixture of coruption,violence, arming of teenagers, drugs etc that makes so many North American cities so terrible to live in as well. Marcus Garvey really would roll in his grave.

by Joe Fri Aug 08, 2003 16:58

Come now Graham, we are amongst friends here. Its no secret that the burden we carry is heavy. Nor that even the Belgian invasion of the Congo was done for 'humanatarian reasons'. Why if the Belgians found it necessary to chop the hand off a few tens of thousands lazy Africans to make them work harder why this was no more then was necessary to civilise them.

Smart move though in not calling the occupation of Africa by an imperialist army (British, US or French, take you pick) an imperialist occupation. That would just confuse the liberals back home no end. Good to know your own on our side, soon we will rebuild an empire on which the sun never sets.

ps
Heard there are a few problems with political corruption in your neck of the woods. Maybe time you called for the Paratroopers to be sent to Dublin to sort things out? Dress it up a bit first though old boy, we wouldn't want paddy catching on!

by Mr. Sofa Fri Aug 08, 2003 17:13

.. any reasoned argument based on the current situation in Liberia (armed drugged up thugs roaming the streets) is countered by a whole lot of nothing (Rhodes, colonialsm etc etc
)- fucking left-wing fantasy world!! Why not sod off and start a personal argument based on some local issue with some one who has slight deviation from your own position.. have a schism/split or whaterver yer havin' yerself - have a political movement in your own bedroom

by Seáinín Fri Aug 08, 2003 17:21

When "class" existed and Marism had not yet been proven over and over again to be a dismal failure.

That's why they keep brining the argument back to the 19th Century, because they live there.

******
Plase offer "Concerned" (see comment above) more info on the NGOs.

by Joe Fri Aug 08, 2003 17:31

Well done chaps and well done Seaninin in particular. Although old fellow your odd choice of name makes it sound like you have gone native. Still your stubbon defence of imperialism indicates to me that you know where your loyalties lie!

I mean slavery, occupation and colonialism were all history. What on earth could they have to do with the situation today. Likewise if HMG or our colonial brothers in America choose to arm one faction or another how does this make us responsible if they choose to use these weapons.

The globe will be pink!

by graham Fri Aug 08, 2003 17:45

Joe, you are reading a pre-programmed position from a script. The only idea I can get from your post seems to be a charge that the Americans have an ulterior motive for intervention in Liberia. For now I'll ignore your insinuations that my position is due to support for imperialism, since they are clearly unthinking.

I honestly don't think that the Americans have an ulterior motive for intervention in Liberia because (a) the Americans could have been in there whenever they wanted in the last decade, with the UN and much of the world cheering them on, (b) there's nothing of real strategic value to America in Liberia, and (c) none of the people I have talked to about SL/Liberia who have a direct knowledge of the situation have spoken of a possible ulterior motive of the Americans.

The possible motive mentioned by Checkov of a desire to balance French influence in the region is, I think extremely unlikely and even irrelavant in today's world. The only possible influence that the US would value is influence over UN and other international votes by West African nations, but there are much easier ways to get such influence than by sending in troops to Liberia, if indeed that would have such an effect.

Finally, even if America has an ulterior motive I doubt if most Liberians would mind. Actually, from what I can see of the Liberians I've met, the US could annex Liberia as the 51st state and most people would be estatic. The American twang in the Liberian accent shows just how highly America figures in the Liberian identity (despite America's almost complete ignorance of Liberia).

I'm no fan of the Bush administration and I believe that the invasion of Iraq was a crime. But that doesn't mean I ignore the reality of America's complex relationships in the world.

I can assure you of one thing though, if you'd been living through the hell that Charles Taylor brought to Liberia (and to Sierra Leone) you would be on the beach on your hands and knees thanking whatever orderly, professional troops were coming ashore to restore some kind of order and peace - and you wouldn't be too concerned about their colour or nationality either.

by Seáinín Fri Aug 08, 2003 18:31

It would have been a crime not to remove Saddam from power.

by graham Fri Aug 08, 2003 18:41

The difference between American intervention in Iraq and in Liberia is that the invasion of Iraq was illegal but intervention in Liberia wouldn't be.

Most of the world was against the American invasion of Iraq, which was why it never got UNSC approval. A lot of Iraqis were against the invasion too.

On the other hand, most of the world, including most liberians, supports outside intervention in Liberia. Indeed, Kofi Annan has called for intervention.

Ideally an independent UN force under Security Council control would intervene in situations like this, but until that happens national forces are all there is to intervene - and should.

by Phuq Hedd Fri Aug 08, 2003 19:02

If country X engages in systematic destabalisation and interference in region A over a long period of time and thus creates a situation in which democracy and self-rule are inhibited would you then not agree that country X has been "involved" in region A for a long period of time?

The insistence on reducing the debate to "should country X now intervene" when it is _already_ intervening manages to shift the focus and help us all miss the underlying problem.

Fomenting civil-war, dictatorships and humanitarian crises and then using them as a pretext for another round of intervention should elicit a response which seeks to stabilise and ameliorate the situation (as you do), but to only focus on that is to accept and be complicit in more horror further down the road when this episode has slipped into the memory hole.

by graham Fri Aug 08, 2003 19:22

Its like arguing with American neo cons - unable to get past ideology to talk about any aspect of reality at all. Just the same old script.

With all due respects, I think I'll go with the opinion of my Sierra Leoneon and Liberian friends on this issue.

Do you really think that the American government intentionally destabilised West Africa for the past 12 years so that it could send a few thousand troops in in 2003?

Wow!!

Enjoy the ideological bullshit!

by Maxibillian Kurtz Fri Aug 08, 2003 22:31

Just to remind you headz.....The U.S. never militarily intervenes in the affairs of another country unless it has something to gain, or if it percieves that its "interests" are being threatened. The only time when the US has ever gone to war for anything other than cold cash, Cold War empire building, or keeping the flow of certain luxury items (diamonds, heroin, cocaine) flowin, was the 1778 revolution or maybe the two world wars. Every other US armed conflict in its history has been for reasons other than humanitarian ones. There are other reasons behind Liberia. They said they were in Vietnam for humanitarian reasons, too, but what was that about? Don't give me any crap about rolling back the red threat, neither, because that is bullshit. A hell of a lot of Americans got stinking rich of that one, because bombs and planes are expensive, and the industries that make these things generate an insane amount of capital. During the Vietnam War they bombed legit targets, and when they ran out of these, they bombed illegal and civilian targets, and when the war economy decided this was not enough, they bombed areas with nothing in them, and created free-fire zones, just so they'd have something to bomb.

by Lone Gunman Sat Aug 09, 2003 01:59

Graham,
you got to understand these good folk here.Their touught process is; America is evil.There is no ifs,buts,or whatever about it. Even if America is not involved it doesnt matter they will find some sort of teneous link.It's simple really.America has a LOT of Faults,I will admit.But I would like to see some country that STILL offers more personal freedoms.....

Maxibillion.
I like your idea of a future world,but for different reasons.Still I would look forward to being able to take your and your spikey haired mutant friends EARS as trophies in our brave new world. Bit hard to take a skinhead for a scalp :} BTW I DO like the AK as well as the M16.horses for courses .Have used both in military situations. Have you?Prefer a good German HK G3.It isnt spray and pray that does it .Anarchist tactic at shooting. But semi well placed shots.I outgun you by 400 meters with the G3.but then I figured a AK would appeal to a anacho like you :} Ever hear a gut shot person scream??I have .It is NASTY and unnerveing. HOOOOOBAA Roll on the crunch.

Nemo impunie lacessit

by Seáinín Sat Aug 09, 2003 02:12

I do think that stopping the spread of Communism was the primary reason for US foreign intervention during the Cold War. Maxibullian would have us believe that "rolling back the red threat ...was just bullshit". While this is a powerful argument I would draw his attention to Kruschev's remark "we will bury you" which is nothing if not a declaration of intent.

The Cold War was real for all the proxy nations who had to fight it. Thankfully the good guys won.

Lone Gunman,
It's NEMO ME IMPUNE LACESSIT.

by P. O'Mannon Sat Aug 09, 2003 15:33

Graham, I would like you to explain what is reality, please. Briely tell us what the reality of the situation in Mexico, Indonesia, Liberia, the middle east, Bolivia, Britain and the US is. then tell us what your understanding is of the american governments intentions in relation to some or all of these regions of the world. Then explain why, if they intended to or not, it is wrong to assert that some american influence/intravention has had some bearing on the 'situation' in Mexico, Bolivia, the middle east or specifically Liberia. Also please admit that the US have ulterior motives for NOT intervening in a tension stricken US colony. Please also admit that it is unjustified to call other commentors 'neo cons'. You have a wealth of information and a valid opinion but your beligerence is to say the least provocative and i believe intentionally so. Wind your neck in boy, stick to what your good at and accept other peoples opinions. But above all please tell me everything i have asked of you above.

by Phuq Hedd Sat Aug 09, 2003 18:17

QUOTE:Do you really think that the American government intentionally destabilised West Africa for the past 12 years so that it could send a few thousand troops in in 2003?

ANSWER:And where has anyone said that? Just in case you are actually serious and not just trying to get a rise out of the other thoughtful contributors to the thread the argument is as follows:

The USA is a colonial power. It has a long history of intervention in other countries. It does not seek inhumanity and barbarism for their own sake: these are instead the unfortunate and unavoidable consequences of a wealth extraction mechanism. That mechanism favours expeditious support of individuals and governments that will co-operate with the USA in selling their countries' resources cheaply. Their commitment to democracy and freedom and human rights is a secondary consideration. In an ideal world these governments and individuals would also be freedom-loving humanitarians. It's just too bad they aren't and that they have to be tough to suppress the selfish aboriginals that want to sell their resources at a higher price. This situation has existed for a long time. Sometimes the exploitation needs more bloodshed. Sometimes the individuals and governments lose sight of their position as servants of a higher power and have to be deposed. No one in the US government wants this, but it has to be done. And with the current system it will happen again and again.

QUOTE:Wow!!
ANSWER: Like... wow!... like thanks Graham for the like you know analysis and the acceptance that other people don't agree with you.

QUOTE:Enjoy the ideological bullshit!
ANSWER:I'd prefer it if you kept your extremist beliefs to yourself. But thanks for sharing.

by Seáinín Sat Aug 09, 2003 21:44

According to Phuq Hedd, the only reason the US is (allegedly) supporting the LURD is because Taylor wanted better terms of trade in..... whatever Liberia is selling to the US.

Interesting. So is there any corrobaration of this story apart from certain people's suspicions.

by Daniesha L. Sat Aug 09, 2003 21:45

I want to thank Chekov for his very informative posts. I have studied the issue of revolution and uprisings in West Africa, and delivered papers on this issue at academic conferences. I will throw my two cents in here. Most of my research has been done on Congo-Kinshasa. I agree with Chekov. Is it not strange, he asked, that the war in Congo never merited the media attention that Liberia is getting now? Two to Three million dead in Congo, and hardly a word in the US corporate media. Why? This is partly because the US supported one the trouble makers in that war, mainly Uganda (which played the role in that conflict which Guinea is playing in this war). The US and France backed CongoÕs Eastern neighbors in their proxy war to gain control over valubable mineral resources. The only reason that slaughter is coming to an end is because the West has gotten what it wants. The HUMANITARIAN CRISIS in Congo-Kinshasa was far worse than the crisis in Liberia. But not a word in US media.

In Liberia, things are somewhat different, but the pattern is the same. I completely agree with ChekovÕs analysis. Of course some people posting here labor under the illusion that there is such a thing as a humanitarian war. They sometimes cite Kosovo as an example. They need to read ChomskyÕs well documented work, entitled Kosovo, the Humanitarian war. He shows the story in detail, and unmasks all the lies which were used to justify that atrocity. The number who had been killed prior to US intervention was 2,000. And one third of these were Serbs! Meanwhile, hundreds of thousands were dying in Congo!! No need for humanitarian intervention there, of course.

Graham wrote,

Liberians would love to see their country become the 51st state.

Probaly true. But what does that prove? Look at the example of French history. It is true, after a few centuries of suffering warfare, destablization, and internecine fighting the GAULS were glad to become Roman subjects. Anyone who is harassed, divided, slaughtered for years and years, will long for peace, and surrender to the foreign power, or their surrogate. Yet let us not forget, the GAULS took the chance, when the opportunity arose, rebelled, and became independent. They rose to become the French nation, in time.

I believe that Africans will look with disgust upon everything which the White man has done to them, when they are finally free. They will, in some future time, establish themselves as liberated and independent peoples, members of the African Union, or some future continental federation. What the US had done, and what it is doing as a unilateral power, is thoroughly deplorable and barbaric. Take a look at this list of US interventions. Liberia appears on the list several times, and is called a US client state, since 1847 at least. The US has intervened in Liberia twice over the past decades. This will be the third time. Take the time to see how many times, and in how many places, the US has seen fit to intervene.

(I have abbreviated this list, just to show the historical contexts of US internventions in Liberia)

US WARS INTERVENTIONS COUPS ETC.

Here's an updated version of a data compilation--regarding united states interventionism and some basics on US imperialism--

[Note: CO refers to:

CO = reconnaissance, classical coups d etat, legal harassment, disinformation (through media, legal, NGO, student, labor, and other front groups), bribery, sabotage, assassination, proxy warfare, running ratlines for paramilitary groups, and assorted other clandestine activities]



Basic Statistics for United States Imperialism

1970 Bolivia (Ovando; reform nationalist): success (CO)
1970 Cambodia (Sihanouk; moderate/neutralist): success (CO)
1970 Chile (Allende; social democrat/Marxist): failure (SE)
1971 Bolivia (Torres; nationalist/neutralist): success (CO)
1971 Costa Rica (Figueres; reform liberal): failure (CO)


1971 LIBERIA (Tubman; rightist): success (CO)


1979 Nicaragua (Sandinistas; leftist): failure (CO)
1980 Bolivia (Siles; centrist/reform): success (CO)
1980 Iran (Khomeini; Islamic nationalist): failure (CO)
1980 Italy (*; leftist): success (SE)


1980 LIBERIA (Tolbert; rightist): success (CO)


1980 Jamaica (Manley; social democrat): success (SE)
1980 Dominica (Seraphin; leftist): success (SE)
1980 Turkey (Demirel; center-right): success (CO)
1981 Seychelles (Ren̩; socialist): failure (CO)


Client StatesÓ

1847 LIBERIA: to present

by Killian Forde Sun Aug 10, 2003 03:43

Chekov,

Firstly excellent original post and analysis of situation in Liberia, very informative. But as a former aid worker and one with experience of working for both NGOs and the UN, specifically with WFP, I have to comment of the assumption that "WFP are effectively taking orders from the US embassy in Liberia".

This I doubt a lot. During my work overseas I witnessed time and again NGO capitulating to donors demands, and in particular the demands of the US state department run, Bureau for Population,Refugees,and Migration (BPRM). These slick harvard boys would descend on countries and attempt to dictate a formulatic approach to programming. Usually the NGO would acede to almost all 'requests' that BPRM would make. In all but one case, that I saw, the alterations to programmes were to the detrement of the supposed benficiaries. And my other observations is the complete inability of BPRM and USAID to keep there noses out of any governments affairs. Really, delivering aid is a straightforward enough issue, ie ensure that the most vulnerable are supported, time and again I was agast at the interfernce of young preppy highly educated white WASPs and their arrogant solutions to any given humanitarian crisis. And yes I only ever expercienced it with the US aid delegates. In contrast other major donor countries, such as Britain, Japan, Italy and to a lesser extent France kept to their missions and focused only on the aid programs.

In contrast I saw time and again the UN agencies telling the US state department officals where to go with their 'advice'. Quite simply we ignored them and they knew better not to cause a mess by pushing it.

How does this work, you may ask. Look at the way the UN funds its aid operations. They publish appeals based on needs or anticipated needs in a given area for a certain period (from one to three years). In the case of WFP these appeals are routine and deal primarily with chronic hunger around the world. These appeals and programs are called Protracted Relief and Recovery Operations (PRROs). The other appeals that WFP engages with are called Emergency Opertions (EMOPs) and Special Operations (SOs). WFP Liberia is funded through a regional PRRO for West Africa and is presently funded up at 62% of opertional needs. 62% funding is above average for an PRRO. They also recive additonal support through two SOs, one for Liberia itself and one regional SO for West Africa.

Now to ensure that individual countries don't have an undue influence over operations WFP Funding is sourced and spread cross programmatic and cross country. This means that for example that the US government may contribute money or/and food to WFP but WFP Funding will not take certain types of donations, ie exclusive to any one area within a given country, earmarked for any one ethnic group, they only take what is known as restricted donations based on the appeal that was written by the country or regional offices. These reports which are sumitted annually to head office in Rome are based on field studies called Joint Field Needs Assesment Mission (JFNAMs). The personell involved in the JFNAM are typically made up of WFP and UN agencies with assistance provided by UN implemneting partners (the NGOs) and the Red Cross family. It is not usual for donor representatives to particpate in a JAFNAM and an additional factor used to ensure objectivity in the JFNAM is that the UN personnel are usually from outside the immediate program area. So for instance the UN personell on the West Africa JFNAM could have been made up of suitably experienced people from other parts of Africa or the UN head offices.

This factors means that food aid by WFP is based on an identified need, that need is then resourced through funding rules that make discrimination very unlikely and ensure that any one donor country attempting to influence a program will cause a diplomatic incident.

You see the whole WFP systems works like a interlocking wheel. The ships that transport the food will have been paid by America, the foodstuffs and their secondary distribution costs paid for by differnt countries (ie Oil by Greece, Flour by Ireland, Beans by France) and the staff costs paid by European Commission. This means that when a country tries to direct WFP opertions other countries get upset, and as such an outside intervention not only fails but the storm it causes acts as a disenctive to try again.

Of course the US and other donors can just not contribute to an appeal, as in DR Congo, but once a opertion, such as liberia is under way and reosurced the donor countries only way to influence the running is through the Executive Council of WFP, which is made up of diplomats from the UN members countries.The other option the US can do, and has done, in the event of WFP saying no, is that they run their own programs, this was done in Serbia when US wanted to ensure that anti-Milosevic towns recived oil and food. The US will contract out the likes of Catholic Relief Services, Mercy Corps and CARE to run the programs. The NGO will do this as food distribution programs can make a huge profit for NGOs. NGOs get paid for the program based on tonnage of food handled and distributed not on real expenses. A rate may be for the NGO to get paid $150 per ton, a NGO distributing 10,000 tons per month can 'pocket' millions over a few years.

I know this may seem very heavy on detail but having worked for the UN I have seen their good and bad points and hand on heart they are streets ahead of many of the big NGOs in terms of their ability to deliver fair programs. Yes they are slow and expensive but I feel that the advances made in the opertional side of the UN over the past 10 years means that ensuring transparency, neutarlity and independence has slowed up their repsonse time and made them less likely to undertake risky missions that the likes of MSF, Oxfam and Concern do so well.

In summary there isn't a hope in hell the american embassy were telling WFP what to do:)

by Daniesha L> Sun Aug 10, 2003 04:33

In response to the comment,


[In contrast I saw time and again the UN agencies telling the US state department officals where to go with their 'advice'.]



This proves nothing. You saw lower level UN officials telling lower level state department people where to go. But that has nothing to do with what happens on the higher levels.

If US Secretary of State tells the head of any UN agency to jump, then they jump. And if they do not jump, they are dead within months. Every Secretary General of the UN is hand picked by the US, as you well know. When the French and Americans fought over which African should be appointed as Secretary General of the UN, it was the US who won, hands down. It has to do with money and power.

A few lower level bureaucrats can cuss each other out, as long it does not affect major policy decisions. But when it comes down to the wire, the UN will do what the US says, on virtually an level.

And if they cannot go through channels, there is always bribery, coercion, threats, and variety of techniques which can be used.

If the US WANTED to manufacture a humanitarian crisis in Liberia, they could with only a few million dollars.

I'm with Chekov.

by Killian Forde Sun Aug 10, 2003 06:07

I made the post a detailed as I could hoping that in the, seemingly, vain hope that I wouldn't get a retorical answer such as the "US can tell the UN what to do" like above.

One of the main points I am trying to make is that the US embassy in Monrovia will not be able to direct the WFP mission in Monrovia. I specifically pointed out what the US have done, in for example Serbia, when they want to run 'political' programs. I was hoping that it would be clear from my post that the US does not need to be able to control WFP to run these types of selective targeting, not based on needs, programs.

Given that ICRC are a implementing partner of WFP in Liberia are you telling me that you think that ICRC would operate a program for WFP in Liberia that was being effectively directed by the US embassy?

As, I hope, is clear from my first post I have no respect or love of USAID, State Dept, BPRM or FFP, but I do know how the UN operates it humanitarian programs, having worked for them, and worked for the one of the worlds leading food aid research and advocacy groups (The Emergency Nutrition Network) from 1996-2001. What you need to understand that their are two main sides to the UN, one is political and the other is its humanitarian side.

The political side includes; the SGs office, Security Council, General Assembly, UN peacekeeping office and also UNDP, UNHCHR and to a lesser extent UNESCO. On the other hand you have the humanitarian agencies; UNHCR, UNWFP and to a lesse extent UNICEF. Nominally the SG is the 'boss' of all that but in reality the humanitarian agencies operate and communicate at different levels. So poor was the communiction that in mid 90's the SG set up another new agency called OCHA (office co-ordination of humanitarian affairs) they were mandated to do as the name suggested, they reported directly to the SG office. OCHA was set up as a mechanism for the SG to gain greater control over the humanitarian arms of the UN. It has not worked as it suffers chronic funding problems and as such finds it impossible to get money to send personnel into the field. In repsonse the SG office has been reduced to appointing Special Rappoteurs who in practice tend to be old diplomats posted in NYC who swan around the world on gladhandling excercises to the field.

The SG of the UN controls and has a relationship with the WFP office in Liberia in the same way that Bertie Ahern does with Wexford hospital. In the same way that the triad Nurse in wexford doesn't ask the concussion victim does he vote Fianna Fail, WFP don't ask the hungry in Liberia do they support Taylor, Bush or the PNAC.

WFP have total operational freedom in the fields, they are restrained only by a budget and the proposed interventions, in WFPs case their PRROs, EMOPs and SOs, these are all pubclially available at www.wfp.org Maybe you can read them and tell me where you see the hand of influence of either the US (any branch of their State) or even the Secretary Generals office.

Simply put there are far two many control mechansims in place within WFP that can lead to any one country directing their operations. If this goes on, then point out the whistleblowers becasue I know of no reports from WFP officals, Red Cross officals or, UN implementing partners accusing any WFP office anywhere of been directed by the local US embassy. Nor am I aware of any retired, resigned, fired or current WFP staff who have accused the organisations of running programs in direct oppostion of their mandate ie to provide food to the most vulnerbale.

As pointed out above if the US wants some credible NGO to do there dirty work, they have a choice of dozens of household, respected and clean charities only too willing to do a job for them.

by Chekov Sun Aug 10, 2003 22:26

Graham, I'll respond to your comments primarily rather than other people's, since not only do you seem to be the best informed person about the details of the situation in the region, but I'd say that you are the only person arguing against me who is motivated by any concern for humanity. I also think that your point of view is spectacularly misguided.

Firstly, I should say that the first 6 paragraphs of your first comment are, in my opinion, a very accurate description of the details of the situation in SL/Liberia and none of it is new to me - indeed it tallies pretty closely with my descriptions of the situation. Your implication that my view of the situation is simplistic is groundless. I am attempting to paint the broad brushstrokes of a general analysis based on my (limited) knowledge of the situation there. Your assumption that I am applying an ideological model without understanding the complexity of the situation is insulting.

Furthermore, I think your tone has been in general, dismissive, blinkered. It seems to me that you probably haven't even read my articles properly. I'd say that you saw the word 'imperialist', looked no further and assumed that it was an ill-informed, formulaic analysis and ranted away. Other peoples' opinions are "ideological bullshit," while yours are "reality." At the same time you don't even bother to defend your own point of view in any real way, since it's just so obvious that you are right. I hope that I don't do you an injustice when I summarise your argument as: "people are dying so there should be foreign intervention." This position rests on a number of assumptions which are IMHO purely ideological and pre-programmed, without any grounding in reality. However, since these assumptions are part of the ideological underpinning of liberal capitalism, they rarely have to be defended. Anybody who disagrees is a fantasist, ideologically pre-programmed and so on. Normally it is right wing op-ed writers who have the job of blindly re-asserting these assumptions, but liberals can also play their part in defending these "unspoken truths," to borrow a phrase from Chomsky. Having said all that, I'll try to outline precisely what I think your ideological assumptions are, and why I think they do not correspond very well with reality. I will try to stick to what you actually wrote.

First, something that particularly stuck in the craw from your comments:
You say: "According to a Sierra Leonean friend (a barrister who is very politically involved), Sierra Leone has been effectively recolonised by the British - and this is a very positive thing."
Then: "For now I'll ignore your insinuations that my position is due to support for imperialism, since they are clearly unthinking." It would be harder to find a clearer support for imperialism than that which you wrote, so I don't think you can call anybody unthinking for assuming that you meant it! Maybe you can explain how your position differs from support for imperialism? Also, the opinion of a Freetown lawyer, (in the top 0.5% of the population economically), is not necessarily representative of the country, especially the upcountry peasantry, who I'm sure you know have had a difficult relationship with the Freetown elite since the 18th century.

To the nub of the matter: you think that there should be international intervention on humanitarian grounds in Liberia. The major assumption that this rests on is that there exists a force in the world that could intervene on humanitarian grounds. I think that the most cursory glance through the history of military interventions reveals very clearly that the deciding factor is whether it is in the "national interest" of the intervening force, which is always one of the big powers (known as imperialists in more honest days). To be blunt, the humanitarian situation is simply not a factor. You can call, demand and implore the US to intervene as long as you want. You can say they SHOULD intervene, and of course they should, but they don't care about shoulds. The point is that they will only intervene if it is in their interest to do so. It'd be great if there was a genuinely neutral body that did intervene internationally to avert such crises (and you'd find me outside their door tomorrow with a long list of petitions), but sadly there isn't and no amount of wishful thinking is going to turn the US / UN or Executive Outcomes into it. You might as well call on the Borg to intervene - it'd be exactly as effective. If you care to look at the history of France in Africa, even restricting yourself to the "more enlightened" post-colonial period, you find that of the at least 36 French military interventions, in exactly zero cases can one plausibly claim that humanitarian concerns were a significant factor in the decision to go in. I'm sure you are aware that the US record is no better. Maybe this time it will be different, but I prefer to live in the real world and assume that the US state has not suddenly transformed itself into an altruistic entity and that intervention will only happen if it is in US interests.

A second assumption of your position is that an intervention will cause the humanitarian situation to improve. At least you do acknowledge this assumption and provide some argument for it, namely that the mercenary intervention (which seems to have been organised by the Brits as with the earlier mercenary operations under Sandline during the arms embargo) and then British interventions in SL did indeed improve the situation there. Firstly I'd say that, although it can be argued that a small number of military interventions in the modern era have had a side effect of improving the humanitarian situation (e.g. US in WW2, Vietnam in Cambodia), on balance the evidence strongly suggests that they cause the crisis to get substantially worse and more intractable. It is worth remembering that humanitarian crisis has been the principal argument for intervention in virtually every single invasion in the last century. Leopold's Belgian adventure was financed largely by public charity on the grounds of improving the appalling situation of the natives, and we all remember what a triumph that was. Vietnam, Rwanda, Afghanistan, Somalia and Mozambique are just a few names from the long list of humanitarian "triumphs" since then. Maybe you could argue that the situation is so dire that it could hardly get any worse, but the US intervention in Somalia demonstrated pretty clearly that, no matter how bad the situation, the introduction of the vast firepower that the imperialist countries can bring to bear can always make things worse.

With regards to the particular case of Sierra Leone, I think it is too early to draw any conclusions as to the humanitarian effect. Certainly, there is no doubt whatsoever that the people weren't delighted to see the back of Sankoh, Bokary and the rest of the RUF warlords. There is also no doubt that a lot of people were killed in the intervention. I'd say that you'll have to wait to see how things pan out before you can try to answer whether that was worth it. The new-found "stability" is hardly that durable. The peacekeepers are not likely to solve the underlying problems that allow such wars to break out and such murderous groups to grow. The primary problem is economic desperation. This is compounded by the ease with which external powers can destabilise regimes that displease them. So we get the big powers making the economic rules which guarantee a desperate economic situation, then being able to use this desperation to destroy anybody who disobeys the rules. The peacekeepers aren't going to do anything about solving this grave problem for African people, they'll just intimidate the desperation into silence for as long as they stay, and they won't stay forever. The idea that the problem might be solved by the people learning from the civilised administration of the occupiers was soundly refuted by 7 decades of colonial rule. When the peacekeepers leave, you are pretty much back to where you started, with nothing solved. The fact that post-colonial Africa has not managed to come up with a single, stable, democratic state, suggests to me that the problem runs pretty deep and that the breathing space afforded by peacekeepers will not make it go away.

One alternative is to leave peacekeepers there forever as an international ruling power (like in Bosnia or Kosovo), a reversion to direct colonial rule, but with the white man's burden shared among an international force. Aside from all rights and wrongs, I can't see this happening in West Africa, since it would be too expensive to maintain to be worth the return for the big powers. As I said before, I believe that the main factor in the SL intervention was the desire to check Taylor's expansion in the region (more on this below). Once Taylor is got rid of, I can see the tap being turned off on that peacekeeping budget and power reverting to a strong man of the US/UK's choosing. Even if the peacekeepers stay on indefinitely, they will have to progressively turn themselves into the strong man. It is quite usual for there to be a period of relative humanitarian calm after an imperial invasion as the old regimes' tools of oppression are removed and it takes a while for the new force to assert itself. But before too long they come to be seen for what they are, the enforcers of the grossly unfair distribution of power and wealth that the people have to put up with. Come back to Sierra Leone in 5 or 10 years and see if the intervention solved anything. Before that, we have to say that the jury is out.

The fact that your friends from Sierra Leone and Liberia support a US invasion doesn't tell us much by itself. The truth is that most people believe that the US, UN, UK and other imperialist powers are bodies that will intervene to avert humanitarian crises. Indeed, as I said above, this is one of the unspoken truths of liberal capitalism, such a deeply held assumption that intelligent people feel justified in mocking those who don't accept it as fantastical ideologues, without any further argument. Therefore, since the vast majority of people think that such an intervention is possible, they will obviously call for it. This myth of liberal imperialism is so strong that the British army's intervention in the north was warmly welcomed by the majority of nationalists, even though they must have had a relatively clear view of Britain's historical relationship to the 6 counties. Many Iraqis welcomed the US invasion despite the fact that they must have understood that they came for oil, not democracy. Little wonder then that the people of SL and Liberia should support such intervention given that the motives and machinations of the big powers are much less obvious there.

Again the fact that most people from Sierra Leone would like to be the 51st state of the US, is not very revealing. The situation is the same in virtually all third world countries. The US markets the idea of the American way of life very successfully internationally. Even in Cuba, where the state makes every attempt possible to cut people off from US influences, kids on the streets chalk little NIKE swooshtikas on the sidewalks and NBA players and gangster rappers are popular heroes. In Cuba, the fact that the US state is actively attacking the population's lives is very well known, but still the power of the American dream lives on, little wonder that it is so much stronger in Liberia.

What I find so frustrating about your position is that your wishful thinking allows you to be manipulated into doing the work of the imperialists. You probably realise that the US invades other countries to increase its power and wealth. You surely know that they always declare humanitarian motives and that these are always highly dubious. You surely also realise that the US administration has the ability to manipulate the media and cause certain international problems to be highlighted while others, far worse, are never mentioned. Yet you blindly support them. Why is intervention in Liberia being talked about now and not in the Congo? Why did we hear nothing about Taylor's and Savimbi's blood diamonds for years while they were useful to the US, then suddenly see it all over the press when they switched sides? Why did the US block intervention in Rwanda, while the French intervened on the side of the 'baddies?' Why weren't people talking about intervention in Liberia and Sierra Leone in the early 1990s when the situation was just as bad?

When such intervention is being talked about in the media, you have to ask, "why this? why now?" The answer is almost always because it is in the interests of one of the big powers to intervene, and they want to enlist the liberal humanitarians as cheerleaders for their invasion. Without a general analysis of imperialism, and the relation of powerful states to weaker ones, you get sucked in again and again. Even in Iraq where they hardly bothered with the humanitarian angle, many people got sucked in under the guise of "somebody's got to do something about Saddam." It's impossible to find a country where you can't make a good claim that 'something should be done', the thing is you only hear these claims in the media when some big power wants to do something for their own selfish interests. Although it was phrased as satire (which by the way is no justification for dismissing it as trolling), I think Joe makes a good point when he alludes to paratroopers intervening in Ireland to save us from corruption. If the US/UK needed to replace our government urgently for some important strategic reason, I'm sure we'd see stories all over the airwaves, urging intervention to save the Irish people from being held to ransom by a corrupt kleptocracy (if only!). Imagine if it was discovered that Ireland sits atop the largest reserves of oil in the world. Imagine if the Greens were in power and decided to leave it untapped for environmental reasons (I know it's pretty far fetched, but it's an extreme example). I could see the paras coming in pretty snappily then!

Onto another point that Graham made: "The difference between American intervention in Iraq and in Liberia is that the invasion of Iraq was illegal but intervention in Liberia wouldn't be. Most of the world was against the American invasion of Iraq, which was why it never got UNSC approval." The US came very close to gaining security council approval and obviously believed that they would get it. Would the war have been justified if they had been able to come up with the numbers? Also, I'd say that the fact that most of the world was against the war can not explain the failure to get UNSC backing. Many of the governments who did back the war also saw the most powerful opposition at home. It's hard to believe that Anzar of Spain felt able to stand up to 95% of the population and one of the largest protest movements the country had ever seen, while Biya of Cameroon and Conte of Guinea felt compelled to obey their populations who don't have the least expectation that their leaders will listen to them and have much more pressing concerns at home anyway. I think a much more likely explanation is the opposition of France (again for opportunistic, non-humanitarian reasons) and in particular the fact that they were able to apply more pressure to Guinea and Cameroon than the yanks were.

In any case, it is a fantasy to believe that there is any such thing as international law in any meaningful sense. Very few of the post-war interventions by the big powers have been okayed by the security council. Similarly very few of the UNSC resolutions that have been ignored have led to interventions. Thus it seems obvious that legality is not an important factor in whether an intervention happens or not. Again you can argue all you like that legality should be followed, but I prefer to deal with reality and try to understand why it happens the way it does, not how it should.

That pretty much sums up disagreements with Graham's assertion that the US should intervene, and why I believe that he is in practice supporting imperialism. Now I'll try again to explain what I mean when I say the US _is_ already intervening in Liberia. To do this I'll have to explain my understanding of the imperialist relations between the big powers and the West African nations in some detail, to make my point of view less likely to be belittled as an ideological simplification.

The process of de-colonisation was very partial in Africa. The old colonial powers more or less got to choose the political boundaries, constitutions, presidents and economic structures of the new countries and naturally this gave them a high level of control. The control has, if anything got tighter in the decades since independence, although somewhat less obvious. France's role is clearest. The ex-French colonies of West and Central Africa, (minus Guinea, plus Guinea-Bissau), are part of the CFA (Communite Financiere Africaine). This links their currency (CFA franc or ceyfa) to the french franc (now euro). Half of their foreign reserves are kept in Paris and the french government reserves the right to unilaterally revalue their currency, as they did in 1995, cutting the purchasing power of Africans by 50% and provoking riots across the region. Alongside their economic control, they reserve the right to intervene militarily. They have done so at least 36 times since independence, most recently when they intervened to save Gbagbo last year in Cote D'Ivoire. Now, if you give me control of your economy and I can invade whenever I choose, you are going to do pretty much what I want you to - that's just the way it works.

The other great colonial power, the UK, after the second world war, adapted to their new role as junior partners to the US, and it is today difficult to distinguish between US & UK policy in Africa. Rather than running the countries directly like France, they have preferred to wield their power through the international financial institutions like the IMF and World Bank, which they control (1 dollar 1 vote). They have also tended to prefer the use of proxy armies over direct military intervention (although they still reserve that option). UNITA, the Sudanese SPLA and the Rwandan RPF are some of the best known proxy armies which have been trained, financed and armed by the US/UK.

The end of the cold war did have an impact on imperial relations in Africa, although the USSR was never a threat there. They never had much influence on the continent. It's hard to have a state dictatorship when the state barely exists. The real threat was independent development beyond the control of the West, the creation of indigenous industry and import substitution as typified by Nkrumah, Nyere and their ilk. The African debt crisis of the early 80's and the collapse of the soviet block, which removed the only alternative trading block, also removed the possibility of any level of economic independence.

Most of the countries of Africa today are of marginal interest to global capitalism beyond the production of a few key commodities. Therefore, with the threat of any independent course removed, the imperial powers aren't going to spend a whole lot of money ensuring that things run smoothly in countries like Liberia. Diamonds are the only thing of much value that come out of the place and they have a way of finding their way to the West. If the government gets disobedient, they find a new strong man (there are always many applicants) and give him a few millions to recruit some drugged up gang of desperate rebels to put him in power. They reserve the right to step in at any stage if it suddenly becomes useful to them, but in the meantime they don't real care if gangsters like Doe, Johnson or Taylor drown the place in blood. That's not to say that they aren't still in control. They jealously guard their control against imperial opponents. If the LURD were, for example, funded by China, you'd see a very different response to the crisis from the US! This is clearly evident in the rivalry between the US and France for dominance in a few key areas. The Rwandan genocide and the last 3 years of conflict in Cote D'Ivoire are largely attributable to this imperial rivalry. A fuller explanation is here: http://struggle.ws/africa/accounts/chekov/divisions_class_feb01.html. If you don't accept the existence of this rivalry, these events are impossible to explain.

Although some people have challenged the notion that Liberia is US turf, it's not that controversial an idea. When Ed Royce, Republican chair of the US house sub-committee on Africa, talks about the US presence in Liberia since 1820, nobody seems to think it too strange. Liberians talk about: "the 180 years of traditional relations their country has had with the United States", and everyone knows what they're talking about. When Britain's UN ambassador, Jeremy Greenstock, called the United States "the natural candidate" to intervene, it passed without too much comment. When George Bush repeatedly called for the president to leave the country before any peacekeepers could be deployed, the same president that the US had declared the winner of free and fair elections (albeit dubiously), everybody seemed to understand why he was intervening, rather than Chirac. Liberia _is_ US turf. They may not really care what goes on there most of the time, but they still have the unchallenged ability to shape the country as they want, if and whenever it is useful to them.

The fact that the US _is_ intervening in Liberia is very much a public record, mock me as you will. Bush has several times publicly demanded that Taylor quit before peacekeepers arrive. Most recently on July 9th: "Bush, speaking from Pretoria in South Africa, on Wednesday again demanded that Taylor leave office. "We have made a commitment that we will work closely with the United Nations and ECOWAS to enforce the cease-fire, see to it that Taylor leaves office so that there can be a peaceful transition in Liberia, Bush said."

It still seems possible that Taylor will obey - quite a testament to the force of their intervention if they can simply order an African president out of office. The US has also pushed a resolution through the security council authorising military intervention by an ECOWAS force in Liberia and this force has already started to arrive. If the US hadn't wanted these things to happen, they wouldn't have. They have intervened, it has had an effect. There are currently three ships of marines off Monrovia, if the peacekeepers don't succeed in ousting Taylor, they will invade to remove him. Their mission will not have anything to do with improving the humanitarian crisis, but will be aimed at replacing Taylor. This is what all the evidence suggests that they are up to and I see no reason for this to change if they opt for a direct invasion rather than proxy war.

The intervention is, as I have said, primarily motivated by a desire to replace Taylor, since he stepped out of line by launching proxy wars without their permission (not as Graham says above the desire to check French influence). This is again not very controversial. Ed Royce, has been openly talking about this need for a long time:

"Defeating the RUF requires neutralising Liberia. Liberian President Charles Taylor, who himself fought his way to power and governs through intimidation, has long supported the RUF, supplying it with weapons in exchange for diamonds, despite Liberia itself being under a UN arms embargo. President Taylor should be ostracized, and more. He should be made to realize that the US has the ability and the will to undermine his rule should his support of RUF continue".

A Stratfor (one of the world's leading global intelligence firms) document on policy.org, written in 2001, also seems to think that the US are motivated by a desire to check Taylor's expansion, and accurately predicts the consequences of Taylor's push into the diamond areas of Guinea:

"the strategy could prove dangerous, bringing Taylor up against one of Guinea's strongest allies - the United States. Washington has remained largely uninvolved in the long-standing conflicts consuming much of West Africa. But a U.S. administration change and the expansion of fighting into mineral-rich Guinea could lead to a shift in U.S. policy. Washington will likely provide military assistance to the government in Conakry, Guinea's capital. It may also encourage a rebellion in neighboring Liberia in an attempt to oust President Charles Taylor, the driving force behind the region's conflicts. Aimed at securing long-term U.S. mining interests in Guinea, U.S. involvement could heighten regional tensions and lead to full-scale regional war."

The Liberian government also seems to believe that the US is behind the recent upsurge in violence in Liberia: "Passawe, [The Press Secretary to the President] who said he was talking to allAfrica "with President Taylor's voice," called the conflict in Liberia, "a proxy war." Claiming to have "direct evidence," he accused the United States of backing the Liberian rebels. Pressed on the point, Passawe said aid money given to neighboring Guinea by the United States was being used by Lurd rebels to lease armaments with U.S. knowledge. What is going on in Liberia "is not a matter of bad governance," said Passawe, "but a policy of 'regime change' in the form of a proxy war."

So, this theory is supported by Human rights reports from the region, by the Liberian government (who later brought a complaint to the UNSC with predictable results), by the predictions of well informed policy analysts, by the strategic imperatives of the US as described by the administration themselves, and most importantly by what the administration is actually doing. It is hard to escape the conclusion that this is what is going on.

But, so what if the US is engaging in a proxy war, does this make them responsible for the humanitarian crisis?

Firstly, the civil war is the main cause of the acute crisis and therefore those responsible for launching it (the US) are at least partially to blame.

Secondly, the LURD are nothing more than a bunch of gangsters, with no political programme, merely attempting to sieze the country's resources from Taylor. Their campaign has been based on terror, pure and simple. Press ganging children into their army, keeping their troops high on drugs, massacring villagers and requisitioning their food, thereby ensuring a mass exodus into the capital, shelling civilian areas and so on. The US has refused to condemn their abuses, which is pretty much the same as telling them to continue with them (since the US is calling the shots). In fact I wouldn't be surprised if the same CIA advisers who came up with Savimbi's strategy in Angola weren't pulling the strings in the LURD camp now.

Furthermore, the US has been actively trying to scupper any chances of a peace deal between Taylor and the rebels. Quoting Saturday's Guardian: "The present heightened crisis began two months ago. On June 4, talks were scheduled to start in Ghana between Taylor and the two rebel groups, under the aegis of ECOWAS. On that same day, David Crane, the US prosecutor of the UN-backed Sierra Leone war crimes tribunal, announced that Taylor had been indicted for crimes against humanity during Sierra Leone's civil war. Taylor speedily returned to Monrovia. Nigeria at this point suggested that he stand down as president in return for asylum in Nigeria, thus avoiding the war crimes charges. Taylor agreed in principle." The US has since blocked this deal, meaning that the bloody war will probably continue.

There is also the matter of the lack of food in government controlled areas. As I said above, I think that it is likely that the US has purposely guaranteed that the refugees in Monrovia are cut off from food supplies, to undermine the government's ability to last a siege. This is, of course, very difficult to prove one way or another. It seems to me to be very unlikely that the WFP would let all their food supplies fall into rebel hands, when they had almost 2 months to move it. The rebels took the port area of Monrovia twice temporarily, before they finally seized it on July 19th - first on June 5th, then 3 weeks later, All the other aid agencies moved their supplies in the intervening period. This wouldn't have required a huge conspiracy in the WFP. The big UN Agencies are very bureaucratic and it could have been caused by a delay in signing authorisation papers by a single high-ranking US official within the UNDP, with nobody else the wiser and without the need for the US to have any type of policy setting ability for the UN agencies (which I do agree are very much independent by design). Maybe this is a bridge too far and I'm just too cynical, but it's not crucial to the theory.

Finally, to say a few things about the NGOs in West Africa. I am primarily talking about the big UN agencies since they are the only ones that count in the grand scheme of things: the WFP, WHO, WAO, UNHCR, UNICEF & UNDP. I have written some comments on why I think they are counter-productive on balance for Africa at: http://struggle.ws/africa/accounts/chekov/bukina.html (section 3). To go into it in great depth would be a long essay of itself. What I can add is that when I was in the region, I heard persistent reports of a deep level of corruption among UN workers in the field. Several aid workers claimed to me that the aid agency staff were routinely involved in sexual exploitation of Africans and that this was even seen to be a perk of the job. At the time I didn't give too much credence to the claims, since they seemed a little too far-fetched. However, since then several scandals have come to light, including the revelation that UNHCR staff were involved in the routine trading of food for sexual favours in the refugee camp in Sierra Leone and that this was organised on a very wide and systematic scale. http://www.reliefweb.int/w/rwb.nsf/0/66e714a56e425cc085256b720059750c?OpenDocument. I don't believe that there have been any significant reforms since, and I'd say that the big aid agencies are so deeply corrupt that they are a big part of the problem. I don't rule out the chance that some of the smaller operations are useful in some ways (although the church based ones routinely practice food for conversion programmes), however even when they do set up useful sustainable development projects they are swept away every time a Western administration decides to engage in a bit of destabilisation. Overall the balance of Western involvement in Africa is extraordinarily negative. As I said before the best thing we can do for Africa is to try to stop our governments having anything at all to do with the place. Even what we call aid is another tool of oppression and violence.

by Graham Mon Aug 11, 2003 04:07

Thank you very much for your long and thought-out post. Its unfortunate that you percieved my comments as being directed at you - they weren't. I found your original post comprehensive, thoughtful and generally accurate. My comments were directed at other posters, namely 'Joe' and 'Phuq Hedd' and I am indeed dismissive of their comments, as they have been of mine.

You are absolutely correct to summarise my argument as "people are dying so there should be foreign intervention", although I would expand it to "people are dying and those people and the UN want foreign intervention so there should be foreign intervention".

My Barrister friend is not Krio (he's Mende) and he is not wealthy, even in Sierra Leoneon terms (although he's certainly much better educated than most). He is politically active throughout the south of the country and is as in touch with the grassroots there (certainly the Mende grassroots) as anybody. He's not an 'elite' by any means (unless getting an education makes you elite) and has given his life to help the people he comes from. Don't stereotype him just because he's a barrister.

I think that ANY military force COULD intervene on humanitarian grounds. Whether the powers behind that force WOULD intervene is another story. I don't think that the US will intervene in Liberia because they have no interest there. Nevertheless I think they SHOULD intervene - I think that intervention would be the right thing to do. (I also think that US intervention in Somalia was motivated by humanitarianism - perhaps uniquely. I also agree that it turned into a disaster for all concerned). I live in "the real world" and have a healthy respect for American self-interest, but I also do not believe that America has any self-interest in intervening in Liberia.

I suppose that's my basic point. Its late and I have to be up early and away for a few days, so I can't respond to each point of your long post. Let me just summarise what I think/know of the situation:

-People I know who are very decent, egalitarian and politically aware in Sierra Leone (i.e. who I respect as aware humanitarians) support British intervention as the best thing that has happened in a decade. Since I know how skewed views can get when you're not on the scene, I pay these people a lot of attention.

-Liberian refugees whom I know and respect badly do want America to intervene. So does Kofi Annan, whose opinion I also respect. Media reports suggest that most Liberians think likewise. They know what's best for them so I would go with their opinion.

-Charles Taylor is a monster (you should see the video of what he did to his predecessor). He is responsible for some of the most horrific nightmares in recent years and should be brought to the Hague for trial.

-I can see no American self-interest to be served by intervening in Liberia (which is ,no doubt, why they are so reluctant to go in, despite half the world begging them to do so).

While there is certainly much truth in what you say about what Europeans have done to Africa, and intervention is most likely not a long term solution, I don't really care. The bottom line is that, if my daughters were being raped and my sons were being drugged and given guns I'd welcome anybody who could stop it and I wouldn't find the history of colonialism, or the interests of the United States, or the solutions to Africa's problems of the slightest relevance.

When I was in Sierra Leone it was at the bottom of the UNDP's human development index (and probably still is) but the peaceful areas were still a paradise compared to the war zone. Whatever else happens, stopping the war should be the first priority for any humanitarian. The fastest way that can happen, the better, and in this case that means US intervention.

So, in my (not completely uninformed) opinion, humanitarianism would be served by American intervention in Liberia.

by iosaf Mon Aug 11, 2003 10:16

last comment from Gr. at 3am. unless he has flown off to Canada or something that means he was up late.- & so was I.
The newswires and comercial media tell us that Taylor will leave Liberia at 13h00 GMT today.
In his televised resignation he has maintained that he is not going by will, and claimed "the world's only superpower has forced me to go"[sic] he then claimed that the UN had used food and thus hunger as a weapon.
UN reports have concentrated on the terrible situation of child soldiers.
What comes now, is the disarming of teenagers.
What comes now, is the systematic killing of teenagers.
I defy anyone to claim that rival factions may be "disarmed" voluntarily.

by Phuq Hedd Mon Aug 11, 2003 19:01

QUOTE: My comments were directed at other posters, namely 'Joe' and 'Phuq Hedd' and I am indeed dismissive of their comments, as they have been of mine. ANSWER: Any dismissiveness in my posts came after your awful response to my polite disagreement with you. QUOTE: I think that ANY military force COULD intervene on humanitarian grounds. Whether the powers behind that force WOULD intervene is another story. I don't think that the US will intervene in Liberia because they have no interest there. ANSWER: It's already been demonstrated above that the US is intervening and that the current situation is a result of that intervention. You keep on avoiding this point: this crisis _is_ intervention. QUOTE:-I can see no American self-interest to be served by intervening in Liberia (which is ,no doubt, why they are so reluctant to go in, despite half the world begging them to do so). ANSWER: Given that Chekov appears to admit that there are no interesting resources in Liberia I'd be interested to know what the "American self-interest" is too.

by Yossarian Mon Aug 11, 2003 19:18

Acording to Yahoo news, Taylor "...remained defiant to the end, on Sunday calling the rebel uprising an "American war" and suggesting it was motivated by U.S. eagerness for Liberia's gold, diamonds and other reserves. "

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=1&u=/ap/20030811/ap_on_re_af/liberia_030811140927

by Phuq Hedd Mon Aug 11, 2003 21:41

in a non-democratic, unstable, Western-managed, neo-colonial Liberia:
1. Firestone profits from non-unionised workforce and cheap rubber:
http://www.la.indymedia.org/news/2003/08/75494.php

2. diamonds appeared to be the main export to the EU in 1999:
http://europa.eu.int/comm/development/development_old/stat/extrd99/import/lr.htm

3. looks like the "stable" Taylor regime were a good source of that hard-to-find rainforest timber:
http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=16437
and accounted for up to 25% of it's exports:
http://www.forestworld.com/public/country/Liberia/Liberia_fd.html

by io Mon Aug 11, 2003 21:47

and don't forget the flags of convenience.

by Chekov Tue Aug 12, 2003 02:08

It might be useful at some time in the future for launching a proxy war, positioning a spy base, they might even find something valuable there, who knows? But as long as we have it nobody else can.

As I say the war is mostly about replacing Taylor after he was bold in Guinea and Sierra Leone. The diamond exports are not that significant themselves, and the other exports (wood, gold) are miniscule in world terms. This is in the context of the US/UK reasserting control in Sierra Leone and especially Guinea since they found _significant_ reserves of diamonds there in the mid 90s. For Liberia itself, it's just a little bit of empire that could be useful to them some day, so they have to make sure that they can control it. They won't commit any troops to it (except just maybe for an assault on taylor if he won't go). The diamond revenues will pay the ECOMOG force to guard the mines and will keep whatever new regime of gangsters is installed in snappy suits and the US won't have to think about it until they need it next time or have to launch yet another proxy war to change the government if it misbehaves.

by Seáinín Tue Aug 12, 2003 02:50

Nobody seems to have yet mentioned that LURD have a strong Muslim element and have received arms from Muslim countries such as United Arab Emirates. Also, it ought to be mentioned that Gaddafi has been supporting Taylor for years. In addition to Gadaffi, Taylor has been buying arms (financed by diamond smuggling) from Eastern European private arms dealers such as Victor Bout.
Do a Google on him, lovely fellow by all accounts.

The US has been supplying military aid to Guinea -training and non-lethal equipment because Guinea has been supportive of peacekeeping efforts in the region, notwithstanding their support for LURD.

Someone asked "why is Liberia in the media now?" Well, because US warships are lying offshore, a Macbeth like figure was holding out in a besieged city, surrounded by his enemies. It's a good story, one that sells copy. Nothing more complicted than that.

by Gaillimhed Tue Aug 12, 2003 12:45

Imperial interests arent always short term, and not everything is connected to the 'War on terror' or whatever category the current period of US military aggression comes under. US-style 'stabilisation' and further coca-colanisation of any African states within arms reach (no pun intended) could have longer-term desirable effects with regard to opening up markets for US 'Investment'.
U.S. intervention in Liberia may be intended to function as a public relations campaign for Washington on the domestic front as well as a display of commitment for the benefit of African leaders. Remeber Shrub is only just back from his African tour and we can be sure deals were done and souls bought.
please read the report from 'Power and Interest News Report' (http://www.pinr.com) regarding Washingtons strategic interest in Liberia and the afrivcan continent in General.

http://www.pinr.com/report.php?ac=view_report&report_id=67&language_id=1

by AL - Psychosox Tue Aug 12, 2003 17:02

Rather than add another opinion this "opinion" seeks opinions on the role of NGDO's in Developing countries.
Over the past few months I have begun to rethink my understanding of NGDOs, to the point that I now wonder what their role is in this world. While, on the one hand, they act out of an apparently genuine desire to better the lives of those in developing countries, they also seem to be exporting the Western notion of 'developed' to those most vunerable. And through this notion also, apparantly inadvertantly, allow their position to be used for political purposes. Take for example Liberia, where the NGDOs are calling for 'action' to resolve the 'humanitarian crisis', which in effect justifies the mobilisation of the war machine and other political pressures to remove a brutal dictator that was up until recently payed and supported by the EU and US (http://www.indymedia.ie/newswire.php?story_id=60648)
So I wonder, are NGDO's, out of some denial of their political position, being utilised in times of military desire, and do their methods legitimise such action, i.e. in terms of how they inform the people at home, e.g. 'need for humanitarian intervention' etc in countries of political interest like Liberia yet do not do the same for countries which are not of political interest at that time yet are suffering the same if not worse crises?
The more I think of it the more confused I get!

by Ernest - non-aligned Sat Aug 16, 2003 18:41 shakleton_7 at hotmail dot com

Liberia seems to be just one of many war-torn african ex-colonial countries...
If *we* the populous of the big imperial/ex-imperial powers stopped *our* governments selling arms to these despotic rebels/governments then they would be better off and we would not have to complain about sending *our* boys off to war.
Just incase you thought that you werent included as an part of the populous of the big imperial/ex-imperial powers these powers include uk,usa,canada(they help decide the freetrade desicions),japan,S korea(they have many multinationals),australia,france,germany,italy, russia,china,india,pakistan and turkey.
i know there are more but i think that is enough to be getting on with for now.

by Seáinín Sat Aug 16, 2003 22:00

Have been chiefly fuelling the conflict in Liberia. The US suppiled nothing to Guinea but training and non-lethal equipment.

by Seanin's sexy sister Sun Aug 17, 2003 03:32

Although never formally a US colony, Liberia was effectively under American control from the 19th century on. It became a major source of rubber for the Firestone corporation from the 1920s, when the regime provided cheap labour to work the extensive plantations. Its huge iron ore deposits were exploited during the Second World War and afterwards. Whilst the population lived in poverty the US provided economic and military aid to its ruling elite throughout the postwar period. In absolute terms it received the fourth highest level of aid in sub-Saharan Africa (after Ethiopia, Congo and Sudan), and in per capita terms the highest level.

"Its importance increased during the Cold War, as it became the site of US communications facilities that spied on the whole African continent. In 1980 an army coup seized power from the William Tolbert regime. Led by Master Sergeant Samuel Doe, it had gained support because of growing poverty, a result of the declining demand for iron ore and rubber. The new elite proved even more useful to the US, with aid payments under President Reagan increasing from the $20 million of the late 1970s to a peak of $95 million—a total of $402 million between 1981 and 1985.

"Liberia became the centre for the massive CIA covert operations of that period, especially directed against Colonel Gaddafi, including operations to back the Chadian leader Hissene Habre in the war against Libya. Doe was singled out to receive special US security support, similar to that given to Mobutu in the Congo, and his clampdown against all political opponents was conveniently ignored.

"Aid to Doe’s regime was cut back at the end of the Cold War and the Liberian economy was allowed to collapse, as the US administration had no further use for it. The country descended into civil war by the 1990s.

by Humanitarian Imperialist Sun Aug 17, 2003 14:46

I completely agree with the comments by Graham, Seainin, and others. The West must intervene in Liberia to save them from themselves. Liberians will welcome this Civilizing Mission just like Iraqis are welcoming Coalition troops in Iraq--with RPGs and bullets shredding our Anglo ass.

by Seáinín Wed Aug 20, 2003 02:23

Most of the so called "resistance" in Iraq is made up of foreigners. Ordinary decent people in Iraq are happy to help out in the reconstruction of their country. Stands to reason, doesn't it?

by SEANIN BOT Wed Aug 20, 2003 12:18

SEANIN IS A TROLL.

He/She/They post(s) comments to indymedia to try to get a rise out of people and waste their time. Trolls are an unfortunate feature of the internet. The are people who abuse the open publishing systems of the internet with behaviour that is intended to be destructive, either because of a twisted personality, or a desire to destroy the project.

DO NOT RESPOND. DO NOT FEED THE TROLLS.

by Kafka Fri Aug 22, 2003 00:16

First off I want to thank Chekhov for his lucid well thought out posts. Definately better than the filler material on the IMC front-page, which sounded like the Lib-humanitarian interventionist jargon we've been getting out of some US, Canadian and British media outlets.

I agree that its not worth dialoguing with the racists and pro-imperialists on the list. They simply function from assumptions that are way off the map. As someone who has observed the operation of imperialism in the Balkans, the Andes, and the Middle East from direct experience I can say that the people supporting the intervention are echoing the views of neoliberal elites in Third World countries and that the majority of Third World peoples know who the enemy is - the USA, France, Britain, and their various satrapies.

Now the real tragedy of Liberia is that the elections scheduled for October have effectively been cancelled until late 2005/early 2006. Instead an unelected 'transitional council' has been imposed on the country, in the classic formula of post-war 'peacebuilding' regimes imposed by the USA. The contras of the LURD - if you want to see murderous thugs, just view the AP raw footage of what these guys have been doing in their neck of the woods - are now being embedded into the governance structures of Liberia, even though they have barely any popular legitimacy given that they were trained as a brutal killing machine and little more.

The government will be run by a "Chairman" and a vice-Chairman - with obvious shades of corporate governance structures - and the elected Parliament and the country's Supreme Court and constitution will be sidelined in the process. The election delay is designed to give the new government a space to dissolve the parliament, purge the judiciary, establish control over the media, incorporate US-trained operatives into the security services, and impose neoliberals in the ministries of finance, the economy, trade, etc. (as per post-war models in Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, Iraq, East Timor, Solomon Islands, etc, etc.)

This is almost the identical model used and imposed on the DR Congo, where the genocidal butchers of the RCD-Goma and MLC have been given key posts in government under intense pressure by Western governemnts.

For all those who believe in the 'humanitarian' motives of Western countries in Africa, I can only say you're severly deluded. Just consider the following record that the West has established since 1997:

- backed a coup to depose democratically elected Lissouba government in the Republic of Congo (Brazzaville) and continued support for the Sassou-Nguesso dictatorship that has taken its place

- support for the brutal regime of Ange Felix Patasse in the Central African Republic

- backing for the dictatorship of Yoweri Museveni in Uganda (which has carried out a brutal counter-insurgency in the norht and west of the country and has been implicated in the Congolese genocide and the plunder of its resources, as well as the destabilization of southern Sudan)

- backing the dictatorship of Paul Kagame (who's RPA has carried out the worst attrocities in the occupied Kivu provinces of the Congo, and has done everything to crush the indigenous Mai-Mai resistance - while imposing a fascistic/militaristic police state over Rwanda)

- supported the brutal ECOMOG intervention forces in West Africa, the Kamajor militias in Sierra Leone (who were equal to the RUF in ferocity), the brutal Conte regime in Guinea and the jingoistic, xenophobic and chauvinist governments of Ivory Coast

- support for the neoliberal regime in Ethiopia which rules by terror over the Ogaden and Oromo inhabited regions and has carried out depradations against neighboring Somalia and Eritrea

- support the one-party state in Eritrea (which has given the US vital listening posts in the red sea area) and has been a vital regional ally for Israel

- continued to fuel the war in Angola

- supported the proxy armies in the DR Congo and the pliant neoliberal 'opposition' in the country that collaborated with the occupation forces (remember 3.3 millinon peopel have died in this conflict, overwhelmingly victims of hte US-backed occupation of the eastern DRC)

- material support for the LURD

- backing the dictatorship in Mauritania, which recently crushed a popular revolt against its support for the war in Iraq

- backing the Mubarak dictatorship in Egypt

- backing the fascistic regime in Morocco and selling out the Western Sahara liberation movement (denying Saharawis their right to self-determination)

- destabilizing the Zimbabwean government to protect the interests of a racist white-settler elite and squeezing it economically (including the use of food aid as a weapon) in order to remove the democratically elected head of state - in elections ratified by most world governments, including the whole Non-Aligned Movement - and to secure Zimbabwe's withdrawal for the DRC (where Zimbabwe was invited to stop the Rwandan-Ugandan aggression)

- backed the minority putschist regime of Pierre Buyoya in Burundi which has killed hundreds of thousands in order to preserve the rule of an extremists Tutsi military faction over the whole country (after disposing of the democratically elected government in 1996)

- backed the brutal Obasanjo regime, who's forces have killed, tortured and imprisoned thousands in the Niger river delta for protesting oil exploitation and environmental dessication (and who recently stole an election and crushed national strike with lethal force against unarmed demonstrators)

- backed the corrupt government's of Zambia, Kenya, Tanzania, Swaziland, Togo etc., etc., etc.

The list can keep going. But you get the picture. The real problem in 'Africa' - adn the global South in general - is not the fact that the West hasn't intervened enough, but that it continues to consistently intervene in order to prop-up the most retrograde forces in our (meaning Southern) societies that are more than happy to serve their imperial interests. For those supporting Western intervention here in the North, you ahve to realize that you are simply supporting the brutally racist and militaristic status quo and only ensuring that hte right of African peoples to meaningful self-determination is further suppressed. Some of you are simply deluded by corporate propaganda that has sold you on the 'humanitarian' side of imperialism - nothing new there, if you look into the discourses of 19th century imperialism - or has played to residual 'Christian morality', but others are jst simply sick ass racist f*cks and imperialist nostalgics...

To a world without racism and fascism!

cheers!
Kafka

by Seáinín Fri Aug 22, 2003 22:16

If you think Mugabe was elected in free and fair elections then you've been on the spacecake. You consider that Mugabe should be left to run his country into the ground?

Buck up your ideas boy.

by Kafka Mon Aug 25, 2003 16:36

Seanin,

you're a racist genius it seems! Forget the arguments about 3-million dead in Congo, let's all bemoan the loss of a few racist white settlers in Zimbabwe and ignore the international consensus on that country outside the West. Fact is that the Non-Aligned Movement voted unanimously to recognize the elections in Zimbabwe and condemn the sanctions imposed on Zimbabwe by the main creditor countries (which have squeezed Zimbabwe to the point of starvation).

But then again, it seems that people in the BBC-brainwashed British isles seem to only care what the white elites in the EU (read Britain in this case) and in the USA had to say about the elections in Zimbabwe. We couldn't possibly trust the word of an organization comprised largely of the South's 'unwashed masses' now could we? Yes I'm sure the great 'democrats' in the MDC - with their own private militias, and funding from the West, and backing by Zimbabwe's and South Africa's white settler elites - are a much better alternative and will fix the country strait!

Your simple mind evidently follows the logic of the imperialists and neo-fascists in today's world, where every Third World problem is reduced to one bad leader of an impoverished, isolated, and continuously attacked country - Hussein, Milosevic, Mugabe, Chavez, Taylor - and the 'obvious' solution simply lies in 'regime change' engineered by Western powers (and we all see what a 'resounding success' that policy has been!). In your despicably racist way, you've hit the nail on the head! All those Third World peoples really need is a firmer 'white' hand to rule over them! You make me sick...

In the meantime, as the world's media forgets Liberia - now that Taylor has been removed and the whole point of the televisual intervention has been achieved in the sidelining of the elections - word is coming out of Liberia that the LURD/MODEL rebels seem to have staged a massacre of 1,000 Liberians in Nimba county in recent days. But don't expect the 'humanitarian interventionists' to care about that one. After all the 'war-criminal' Taylor is out of power and things are as they should be now (no need to worry about large massacres anymore, as now all mass-killings will be carried out in the name of democracy and some future common good). Oh joy!

Now that the Liberians have a really 'legitimatly' unelected President - er, sorry 'Chairman' - to rule their country they can rest assured that he will wear nice Western suits and obediantly shake hands with technocrats in Washington, New York and Brussels, like Africa's 'great democrats' Obasanjo, Mbeki, Kagame, Mubarak, and Museveni while selling off the country's resources to be managed by outsiders for the profit of outsiders! This of course is what people in Africa really want and its great that once again CNN/BBC have been able to tell us this, and that US Marines have made it into a reality....

What a wonderful world full of racist fascist imperialism you're living in Seanin...I hope you enjoy it. In the meantime spoil-sports and 'spacecadets' like myself will continue resisting it until you lock-us-up, disapear us, or worse yet. You better join the police soon - if you haven't already - since there's a lot of us dissidents, spacecadets, 'terrorists', etc. to round-up...

Salutations...

Kafka

PS> Here's the story on the wonderfully 'democratic' and 'peaceful' massacre I'm refering to now that both DEMOCRACY and PEACE have come to Liberia at the hands of the US-backed rebels....

Monday August 25, 9:07 PM
Up to a thousand villagers feared killed in Liberian massacre

Many civilians were killed and villages torched in a massacre in Nimba county northeast of Monrovia, a senior Liberian military official told AFP.

"I have received a report from our security officers that many villages there had burned down and that there have been lots of massacres," said General Benjamin Yeaten, deputy head of the government army.

"My understanding is that there was a massacre but we are not exactly sure how many people have been killed, it could be a hundred, it could be a thousand," he added, without saying who the perpetrators were.

He did say that the two main rebel groups in the country, Liberians United for Reconciliation and Democracy (LURD) and the Movement for Democracy in Liberia (MODEL), had carried out attacks in Nimba in recent days.

Citing a witness who had fled the assault at Bahn, in Nimba, 250 kilometres (150 miles) northeast of the capital Monrovia, local public radio reported that MODEL rebels had stormed the town, opening fire on the local population before disappearing back into the surrounding forest.

The attack left a thousand people dead, the witness said.

"Our information is sketchy. We know there are fightings in the area, both LURD and MODEL. LURD is fighting in Bong county and MODEL fighting in Nimba, so it's difficult to know who is who," said information minister Reginald Goodridge.

There has been sporadic fighting since the government, MODEL and LURD signed an accord on August 18 to put an end to 14 years of nearly uninterrupted civil war in Liberia.

Thousands of Liberians fled fighting south of Monrovia Sunday after reports of skirmishes between rebels and government forces.

Ross Mountain, the UN special humanitarian coordinator in Liberia, said up to 10,000 people were on the move after reports of fighting near Harbel, 65 kilometres (40 miles) south of Monrovia on the road to Buchanan.

Buchanan, the country's second port city, has been under the control of Liberia's second rebel group MODEL, since the end of July.

Meanwhile, the main rebel group LURD urged the international community to put pressure on troops still loyal to exiled president Taylor to pull out of Monrovia to allow humanitarian agencies to work in the capital.

LURD also accused the government fighters of violating a ceasefire agreement by allegedly infiltrating the lines of peacekeepers and arresting LURD soldiers.

Taylor stepped down earlier this month and agreed to leave the country for exile in Nigeria, bowing to international pressure.

by Seáinín Wed Aug 27, 2003 04:22

There's actually no evidence at all that LURD or MODEL have received any military equipment from the US or the EU. They've received some aid from Guinea, and for very good reason considering Taylor's activities in the region. We do know that LURD are using equipment supplied by the UAE and that they have received support from many Muslim countries.

Kagame won his election, as you know. Reports say that overall the elctions were fair.

by Kafka Thu Aug 28, 2003 16:25

Seainin,

if you think that a 95% vote in favor of Kagame, in a bitterly divided country like Rwanda, is an indication of a 'fair' election you're severly deluded by the prevailing doublespeak you seem to uncritically imbibe on CNN and BBC. These type of 'landslide' victories only occur in highly authoritarian countries. Fact is that most human-rights organizations have raised serious questions about the repression of opposition candidates in Rwanda and the coercion of voters. The fact that the EU and US have papered-over the serious violations perpetrated by the Kagame regime since it seized power, does little to instill confidence in their reports (which btw were mixed). Kagame is a brutal and genocidal dictator who has orchestrated the plundering and genocide in neighboring Congo.

As for your appologia for the LURD, please get a life! US and British support for the LURD is an open secret throughout West Africa. The LURD uses the same terror methods as were employed by the Contras in Nicaragua, RENAMO in Mozambique, and the RCD-Goma in the DR Congo. Observers of US covert operations don't need to wait two decades before the 'proof' is declassified to identity such activities. LURD's brutality is a hallmark of US-trained forces operating in Third World countries. While you blindly toe the neoliberal party line, Liberian civilians continue to be hounded and terrorized by the LURD and MODEL armies, with recent attacks on Gbatala and the Maimu I, II, and III refugee camps also now being threatened as well as the not so distant massacre of hundreds (perhaps up to 1,000) civilians in Nimba county. Aren't you glad that 'humanitarian intervention' has finally brought 'peace' to the people of Liberia? Give me a break Seainin, and go bother some other list with your antics. If you want to get a rise out of people go do it somewhere else...

Kafka

by Seáinín Sat Aug 30, 2003 02:04

*** grins sheepishly ***

I'm so sorry Kafka for having doubted you. There I was thinking I knew all the facts. If I had known your views were based on hearsay I would never have doubted you. Of course it must be true, after all, that what the rumours say (in your sorry little world).

In future Kakfa I will defer to you since you have access to all the hearsay. BTW, dis you ever visit that site www.whatreallyhappened.com? There's loads of interesting stories there, and they're ALL based on hearsay.

by Phuq Hedd Sun Aug 31, 2003 20:46

1. Other people claim to have landed on the moon. Neither you nor I were actually there, so it's hearsay and must be doubted ... right?

2. There's another bunch of hearsay going around (reported on an old piece of paper by someone) about how Aristotle said certain things thousands of years ago.

All lies in my opinion, and I wasn't there so it can't be proved and so I'll discard all other evidence to the contrary.

by >>>>>Seáinín Wed Sep 10, 2003 02:18

When you can't think of an argument just say something irrelevant. Great work, I hardly need to be here at all with you doing such good work for my cause.

by wizard kilo Thu Jan 15, 2004 01:32 wizardkilo at rock dot com

after being in monrovia for the sketchy days of the 'third attack', i crossed the southern front and started working in buchanan when MODEL was still fresh there.

when in the south i heard a story about the u.s. marines leaving the embassy for the first time to the cheers of the liberians who had weeks earlier piled bodies at the embassy gates of the people killed in the shelling of mamba point. as i heard it, and apparently reported on BBC, the marines formed two columns outside of the embassy in full locked & loaded combat mode. but instead of going out to sort out the mess that they began 150 years ago, they maintained their positions until a heinken truck pulled up. with all the beer safely delivered, america's finest then retreated back behind the walls to enjoy their booty.

i'm working on a documentary and would like to include this piece of foreign policy in action if --
i can get verification from someone who saw it either live or on the BBC

or better

if there is a way of getting the footage from the BBC.

many of the thoughtful postings here have a synchronicity with what i experienced happening on the ground in liberia.
america does have a responsability to liberia. and they have since they bought ,at gunpoint the land that is now monrovia for $300, and created the tribal conflicts that are still being fought over today.
and while liberia was never 'colonized', the firestone company controls a million acres of it in harbel, the world's largest rubber plantation.
(the economic hijacking of liberia is smartly outlined at http://mailman.efn.org/pipermail/pie/2003-August/000087.html)

the rubber is tapped by workers earning around $2.50/day which even for liberia's decimated economy is a shitty, unsustainable wage. it is then trucked immedialty to the port where it can be sent elsewhere for any value-added processing that might actually put wealth back into the land and the people.
this isn't a new or surprising business tatic but gets a little more gross when after almost 80 years of exploitation, the c.e.o. of firestone in liberia tried to prevent any humanitarian aid from reaching the 50,000 displaced and starving people that were running away from the brutality of the war in july and august of 2003. he specifically forced the closure of health clinics and worked hard to stop the World Food Program's distribution of food on the plantation.

a sketchy history, the continued exporting of wealth from one of the poorest nations on earth, and the notion that the shells that were landing on monrovia (including direct hits on the embassy) in july 2003 were supplied by the americans makes me think that a stronger american response than just making sure the beer is delivered would have been appropriate.

by reader Fri Aug 06, 2004 22:51

This article and all the opinion and stuff is really great to have.
I'm considerably older than you, and only started using the internet since my god-son, "bless her", bought me a computerised television set with surround sound and bass woofer.
The nieghbours complained, and since we live in a interface zone, and the closest neighbours belong to a very different cultural way of saying "keep the noise down please", I have found using your site safer.
you know how it is.

Sudan.