Tag: Liberia
Justice delayed
The conviction of former Liberian president Charles Taylor more than a decade after the war crimes he aided and abetted during the period 1996-2002 answers one important question about his role in the war in Sierra Leone: did he bear some responsibility for rebel atrocities, even if he did not command them directly or conspire to produce them? The court said yes, though an alternate judge held a dissenting view.
Judging from Helene Cooper’s graphic piece in the New York Times about her own family’s experiences, the conviction also provides an important occasion for victims. Even more than ten years after the fact, even though the indictment covered only crimes in Sierra Leone and not in Liberia, they take some satisfaction from knowing that justice has not been denied but only delayed.
But what does it do, and not do, to prevent war crimes and crimes against humanity in the future? When Charles Taylor was indicted, it was widely believed that the court action would disrupt the then ongoing process of beginning the reconstruction of Liberia. Helene Cooper notes that he was tried for crimes in Sierra Leone rather than Liberia to avoid political problems that might have arisen in the country of which he was once president. So far as I can tell, these fears have proven unfounded. Charles Taylor is not today an important political factor in a Liberia that has made substantial progress in becoming a normal, functioning country, even if a frighteningly poor one.
Many diplomats bemoan the International Criminal Court (ICC) indictment of President Omar al Bashir of Sudan, because they say it makes him hold on to power more tightly and interferes with diplomatic efforts to resolve the various conflicts embroiling his country. That view readily prevails in Syria, where President Bashar al Assad’s obvious responsibility for war crimes and crimes against humanity cannot lead to an ICC indictment because Russia will prevent the necessary referral from passing in the UN Security Council. Ugandan religious leader Joseph Kony, an ICC indictee, is still at large, despite a U.S.-aided manhunt. ICC indictment of Muammar Qaddafi, his son Saif and their security chief in Libya does not appear to have had much impact on their behavior.
So what good is an indictment that won’t produce justice for decades? It is unlikely that the indictees themselves will moderate their behavior in response to an indictment. Their discount rate is high and the results too uncertain and too far in the future to make them behave. But there are other possible benefits. First, an indictment may give pause to some of those below the top leadership, who will want to avoid also being held responsible. Second, an indictment is a concrete expression of international community will to remove a leader from power. It may not help in cutting deals, but it makes the bottom line remarkably clear.
Charles Taylor is the first head of state to be convicted since the Nuremberg trials. He is likely not the last. International justice is agonizingly slow, frustratingly incomplete, and potentially damaging to prospects for negotiated settlements. But even justice delayed can shed light on past events, moderate behavior and provide satisfaction to victims.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Harvard wins in Liberia
The November 8 runoff for President in Liberia will apparently pit Ellen Johnson Sirleaf against Winston Tubman. Nobel Prize winner Sirleaf won the first round handily, with over 40% of the votes (based on a preliminary and partial count). Election day was peaceful and the electoral mechanism seems to have performed reasonably well. The Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) observer mission said “on the whole, the elections of October 11, 2011 were conducted under acceptable conditions of freedom of voters and transparency of the process.” Maybe not the highest praise, but good for a country in dire economic conditions and still recovering from several ferocious civil wars.
This is a credit to the Harvard-educated (Kennedy School MPA) Sirleaf, who is certainly now the odds on favorite. But her opponent is not to be minimized. Also Harvard-educated (law school), he heads a ticket that includes as candidate for vice president George Weah, Liberia’s star footballer. Weah beat Sirleaf in the first round of the last presidential election but lost to her in the second. Tubman and Weah criticize Sirleaf for failing to revive the economy, tolerating corruption and once backing Charles Taylor, the former president who is on trial for war crimes. She says they would disrupt the great progress Liberia has made.
The votes of the third-place finisher, Prince Johnson, will influence the outcome. Johnson, whose iconic moment was presiding over the torture and murder of former President Doe, is now a born again Christian. I wouldn’t want to know the price of getting him to throw his support to one or the other of the candidates.
But whoever wins, the story is likely to be a relatively good one, provided the second round occurs in the same fairly benign atmosphere that prevailed in the first. It will do Sirleaf no good to win if the election is not clean and peaceful. In any event, Liberians seem anxious to continue what Sirleaf has started, which is one of the best post-war evolutions of the past twenty years. Some will complain that many of the drivers of conflict are still in place, as are many perpetrators of violence. But there is something to be said for people who want to look forward, and even more to be said for those who genuinely want to root out the violence and cronyism that has plagued Liberia for far too long.
So the news is pretty good, which means you won’t read a lot about it in the American press, which is leaving Liberia to AP. But my hat is off to the UN peacekeepers and civilians of all stripes who have worked hard in recent years to normalize Liberia, which is a tough, poor and deprived country. So much goes wrong in this world, we should take notice when things come out right.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Norway has voted, but outcome is in doubt
With thanks to Adam Kaplan at Sister Cities International, here is the best I’ve seen on the political situation in Liberia: “Feted on the international stage, but accused of hollow promises at home,” from The Independent. It is a sad commentary on the American press that until yesterday it had produced nothing comparable, even in anticipation of tomorrow’s elections. And they wonder why so many of us are turning to Twitter and the web for our news?
On the economic side, the IMF has put up two progress reports on Liberia’s poverty reduction strategy, one that covers April 2008-March 2009 and a second that covers April 2009-March 2010. The message from both is good progress, accelerating. That’s the message from the latest UN Security Council resolution as well, even if it saw fit to err on the side of caution and extend UNMIL to September 2012.
PBS Newhour did come to the rescue of American media’s honor with a piece on the elections last Tuesday evening:
But this is also blatantly pro-Johnson Sirleaf and mentions only one of her several competitors. And why can’t they adjust their cameras so that black peoples’ faces can be seen better? Gwen Ifill would also benefit.
All the international approbation for Johnson Sirleaf does not guarantee her a victory in Tuesday’s election or the November 8 runoff (if no one gets 50% in the first round, which seems likely with 16 candidates). She is compromised by an early gesture of support for Charles Taylor and other complicated legal issues ably discussed by Colin Waugh, as well as the perception that she has done little about corruption in the Liberian government. But I confess it is a sign of progress that Liberians are worrying about corruption rather than about political violence.
There will be time enough to discuss Johnson Sirleaf’s main challenger if there is a second round of the elections. This first round is a kind of referendum on her first term. Her chances will improve if she comes out a strong first, the electoral mechanism operates reasonably well and election day is peaceful.
The Nobel Prize is not likely to hurt her prospects.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
The buck still stops with the Syrians
It has taken longer than Syria-watchers predicted, but President Obama today finally called on Bashar al Assad to “step aside” in Syria. This is an interesting formulation that implies he could remain nominally president but allow reforms to move forward. UN Secretary-General Ban Ki Moon seems to have also taken that line yesterday with Bashar in a phone call.
Let’s look at the options from Bashar’s perspective. Egyptian President Mubarak stepped down and now finds himself on trial. Libyan non-president Qaddafi refused to step down and now is fighting a war he is likely to lose. Yemen’s President Saleh is recovering from wounds his opponents inflicted in retaliation for his military attacks on them, but he has managed to continue to dominate Sanaa from Saudi Arabia, using his son and other loyalists as proxies. Only former Tunisian President Ben Ali is managing an untroubled, but powerless, retirement somewhere in Saudi Arabia. None of those options looks as good as “step aside,” though I have my doubts the protesters would accept Bashar remaining even nominally in power for more than a brief transition period.
President Obama also signed an executive order that
- blocks the property of the Syrian government,
- bans U.S. persons from new investments in or exporting services to Syria, and
- bans U.S. imports of, and other transactions or dealings in, Syrian-origin petroleum or petroleum products.
The trouble of course is that there is little Syrian government property in the U.S., few new investments or service exports to Syria and almost no U.S. import of Syrian oil or oil products.
For President Obama’s new rhetorical line to be effective, other countries–especially Turkey, Saudi Arabia and the Europeans–will need to play hard ball with the Syrian regime. Both the Turks and Saudis have sounded recently as if they are willing to do that, and the Europeans in their own complicated way seem to be moving in the same direction.
Diplomacy is getting other people to do what you want them to do. As many in the blogosphere are noting, Washington’s direct influence on events in Syria is small. President Obama himself said:
The future of Syria must be determined by its people, but President Bashar al-Assad is standing in their way. His calls for dialogue and reform have rung hollow while he is imprisoning, torturing, and slaughtering his own people. We have consistently said that President Assad must lead a democratic transition or get out of the way. He has not led. For the sake of the Syrian people, the time has come for President Assad to step aside.
So that’s where the buck stops: with the Syrian people, who have shown remarkable courage and determination so far. Here they are in Aleppo yesterday:
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
This is good
Stanley Foundation provides a video briefing on Liberia in the leadup to October elections:
Long live Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf!
For those who like hefty written briefings, try the Poverty Reduction Strategy.
Or, if you want to know how hard rule of law will be there, try USIP’s amazing look at local justice options.
RSS - Posts
