POLITICS: U.S. Passivity on Liberia Carnage Labelled ‘Hypocrisy’

By Jim Lobe Reprint | | Print |

Analysis - By Jim Lobe

WASHINGTON, Jun 27 2003 (IPS) - You lead the greatest military superpower in history. Your armed forces have conquered two fair-sized nations half a world away in just the last 18 months. You boast that you will not hesitate to use force against "evil-doers".

You have 1,200 battle-hardened marines off the coast of Liberia, where a besieged and brutal tyrant indicted by an international court for war crimes and with documented ties to al-Qaeda terrorists refuses to step down and ongoing fighting in the capital is taking hundreds of civilian lives and preventing humanitarian supplies from reaching tens of thousands of desperately needy people.

The whole world is clamouring for you to urgently deploy troops as part of a United Nations-mandated international force, to which other nations say they are ready to contribute troops.

You’re scheduled to make your first trip to Africa in less than two weeks to demonstrate your commitment to the region and your compassion for those who suffer the depredations of war, disease and drought.

Your father sent thousands of U.S. troops to Africa 12 years ago to stop the fighting and looting in another African city and ensure the delivery of food to tens of thousands of starving people.

What do you do?

With fighting blazing anew in Monrovia after the breakdown of a five-day-old cease-fire accord this week, Bush told an audience of African leaders and U.S. and African business executives that Liberian President Charles Taylor "needs to step down so that his country can be spared further bloodshed".

"All the parties in Liberia must pursue a comprehensive peace agreement," Bush added, in what was his first major policy address on Africa since becoming president more than two years ago. "We are determined to help the people of Liberia find the path to peace."

"If they are determined to help the people of Liberia," according to Salih Booker of the activist group Africa Action, "they would start by leading a U.N.-sanctioned multinational force, including West Africans, to stop the bloodshed and create an opportunity for Liberians to reclaim their lives".

"But the president is callously turning his back," he added, in what is a widely voiced sentiment here, particularly among African Americans and Africans here, who warn that the reception Bush will receive in Africa next month – he travels to Senegal, South Africa, Botswana, Uganda and Nigeria beginning Jul. 7 – is likely to be a lot cooler than it might be if has not by then taken stronger action on Liberia, which, after all, was itself a U.S. creation.

"If he goes to go Africa without doing more than he has after preaching all around the world that the U.S. goes after the ‘bad guys’, he’ll be saying, ‘we’re not prepared to do so in Africa’," says James Buttie, a Liberian-born journalist here.

"He says we went to Iraq because Saddam Hussein was a brutal tyrant who threatened his neighbours, but then what is Charles Taylor who’s actually been indicted by an international tribunal for war crimes?"

"I think we’re hearing a lot of hypocrisy from the presidential bully pulpit," says Emira Woods, another Liberian-born analyst, who heads Foreign Policy in Focus, a progressive think thank here. "They have Marines off shore; all the key actors have a military presence in the region; if they wanted to get a U.N. mandate to lead a multilateral force, they could probably get it tonight. The problem is the political will."

Indeed, almost everyone, including Washington’s closest ally Britain, has been calling on Bush to show leadership on the issue. The British ambassador to the United Nations, Sir Jeremy Greenstock, who is currently visiting West Africa to help assess the situation for the Security Council, spelled out Wednesday in terms that few could misunderstand.

"Certainly there’s a perception in the region that expects American involvement," he said in Abidjan. "If there were a lead nation that was prepared to take action in Liberia, then I think that would be very broadly welcomed internationally."

The French made a similar call for U.S. leadership.

"Like it or not, the general perception throughout the world at this point is that, given the French leadership in Cote d’Ivoire (and) the British leadership in Sierra Leone, U.S. leadership is required and expected in Liberia," John Prendergast, the Africa director for the International Crisis Group, told the ‘New York Times’ this week.

In an interview with IPS on Friday, Prendergast said the fighting in Monrovia is such that 1,200 Marines could not by themselves, or even with several thousand peacekeeping troops from other countries, impose a ceasefire on the warring parties. But a U.S.-led force could protect civilians at key points where people displaced by the fighting have sought refuge, and ensure the delivery of humanitarian supplies. "We could save a hell of a lot of lives," he said.

"If they went tomorrow to the U.N. (Security Council) and said, ‘we’d like to go in and lead a force for those objectives’, we’d get it a resolution within 30 minutes," he added.

But the Pentagon, he said, is opposed to deployment of U.S. forces on the ground, particularly in the wake of both Afghanistan and Iraq, where political objectives and exit strategies remain unclear, to say the least. In principle, the administration is willing to provide transport and logistical support for any international peacekeeping or monitoring force after a ceasefire is in place.

"Bush will have to impose a decision (to get) anything more," according to Prendergast.

"Look, this is just a question of political will," Booker said, "and a traditional aversion to America’s clear historical responsibilities to Liberia. Liberia is the metaphor for American disdain for Africa".