By: Musue N. Haddad
The 2003 intervention by the Bush administration in the Liberian crisis, which led to the forcible exile of Charles Taylor, was seen as a welcoming surprise by many Liberians, regional and international human rights groups and advocates. It was also considered a major shift by the United States government in its efforts, to help end human rights atrocities, restore peace and stability in Liberia and West Africa.
While Liberians and other citizens applaud the United States involvement in Liberia, there is still the question:
After over a decade of silence and inaction, what prompted the U. S. to intervene in Liberia?
This analysis will provide and discuss some of the major Cooperate Government Relations tools and strategies that were used to highlight the Liberian situation, and also influence the U.S. government to intervene.
For more than 14 years,Liberia suffered series of conflicts. The Liberian civil war, which was considered one of Africa's bloodiest, claimed the lives of over 300,000 persons and further displaced a million others. Throughout the period of the war, the United States government was called upon to intervene in order to help bring an end to the war and conflicts, and also halt systematic and barbaric human rights violations in the West African state of Liberia. America’s response at that time was that, she did not have any “special interest” in Liberia and that Liberia should be treated as any other country on the African continent.
In the midst of the United States reluctance, groups also opposing the United States intervention including some major U.S. policy organizations and think tanks described the call for U.S. intervention in Liberia as a negative publicity and also an attempt to further stretch thin the U.S. government. Anti-U.S. intervention groups argued that intervention can create a number of problems for the United States, including a rise in anti-American sentiment, diminished American credibility if the mission fails, and also domestic skepticism about future military operations even when legitimate U.S. interests might be involved.
The International Crisis Group, an independent, non-profit, non-governmental organization, working through field-based analysis and high-level advocacy to prevent and resolve deadly conflict, along with several organizations led a campaign aimed at influencing U.S. intervention in the Liberian crisis. The Crisis Group lobbied the United States government to pressure the Charles Taylor’s government to implement a comprehensive institutional reform including the re-establishment of rule of law and also, to pave the way for free and fair elections.
After 14 years of silence, President George Bush began making firm statements on the Liberian situation. Bush publicly condemned the Charles Taylor’s government for its gross human rights and in 2003, Bush asked President Charles Taylor to step down and go into exile. United States marines were also sent to beef up security and help stop the war in that country. The United States action increased international focus on Liberia and the West African region.
Debates: Advocacies and U.S. Policy Action
In their advocacies, the International Crisis Group considered two critical and interlinked elements as important approach during the debate for a successful resolution of Liberia's crisis: the conflict must be recognized as a wider regional one and addressed on that basis, and there must be effective coordination among the key external players, namely the U.S., the UK, France, the UN, the EU and ECOWAS.
While two permanent members of the Security Council, the UK and France, played prominent roles in the peace processes in Sierra Leone and the Côte d'Ivoire respectively, no one had taken the lead on Liberia. The missing link at that time was the United States. The United States was regarded as a missing link because the United States has historical ties to Liberia, and also, most Liberians argued that no peace process would have been sustainable without its involvement. The Crisis Group and its partners maintained that the United States must be encouraged to work more actively – and in close partnership with the UK and France, who were already deeply engaged in related aspects of the regional problem – to preserve the effective UNAMSIL mission in Sierra Leone and establish a similarly comprehensive peace process for Liberia that would ensure neither LURD, LURD-MODEL, nor Taylor's political and military barons fill the vacuum if Taylor is forced from power.
Finding the Missing Link
Although Liberia was faced with scores of grave problems, advocates calling for United State intervention in Liberia realized that in order to capture the attention of the United States, they needed to highlight issues that were vital to U.S policy and also sensitive to U.S interest. Human rights groups and campaigners recognized that the U.S foreign policy was paralleled with global security. In addition, issues that were very sensitive to U.S. interest included, terrorism and Al Qaeda.
Consequently, Al-Qaeda being one of the silent, but potent problems in West Africa became a strategic issue for highlighting the crisis in Liberia and West Africa. Given the evidence of Al- Qaeda and terrorists groups in the region and their association with Taylor, human rights groups illustrated how these groups linked with Charles Taylor and West Africa. Al- Qaeda and other terrorists groups were laundering by trading in cash for diamonds mined in Sierra Leone and Liberia. Moreover, the human rights groups also point out that through Blood Diamond in West Africa, corrupt (Liberian) government officials and merchants supported terrorists’ activities around the world. The coalition also pointed out Charles Taylor’s continuous support for dissidents in the region and his harboring of Al Qaeda members and supporters in Liberian territories. They also underscored Charles Taylor’s continued willingness to use proxy militia fighters in neighboring states and that the fragile peace in Sierra Leone would remain in jeopardy, because of Taylor’s activities in the region. Moreover, the campaigners demonstrated that Liberia’s situation not only a regional issue, with elements already in many parts of West Africa but also in other parts of Africa, particularly in the Democratic Republic of Congo and associates in South Africa. This spill over from West Africa was indication that Liberia problems was set to become a major global concern. The Crisis Group further accentuated that Liberia's internal situation had been the dynamic that was providing fuel for the broader war, and no peace in the region would have been viable until it was dealt with more forcefully.
The Debate
However, as international and regional human rights groups lobbied for U.S. government’s support and intervention in Liberia, within the United States, there were widely divergent views on whether the U.S. government should intervene in the Liberian crisis and if so, at what level. Anti- U.S. intervention campaigners were suggesting that, rather than attempt to stifle regional conflicts through military intervention, the United States should encourage regional initiatives. They argued that Washington must recognize that many regional conflicts were so deeply rooted that no outside party, from within or outside the region, would succeed in ending the fighting.
Some of the most outspoken and highly publicized views pushing against U.S. intervention included CATO Institute, The Heritage Foundation and Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for International Studies among others. Ted Galen Carpenter, Vice President for Defense and Foreign Policy Studies, Cato Institute, argued that by intervening in Liberia, President Bush was violating a 2000 pledge which conditioned such interventions only when vital national interests are at stake. He further stated, "There is not even a peripheral, much less a vital, national interest at stake in Liberia." In supporting Carpenter’s statement, the Senior Policy Analyst of Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for International Studies, Jack Spencer, described the Liberian situation as tragic but said deploying U.S. troops on the ground was “inappropriate and ineffective if the goal is to achieve long-term stability.” He said until the Liberians establish a political settlement, no international peacekeeping force should be deployed.
The Youth for Socialist Action, a group asserting to be a national multi-racial network of young workers, students, feminists and activists, was another organization calling on the United States not to intervene in the Liberia crisis. In its publication, Youth for Socialist Action said:
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. Only the Liberian people themselves can overcome their problems. While we welcome and encourage the sending of medical, food and other humanitarian assistance – we must oppose the deployment of troops, which will only increase the oppression already being endured by the people of the region. Instead of sending troops, we call on the U.S. government to immediately cancel the Third World debt, quite selling arms to feuding warlords & to stop interfering in the internal affairs of Third World nations!
In spite the bold stance taken by many organizations on the debate, some organizations in the United States withheld their stance on the issue; probably the publicized killing of United States troops by Somali militiamen hardened attitudes among most American policymakers and the public about the effectiveness and cost of U.S. military intervention in Africa. Moreover, it appears that cost of the deployment of U.S. troops in Iraq and its impact on the America and its citizens is also another reason why some United States organizations were reluctant to clearly state their positions on the debate. The widely publicized killings of U.S. and other peacekeeping troops by Somali militiamen was being alluded to by groups opposing U.S. intervention in Liberia. Anti U.S interventionists used the case of Somalia and the cost of U.S. military intervention in Africa and the limitations of UN peacekeeping in their campaign against U.S. intervention in Liberia.
However, proponents of U.S. intervention cited a number of interests, both, security related and humanitarian, as justifications for U.S. military involvement in regional wars. The most common argument for U.S. intervention in Liberia and West Africa was that global instability is a threat to U.S. security.
Salih Booker, Executive Director of Africa Action, said the United States had several national interests at stake in Liberia's fate. He maintained that Liberia was at the center of a West Africa scarred by violent conflicts, which was producing costly humanitarian disasters. Booker argued that the United States must help stabilize the West African region. If the United States did not take a stance, Booker said, West Africa would become “a lawless zone attractive to international crime networks including terrorists.” But, most importantly, he emphasized, it is becoming a death trap of the region.
Booker also restated his organization’s position on the debate: (PBS, TURMOIL IN LIBERIA, 2003): The current crisis in Liberia is the result of a previous betrayal of the United States of the people of that country. In 1990, the first President Bush faced a situation that was eerily similar to that now facing his son. Should the United States send in troops to stop a civil conflict, restore order, and allow the Liberians to reconstruct their democracy? The president's father in 1990 had ships off the coast of Monrovia. They evacuated the Americans, they evacuated the Europeans, and they left the Liberians to their fate. I fear that's exactly what's happening once again.
He added, “The U.S. has a unique responsibility in the case of Liberia, not just because of the historic ties, but more recently because it helped create the conditions that have led to this cycle of violence."
As the lobby and debate for U.S. intervention in Liberia continued to expand, some opinion leaders said, American should not only provide relief when it is needed, but should help promote a democratic system and work to stop human rights abuses. They criticized the U.S. response to the Liberian conflict as inadequate, and compared it unfavorably to the United States intervention in Kosovo. Some supporting this view also believed that it would be appropriate for the United States to send in troops to help restore order and protect noncombatants. They pointed to Haiti, Bosnia, and Kosovo as examples of successful humanitarian intervention, and ask why the same could not be done for a country with historic U.S. ties.
Other groups supporting U.S intervention argued that because of the “special relationship” that existed between Liberia and the United States, the U.S. have an obligation to Liberia. The United States association to Liberia began in 1822 when freed American slaves arrived and settled in Liberia. In 1847, Liberia was declared an independent nation by the freed slaves – that was the first thread that would link Liberia to America over many decades. As World War II gave way to the cold War, the U.S. viewed Liberia as an ideal post from which to fight the spread of communism through Africa. The U.S. signed a mutual defense pact with Liberia and built communications facilities in Liberia to handle diplomatic and intelligence traffic to and from Africa. Also, a powerful Voice of America relay was set up. In the mid-1970s, the United States built another military facility, the Omega navigational station, to guide naval ships and aircraft in the Atlantic Ocean. Even after the 1980 military coup, which ended the Americo-Liberian grip on power in Liberia, U.S. political and military engagement remained strong. The government of Master Sergeant Samuel Doe continued to receive support from Washington for much of the 1980s, and in return Doe supported U.S. diplomatic initiatives in the United Nations and other U.S. efforts in Africa. In the late 1980s, with the end of the Cold War, relations between Washington and Monrovia began to deteriorate. When the civil war began in December 1989, many Liberians were disappointed at the U.S. decision not to intervene in Liberia. United States citizens were evacuated from Liberia and hopes for a U.S. peacekeeping force were dashed.
The Liberian government, on the other hand, called for U.S. intervention to protect government forces against rebel forces that were battling against government forces to take over the city.
Washington Representatives
In the midst of the debate, the International Crisis Group realized the importance of a mobilized and effective Washington Representation. Although, the Group president and CEO is based at the organization’s headquarter in Brussels, it realized that effective partners and a strong coalition are the strength for an efficient and effective lobbyist and good leadership. The Brussels office of the International Crisis Group coordinated and collaborated with its Washington’s offices and the International Contact Group. The Contact Group comprises representatives from the UN, United States, Nigeria, France , Senegal, Morocco, ECOWAS, United Kingdom, African Union and the European Union, to align positions on Liberia and help create a peace process including all Liberia's principal stakeholders. Another organization, the Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights foundation, a D.C based, non profit organization was also working along with the Catholic Church in Liberia, and other international institutions advocating for U.S. intervention in Liberia. The Church World Services, based in the United States was another influential force that was engaged with Church Leaders from West Africa and church organizations in Liberia in calling for U.S leadership role in the Liberian crisis.
The Role of Grassroots
Grass root support is essential to advocacy. During the campaign on Liberia, grass-roots support was readily available. Liberians at home defied the government; they organized mass demonstration calling for U.S. intervention in the crisis and human rights violations in the country.
It was evident that the masses frequent and brutal atrocities committed by the Liberian government and rebels against innocent civilians had reached an unbearable level. Taylor placed within various military and paramilitary institutions and government positions members of his rebels. Without any form of training or rehabilitation, these formers rebels were given guns and uniforms. They also carried out the gross human rights violations with impunity. Liberians at home fed up with the brutal human rights meted against them by government officials and its security forces, defied the government; they organized mass demonstration calling for U.S. intervention in the crisis and human rights violations in the country.
In June 2003, during a street battle in the capital of Liberia, Monrovia, citizens collected and piled dead bodies at the front of the U.S. Embassy in Monrovia chanting slogans: We Want George Bush! We Want U.S.! U.S. Please Save Us! It was their way of campaigning for U.S. intervention. Several civilians suffered brutal human rights abuses at the hands of state security officers and government officials throughout the administration of Taylor.
The Inter-faith Mediation Council, a local based religious group was also actively engaged with various religious groups-Christians and Muslims, and with civil society groups, political parties and human rights groups in Liberia and the region, deliberating strategies for promoting international attention on Liberia.
The Liberian Leadership Forum, a local based organization with a commitment to rally Liberians and the international community around a plan to bring an end to the conflict in the country were also campaigning for U.S Intervention in Liberia and West Africa. The Forum comprised 10 Liberian political parties and 14 civil society organizations, and eminent individuals active in the pursuit of peace and democracy. The organization also included leaders of the armed opposition movement against the Taylor government. The Inter-Faith Media Council and Civil Society organization and various political parties had been engaged are in mobilizing support for U.S. intervention. Several local human rights groups including the Justice and Peace Commission, Female Lawyers Association, Child Advocacy among others were actively lobbing for peace and U.S. intervention in the West African situation. These grass root organizations were all either directly or indirectly affected by the flouting of laws by the Taylor government.
Intellectual Validation
Advocates for U.S intervention had on their side many prominent human rights and think tanks groups and individuals from various levels calling for U.S. intervention in Liberia. Emira Woods, Co-director of Foreign Policy in Focus, said U.S intervention in Liberia would enforce the cease-fire and provide security for a political settlement in Liberia. Dr. Jane Martin, a distinguished historian, and a member of Friends of Liberia, a non-profit organization dedicated to Liberia, stressed that the U.S. has a clear moral and historical responsibility to the people of Liberia, and that America has a special interest in demonstrating that it can lead a successful multi-national effort to help Liberians restore peace and democracy. Several organizations including the Catholic Relief Services have produced reports validated U.S. intervention in Liberia. The Movement for Democratic Change in Liberia, (MODEL) organized workshops and seminars for promoting U.S. intervention in Liberia and drafted recommendations that were presented to U.S policy makers for implementations.
Kakuna Kerina, Senior Program Director/Senior Advisor for Africa at the International League for Human Rights said most researchers were using the Liberian and West African situation as a model for conflict resolutions, especially in post conflict societies. She said her organization also worked alongside other organizations in calling for U.S. intervention in Liberia.
Ms. Kerina said her organization in collaboration with other human rights organizations, nationally and internationally were determined to promote human rights in West Africa and other parts of the world, give meaning and effect to human rights values enshrined in international human rights treaties and conventions.
Ms. Kerina, an advocate with impeccable record for efficiently collaborating with civil society organizations in promoting press freedom in Africa, particularly, Sierra Leone during the war, and Nigeria under Sani Abacha’s regime, said U.S intervention was one of the key steps in highlighting the crisis and brutal human rights violations in Liberia and West Africa. She said the prosecution of Taylor in Sierra Leone would set the pace for establishing a tribunal in Liberia to prosecute those who supported and committed war crimes and crimes against humanity, during the war and also during the Charles Taylor’s administration. Based in New York, with representation in Geneva and dozens of affiliates and partners around the world, the International League for Human Rights is a non-governmental, non-profit organization with special consultative status at the United Nations.
Archbishop Michael Francis, Recipient of the 1999 Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights Award, during a visit to the United States in 2003, said the campaign for U.S. intervention in Liberia had the support of many organizations regionally and internationally, including religious groups, academicians and think tanks. He said that the Liberian situation had also become a discourse for stimulating the course of political events not just in Liberia, but elsewhere in the world. Archbishop Francis said, he believed the Liberian situation will help international organizations understand that elections does not necessarily produce democracy as they believed during 1997; disarmament was not carried out and the environment was tensed, resulting to Charles Taylor becoming winner.
Role of Leadership
Leadership is an influential force in human rights work and advocacy, especially in influencing policy change and action in conflicts situations. Leadership involves setting up a structure to accomplish task, as well as organizing and planning, which allows everyone to be part of the solution, in addition to gathering the best ideas. This aspect of leadership was manifested in the campaign used by the International Crisis Group and its partners in the campaign for U.S intervention in Liberia.
Even though the International Crisis Group is headquartered in Brussels, in the absence of its leadership or CEO, staff members and representatives of the organization in Washington, D.C, represented the organizations at various meetings, working sessions and forums held in the United States Capital and the United States. It is apparent that the International Crisis Group and its partners' modus operandi on leadership and organization was based on one the renowned philosopher, Lao Tzu’s concept on leadership, “A leader is best when people barely know he exists. When his work is done, they will say: we did it ourselves.
William Lane, Washington Director for Governmental Affairs at Caterpillar, Inc. and a lecturer at the Elliott School for International Affairs said the greatest source of power available to a leader is the trust that derives from serving followers. He said mutual trust is a shared belief that you can depend on each other to achieve a common purpose. “A good leader knows how to make people function in a collaborative fashion, and how to motivate them to excel their performance and how to balance the team member's quest with the goal of producing synergy - an outcome that exceeds the sum of individual inputs,” Professor Lane said.
It is apparent that the leadership model Lane described was the kind of practices -efficient and effective coordination, teamwork and trust, were the major skills and tools that played major roles in ensuring successful leadership practices, even in the absence of the actual leaders by organizations during the campaigns for U.S. intervention in Liberia
Relationship, Money and the Press
As with all advocacies, relationship, money and the press were important tools for the human rights campaign on Liberia. The International Contact Group and most of its major advocates had representatives in Washington, D.C which gave the groups and their supporters’ upper-hand in their advocacy. Small organizations that did not have offices in Washington, D.C and could not afford permanent or temporary Washington representative were not compelled to be present in Washington because organizations and their affiliates shared a cordial working relationship. This level of relationship resulted led to efficient communication. For example, groups in Liberia communicated and shared their concerns with one another, which were later transmitted to the regional groups or the West Africa offices of the International Crisis Organization or at the Washington offices.
Money
Unlike other advocacies which would demand staggering amount of U.S. dollars, the Liberian situation became a humanitarian concern and therefore did not required huge hard money.
Press
As with many other wars, crisis, humanitarian concerns and human rights issues, the Liberian situation received positive and ample national coverage, particularly during the peak of the campaign for U.S. intervention.
Throughout the months of June to October of 2003 several U.S based media and the press in the United Kingdom, Paris, France, Nigeria and other areas around the world had published materials on Liberia, focusing not only the elites and fighters, but also the lives of ordinary Liberians.
Conclusion
After 14 years of appeal and outcries by Liberians and some international groups for the U.S. to intervene in Liberia, in 2003, the United States finally took a stance- it intervened. Analyzing the efforts by the International Crisis Group and other organizations, it is obvious that innovative strategies and timing do have a lot of impact on the outcome of advocacy, lobbying and or campaigns. The International Crisis Group and its allies were successful because they aligned their campaigns messages with the United States and other individuals and organizations in and out of Liberia; they also communicated how their aspirations can be aligned with the vision of the United States and other policy organizations.
Moreover, the groups engaged in the campaign on Liberia, were also consistent in promoting their goals, which they did with enthusiasm so as to motivate others to make the vision their own. In this way, they succeeded in galvanizing support among Liberians, friends of Liberia, human rights advocates and organizations and other international organizations. By continually researching and publishing updated information on Liberian and West Africa, and also networking, encouraging participation, inspiring a shared vision and showing concern, they continued to gain support which led to the eventual intervention of the United States- calling for the forcible resignation and the exile of Taylor, and ongoing trial at the Special Court for Sierra Leone.
During the campaign, like most lobby, the International Crisis Group and its other organizations met with resistance from not only the Taylor’s government, but also his supporters, and interested parties in the conflict. The government of Charles Taylor as in the past, used its public relations and propaganda mechanism to discredit organizations exposing its human rights violations, while at the same time white wash its image, it did nothing to match its actions with its propaganda contents.
The facts and evidence against the government were consistent and overwhelming. The dossier of statistic and public information against the Liberian government and its threat to the peace and security within the region led some of its supporters to realize that, Taylor had not made good on its words to improve human rights records and institute reforms for development. Other supporters, who were his cronies, knew that their time was up. The media’s eagerness for information on war and violence, and its tendency to focus on the elites played well for the campaigners, as they provided pile of evidence and statistics to the media of President Charles Taylor and his alliance with the president of Libya and Al- Qaeda. This link of Taylor to Al-Qaeda, diamond and stones - a sensitive international issue quickly attracted the media’s, particularly the international media to the Liberian situation. The prolonged Liberian crisis was also an opportunity in helping the international media to have a background understanding of that situation for analysis. The goals and vision set by the International Crisis Group in influencing U.S. intervention in Liberia, the removal and trial of Taylor were achieved because of the efficient and effective use of few Cooperate Government Relations tools. The strategies promoted visibility, integrity and setting examples and trust, which were encouraged and utilized, because the campaigners had the will power to enforce those grandiose values and principles to succeed and most importantly, promote human rights and uphold the rule of law without fear or favor.
Copyright © Musue N. Haddad
Sunday, October 1, 2006
Saturday, July 15, 2006
The Impact of Conflicts on Globalization: A Look at the Middle East
The fiery middle east crisis has escalated again as Israel and Hezbollah trade fire. In the current battle, echoes of the older conflict continue to ring in the flaming stones and rapid burst of gunfires and explosives; an understanding of the conflict’s history can not reverse decades of mistrust and animosity amongs groups involved and persons associated with the conflict in the region.
The Middle East has been a site of conflict over land sanctifed to Jews, Muslims, Christians and other religious groups for many years. Despite involving a relatively small land area and large number of casualties, the Middle East conflict has been the focus of worldwide media and diplomatic attention for decades. Many countries, individuals and non-governmental organizations in the world feel involved in this conflict for many different reasons. Although some consider the Arab- Israel conflict a part or phenomenon of the clash of civilization between the western world and the Arab Muslim world, others oppose this view. Whatever the concept, the animosity emanating from this conflict has led to divisions among supporters or perceived supporters of one side by supporters of the other side in many parts of the world. This growing anomisity is also contributing to divisions and mistrusts among parties and key players of the conflict in the region. Moreover, the escalation and intensity of the conflict is worrisome for global peace, security and development worldwide. Already, according to reports, Impala Platinum (Implats) led South African shares lower because of the uneasiness over Middle East tensions hit emerging markets, and there has also been a sudden increase in the price of oil in the world's eighth-largest oil exporter, Nigeria.
The recent escalation of violence in the Middle East undelines the disparity between reality and diplomatic maneuvering in the region. The violence has also redirected the focus of world leaders. At the ongoing G-8 summit, the top agenda were to be energy security, infectious diseases and education, but it appears the world leaders are already preoccupied by the violence in the Middle East. This summit was the first G8 summit in which the African agenda was integrated into all deliberations. It is evident that these priorities may fall by the wayside as a result of the recent eruption of violence in the Middle East.
The ongoing violence in the Middle East is considered the most serious since 1996 when Israel mounted a 17-day offensive against Hezbollah in southern Lebanon. The recent fighting has led to widespread pronouncements throughout the Middle East. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad warned of a "fierce response" if Israel widened its offensive against Syria. Israel also blames Syria and Iran for backing the Hezbollah terrorist group in Lebanon. In an emergency session on Friday, Lebanon urged the United Nations Security Council to impose a ceasefire, accusing Israel's offensive of driving it "to its knees." But Israel's ambassador Dan Gillerman told the emergency session that the Lebanese government was responsible for the Israeli offensive because it allowed Hezbollah terrorists to operate in southern Lebanon, which led to Wednesday's abduction of two Israeli soldiers.
In the midst of the ongoing violence, conflict resolution analyst and peacebuilders continue to deliberate strategies for ceasing the hostilities and restoring peace in the Middle East. Already several peace agreements has been brokered, signed and then broken. While world leaders shift their positions, policy makers and peace brokers continue to draft and alter agreements, Dr. John H. Lebovic a political scientist tossed an idea: He asked whether the process of Globalization could bring cooperation and stability to the Middle East and its relations to the outside world. Lebovic’s comment provoked brainstorming and an analysis of how the process of globalization could promote stability, cooperaton and also reduce conflict in the Middle East and other conflict societies.
To understand the process of Globalization, the process, its aspects and application must first be understood. What then is Globalization? Globalization is a process that brings changes in societies and the world economy through increased international exchange of goods and services across international boundaries. Although increasing international trade is seen as the usually primary meaning of "globalization, " globalization has become identified with a number of trends, most of which may have developed since World War II. These trends include greater international movement of commodities, money, information, and people; and the development of technology, organizations, legal systems, and infrastructures to allow this movement. It describes the increase of trade and investing due to the falling of barriers and the interdependence of countries. In specifically economic contexts, the term ‘Globalization’ refers particularly to trade liberalization or free trade. Globalization also includes cultural exchanges between and among people and societies.
The processes of globalization is initiated and implemented by people, who must communicate, collaborate, interact and discuss aggreements, the implementation of programmes and projects which forms an integral part of cooperation. Globalization promotes collaborations; collaboration is an act of working together jointly and not independently. This sort of collaboration sort of diffuses tension, hostities and promotes tolerance.
Views of Globalization
Political economist believe globalism is related to laissez- faire capitalism and neoliberalism. Neoliberalism argue that globalization is the process of persuading governments of lesser developed countries to alter political and economic policies in exchange for receiving loans from other states or, more commonly through loans from the World Bank.
Although this definition of globalization by neoliberalism shares a number of characteristics with internationalization and is often used interchangebly, some campaigners prefer to use globalization to emphasize the erosion of the nation state or national boundaries. Under Globalization, national boundaries continue to exist as globalization provide a growing global consciousness and identification as part of an interconnected world rather than a specific Middle East state. This global consciousness will discourage nationalistic thought and foster international cooperation, thus reducing the conflict in the Middle East.
The stance by liberalists that countries heavily dependent on the global economy (whether measured by trade or investment) are likely to experience higher economic growth, greater affluence, more democracy, and increasingly peaceful conditions at home and abroad indicates that the Middle East will benefit immensely from globalization.
Even though there are other arguments by dependency theorists that high levels of trade and investments generate greater economic inequality and leads to the risk of political instability, this argument neglected to discuss the kind of trade that promotes inequality. This suggestion that inequality is a result of globalization is what public interest activists as well as state nationalists use as argument in campaigning against globalization.
It is important to note that the consequences of trade are dependent on what is being exported. Exports of manufactured goods create high levels of welfare and equality, while exports of agricultural products promote poverty and inequality. Although inequality is but one of the many factors which lead to political instability, inequality is not a product of all exports. Countries exporting agricultural products do not need to promote education, and the country will remain poor and with high inequality. An example of the export of agriculture or raw products is the exportation of rubber from Liberia and Cocoa from Cote d’ Ivoire. Tappers of rubber latex in Liberia and Cocoa harvesters in Cote d’Ivoire are mostly illiterate without any specialized skills. If Liberia or a country can manage to produce manufactured and other highly-processed goods inequality is reduced—as has happened in several East Asian countries. The reason for reduction in inequality in a country that produces manufactured and other highly- processed goods and exports is because such processes require highly skilled workers in order to industrialize, and these workers eventually become active in the local labor movement. The result has been a higher level of welfare, and a decrease in inequality. The World Bank (1996) argues along the same lines, pointing out that China and Vietnam have experienced considerable economic growth after replacing parts of their centrally planned economies with free trade and market liberalism.
In Israel today, all the major indicators reflect the severe strains the economy is under: GDP per capital is down; unemployment is up; and apart from the stock exchange, there is little fresh direct foreign investment coming in. These are all the high costs of conflict.
The situation is somewhat similar in the West Bank and Gaza. According to a new United Nations report, the majority of Palestinians have been reduced to surviving on one meal a day, and malnutrition is approaching the level in Africa. Clearly, unless there is economic activity and job creation, more and more desperate young people will join the Intifada or other groups.
Violence Drives Away Capital
Is there a lesson here for the Middle East? Clearly, globalization will bring immense benefits to the Middle East, a region preoccupied with conflict, ancient enmities and continuing violence. Regional cooperation based on Israel's cutting edge technology, relatively cheap Palestinian labor and a huge Arab market will make the Middle East a formidable player in the world economy. The region will not only be an importer of goods and technology, the Middle East will be counted among economic powerhouses like China, the European Union and the USA.
Through globalization, investors, trading partners and governments of the Middle East will engage in trade discussions, negotiations on investment contracts, banking activities, trade exhibitions which will gradually result in building trusts and understanding. These formal interactions will lead to collaborations and coordination and gradually led to informal interactions among various groups in the region. Such networking among parties and groups and individuals will gradually transform into consistently interacting and working together within the Middle East which can only be achieved in a stable environment. As governments, institutions and citizens of the Middle East network and cooperate, they will become more opened to the varying philosophies and beliefs held by others. This intermingling will result into tolerance which will help parties in the Middle East conflict to begin to understand that through cooperation, they can better work together and resolve their differences. Gradually, through this continuing communication and interaction, Middle Eastern states will increasingly become dependent on each other and the outside world for export & import markets. This cooperation in the Middle East will result into good relations with neighboring countries and the world and also serve to reduce conflict in the Middle East. The Middle East will realize that violence and the threat of regional conflict drive away capital and development.
Internal violence and the threat of regional conflict drive away capital faster. Based on Pakistan's experience, the lesson is clear for the Middle East on the importance of an investment friendly environment. Today, despite the large infusion of dollars into Pakistan since 9/11, there is hardly any fresh foreign or local investment being made. While money is being invested in real estate, the stock exchange and the service sector, nobody is thinking of investing in industries in Pakistan. This lack of investment is based on the lack of confidence in the country's future which means very few new jobs are being created, and millions of unemployed young men without a stake in the system can easily be recruited by any fighting group.
Globalization processes encourage increased economic benefits. Once the Middle East encourages the processes of Globalization, there will be increased economic benefits that will improve the lives of everyday citizens and extremists in Middle Eastern countries. With increase economics, groups will have a harder time obtaining new recruits for their mission. The younger generation will realize that there is more to be gained from cooperating and being a part of the global movement then fighting against it.
Globalization has much to offer the region with its huge mineral wealth, its sizeable number of educated workers, Israeli managerial and technical skills and the relatively well-off Arab market. China is another example of a country taking advantage of new economic forces to build its economy while putting regional disputes on the back burner. Despite its long-standing territorial dispute with India, it is trading and talking with its erstwhile foe to their mutual benefit.
Through globalization, people around the globe become more connected to each other than ever before. Information and money flow more quickly than ever. Goods and services produced in one part of the world are increasingly available in all parts of the world. International travel is more frequent. International communication is commonplace.
Another positive aspect of globalization is that it promotes transparency and checks and balances on industries and institutions around the world. As a result of the transparency it provides, several institutions are becoming aware of the importance of credibility and are beginning to put in place measures to protect their industries. Realizing the importance of name to global trade, industries that sell directly to consumers, including clothing, athletic shoes, and rug manufacturers rely on their reputation and brand name. This makes them particularly sensitive to being associated with violent conflict similar to what is in the Middle East. In unstable areas, these industries are likely to withdraw or adopt corporate codes of conduct that address human rights issues. These light industries are the first ones that many countries including the Middle East need during post-conflict reconstruction.
Organizations
Another characteristics of globalization for the Middle East is that multi-national corporations, nonprofit organizations, governments and other institutions realize that cooperation and stability in the Middle East will reduce the refugee crises, weapons proliferation, terrorism, narco-trafficking, peacekeeping and humanitarian emergencies, environmental problems, global health issues, technological developments, and key economic trends which affect their own resources, stability and development.
Multinational corporations will also find it important to work with partners in the Middle East to reduce conflict, bring cooperation between and among rival groups and stability in order to continue operations in that society.
One example of how the process of globalization has promoted strategies for conflict reduction is through the efforts of American Express and others engage in peace promotion activities. Several international travel and tourism industries have a direct interest in peace, and are becoming more active in promoting peace. American Express and other travel and tourism industries are aware that the Middle East has several historical and scenery sites for travel and tourism. These industries and American Express will work with parties or governments in the Middle East in promoting peace, stability and cooperation to support peace-building efforts and also engage in advertising travel and tourism industries of the Middle East.
Media
In the course of globalization, the sharing of information via mass media and internet will increase the understanding and decrease the wrong impression of citizens and nationals in the Middle East. The media industries can be used as a tool to promote tolerance and cooperation and stability and to facilitate the work of civil society groups and international organizations that are involved in conflict management activities. One instance of the power of the media on issues of the Middle East was evident during an interview with Shimon Peres. (CNN, 2000) On a CNN interview broadcast January 3, 2000 Shimon Peres observed that access to fresh water is a key source of conflict in certain regions, but can also present unique opportunities for peacemaking initiatives: "There are many ways to save water and to produce water. Water may be the watershed between peace and war in the Middle East. We spent over $100 billion over the last ten years to acquire arms. Would we invest the same amount of money to produce water or use [recycled] water, we would enjoy peace and prosperity at the same time . . . If we shall together try and bring in a real plan to supply water to all the needed parties of the Middle East, it can be both good business and a great contribution for peace."
The process of globalization will bring cooperation and stability to the Middle East and its relations to the outside world by helping parties to understand the effect of conflict on both human and infrastructure development. Contrary to views that the process of globalization will have a negative influence on the Middle East, like every system, globalization when manipulated becomes a multifaceted process. Just as capitalism requires a network of governing systems to keep it from devouring societies, globalization requires vigilance and the rule of law. Anti-trust laws, the Securities and Exchange Commission, labor unions, charities, the Federal Trade Commission, and countless other agencies and organizations keep American capitalism in check. Similar transparent mechanisms are needed in the Middle East to make sure globalization is a positive force in the world. Globalization will bring tremendous opportunities and benefits to all parties and sectors of society in the Middle East.
The bottom line is that globalization and conflict just do not mix. In other words, the Middle East like Somalia, Sudan, Democrat Republic of Congo, Cote d’Ivoire, and other conflict societies can decide to fight or they can decide that they want to prosper, but they can't do both things simultaneously.
Copyright © Musue N. Haddad
The Middle East has been a site of conflict over land sanctifed to Jews, Muslims, Christians and other religious groups for many years. Despite involving a relatively small land area and large number of casualties, the Middle East conflict has been the focus of worldwide media and diplomatic attention for decades. Many countries, individuals and non-governmental organizations in the world feel involved in this conflict for many different reasons. Although some consider the Arab- Israel conflict a part or phenomenon of the clash of civilization between the western world and the Arab Muslim world, others oppose this view. Whatever the concept, the animosity emanating from this conflict has led to divisions among supporters or perceived supporters of one side by supporters of the other side in many parts of the world. This growing anomisity is also contributing to divisions and mistrusts among parties and key players of the conflict in the region. Moreover, the escalation and intensity of the conflict is worrisome for global peace, security and development worldwide. Already, according to reports, Impala Platinum (Implats) led South African shares lower because of the uneasiness over Middle East tensions hit emerging markets, and there has also been a sudden increase in the price of oil in the world's eighth-largest oil exporter, Nigeria.
The recent escalation of violence in the Middle East undelines the disparity between reality and diplomatic maneuvering in the region. The violence has also redirected the focus of world leaders. At the ongoing G-8 summit, the top agenda were to be energy security, infectious diseases and education, but it appears the world leaders are already preoccupied by the violence in the Middle East. This summit was the first G8 summit in which the African agenda was integrated into all deliberations. It is evident that these priorities may fall by the wayside as a result of the recent eruption of violence in the Middle East.
The ongoing violence in the Middle East is considered the most serious since 1996 when Israel mounted a 17-day offensive against Hezbollah in southern Lebanon. The recent fighting has led to widespread pronouncements throughout the Middle East. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad warned of a "fierce response" if Israel widened its offensive against Syria. Israel also blames Syria and Iran for backing the Hezbollah terrorist group in Lebanon. In an emergency session on Friday, Lebanon urged the United Nations Security Council to impose a ceasefire, accusing Israel's offensive of driving it "to its knees." But Israel's ambassador Dan Gillerman told the emergency session that the Lebanese government was responsible for the Israeli offensive because it allowed Hezbollah terrorists to operate in southern Lebanon, which led to Wednesday's abduction of two Israeli soldiers.
In the midst of the ongoing violence, conflict resolution analyst and peacebuilders continue to deliberate strategies for ceasing the hostilities and restoring peace in the Middle East. Already several peace agreements has been brokered, signed and then broken. While world leaders shift their positions, policy makers and peace brokers continue to draft and alter agreements, Dr. John H. Lebovic a political scientist tossed an idea: He asked whether the process of Globalization could bring cooperation and stability to the Middle East and its relations to the outside world. Lebovic’s comment provoked brainstorming and an analysis of how the process of globalization could promote stability, cooperaton and also reduce conflict in the Middle East and other conflict societies.
To understand the process of Globalization, the process, its aspects and application must first be understood. What then is Globalization? Globalization is a process that brings changes in societies and the world economy through increased international exchange of goods and services across international boundaries. Although increasing international trade is seen as the usually primary meaning of "globalization, " globalization has become identified with a number of trends, most of which may have developed since World War II. These trends include greater international movement of commodities, money, information, and people; and the development of technology, organizations, legal systems, and infrastructures to allow this movement. It describes the increase of trade and investing due to the falling of barriers and the interdependence of countries. In specifically economic contexts, the term ‘Globalization’ refers particularly to trade liberalization or free trade. Globalization also includes cultural exchanges between and among people and societies.
The processes of globalization is initiated and implemented by people, who must communicate, collaborate, interact and discuss aggreements, the implementation of programmes and projects which forms an integral part of cooperation. Globalization promotes collaborations; collaboration is an act of working together jointly and not independently. This sort of collaboration sort of diffuses tension, hostities and promotes tolerance.
Views of Globalization
Political economist believe globalism is related to laissez- faire capitalism and neoliberalism. Neoliberalism argue that globalization is the process of persuading governments of lesser developed countries to alter political and economic policies in exchange for receiving loans from other states or, more commonly through loans from the World Bank.
Although this definition of globalization by neoliberalism shares a number of characteristics with internationalization and is often used interchangebly, some campaigners prefer to use globalization to emphasize the erosion of the nation state or national boundaries. Under Globalization, national boundaries continue to exist as globalization provide a growing global consciousness and identification as part of an interconnected world rather than a specific Middle East state. This global consciousness will discourage nationalistic thought and foster international cooperation, thus reducing the conflict in the Middle East.
The stance by liberalists that countries heavily dependent on the global economy (whether measured by trade or investment) are likely to experience higher economic growth, greater affluence, more democracy, and increasingly peaceful conditions at home and abroad indicates that the Middle East will benefit immensely from globalization.
Even though there are other arguments by dependency theorists that high levels of trade and investments generate greater economic inequality and leads to the risk of political instability, this argument neglected to discuss the kind of trade that promotes inequality. This suggestion that inequality is a result of globalization is what public interest activists as well as state nationalists use as argument in campaigning against globalization.
It is important to note that the consequences of trade are dependent on what is being exported. Exports of manufactured goods create high levels of welfare and equality, while exports of agricultural products promote poverty and inequality. Although inequality is but one of the many factors which lead to political instability, inequality is not a product of all exports. Countries exporting agricultural products do not need to promote education, and the country will remain poor and with high inequality. An example of the export of agriculture or raw products is the exportation of rubber from Liberia and Cocoa from Cote d’ Ivoire. Tappers of rubber latex in Liberia and Cocoa harvesters in Cote d’Ivoire are mostly illiterate without any specialized skills. If Liberia or a country can manage to produce manufactured and other highly-processed goods inequality is reduced—as has happened in several East Asian countries. The reason for reduction in inequality in a country that produces manufactured and other highly- processed goods and exports is because such processes require highly skilled workers in order to industrialize, and these workers eventually become active in the local labor movement. The result has been a higher level of welfare, and a decrease in inequality. The World Bank (1996) argues along the same lines, pointing out that China and Vietnam have experienced considerable economic growth after replacing parts of their centrally planned economies with free trade and market liberalism.
In Israel today, all the major indicators reflect the severe strains the economy is under: GDP per capital is down; unemployment is up; and apart from the stock exchange, there is little fresh direct foreign investment coming in. These are all the high costs of conflict.
The situation is somewhat similar in the West Bank and Gaza. According to a new United Nations report, the majority of Palestinians have been reduced to surviving on one meal a day, and malnutrition is approaching the level in Africa. Clearly, unless there is economic activity and job creation, more and more desperate young people will join the Intifada or other groups.
Violence Drives Away Capital
Is there a lesson here for the Middle East? Clearly, globalization will bring immense benefits to the Middle East, a region preoccupied with conflict, ancient enmities and continuing violence. Regional cooperation based on Israel's cutting edge technology, relatively cheap Palestinian labor and a huge Arab market will make the Middle East a formidable player in the world economy. The region will not only be an importer of goods and technology, the Middle East will be counted among economic powerhouses like China, the European Union and the USA.
Through globalization, investors, trading partners and governments of the Middle East will engage in trade discussions, negotiations on investment contracts, banking activities, trade exhibitions which will gradually result in building trusts and understanding. These formal interactions will lead to collaborations and coordination and gradually led to informal interactions among various groups in the region. Such networking among parties and groups and individuals will gradually transform into consistently interacting and working together within the Middle East which can only be achieved in a stable environment. As governments, institutions and citizens of the Middle East network and cooperate, they will become more opened to the varying philosophies and beliefs held by others. This intermingling will result into tolerance which will help parties in the Middle East conflict to begin to understand that through cooperation, they can better work together and resolve their differences. Gradually, through this continuing communication and interaction, Middle Eastern states will increasingly become dependent on each other and the outside world for export & import markets. This cooperation in the Middle East will result into good relations with neighboring countries and the world and also serve to reduce conflict in the Middle East. The Middle East will realize that violence and the threat of regional conflict drive away capital and development.
Internal violence and the threat of regional conflict drive away capital faster. Based on Pakistan's experience, the lesson is clear for the Middle East on the importance of an investment friendly environment. Today, despite the large infusion of dollars into Pakistan since 9/11, there is hardly any fresh foreign or local investment being made. While money is being invested in real estate, the stock exchange and the service sector, nobody is thinking of investing in industries in Pakistan. This lack of investment is based on the lack of confidence in the country's future which means very few new jobs are being created, and millions of unemployed young men without a stake in the system can easily be recruited by any fighting group.
Globalization processes encourage increased economic benefits. Once the Middle East encourages the processes of Globalization, there will be increased economic benefits that will improve the lives of everyday citizens and extremists in Middle Eastern countries. With increase economics, groups will have a harder time obtaining new recruits for their mission. The younger generation will realize that there is more to be gained from cooperating and being a part of the global movement then fighting against it.
Globalization has much to offer the region with its huge mineral wealth, its sizeable number of educated workers, Israeli managerial and technical skills and the relatively well-off Arab market. China is another example of a country taking advantage of new economic forces to build its economy while putting regional disputes on the back burner. Despite its long-standing territorial dispute with India, it is trading and talking with its erstwhile foe to their mutual benefit.
Through globalization, people around the globe become more connected to each other than ever before. Information and money flow more quickly than ever. Goods and services produced in one part of the world are increasingly available in all parts of the world. International travel is more frequent. International communication is commonplace.
Another positive aspect of globalization is that it promotes transparency and checks and balances on industries and institutions around the world. As a result of the transparency it provides, several institutions are becoming aware of the importance of credibility and are beginning to put in place measures to protect their industries. Realizing the importance of name to global trade, industries that sell directly to consumers, including clothing, athletic shoes, and rug manufacturers rely on their reputation and brand name. This makes them particularly sensitive to being associated with violent conflict similar to what is in the Middle East. In unstable areas, these industries are likely to withdraw or adopt corporate codes of conduct that address human rights issues. These light industries are the first ones that many countries including the Middle East need during post-conflict reconstruction.
Organizations
Another characteristics of globalization for the Middle East is that multi-national corporations, nonprofit organizations, governments and other institutions realize that cooperation and stability in the Middle East will reduce the refugee crises, weapons proliferation, terrorism, narco-trafficking, peacekeeping and humanitarian emergencies, environmental problems, global health issues, technological developments, and key economic trends which affect their own resources, stability and development.
Multinational corporations will also find it important to work with partners in the Middle East to reduce conflict, bring cooperation between and among rival groups and stability in order to continue operations in that society.
One example of how the process of globalization has promoted strategies for conflict reduction is through the efforts of American Express and others engage in peace promotion activities. Several international travel and tourism industries have a direct interest in peace, and are becoming more active in promoting peace. American Express and other travel and tourism industries are aware that the Middle East has several historical and scenery sites for travel and tourism. These industries and American Express will work with parties or governments in the Middle East in promoting peace, stability and cooperation to support peace-building efforts and also engage in advertising travel and tourism industries of the Middle East.
Media
In the course of globalization, the sharing of information via mass media and internet will increase the understanding and decrease the wrong impression of citizens and nationals in the Middle East. The media industries can be used as a tool to promote tolerance and cooperation and stability and to facilitate the work of civil society groups and international organizations that are involved in conflict management activities. One instance of the power of the media on issues of the Middle East was evident during an interview with Shimon Peres. (CNN, 2000) On a CNN interview broadcast January 3, 2000 Shimon Peres observed that access to fresh water is a key source of conflict in certain regions, but can also present unique opportunities for peacemaking initiatives: "There are many ways to save water and to produce water. Water may be the watershed between peace and war in the Middle East. We spent over $100 billion over the last ten years to acquire arms. Would we invest the same amount of money to produce water or use [recycled] water, we would enjoy peace and prosperity at the same time . . . If we shall together try and bring in a real plan to supply water to all the needed parties of the Middle East, it can be both good business and a great contribution for peace."
The process of globalization will bring cooperation and stability to the Middle East and its relations to the outside world by helping parties to understand the effect of conflict on both human and infrastructure development. Contrary to views that the process of globalization will have a negative influence on the Middle East, like every system, globalization when manipulated becomes a multifaceted process. Just as capitalism requires a network of governing systems to keep it from devouring societies, globalization requires vigilance and the rule of law. Anti-trust laws, the Securities and Exchange Commission, labor unions, charities, the Federal Trade Commission, and countless other agencies and organizations keep American capitalism in check. Similar transparent mechanisms are needed in the Middle East to make sure globalization is a positive force in the world. Globalization will bring tremendous opportunities and benefits to all parties and sectors of society in the Middle East.
The bottom line is that globalization and conflict just do not mix. In other words, the Middle East like Somalia, Sudan, Democrat Republic of Congo, Cote d’Ivoire, and other conflict societies can decide to fight or they can decide that they want to prosper, but they can't do both things simultaneously.
Copyright © Musue N. Haddad
Monday, April 17, 2006
Interview: David Crane on the Arrest of Charles Taylor, Leadership in West Africa
By: Musue N. Haddad
In March 2003, Charles Taylor was indicted for 11 charges of war crimes and crimes against humanity over his alleged role in the civil war in Sierra Leone. Taylor is accused of backing rebels responsible for widespread atrocities in Sierra Leone. Charles Taylor is also accused of selling diamonds and buying weapons for Sierra Leone's Revolutionary United Front rebels, who hacked off the hands and legs of civilians during the Sierra Leone’s war. In August 2003, Taylor was forced into exile through a diplomatic deal. Taylor disappeared in late March 2006 from his exile home in southern Nigeria, when there was increasing pressure to send him to the Special Court for Sierra Leone. He was captured, handcuffed and sent to the Special Court for Sierra Leone for prosecution.
The man who first indicted Charles Ghankay Dakpannah MacArthur Taylor, the former prosecutor for the Sierra Leone Court, David Crane, is a distinguished visiting professor of law at Syracuse University College of Law where he teaches various aspects of international law. Professor Crane has been speaking on the Special Court for Sierra Leone and West Africa’s human rights issues at various forums. FrontPageAfrica’s reporter, Musue N. Haddad caught up with Professor Crane recently. Crane tells Musue N. Haddad the implications of the arrest of Charles Taylor for Justice and what the prospects for peace and justice is for Sierra Leone, Liberia and the challenges West Africa faces.
Thanks a lot for granting this interview to FrontPageAfrica. FrontPageAfrica believes that it is very important for the people of Sierra Leone, the people of Liberia and the people of West Africa to hear from you, particularly after the arrest of Charles Taylor. They also want to know your views on the prospects for justice, Order and peace in the region. Before we delved into the issues of justice and the arrest of Charles Taylor, let us take a look at your background. You were the second American appointed as prosecutor for an international tribunal.
David Crane: It has been an honored to be able to represent the people of Sierra Leone and to seek justice for them. They suffered so crudely.
There was another American who was the prosecutor of the international military tribunal in Numberg and I just happened to have the historical honor of being the second American appointed prosecutor of an international tribunal. Justice Robert Jackson was the first American, appointed to be the chief prosecutor of the tribunal in Nuremberg in 1945.
During the recent US Institute for Peace event, in your presentation, you hinted that the Special Court for Sierra Leone had some limitations. What are some of the limitations of the Special Court for Sierra Leone?
The limitations of the Sierra Leone Court are really more of challenges than limitations. The Special court for Sierra Leone is a very innovative first ever experience in international criminal justice and it is proving to be largely a success. The challenges that this tribunal is experiencing, as many tribunals do face is the indifference the world shows towards what is being done in places such as West Africa and other parts of the world. It is very, very important that you get the world energized and focused on the tragedies that do take place in places such as in Sierra Leone. So it is very important that you get out and talk and present the situation before the world to get the world to focus on justice and wherever that may be needed
You also disclosed that there are over 500,000 victims in Sierra Leone and Liberia has over 600,000 victims of war crimes and crimes against humanity. Liberia does not have a special court and it is not clear whether the government of Liberia is interested in establishing a Special Court for Liberia? As an advocate, what would you proposed?
I think that it is very, very important that once Charles Taylor is given a fair trial in Sierra Leone for the murder, rape, maiming and mutilation of over 500,000 Sierra Leoneans, that the international community along with the Republic of Liberia consider setting up a hybrid international tribunal in Monrovia so that Charles Taylor and others can be fairly tried for the destruction of over 600,000 Liberian. I think that the setting up of a Court for Liberia needs to be done over the next year or two.
The Special Court for Sierra Leone was established and has been functioning for few years; setting the precedent for justice and peace. At this point in Liberia, the government is focused on the establishment of a Truth and Reconciliation Commission. What justice, do you believe the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, (TRC) can bring to victims of the Liberian conflicts and what are the limitations of a TRC?
I think it is very, very important that when you have situations where you have a country transitioning from war to peace, let the truth be told, and so a truth commission like we had in Sierra Leone and like what was in South Africa establishes some of the truth but you must also have justice. I will say to your readers that you have to have both truth and justice to have sustainable peace. I know that the TRC in Liberia is just starting up, that is a good thing. After the TRC have completed their work, the Liberians are going to want to have justice for those who did such terrible things to them and so it will be necessary that a tribunal be put together so that there can be justice for the victims.
Charles Taylor claims that he does not have funds to pay for his legal representation. This claim stuns many who have witnessed the lavish life style of Charles Taylor and his supporters. Are there any means for the court to determine whether, Charles Taylor truly is poor, and that resources amassed during the years of conflicts in Sierra Leone and Liberia, and monies he collected during his administration as President are gone?
The special court for Sierra Leone has a process to review the particular financial circumstances of anyone who is indicted and brought before the court. The court has financial investigators who will investigate to see whether Charles Taylor has money or not. Regardless, it is very important that Charles Taylor be properly represented before the tribunal because it is very important for the people of West Africa to understand that the law is fair and the burden of proof is on the prosecutor himself. Charles Taylor is innocent until proven guilty he has being indicted but until judgment is passed he has not an absolute right to plead not guilty and be fairly represented. So he will be appropriately represented by good barristers who will ensure that there is a fair trial.
The number of persons prosecuted by the Special Court for Sierra is far lesser than those who actually committed war crimes and crimes against humanity. What implications, if any, will that have to Sierra Leone’s peace process?
As I told the people of Sierra Leone during my many town hall’s meetings over a period of three years, speaking to tens of thousands of the brave people of Sierra Leone; I told them that we have to follow the law. The law for the international tribunal statue says that we are supposed to prosecute those who bear the greatest responsibility. That is around twenty to twenty four people or less, and so I explained to them that is our mandate. That means, we can only go as far as our mandate requires. In addition, the Sierra Leone justice system is still rebuilding, it would be very difficult, making it difficult to prosecute other individuals who committed crimes during the war.
I also explained to the Sierra Leoneans that due to the Lome peace accord, there was a domestic amnesty for those who committed crimes in Sierra Leone itself by Sierra Leoneans themselves. That amnesty was the legal challenge as far as trying to prosecute others who committed crimes, even if we could because of the domestic amnesty that was granted in Lome back in 1999.
Is that domestic amnesty similar to the amnesty various Liberian factional groups granted one another during the Accra Peace talks? Is it also the same as the amnesty that Charles Taylor granted himself and his officials of government before he went into exile?
That is a different amnesty. But your readers must understand that there is a difference. Domestic amnesty is only dealing with domestic crimes. At the international level, it does not affect the international crimes of war crimes and crimes against humanity. But Charles Taylor can in fact be prosecuted for what he has done both in Liberia as well as in Sierra Leone.
Readers will begin to wonder why atrocities committed during war are being categorized especially since Human Rights cuts across all barriers. How can Liberians, Sierra Leoneans and West Africans understand the different applications of domestic and international laws to the war crimes and crimes against humanity committed in Liberia, and Sierra Leone?
Certainly, again there are two types of laws, domestic and international laws. And certainly, human rights are very important but you must persecute them according to the statues which are created through treaties as well as by customary and international laws.
International law deals with crimes against mankind such as war crimes and crimes against humanity. Also the statues at the international level relates to serious violations of international humanitarian laws. It is for those that Charles Taylor and others are going to be prosecuted for.
So that means unless Liberians take the lead in calling for the prosecution of Charles Taylor for the violations he carried out in Liberia, the international community can not persecuted him for domestic violence?
No Musue, it will be the international community working with the people of Liberia to establish an international court. Domestically, it will be up to Liberian people themselves as to what they want to do relating to those who committed crimes against them to include Charles Taylor. But what I am talking about is establishing an international tribunal very similar to the special court for Sierra Leone to tried Charles Taylor for international crimes not domestic crimes.
Does it mean that Liberians have to decide to set up a court to prosecute Charles Taylor and his cohort for domestic violence committed against Liberian?
They could do it that way or another way is establishing an international tribunal. It could be done either way.
Liberians and the International community look at the Special Court for Sierra Leone as a model for International Justice on the continent. Are there any set backs in the prosecution of those who committed atrocities in West Africa at the Special Court for Sierra Leone?
We don’t really have any set back. We finally got Charles Taylor so the mandate for the Special Court has been completed. Those who bear the greatest responsibility for war crimes and the crimes against humanity are being prosecuted. The special court for Sierra Leone is showing the world that international criminal justice can be efficiently and effectively delivered in a politically acceptable timeframe in a fair way; showing that the rule of law is more powerful than the rule of the gun.
At this point, what is your vision for justice and peace in Liberia, given that most of Charles Taylor’s staunch supporters, who along with Taylor emptied the national coffers, looted and exploited the country, are living lavishly. Some of Taylor’s cronies are currently holding key positions both in government and the private sector?
No one is above the law. When time comes for justice to be done in Liberia, I am sure the appropriate the appropriate decisions will be made.
Commenting on the Liberia’s peace process, what would you say to Liberians and the international community?
I think we need to give all support to the new president of Liberia, President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf. I think she believes in good governance, which is so very important for a democracy to move forward. Good governance is still lacking in that part of West Africa. I think that with proper support and encouragement, Liberia‘s future is very bright for a sustainable peace. Now that Charles Taylor is currently out of the equation and all of his supporters no longer have Charles Taylor, he is in custody; I think the chance for peace is far greater.
As you sit back at Syracuse University, what is your vision for West Africa?
West Africa has many any challenges and it is very important for the leaders of West Africa to understand that they must govern through good governance and that they cannot use their citizens for their own personal, political or criminal gains.
Corruption is West Africa’s biggest challenge and the people of West African must hold their elected leaders accountable so that they are being governed fairly. But now, West African leaders and in fact all African leaders are on notice, that if they abuse their citizens that they will be held accountable.
Now that you have spoken about the leaders of West African and their poor governance, what is your view on the prevailing situation in Nigeria? President Obasonjo is trying to run for third term and it appears he is gaining the support of colleagues in the region and on the continent – the African culture that encourages African leaders to support one another regardless the consequence a leader’s action may have on citizens. Many political analysts believe that this movement by Obasanjo may begin another leadership trend on the continent.
I think that African leaders practice of supporting one another without regard for the law and the implication of their decisions on the people will have to come to an end. I think that with Charles Taylor being brought down by the law, African people will realize that it is through the laws that their rights will be protected. Africans must also realized that the law should be followed and that the proper transition of government be developed overtime where Africa rulers give up power under their own constitution which is a very very important step forward.
Mr. Crane, is there any issue you will want to discuss; something you would want to elaborate on or talk about that I have not brought out during this interview?
I think that your questions have been very good and I appreciate the opportunity to talk to you.
Thank you for making available this time from your busy schedule for this interview, Mr. Crane. Liberians and West Africans and people on the continent are delighted to hear from you. Against all odds, you initiated the process for Justice and Order in West Africa.
Thank you Musue, the people of Liberia deserve justice because they suffered so terribly under Charles Taylor.
Thanks you very much for your time Mr. Crane and bye.
Thank you, it was good talking to you.
Copyright © Musue N. Haddad
In March 2003, Charles Taylor was indicted for 11 charges of war crimes and crimes against humanity over his alleged role in the civil war in Sierra Leone. Taylor is accused of backing rebels responsible for widespread atrocities in Sierra Leone. Charles Taylor is also accused of selling diamonds and buying weapons for Sierra Leone's Revolutionary United Front rebels, who hacked off the hands and legs of civilians during the Sierra Leone’s war. In August 2003, Taylor was forced into exile through a diplomatic deal. Taylor disappeared in late March 2006 from his exile home in southern Nigeria, when there was increasing pressure to send him to the Special Court for Sierra Leone. He was captured, handcuffed and sent to the Special Court for Sierra Leone for prosecution.
The man who first indicted Charles Ghankay Dakpannah MacArthur Taylor, the former prosecutor for the Sierra Leone Court, David Crane, is a distinguished visiting professor of law at Syracuse University College of Law where he teaches various aspects of international law. Professor Crane has been speaking on the Special Court for Sierra Leone and West Africa’s human rights issues at various forums. FrontPageAfrica’s reporter, Musue N. Haddad caught up with Professor Crane recently. Crane tells Musue N. Haddad the implications of the arrest of Charles Taylor for Justice and what the prospects for peace and justice is for Sierra Leone, Liberia and the challenges West Africa faces.
Thanks a lot for granting this interview to FrontPageAfrica. FrontPageAfrica believes that it is very important for the people of Sierra Leone, the people of Liberia and the people of West Africa to hear from you, particularly after the arrest of Charles Taylor. They also want to know your views on the prospects for justice, Order and peace in the region. Before we delved into the issues of justice and the arrest of Charles Taylor, let us take a look at your background. You were the second American appointed as prosecutor for an international tribunal.
David Crane: It has been an honored to be able to represent the people of Sierra Leone and to seek justice for them. They suffered so crudely.
There was another American who was the prosecutor of the international military tribunal in Numberg and I just happened to have the historical honor of being the second American appointed prosecutor of an international tribunal. Justice Robert Jackson was the first American, appointed to be the chief prosecutor of the tribunal in Nuremberg in 1945.
During the recent US Institute for Peace event, in your presentation, you hinted that the Special Court for Sierra Leone had some limitations. What are some of the limitations of the Special Court for Sierra Leone?
The limitations of the Sierra Leone Court are really more of challenges than limitations. The Special court for Sierra Leone is a very innovative first ever experience in international criminal justice and it is proving to be largely a success. The challenges that this tribunal is experiencing, as many tribunals do face is the indifference the world shows towards what is being done in places such as West Africa and other parts of the world. It is very, very important that you get the world energized and focused on the tragedies that do take place in places such as in Sierra Leone. So it is very important that you get out and talk and present the situation before the world to get the world to focus on justice and wherever that may be needed
You also disclosed that there are over 500,000 victims in Sierra Leone and Liberia has over 600,000 victims of war crimes and crimes against humanity. Liberia does not have a special court and it is not clear whether the government of Liberia is interested in establishing a Special Court for Liberia? As an advocate, what would you proposed?
I think that it is very, very important that once Charles Taylor is given a fair trial in Sierra Leone for the murder, rape, maiming and mutilation of over 500,000 Sierra Leoneans, that the international community along with the Republic of Liberia consider setting up a hybrid international tribunal in Monrovia so that Charles Taylor and others can be fairly tried for the destruction of over 600,000 Liberian. I think that the setting up of a Court for Liberia needs to be done over the next year or two.
The Special Court for Sierra Leone was established and has been functioning for few years; setting the precedent for justice and peace. At this point in Liberia, the government is focused on the establishment of a Truth and Reconciliation Commission. What justice, do you believe the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, (TRC) can bring to victims of the Liberian conflicts and what are the limitations of a TRC?
I think it is very, very important that when you have situations where you have a country transitioning from war to peace, let the truth be told, and so a truth commission like we had in Sierra Leone and like what was in South Africa establishes some of the truth but you must also have justice. I will say to your readers that you have to have both truth and justice to have sustainable peace. I know that the TRC in Liberia is just starting up, that is a good thing. After the TRC have completed their work, the Liberians are going to want to have justice for those who did such terrible things to them and so it will be necessary that a tribunal be put together so that there can be justice for the victims.
Charles Taylor claims that he does not have funds to pay for his legal representation. This claim stuns many who have witnessed the lavish life style of Charles Taylor and his supporters. Are there any means for the court to determine whether, Charles Taylor truly is poor, and that resources amassed during the years of conflicts in Sierra Leone and Liberia, and monies he collected during his administration as President are gone?
The special court for Sierra Leone has a process to review the particular financial circumstances of anyone who is indicted and brought before the court. The court has financial investigators who will investigate to see whether Charles Taylor has money or not. Regardless, it is very important that Charles Taylor be properly represented before the tribunal because it is very important for the people of West Africa to understand that the law is fair and the burden of proof is on the prosecutor himself. Charles Taylor is innocent until proven guilty he has being indicted but until judgment is passed he has not an absolute right to plead not guilty and be fairly represented. So he will be appropriately represented by good barristers who will ensure that there is a fair trial.
The number of persons prosecuted by the Special Court for Sierra is far lesser than those who actually committed war crimes and crimes against humanity. What implications, if any, will that have to Sierra Leone’s peace process?
As I told the people of Sierra Leone during my many town hall’s meetings over a period of three years, speaking to tens of thousands of the brave people of Sierra Leone; I told them that we have to follow the law. The law for the international tribunal statue says that we are supposed to prosecute those who bear the greatest responsibility. That is around twenty to twenty four people or less, and so I explained to them that is our mandate. That means, we can only go as far as our mandate requires. In addition, the Sierra Leone justice system is still rebuilding, it would be very difficult, making it difficult to prosecute other individuals who committed crimes during the war.
I also explained to the Sierra Leoneans that due to the Lome peace accord, there was a domestic amnesty for those who committed crimes in Sierra Leone itself by Sierra Leoneans themselves. That amnesty was the legal challenge as far as trying to prosecute others who committed crimes, even if we could because of the domestic amnesty that was granted in Lome back in 1999.
Is that domestic amnesty similar to the amnesty various Liberian factional groups granted one another during the Accra Peace talks? Is it also the same as the amnesty that Charles Taylor granted himself and his officials of government before he went into exile?
That is a different amnesty. But your readers must understand that there is a difference. Domestic amnesty is only dealing with domestic crimes. At the international level, it does not affect the international crimes of war crimes and crimes against humanity. But Charles Taylor can in fact be prosecuted for what he has done both in Liberia as well as in Sierra Leone.
Readers will begin to wonder why atrocities committed during war are being categorized especially since Human Rights cuts across all barriers. How can Liberians, Sierra Leoneans and West Africans understand the different applications of domestic and international laws to the war crimes and crimes against humanity committed in Liberia, and Sierra Leone?
Certainly, again there are two types of laws, domestic and international laws. And certainly, human rights are very important but you must persecute them according to the statues which are created through treaties as well as by customary and international laws.
International law deals with crimes against mankind such as war crimes and crimes against humanity. Also the statues at the international level relates to serious violations of international humanitarian laws. It is for those that Charles Taylor and others are going to be prosecuted for.
So that means unless Liberians take the lead in calling for the prosecution of Charles Taylor for the violations he carried out in Liberia, the international community can not persecuted him for domestic violence?
No Musue, it will be the international community working with the people of Liberia to establish an international court. Domestically, it will be up to Liberian people themselves as to what they want to do relating to those who committed crimes against them to include Charles Taylor. But what I am talking about is establishing an international tribunal very similar to the special court for Sierra Leone to tried Charles Taylor for international crimes not domestic crimes.
Does it mean that Liberians have to decide to set up a court to prosecute Charles Taylor and his cohort for domestic violence committed against Liberian?
They could do it that way or another way is establishing an international tribunal. It could be done either way.
Liberians and the International community look at the Special Court for Sierra Leone as a model for International Justice on the continent. Are there any set backs in the prosecution of those who committed atrocities in West Africa at the Special Court for Sierra Leone?
We don’t really have any set back. We finally got Charles Taylor so the mandate for the Special Court has been completed. Those who bear the greatest responsibility for war crimes and the crimes against humanity are being prosecuted. The special court for Sierra Leone is showing the world that international criminal justice can be efficiently and effectively delivered in a politically acceptable timeframe in a fair way; showing that the rule of law is more powerful than the rule of the gun.
At this point, what is your vision for justice and peace in Liberia, given that most of Charles Taylor’s staunch supporters, who along with Taylor emptied the national coffers, looted and exploited the country, are living lavishly. Some of Taylor’s cronies are currently holding key positions both in government and the private sector?
No one is above the law. When time comes for justice to be done in Liberia, I am sure the appropriate the appropriate decisions will be made.
Commenting on the Liberia’s peace process, what would you say to Liberians and the international community?
I think we need to give all support to the new president of Liberia, President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf. I think she believes in good governance, which is so very important for a democracy to move forward. Good governance is still lacking in that part of West Africa. I think that with proper support and encouragement, Liberia‘s future is very bright for a sustainable peace. Now that Charles Taylor is currently out of the equation and all of his supporters no longer have Charles Taylor, he is in custody; I think the chance for peace is far greater.
As you sit back at Syracuse University, what is your vision for West Africa?
West Africa has many any challenges and it is very important for the leaders of West Africa to understand that they must govern through good governance and that they cannot use their citizens for their own personal, political or criminal gains.
Corruption is West Africa’s biggest challenge and the people of West African must hold their elected leaders accountable so that they are being governed fairly. But now, West African leaders and in fact all African leaders are on notice, that if they abuse their citizens that they will be held accountable.
Now that you have spoken about the leaders of West African and their poor governance, what is your view on the prevailing situation in Nigeria? President Obasonjo is trying to run for third term and it appears he is gaining the support of colleagues in the region and on the continent – the African culture that encourages African leaders to support one another regardless the consequence a leader’s action may have on citizens. Many political analysts believe that this movement by Obasanjo may begin another leadership trend on the continent.
I think that African leaders practice of supporting one another without regard for the law and the implication of their decisions on the people will have to come to an end. I think that with Charles Taylor being brought down by the law, African people will realize that it is through the laws that their rights will be protected. Africans must also realized that the law should be followed and that the proper transition of government be developed overtime where Africa rulers give up power under their own constitution which is a very very important step forward.
Mr. Crane, is there any issue you will want to discuss; something you would want to elaborate on or talk about that I have not brought out during this interview?
I think that your questions have been very good and I appreciate the opportunity to talk to you.
Thank you for making available this time from your busy schedule for this interview, Mr. Crane. Liberians and West Africans and people on the continent are delighted to hear from you. Against all odds, you initiated the process for Justice and Order in West Africa.
Thank you Musue, the people of Liberia deserve justice because they suffered so terribly under Charles Taylor.
Thanks you very much for your time Mr. Crane and bye.
Thank you, it was good talking to you.
Copyright © Musue N. Haddad
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)