PUL Celebrates World Press Day - Awards Journalist

By: Jos Garneo Cephas
The Press Union of Liberia marked the 19th anniversary of World Press Freedom Day, a day that honors the achievements and bravery of the men and women who call themselves journalists. The PUL 2011/2012 awards ceremony was held at the Samuel Kanyon Doe Sports complex in Monrovia with a number of side events, including a live band that brought the audience to the feet. The awards program climaxed series of activities in commemoration of World Press Freedom Day organized by the Union. The program was sponsored by Cellcom, UNESCO, IREX, UNMIL and Coa-Coala.
The panel of judges named the Heritage the best newspaper in the country for its remarkable work during the year under review.


PUL President, Peter Quaqua


The panel of judges included: Madam Musue Hadad, Chairperson. Madam Haddad is a renowned Liberian female journalist, who have won journalism and photo-journalism awards from the Press Union of Liberia, and also received international human rights awards for her work. Ms. Haddad is now Consumer Manager at the Liberia Telecommunications Authority (LTA).

Other members of the panel included: Mr. Nathan Bengue, Director of Communications at the Public Procurement and Concession Commission (PPCC) and also former Vice president of the Press Union of Liberia, Mr. Hassan Kiawu, Director of Communications at the Ministry of Agriculture and also Media Consultant at the Liberia Broadcasting System (LBS) and Mr. Raymond Zabay, a seasoned Liberian journalist in the employ of the United Nations Mission In Liberia (UNMIL) Radio.
The rest are: Mr. Thomas Doe-Nah; Executive Director of the Center for Transparency and Accountability in Liberia (CENTAL), Mr. Momolu V.O. Sirleaf, former President of the Sports Writers Association of Liberia (SWAL). Currently, he serves as Policy Analyst at the Ministry of Health and Social Welfare and Mr. Albert Ansu, Program Director of the Center for Media Studies and Peace Building (CEMESP).

In her statement, the Chairperson of the vetting Committee, Musue Haddad said the Committee worked assiduously, and took into account news content, originality of materials submitted, grammar, general layout and above all, accuracy, balance and clarity otherwise known as the basic ABC of journalism.

Haddad said, though there were several entries for the “Investigative Reporter,” award, the committee went through all of the materials with “keen eyes,” but none of the materials met the Investigative Journalism award. She told the audience that the committee based their decision on several factors, including, “a report that broke new ground on a particular topic, or dug deeper into a topic than anyone has before, and a report that demonstrated that the reporter interviewed or quoted numerous on the record sources, as well as in some instances, interviews with anonymous sources, or whistleblowers, conducted the investigation for at least several months.” " After going through the entries submitted, the committee realized that none of the entries met the criteria for investigative journalism," Chairperson Haddad said.

To determine whether a piece is an investigative one, Haddad urged reporters to ask themselves the following questions: will this piece affect change in one way or another; what would be the outcome of the story? Would the story be ignored or will the report get people talking? Will the report spark an investigation; will it cause a policy shift or some other political change?

Speaking at the awards ceremony, the President of the PUL, Mr. Peter Quaqua, Congratulated the honorees and challenged them to continue to raise the standard of the journalism profession in the country.

On the other hand, he also challenged individual journalists and institutions that did not win to work harder next time, adding “you can be winners; it is just a matter of time.”

For his part, Mr. Chris Simpson, formally with the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), commended the Liberian media for its contributions to the rebuilding of the country following years of political brouhaha.

Mr. Simpson said he was impressed with the huge eloquence of the Liberian media.
Mr. Sampson, who served as keynote speaker during the awards program, pointed out that the Liberian media has developed rapidly over the years.

However, he called on journalists to use the freedom of the press responsibly, urging journalists that they must be kind, perfect, accurate and truthful in the discharge of their noble profession.

The latest award won by the Heritage on May 4, 2012 brings to three the total number of awards the paper has received. It can be recalled that in 2005, the acclaimed European Union (EU) named the Heritage as the best newspaper in the coverage of the 2005 Presidential and Legislative Elections.

It can also be recalled that in 2012, the paper was ranked #1 on the Media Quality Barometer (MQB) Survey, an initiative of the Liberia Media Center (LMC) and its international partners.

Meanwhile, several individual journalists were also awarded for their remarkably work during the 2011/2012 year.

Those awarded are: Mr. Anthony Stevens (Radio Veritas); Sports Reporter of the Year, Mr. Abbas Dolley (New Democrat Newspaper); Photo Journalist of the Year, Mr. Robert Clark (Truth FM); Newscaster of the Year, Mr. Titus Tokpa (LBS); Legislative Reporter of the Year(Electronic category) and Mr. Tom Nyannue (FrontPage Africa Newspaper); Legislative Reporter of the Year(Print Category).

Others are: Madam Weade Williams (FrontPage Africa Newspaper); Executive Mansion Reporter of the Year, Madam Fatumata Fofana (Daily Observer); Columnist of the Year, Madam Fabine Quiah (Radio Veritas); Women's Rights Reporter of the Year, Mr. Peter Fahn (New Liberia Newspaper); Environmental Reporter of the Year and Mr. Jefferson Mansah (Radio Gbarnga); Development Reporter of the Year.

The rest are: Mr. Nathan Charles (LBS) Human Rights Reporter of the Year (Electronic category), Madam Weade Williams (FrontPage Africa Newspaper) Human Rights Reporter of the Year (Print Category), Madam Tetee Gebro (Sky FM), Business Reporter of the Year and Mr. Isaac Freeman (Power TV), Videographer of the Year.

Fabric Radio was named as the Radio Station of the year 2011-2012.

Other World Press Freedom Day activities included hundreds of journalists parading through the streets of Monrovia and a debate between students from two of Liberia’s leading universities on the importance of the Freedom of Information Law.
Scenes from the Ceremony
PUL's Vetting Committee

LTA Cites Lonestar

Liberia Telecommunications Authority
12th Street Sinkor – Tubman Boulevard
Monrovia, Liberia

Monrovia, Liberia: May 22, 2012 The Board of Commissioners of the Liberia Telecommunications Authority has cited the management of the Lonestar Communications Corporation to an administrative hearing to show cause why the LTA should not suspend Lonestar’s license for violation of the Telecommunications Act of 2007 and LTA’s Interconnection Regulations issued in 2009.

The LTA decision comes in the wake of Lonestar’s failure to heed LTA’s ultimatum mandating it to fully reconnect Comium Liberia to its interconnection trunk by 5:00 p.m. on Monday May 21, 2012.

In a letter to the Chief Executive Officer of Lonestar Communications Corporation Mr. Mazen Mroue the LTA said data available to the LTA management shows that Comium is not fully re-connected as it was prior to Lonestar’s unilateral action of May 18, 2012 in complete defiance to LTA’s instructions issued yesterday Monday May 22, 2012
As a result, the letter stated, the Lonestar should bring along to this show cause hearing which has been scheduled for tomorrow Wednesday May 23, 2012, its legal counsel and that failure to attend will result in the LTA taking appropriate remedial actions.

The LTA yesterday Monday May 21, 2012 issued a Press Statement mandating the Chief Executive Officer of LoneStar to reconnect Comium Liberia.

LTA Statement on Lonestar and Comium Saga

Monday May 21, 2012: THE LIBERIA TELECOMMUNICATIONS AUTHORITY IS IN RECEIPT OF A LETTER OF COMPLAINT FROM COMIUM LIBERIA THAT LONESTAR COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION HAS DISCONNECTED THE INTERCONNECTION TRUNK WITH COMIUM SINCE LAST FRIDAY MAY 18, 2012.

AS THE PUBLIC MAY ALSO BE AWARE, ON SATURDAY MAY 19, LONESTAR COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION, WITHOUT ANY REGARD FOR THE LIBERIA TELECOMMUNICATIONS AUTHORITY, SENT TEXT MESSAGES TO ITS SUBSCRIBERS, INFORMING THEM THAT INCOMING CALLS FROM COMIUM TO LONESTAR, AS OF FRIDAY MAY 18, WILL BE LIMITED.

IN THE WAKE OF THESE DEVELOPMENTS WITHIN THE SECTOR, THE LTA HAS INSTRUCTED THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF LONESTAR COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION MR. MAZEN MROUE TO RECONNECT COMUIM IMMEDIATELY BEFORE 5:00 P.M. TODAY MONDAY, TO THE STATUS QUO ANTE.

FAILURE BY LONESTAR TO IMPLEMENT THIS MANDATE, THE LTA WILL COMMENCE THE NECESSARY PROCEDURE FOR THE SUSPENSION OF LONESTAR’S OPERATIONAL LICENSE AND TAKE OTHER APPROPRIATE ACTIONS.

THE LTA HAS BEEN PUSHED TO THE EXTREME DUE TO LONESTAR’S CONSISTENT DISREGARD OF LTA’S REGULATIONS, AND THE GOVERNMENT OF LIBERIA’S POLICIES ON TELECOMMUNICATIONS.


SIGNED:___________________________
E. Blamo Robinson
Acting Director of Public and Consumer Affairs

Liberia Communications Authority on Its Development Sector

Monrovia, Liberia: May 20, 2012 The Liberia Telecommunications Authority (LTA) wishes to clarify that contrary to media reports and insinuations that the recent trip made abroad by the Chairperson of the LTA, madam Angelique Weeks, for the purpose of seeking emergency medical treatment for her mother is being sponsored by the LTA is false, inaccurate and misleading.

The LTA wishes to let it be known that said trip is a private one and therefore the LTA could not have committed a dime to the effort, and that the LTA records are there for anyone to see in this regard.

In another development, the LTA’s attention has been drawn to Lonestar’s unilateral and illegal action of announcing that it intended to limit connectivity to its network for Comium consumers, and subsequently following through with its threat without recourse to the LTA, thereby violating Lonestar’s licensing agreement, as well as relevant portions of the Telecom Act of 2007.
Both the Telecom Act and Lonestar’s licensing agreement forbid Lonestar as a service provider from disrupting interconnection between it and any other licensed service provider in the country without the LTA’s expressed approval.

While LTA is indeed aware of Comium’s indebtedness to the Lonestar regarding interconnection fees, the LTA has since assured the Lonestar that the LTA is fully engaged with Comium to expedite a resolution of the problem and had accordingly requested Lonestar to exercise restraint in the interim.

The LTA therefore views this action against Comium consumers as a complete disregard of and disrespect for LTA’s statutory regulatory powers and a serious and blatant violation of a cardinal licensing term and condition under which Lonestar was granted a license.

Meanwhile, it has been brought to the attention of the LTA that Lonestar, contrary to ongoing efforts to foster a Public-Private Partnership in which Lonestar, Cellcom, Libtelco and the Government of Liberia are collaborating to bring in the submarine cable in the country, Lonestar has undertaken to establish a separate fiber backbone by way of San Pedro in Cote d’Ivoire, even though the LTA had since advised all GSM companies wishing to establish cross border fiber connectivity to hold back their horses (or request authorization from the LTA) in this regard so as not to undermine GoL policy on the submarine cable project.

In view of these negative and alarming sector developments, the LTA is considering appropriate regulatory actions that will protect consumers in the country and ensure the timely and successful implementation of GoL policy on fiber optic connectivity in the country.

Factors That Influence War

By: Musue N. Haddad

Why do countries go to war? Why do nations that were once allies become bitter enemies? Why do people allow disagreement to degenerate into conflicts? Why do people of the same nation fight, and continue to fight even if their fights lead to loss of precious lives, and destructions of properties? Why were there civil wars in Sierra Leone and Liberia? Why Sierra Leoneans did chop the hands of their fellow citizens, including little kids? Why Liberians did butcher one another?

At the onset of the Liberian civil war, we were told that the war was a "revolution" and for a "cause," a cause that is yet to be identified and defined. Or did we fight for the usual "human rights, prosperity and freedom" that we hear most wars are being fought? Did we go to war to improve our own wealth and power, or at the very least to improve the wealth and power of others? Now that the guns are silent in Sierra Leone and Liberia, the wounds created by the war are still somehow fresh, and the scars are revealing. Did the wars benefit citizenry of Liberia and Sierra Leone? Were the wars in Liberia and Sierra Leone supported in any way? If so, why and for what reasons? Was there a vested interest in our wars? Were those benefits in any way based on interest, revenge, or fear, or all of the above?

There are several conflicts on the African continent. If we take a keen look at the conflicts in Sudan, Congo, Somalia, and the wars in the Middle East, we notice that most of the crises have characteristics that run through all of them: the fight for the usual human rights, prosperity and freedom. But how successful have we been in achieving these goals and objectives? But then again, we know that history has shown that wars and conflicts are fought and instigated for a number of reasons, including interest, revenge and or fear.

In order to take a look at some of the factors that influence wars, whether in Africa, the Middle East, the Gulf, and other parts of the war, this article takes a look at one of the most recent crisis that grasp the attention of both local and international media. The great United States played a pivotal role in the Iraq war, and continues to engage Iraq and its neighbors to promote democracy. This discussion looks at the processes used by the U.S. intelligence in its collection and analysis about Iraq's capabilities to develop and use weapons of mass destruction (WMD) - the key factor that presumably led to the war. This article also look at and discuss the four political models- the Bureaucratic Politics, Organizational model, Rationale Action, and Psychological model to analyze the perspective(s) that best explains the failure of the U.S. Intelligence Community to provide accurate information on Iraqi's capabilities to develop and use weapons of mass destruction (WMD).

The Psychological Model

The U.S. Intelligence Community assessment that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear programs was a substantial intelligence failure that can be largely attributed to the psychological perspective. Key actors of the U.S. Intelligence Community focused on assumptions, perceptions, and past historical behaviors of Iraq to make assessment and analysis. The major actors within the U.S. Intelligence Community included the CIA, NGIC, DIA, DOE, NIR, Air Force Intelligence, NGA, NSA, and FBI, worked within the confines of a preconceived notion that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear weapons program and would again deceive the international community by concealing the program. When intelligence reporting indicated that Iraq was seeking tubes made of 7075 T6 aluminum alloy, that report served as an additional information used by actors within the Intelligence Community to counter their information as a way of retaining their view points and beliefs -that Iraq was reconstituting its weapons program. The CIA and NGIC insisted from the onset that aluminum tubes could be used for centrifuge rotors, as opposed to the DOE and IAE, who stated that the tubes were better, suited for use in Iraq's missile launcher program. Additionally, the claim that Iraq had attempted to buy uranium yellow cake from Niger and the case for the UAV further illustrates how biases, rigid perceptions and fixed beliefs by the U.S. Intelligence lead to faulty intelligence analysis. Despite the scanty evidence available, the CIA failed to confirm the foreign report on the uranium yellowcake but concluded that the information was cogent.

The various agencies responsible for data collection began with the idea that the Iraqi regime was procuring illegal arsenals to reconstitute its nuclear program. The psychological perception that when someone acts like they have something to hide, usually they are hiding something, further rationalized the underlying assumptions of key U.S intelligence actors than by available scientific evidence (pg 69).

Iraq's historical activities and the logic it seemed to imply made it counter-intuitive to U.S. Intelligence that Saddam was building and hiding Weapons of Mass Destruction. With this notion, it was likely that a contrary point of view would have been out rightly dismissed. Another psychological setback was the failure to independently reassess evidences and reconsider particularly foreign sources and their information. The data provided by Curveball and other sources were not evaluated. These factors among other assumptions led to unmotivated bias wherein intelligence organizations failed to analyze the data and verify the authenticity of the claims. This bias intensified the motivated biases wherein assumptions became stronger that "contradictory data was often discounted as likely false' (pg 169). It is obvious that a chain of psychological factors created a just right situation for intelligence failure.

Organizational Model

The organizational processes of the U.S. community was a second major contributing failure of the intelligence gathering and analysis concerning the reconstitution of Iraqi's Weapons program -the Weapons of Mass Destruction, (WMD). The overall collection of information for WMD in Iraq has many organizational flaws. The intelligence community's primary failure resulted from their routines and mission of collecting reliable and useful information. In this case, the intelligence community relied on very few sources -human intelligence without much effort to verifying the sources' background and information provided.

Routines procedure and short-cuts were also part of the organizational problems that led to the U.S. Intelligence Community's erroneous conclusion that Iraq was trying to procure uranium from Niger. Document concerning an Iraq- Niger oil contract were initially forwarded to the DOS but not to the CIA. The documents were later found to be forgeries, but failure to initially send the documents to the CIA caused a delay in officially discrediting he documents.

The lack of coordination and procedural problem among different agencies made information sharing difficult. The absence of coordination to address the different assessment from different agencies also contributed to the U.S Intelligence community faulty WMD report on Iraq. In order for an organization to be effective, it needs to have a defined structure, access to information and coherence. The U.S. Intelligence community lacked coherence between and among the various organizations - CIA, NSA, FBI's intelligence division, Naval Intelligence, Air Force Intelligence, Army Intelligence, National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's intelligence division et others. Given the extensive organizational divisions of the intelligence community, there were undoubtedly overlap and duplications of duties by organizations that already had different standard operation procedures, missions and ideology. Another faulty organizational process was the issue of information and intelligence sharing, and the fact that there were several small intelligence agencies beholden to their government departments that may have had useful information but had little concept of the bigger issue at stake.

Divisions within organizations need to be made clear and there should also be minimum overlaps and duplication as much as possible in order for an organization to be efficient and achieve its goals. When there is an overlap and duplications of functions, or lack of coherence within an organization, there is a tendency for muddle up in the operations, ideology or lost sight of what they are seeking. The U.S Intelligence community comprised over a dozen organizations. The size of the individual organizations varied, having a single person at the top of the pyramid still doesn't eliminate problems of duplication. As information moves up any organization it is filtered by actors at various levels who make judgments as to what is important, sometimes using their expertise and/or judgment - to address particular issues without the knowledge of higher ups.

Another setback within the Intelligence community was organizational culture. When organizations merged, whether formally or informally, there is the possibility for an influence in the culture of one or all of the organizations. This cultural influence can have an effect on the ideology of the actors within the organization and their objectives which might be different from the mission and goals of the organization. As a result of the overlapping of functions, the Intelligence collection, analysis and reporting was not separated from that of the military operations. This was a major setback; military analysis and ideology are usually clearly interpreted differently from that of intelligence and, whenever possible intelligence analysis and reporting needs to be separated from military.

This was evident during the U.S Intelligence community collection and analysis of Iraq when the CIA began operating closely with Defense. It is possible that by working closely with Defense, the CIA, or both of the organizations borrowed an aspect of the other's approach and attitude in assessing and or interpretation of data on Iraq

Another organizational problem was the intelligence community tendency to do away with uncertainty and to seek conformity. Such practices resulted in the lack of knowledge or awareness of the availability of information inconsistent with data they had secured regarding the Iraqi situation. In general, the intelligence community's failure resulted from organizational processes attributed to the intelligence community tendency to place emphasis on dubious evidence because it fit presumptions, and they ignored contradictory evidence, which may have resulted in alternative hypothesis. This disregard for independent evidence or information that was inconsistent with data they had accrued impeded any possibility of truth on the Iraqi situation.

Organizational processes also determined the perspective of different organizations within the intelligence community. The CIA focused its mission in interpreting the deception of others; the CIA exposed itself to thinking that any absence of evidence or information was an indication of Iraqi's successful deception of the Intelligence community. The flaws and setbacks in the organizational processes of the U.S. Intelligence community explain the failure in its collection and analysis which resulted in a false impression of certainty for analysts' judgment.

Bureaucratic Politics Model

Although Bureaucratic politics behavior within the failed decision making regarding U.S intelligence community cannot be seen as significantly important as was the Psychological and Organizational models, the primary objective of bureaucratic politics was to protect the interest of the organization.

In most instances, the CIA and other bureaus utilized intelligence that was of poor quality. A bureaucratic problem was the unwillingness of the Intelligence Community and the CIA in particular to admit error and also discouraged the pursuit of information that would have revealed error. This reluctance was probably seen as a way of protecting and maintaining the credibility of the bureaus and organizations.

Other fundamental dynamics to explore that might shed light on the role bureaucratic politics played in the U.S Intelligence assessment of Iraq is whether the excessive layers of bureaucracy within the Intelligence community and the behavior of the major actors from individual organizations were consistent with the overall goal of the Intelligence Community. This leads to the issue of appointments and basis for which the appointments or reorganization made. A characteristic to also consider is the consistency of a position to a particular bureau and whether the position was consistent with the interest of the organization or geared towards accomplishing a specific goal or interest.

Rationale Action Model

The U.S intelligence community in assessing Iraq's WMD focused largely on Saddam's behavior in the past and determined that though his actions were seemingly irrational, from that determination constructed a pattern of behavior which they rationally considered the irrational behavior of Saddam. As a result of the presumptions drawn from Saddam's previous behavior, the Intelligence community used scanty data to support their hypothesis that Iraq did indeed have and was reconstituting its Weapons of Mass Destruction. Instead of testing the hypothesis, they treated the hypothesis as facts, ignoring all alternatives which resulted in failures in their analysis of Iraq's WMD.

The Intelligence community appeared to have been over-whelmed by the presumptions, and hypothesis with little considerations for measuring ranges between available alternatives and goals. It was based on the flawed theory that the Intelligence Community cashed in on a short-term consequences -a report claiming that Iraq had and was reconstituting its weapon of Mass Destruction.

The Burning House Theory - Security and Survival in International Politics

By: Musue N. Haddad

Have you ever seen a house burning? Have you ever survived a burning house? Now as you begin thinking about a burning house, your mind may become preoccupied with other disasters. Then you may start asking yourself, "What kind of life is considered a good life for human beings? What kind of life is appropriate for a person to live among people and how does a person's relationship with others influence society and their own survival? Well, as you read on, you will notice that this article is not pushing you to think about being in a burning house. Rather, this article is using a burning house scenario to demonstrate three political theories: Realism, Liberalism and Constructivism. These political terminologies, are theories that have been at work for many years, and have influenced political ideas around the world.

The questions asked at the beginning of this article are similar to ones that have been the focus of various political theories for several centuries. Deliberation on these political principles resulted in Arnold Wolfers' work: Discord and Collaboration: Essays on International Politics, published in 1963 which uses the example of the burning house to demonstrate some principles of political theories.

The burning house metaphor provides the concepts and applications of Realism, Liberalism and Constructivism. The circumstance in the Burning House metaphor, scenario #1, the heat from the fire is extremely intense, smoke has filled the room and it is difficult for the occupants to breathe and almost impossible for them to see falls within the Realism theories where occupants will see their survival as zero-sum - one occupant's survival is balanced by the losses of another occupant. With this in mind, self- interest and survival becomes the primary goal of each occupant with no interest in cooperation and building alliance. Acting on the Realism principles, the occupants also considers themselves as a sovereign state who are the principal actors in the international system and therefore do not anticipate help from the fire department.

The next circumstance, scenario # 2, the fire is in a distant part of the house and does not pose an immediate threat to the occupants reflects Realism view. Occupants are self-centered. They do not see the fire as posing any direct threat to their survival and security, therefore do not feel obliged to put to use resources they have amassed to extinguish the fire. The reason is that, states are in competition with one another and views self-interest as a primary goal to maintain and ensure their own security which translates into sovereignty and survival with security as its primary goal. Realism holds that in the pursuit of security, states will attempt to amass resources and that relations between states are determined by their level of power. That level of power is in turn determined by the states military might and economic capabilities. Kenneth N. Waltz in his contribution to the study of Realism said the main goal of a state actor is to secure power and security in the form of military power or political persuasion. The goal of each state's interest in its own security and survival is prevalent today in international politics.

One example of Realism is the United States under the leadership of President George Bush. Bush exhibited some characteristics of being a realist. The U.S war on Iraq was obviously because President Bush feared the security of the United States was threatened. The act of going to war followed one of the theories of realism - states ensure security and survival of its own state even if it has to go to war to protect its security and survival. President Bush was aggressive in his pursuit of security and survival which is a guarantee of power. President Bush's attempts to make sure of the security of the United States and its ability to influence or control other states which in turn ensures the survival of the U.S. The level of power a state possesses determines its survival. Another underlying outcome of the war on Iraq could be the preservation of the United States culture.

An additional example to show how realism is still dominant in the world today is by looking at Indian and Pakistan. At one time, Pakistan and India were one state, but today they are split and have almost similar amount of power between them. However, both states wish to be more powerful than the other one, which is why so much conflict is occurring today. This concept of balance of power is another fundamental assumption of realism.

One more example of Realism approach in the pursuit of wealth and security through amassing resources was demonstrated by ex-warlord and ex-president Charles Taylor of Liberia. While leading a rebel group, Charles Taylor began displaying some of the qualities of Realism by establishing and supporting insurgency groups to destabilize governments in other countries within the region. Even after becoming President of Liberia, Taylor continued to pursue resources from other countries as a way of accumulating more resources in pursuit of security, survival and power. In addition to accumulating resources as President, Charles Taylor in his relation with other states within the region exemplified basic theories of Realism with regards to the pursuit of political power by threatening the political stability of governments which he considered opposing forces. Realism believes that states want to be more dominant than their neighbors and that power is control, so whoever has the power has the control. The character of Taylor was a unique example of the Realism principles of how relations between states are determined by their power and that that level of power is determined by military and economic potentials. Charles Taylor's approach to power is what realism views as natural to human beings; that is to be self-centered and eager for power. To what extend this view extends to all human beings is arguable but there were reports that Taylor regularly consulted Machiavelli work, "The Prince." Machiavelli in the Prince argues human being is set in his ways of being corrupt when it comes to power.

Niccolò Machiavelli discussed the methods of gaining and maintaining political power in his work The Prince, published in 1532. Michiavelli supported other political scholars definition of power as the ability to impose one's will on others, or to pursue one's goals at the expense of others' interests. Power can be exercised through violence or through coercion, through threat of force, or through treaties and diplomacy.

Throughout its history, realism has faced many challenges and criticisms from different approaches; most notably liberalism. Liberalism argues that power politics itself is the product of ideas, and crucially ideas can change. From a liberalism view, cooperation is more persuasive that action forced. Realism holds the assumptions that international system is anarchical and that sovereign states rather than International Governmental Organizations, (IGOs), Non Governmental Organizations, (NGOs), or Multinational National Corporations, (MNCs), are primary actors in international affairs, Liberalism and Constructivism hold other views on international system. Liberalism criticizes the notion of state as unitary actors, each with a single set of coherent interests. Constructivism rejects standard realist and liberal views on international relations and argues that state interests stem from identities and international norms, rather than from the effects of international anarchy.

In the metaphor of the burning house, scenario # 3, the occupants have a well-rehearsed evacuation plan demonstrates the importance of collective action and the significance of cooperation in achieving a common goal. The differences between liberalism and Realism and other political beliefs is that Liberalism believes that an organized society creates the possibility for preplanning and cooperation and coordination. Scenario # 4, the exits are clearly visible and unobstructed, describes some of the advantages of cooperation over competition. While the Realism principles of competition drives people to reach their highest performance, it supports separation which leads to individuality, cooperation promotes unity. People are stronger together than when they are separated.

Scenario # 4 also demonstrates how people adapt (new) behavior. Although the Liberalism and Constructivism theories discuss institutions and people's reactions to these issues, Constructivism delves more into the behavior of people to society and norms. The Constructivism principles explores how people's behavior change even though they initially had different set if ideas, people adapt to behavior to avoid being reprimanded. Although the authoritative influence is lacking in Liberalism and Realism, Constructivism principles approach to behavior is through legitimacy and getting people to do what they would not have done. This approach of authority and legitimacy resulted into keeping the exits clearly visible and unobstructed. Had this circumstances being under the Realism theory of self-interest, the exits would have been obstructed by individuals who for example needed space to store excesses of their personal belongings with total disregard for the security and well-being of others.

As for the situation cited in scenario # 5, the occupants are unsure which exits, if any, are usable, it exhibits variables of both Liberalism and Constructivism theories. Liberalism believes conflict is often a result of miscommunication or that information may have being misrepresented or unfavorable. This miscommunication may have resulted to lack of knowledge of if any, the availability and location of a usable exit. A high level of threat is perceived in this scenario according to the Constructivism theory. However, in the midst of this threat, Constructivism makes available the presence of an intermediary and also allows for help to enable the understanding of problems faced by others. In this scenario, although occupants are unsure of the existence and positions of usable exits, intermediary and activism under Constructivism could intervene through advocacy or providing insight to occupants on the problems they are faced with. Assistance could also be provided to help occupants.

In Arnold Wolfers' metaphor of the burning house, Scenario # 6, one occupant takes the lead and shouts out orders for others to follow, describes the Realism theory where one strong state must takes the lead in anarchy in order to maintain order. The principle is that the only source of stability so far relies on the balance of power; the powerful leads and others follow.

Unlike the Realism principle, states are independent under the Liberalism theory, but they work cooperatively through other organizations where generally there is not one leader. This is what is exhibited in scenario # 7, where no one takes the lead. Although in such a disastrous situation, when there is no sign of rescue, there is paranoid which might result into anarchy and it's survival of the fittest, this is not to say that order and cooperative groups do not arise in anarchy. Order and cooperative groups do arise in times of disaster; it is just that mostly they re not planned.

The focus of Realism in nationalism as opposed to sub-national groupings is why the issue of capability is important to the survival and security of the state. In scenario # 8, the tallest occupant can escape through the window, being tall is considered a capability in this circumstance for Realism, and therefore an advantage for the tall occupant in the burning house.

Constructivism legitimizes support for intervention which comes through cooperation and alliance with international organizations, sub-state and other actors. Legitimacy and intervention could be based on treaties, moral and how practices exist in society and this is what is expected of the volunteer firefighter is scenario # 9, one occupant is a volunteer firefighter and some are small children. Constructivism recognizes the volunteer firefighter as a learner who is building his knowledge through experience. Constructivism is a learning process in which the learner is engaged in constantly building that knowledge and is always analyzing their learning experience. Constructivism promotes the notions of diversity and adaptability and believes that learners who can adapt quickly by learning are more likely to adapt to changing conditions which in turn promotes survival in the event of disaster.

Scenario # 10, the house was ignited by a forest fire that continues to burn uncontrollably, describes a situation of providing help for the helpless when there is anarchy. This scenario portrays Liberalism and is almost similar to that of scenario # 7, where no one takes the lead. The differences between the two circumstances are that unlike #7 where order and cooperation seems to have arisen in the anarchy among occupants of the burning house, for scenario #10, efforts are galvanized by other stronger states to provide help for the vulnerable which results into future opportunity to negotiate.

The importance of institutions in the Liberalism and Constructivism principles though at different levels in illustrated in scenario # 11, the fire department is located just two blocks away and is renowned for its excellent response time. The occupants can seek outside help because the principles of Constructivism and Liberalism do not view sovereign state as the only body in the political realm as argued by Realism. Liberalism principle maintains that there are outside organizations to help facilitate problems. Liberalism views cooperation as more persuasive while Constructivism on the other hand says that state interests stem from identities and international norms, rather than from the effects of international anarchy, a view opposed by Realism.

The scenario # 12, one occupant had intentionally set the fire, describes both Realism and Liberalism theories. The deliberate setting of the fire is a characteristic of greed and self-interest common to Realism zero-sum theory of power. Realism holds the view that states are naturally aggresive, and that expanding one's territory is hindered by opposing power. The greed to acquire more territory which can be term resources and expanding control resulted in the deliberate setting of the fire to get rid of opposing forces reflects the Realism principle of pursuing power. Realism discusses the pursuit of one's goal at the expense of others' interests. In pursuing his goal which can be defined in this scenario as the desire for power and security, the occupant used violence and the threat of force to achieve his goal. However, the affected occupants acted in cooperative ways because of the uncertainty they faced as a way of ensuring their safety. This cooperative approach falls within the Liberalism principle. Occupants realized that they are stronger together than being separated.

The last scenario, you are in the house and a laptop containing a draft of your PSC 240 thought paper is in a bedroom upstairs, shows some principles of Liberalism and Constructivism. Although constructivism started on the principle of learning, it has expanded its authority, becoming a basis of teaching, education, and the basis for the origin of ideas, and also personal knowledge. That means it is worth risking one's life because society is served if the paper survives. Many constructivists believe that "all knowledge is a human construction." Sherman, L. W. (1995), said constructivism hold the view that knowledge is not 'about' the world, but rather 'constitutive' the world.

Constructivism regards all learning as vital to the learner and important to society, whether original or not. Liberalism provides individuals the freedom to pursue their own goals, in their own ways, provided they do not infringe on the rights of others. As a result of the freedom provided by the Liberalism theory and the lack of competition, people become interested in the well-being of others. Realizing the importance of the PSC paper to society, occupants will cooperate and assist in retrieving the PSC paper from the bedroom upstairs.

About the author: Musue N. Haddad is a Liberian Journalist/Photo-Journalist. She holds a graduate degree from George Washington University, U.S.A. and has worked both at home and outside of Liberia. She received several national and international awards for her journalistic practices and human rights work, including the Nelson Mandela Award for "Best Student in Photo-Journalism," Human Rights Award from the United Nations Association of the National Capital Area (UNA-NCA), for "outstanding dedication and service towards the recognition, promotion and protection of the inherent dignity and equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family." and Human Rights Watch Hellmann-Hammett Award, granted to writers around the world who have been the targets of political persecution.

The Dilemmas of Multilateral Interventions in Conflicts

By: Musue Haddad

Have you listened to local and international news recently? Have you read local and international news? Have you watched national and international television news? If so, then you will begin to feel that people are fighting and fighting, and all around the world, nations are fighting. You will also notice that in the midst of these conflicts, there are mediators, trying to intercede, or act as referees, or intervene in the conflicts. Do you need some solid examples of countries engulfed in crises? Take a look at the Libyan factional fighting, the ongoing crises in Morocco, Tunisia and Egypt. Also, let's expand our view to the conflicts in Sudan, the Yemeni and Syrian uprising, the Kosovo-Serbia border clashes, the Bahraini uprising, and the ongoing insurgency in northern Mali.

As we mull over the various conflicts that have occurred in our societies, including the ongoing conflicts, we will note that the presence of various national and international mediators, and or multilateral interventions, whose presence we are told is to "cease hostilities" and resolve the conflicts. The next question then becomes, how successful has the process of mediations been? How do we measure the accomplishment of multilateral groups in conflicts? In order to discuss these concerns, let's take a look at the Liberian conflict, particularly the negotiation process that resulted in the 1997 Special Elections. I did not participate in the negotiation process but the result of that process has left me wondering how regional and international politics and the self interests of states can have a devastating effect on multilateral interventions.

As we see around us, it is the practice that when conflicts arise in a country, states negotiate multilaterally. Ambassadors, ministers and leaders of various groups are called to serve as mediators to help the parties involved in the conflict overcome their impasses. This was the situation of the negotiation process that resulted in the 1997 elections in Liberia, and the subsequent "elections" of ex-rebel leader, Charles Taylor as president. While it is true that multilateral interventions in state conflicts are essential, there are some key elements that are generally overlooked. During multilateral negotiation process, little is known about how the role of each of these mediators will be played. Two issues that remain obscured, but critical are the options and interests of mediators and the standards that will be used in the negotiation process. Standards have to do what can be done to cease hostility. In the case of Liberia, the standards deduced from the process included 1. Stop the fighting in Liberia in order for the establishment of political parties and elections to be held. 2. Disarmament needed to carry out to encourage and ensure free and fair elections. 3. A transitional government where each party was appointed as vice presidents while a neutral person serves as chair person of the transitional government.

As we consider the interests of mediators, let's begin to think about the individual and or collective interests of mediators, what consequences those interests have on the outcome of the negotiations? These questions are generally given little considerations during multilateral negotiation process in states conflicts. Therefore, in an attempt to expound on the two obscured, but critical issues, we will attempt to analyze efforts by the Economic Community of West African Countries (ECOWAS), other world leaders and regional and international organizations intervention on the Liberia crisis. The analysis looks at the mode of the negotiation process using the Nine-Element framework, Circle Chart design of the meeting to analyze the mediators "resolution" of the Liberian conflict and Charles Taylor's election to the presidency.

I will also explore whether the commitments reached were operational and durable and if the outcome of that negotiation was the best alternative to the negotiated agreement.

THE PROBLEM AND SYMPTOMS

Understanding the Liberian conflict is important for the negotiation process. In order for mediators to recognize whether there will be impediments to the negotiation process and how options can be generated and what specifics steps they need to take, they need to have adequate information of the prevailing problems. Without understanding some of the concealed problems, mediators will fail in achieving two of the most influencing elements of the negotiation process: Communications and Relationship. The two influencing elements - Communication and Relationship, help a mediator to keep the negotiation process on course without reaching a deadlock and determine whether relationship between the parties is possible or already exist. If the parties lack relationship, the mediator can find out whether it is possible to influence or initiate one.

The civil war in Liberia started in December 1989. At that time, I was a student at the University of Liberia and partly active in Student politics. Student politics at the University then was not isolated to campus issues, but included and focused mostly on national issues. Samuel K. Doe was president of Liberia then. Throughout the over 150 years of the existence of Liberia, after Liberia was established, Doe was the first native to become president of that country. Aside Doe, Liberian presidents were all former American slaves or descendants of Slaves. I believe understanding the trend of Liberian presidency is important for understanding the root causes of the Liberian war, the opened or hidden relationship that exist between and among parties and how to negotiate on the alternatives and interests of parties involved.

President Doe came to power through a military coup. He was a Master Sergeant who led a group of young soldiers that toppled the government of William R. Tolbert. At the time of the coup in 1980, I was still in elementary school but I felt and witnessed the brunt of the coup as the military searched for members of Tolbert's government officials, friends and sympathizers of that administration. [Let me clarify that by outlining my own experience, I am attempting to provide (my own first) first hand information that had a great bearing on the war and conflicts in Liberia.] The military soldiers committed crimes against civilians not only in the capital, Monrovia but in the remote parts of rural Liberia. As a little girl in Salayea, (then a town now a District) the soldiers came to my parents' home in combat form, carrying long ranged weapons. They asked all of us to line up as they searched and ransacked our home, under the pretext of searching for members of Tolbert's family and government officials. Later, after the 'soldiers" chaos in Salayea subsided; I learnt that the soldiers raped, looted, and killed innocent civilians. These violations were carried out with impunity. These crimes committed by the soldiers and those who were anti Tolbert agents were apparently never forgotten. This background information is important for the analysis of the mediatory roles carried out and also to have an in depth understanding of the aftermath of the peace process and the results of the elections. These events were brought forth and it became obvious that each party to the conflict held on to some aspects of the historical background as a hidden motive.

During the administration of Charles Taylor, it was evident that there were acts of reprisal carried for members of the former slaves that suffered abuses during the administration of Doe. This information is obviously something that parties did bring forth during peace talks and might have resulted in ineffective communications with parties resisting compromise and continuously Contesting of Wills, positions, and being hard bargainers.

CIRCLE CHART: Problem & Symptoms

In December 1989 a group of dissidents began an uprising against the government of President Doe. The National Patriotic Front of Liberia (NPFL), the rebel group led by Charles Taylor invaded Liberia and within weeks controlled much of the countryside. Charles Taylor is a descendant of former American slaves. He did not hold back his intentions. Taylor once announced that he was revenging the killings members of Tolbert's government that was carried out by Doe. At the University of Liberia, students were rejoicing that a group had taken a bold stance against the leadership of Doe; an indication that Doe has lost favor with the Liberian population. The NPFL splinter group, Independent National Patriotic Front of Liberia only increased the violence as fighting continued into 1990. As the fighting increased, Doe became more forceful and members of the military began arresting citizens accusing them of being supporters and fans of the rebels. Student of the University were also victims and we hid our University of Liberia students' identification cards. Some student were deliberately targeted, arrested and killed. As the fighting intensified, barbaric human rights violations became frequent and wide spread by all groups.

ACTION STEPS

An Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) monitoring group (ECOMOG) was sent to Liberia as a peacekeeping force, but failed to halt the fighting. Doe was captured and executed by the splinter group of the NPFL in September 1990. Members of the military and Doe's ethnic tribe and other independent groups accused ECOMOG. They said ECOMOG had set up the capture and killing of Doe. Doe was at ECOMOG's headquarter when he was capture by the INPFL. During the capture of Doe, I had already fled the country. I was among the 3.3 million Liberia who was driven from their homes. Having fled first to Sierra Leone, I had then moved to Guinea as a refugee when Doe was captured, and subsequently killed.

The killing of Doe did not end the war. The war spread through out Liberia, as the NPFL battled ECOMOG, the Liberian army, their splinter group the Independent National Patriotic Front of Liberia (INPFL), and the United Liberation Movement of Liberia for Democracy (ULIMO), composed of former allies of Doe. All the factional groups were engaging in fighting with one group or another. By early 1991, ECOMOG held Monrovia and the NPFL controlled the rest of the country. In October 1991 ECOWAS and the NPFL agreed to disarm and establish an Interim Government of National Unity (IGNU). I had returned home in the midst of the crisis hoping that the presence of ECOMOG was a signal of security. However, I fled again this time to Ghana. I was present and attended the Ghana peace conference in July 1993. At that conference, the leaders of IGNU, NPFL, and ULIMO-K drew up a plan for a Liberian National Transitional Government, led by a five-member Council of State consisting of one NPFL leader, one ULIMO-K member, one IGNU representative, and two other civilians.

INTERESTS & NEGOTIATION CONCEPTS

It was public knowledge that the warlords and factional groups saw the economics opportunities provided by the civil war as an important independent variable for continuing the conflict. This economic interest of the parties influenced three Core Elements of the negotiation process: Interests, Options and Standards, which was overlooked by the mediators. The economic interests of the parties also had an effect and also manipulated the two influencing elements of The Nine-Element framework of negotiation-Communications and Relationships. Most of the parties who occupied areas that would enable them to amass wealth and power became hard bargainers and Contesting Positions and Wills. The parties bargaining positions, interest, options and options continually changed based on how much grounds they controlled. Given the dynamics of the situations, I had expected that the mediators would amend the discussion process as the positions of parties changed.

During the negotiations, it was also realized that factional groups interest in controlling certain areas in Liberia were based mostly on economic interests and then for military capability. For examples, the NPFL was keen on maintaining control of the border between Liberia and Sierra Leone. The purpose was to use Sierra Leone as a fall back position whenever that group experienced a stronger attack. Another interest in holding on to the route of Sierra Leone was to maintain contact with the rebel Revolutionary United Front, (RUF) of Sierra Leone. It is alleged that Charles Taylor assisted in the establishment of the RUF, and supported the training of that rebel group. Another area that the NPFL was determined to maintain control of was the route to Ivory Coast. Ivory Coast was important to Charles Taylor because that route was used to convey resources out of his territory to be sold to interested buyers. Ivory Coast was also important for the importation of arms and ammunition for his fighting group. Another area that was strategic to the NPFL was Grand Bassa County, which has a small port. The NPFL allegedly used the port to export iron ore, log and rubber out of Liberia.

Parties in the Liberia conflict were seen using various approaches based on interest during the negotiation process. As a result of the interest based of parties, they individually extended and expanded their relationships to their neighbors; countries in the region. In both Sierra Leone and Liberia, diverse factions sabotaged efforts towards a transition from war to peace as they perceived such endeavors as representing a shift of their own political and military calculations and a readjustment of economic tactics and interests that were not temporarily in their favor. Mediators in the Liberian conflicts did little to assure that the full range of issues and interests of parties were addressed. It is obvious that the mediators were aware and concerned about the factional groups' immense interest in the economic opportunities provided by the civil wars. The parties' interests in economic gains of the war did have implications on the negotiation process and on the relationships of countries in the sub region.

Though at that time of the 1993 peace conference, I had not acquired the basic negotiation skills needed to analysis a situation, it was public knowledge that each party to the Liberian conflict were contesting positions. Neither one of the parties was willing to compromise their stance. I also realized that the roles and interests of most of the mediators were not clear. It is now evident that the two context setting elements of negotiation are very crucial: WHO'S AT THE Table, is very important in a negotiation process. During the Liberian war, several peace agreements were signed and promptly broken by warring factions as their interests and options changed. After months of negotiation, late 1996, parties in the Liberian conflict agreed to a ceasefire in order for disarmament and elections to be held.

EXIT ELEMENTS & THE SIGNIFICANCE OF PROCESS

When the mediators and international groups declared the Liberian disarmament program a success in January 1997, civilian and independent groups' concern about the role of the mediators and outside actors in Liberian were no longer unknown. Majority of the mediators and outside actors either did not have an in-depth understanding of the Liberian situation, or had their own interests. In 1997, I personally witnessed and reported on the elections. Almost all factional groups formed political parties. Examples: the National Patriotic Front of Liberia formed the National Patriotic Party and United Liberation Movement of Liberia splinter group of Alhaji Kromah formed the All Liberia Coalition Party and presidential candidates respectively.

Most areas that were once controlled by factional groups during the fighting were not fully accessible to other political groups except the political wing of that factional group that once controlled those areas. Even though ECOMOG, the mediators and international monitors had announced that disarmament was completely carried out, fighters/ex-fighters of all factional groups were apparently in possession of weapons. It was alleged that former fighters still carried arms which they used to intimidate, harassed and attack civilians, members of other political parties and other politicians who dare enter their "territory." As a result of the intimidation and attacks on civilians, voters were afraid. Under the watchful eyes of combatants who guided voters to the voting booths, most of the citizens residing and caught up in the over 90 percent of the country controlled by Charles Taylor were apprehensive.

In addition to the intimidation faced by voters and citizens, the role of some ECOWAS countries became questionable. For example, an official of one ECOWAS contributing country was seen escorting Charles Taylor to cast his vote on the day of elections. Aside Charles Taylor, none of the other 12 presidential candidates was escorted by any diplomats or officials from other countries represented in ECOMOG or ECOWAS to cast their vote. The act by an official of one of the contributing countries to ECOWAS, one of the mediators was seen as a public endorsement of Charles Taylor as their choice of presidential candidate. I saw, photographed and published the photos and reports of Charles Taylor being escorted on that day to cast his vote. I also traveled to some part of the rural areas along with a team of journalists from my office. We reported the level of intimation and flaws in the elections. Through interviews and witnessing the polls, we wrote extensively on the malpractices carried out at polling sites in the presence of local and international election observers.

The role of ECOMOG and ECOWAS States in the Liberian conflict brought forth how crucial mapping relationship and design of meeting is to a negotiation process. To analyze the crucial-ity of relationship and interest, let's ask ourselves a few questions: What did the facilitators want to accomplish at the end of the process? What outcomes would have ensured security and that sustainable peace is restore? Well, these are key question that should have been considered during the Liberian peace process. In spite outcries by citizens, political parties and independent monitors, International observers and ECOWAS declared the elections free and fair. Charles Taylor was declared winner of the 1997 elections and installed president in August 1997.

COMMITMENTS

During Taylor's administration, Liberia and West Africa experienced consistent insecurity and crises. Sierra Leone experienced a devastating war organized and supported by Charles Taylor. Guinea suffered constant invasion and Ivory Coast is still faced with crises. Human Rights violations in Liberia became systematic and frequent during the administration of Charles Taylor. Liberia's infrastructure remained in a deplorable state throughout the administration of Charles Taylor. Hospitals and basic social services were never rehabilitated. The level of illiteracy rose to 85% and unemployment reached a peak of 80%.

THE [NINE] ELEMENTS

Although the parties to the negotiation were listed above, to ensure that the analysis is less complicated, we will be dealing with few major parties. This analysis will indicate how communications and relationship between the parties were phony when seen as good on the surface and at other times non existent. This was based on the issue of ego and portrayal of power; not wanting to be seen as ready to compromise with the other party. Though attempts were made by the mediators to discuss concerns behind the scene, there were some senses of reluctance based on ensuring that the warlords do not angrily leave the discussion table and return back to the fighting field. Obviously this fear was belated. There were instances where factional leaders were at the table discussing peace and would give orders and their forces would begin renewed fighting. This practice was a strategy used to intimidate other parties at the negotiation table.

COMMUNICATIONS

Throughout the period of the war, the negotiation process and the exit period of the negotiation, communications and relationship among the parties was ineffective because of lack of trust and fear. Each party felt superior to the other. These parties had threatened the lives of one another and even tried to carry out those attempts throughout the period of fighting, and so found it difficult to trust one another. Building trust was almost impossible.

BATNAs (Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement)

Parties in negotiation can easily walk away from the negotiation if they determined that their Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement or BATNA is better than the likely outcome of that negotiation. In the case of the Liberian negotiation process, it is easy to deduce that most of the parties involved in this negotiation process aside ECOMOG could easily have walked away from the negotiation table if they felt their desire to emerge winners were not a part of the outcome of the negotiation process.

It is also impossible to establish the BATNAs of the mediators. I am aware that the mediators were concerned about regional stability and peace. The spill over effects of the Liberia crisis into Sierra Leone, Guinea Bissau, Senegal and Ivory Coast was causing undue hardship on all countries within the region. The influx of refugees was heightening the already difficult economic situations countries in the region were faced with. It is important to note that BATNAs in the Liberia negotiation process could be described as having two stages. The major parties came in with a BATNA: they would fight and continue fighting unless they had a better deal. The parties came in aware of what they could control or influence before the negotiation begins. However, once the negotiation process had begun, they began to have more power base. BATNA as a dynamic element, begun to change during the Liberian negotiation as parties got more information about the interests of the other parties and their constituencies and as they compared the resources each party had available to bring about and fulfill an agreement.

CONCLUSION

The analyses is an exercise that provides an in-depth understanding on the process of negotiation, BATNAs and particularly the role of negotiators as outlined in the book, "Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving." As I look back over the entire peace process, the questions that continue to linger in my mind is the role of the mediators and what was the driving force for the negotiation process and concepts use in the course of the Liberian peace process?

As I have learned, during multiparty negotiation process, mediators must always think about the Substance and about the Negotiation Process. It is now understandable why the two: substance and process are critical for constant review during multiparty negotiations. The reason is that, when one or more of the nine-element framework changes, the process or substance may need to be modified to ensure that the outcome of the negotiation is successful. That is because, once the process of a negotiation is efficient, there is a likelihood of efficient communication. This was the problem in the Liberian negotiation. The substance was always changing yet the process somehow did not match the changes that were taking places. The mediators probably did not have the tools to move briskly in modifying the process, or probably were trapped by the challenges they faced during negotiations.

While drafting this analysis, I began to fully acknowledge the assumptions that most interventionists hold as was the case with ECOMOG and ECOWAS. The West African mediator was acting in defense of "democracy" and they believed that "democratic elections" after war was the best solution to the Liberian crises. This assumption is clearly misleading as we saw in Liberia. Democracy is not merely elections. Moreover, multilateral mediators should begin to see the danger of rebel movements transforming themselves into political parties after post conflict. This practice should be taken more seriously especially when it entails protection and impunity for warlords who have committed crimes against humanity. From the onset of the outcome of the Liberian negotiation, I doubted that elections were the solution to political stability. It is impossible to have a free and fair election in the midst of intimidations as was seen in Liberia. Moreover, the fear factor still prevailed and people were still war weary and impoverished. What were the motives of the mediators in calling for the holding of elections that time? As I look back, it was obvious that the election was an immediate pacification of the warlords with jobs and elective offices. Regional instability, regional insecurity, underdevelopment as well as national instability did not cease but continued and intensified after "elections" was conducted in Liberia.

Somehow, it appears as a mockery that in spite the irregularities at the polls, the United Nations and other international organizations described the Liberian elections as a success story for conflict management. It was apparent that the interventionist only managed to establish a government in Liberia for the purpose of Order and not justice. I believe that all the warlords in the Liberian crisis should not have been allowed to contest the elections. The human rights abuses perpetrated by the various factions in the Liberian conflict were carried out with impunity. It is a known fact that there can be no lasting Order in a society without Justice. Lasting order and Justice are linked, in order to have a lasting order, there must be justice.

Although I do not believe that the outcome of the Liberian negotiation was a success, I was tempted to place myself in the reverse position taking the role of the mediators while scrutinizing each of the steps and elements in the negotiation process. In that role, I asked myself, "What were the alternatives and options available to the mediators during the Liberian negotiation process?" Perhaps some day when I am faced with such situation, I can help ensure that the outcome of the negotiation is one that is operational and durable.

About the author:

Musue N. Haddad is a Liberian Journalist/Photo-Journalist. She holds a graduate degree from George Washington University, and has worked both at home and outside of Liberia. She received several national and international awards for her journalistic practices and human rights work, including the Nelson Mandela Award for "Best Student in Photo-Journalism," Human Rights Award from the United Nations Association of the National Capital Area (UNA-NCA), for "outstanding dedication and service towards the recognition, promotion and protection of the inherent dignity and equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family." and Human Rights Watch Hellmann-Hammett Award, granted to writers around the world who have been the targets of political persecution. In 1998/1999, she received the Press Union of Liberia "Journalist of the Year" and '"Photo-Journalist of the Year" awards.