BUILDING A BETTER WORLD : GRASS- ROOTS CONFLICT ASSESTMENT OF LIBERIA
BY BINNEH.S.MINTEH & OMARI ASANTE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The third Liberian republic is undergoing a gradual and an important transition that has various implications concerning the conflict that ravaged the West African nation for a little over a decade. Home to sixteen indigenous African tribes, the people of Liberia are undergoing a fundamental shift in their livelihoods. This shift that has affected many facets of life started almost two decades ago when the civil war that ravaged the country began. The vehicle behind such a shift is driven by multiple factors that resulted to serious consequences with implications at all levels of Liberian society. This report therefore focuses on the implications of a grass-roots based conflict, whilst arguing that the shift in Liberian society brings with it new drivers and causes of conflict in addition to traditional historical drivers that fueled the crisis.
It is therefore no historical accident that the shift in Liberian society brought with it new experiences and expectations among Liberians. Following the end of the war, Liberians have in large numbers been exposed to some “hallmarks of modernity” with which they have limited access and contact: some of which include education, economic and infrastructural development, health and other basic services.
Until today, it remain striking that many Liberian’s, who were compelled to abandoned chaos and anarchy, express a desire to fully integrate into a society under a legitimate government and an international community working hard to salvage a country ravaged by war. With hopes for a sustainable peace and development, there still exist potential problems at the grass roots level that needs not be addressed.
-Youth – More and more youths remain unemployed and do not attend schools. The opportunity for providing education and employment is still limited and therefore producing many disillusioned youths who are vulnerable to recruitment by subversive groups.
-Ethnicity – There is still a high sense of ethnic belongingness, Liberia have not been able to move from pre-war state of ethnic individualism. They still see each other as an enemy.
-Minerals and Resources: This may be a triggering element of fueling a conflict. With Liberia’s vast mineral resources under foreign exploitation, the inability of the few foreign companies to provide employment for all leaves many ethnic Liberians vulnerable to the recruitment of non-state actors.
-Corruption: There is still corruption in the system even though the government is very keen on implementing its “zero tolerance” for corruption policy.
These potential drivers of conflict are exacerbated by the vast mineral resources, divisions within the different ethnicities, large numbers of youth unemployment and corruption (which can be both a stabilizing and a destabilizing force). There also still exists a “negative social capital”; a long history of violence and strife between individuals and communities that poisons contemporary relations.
Purpose of the Report
The study of this grass-roots conflict in Liberia is for two main reasons. First, as an African nation with 16 indigenous ethnic tribes, this report provides an analytical exposition of the relationships between the different tribes, and how the struggle for control of mineral resources and governance contributed to fueling the crisis. The report further seeks to provide guidance on how the Liberian government could work within the different ethnicities and how the country’s mineral wealth must not be a source of conflict.
The second reason for this report is to develop an understanding of not only the history and causes of the conflict, but also providing an understanding and hoe to manage such violent conflicts around the world. With the view of addressing those causes of conflict in the near future, the chronic poverty in the region, it is also important to understand how conflict can rapidly escalate and widely be destructive. It therefore provides an effort of identifying the root causes of the Liberian conflict.
Methodology
This report is based on the qualitative conflict assessment method of DFID and USAID. Our client is the current Liberian government, specifically the Executive branch. We discuss our client in the risk analysis section with respect to what has not been done and what is being done.
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
Home to numerous indigenous African tribes, Liberia is one of Africa’s oldest colonies that border the North Atlantic Ocean between Cote d’Ivoire and Sierra-Leone. It was founded by freed slaves from the US in 1822 and by 1847 was established as a republic by the Americo-Liberians. After the declaration of Independence in 1847, Liberia maintained a government and a constitution modeled after the US and Americo-Liberians under the leadership of President Tubman and Tolbert maintained dominance of the government for decades .
With a widespread poverty, rampant corruption and marginalization of indigenous African tribes, a military coup led by Master –Sergeant Samuel Doe in 1980 ushered in an era of authoritarianism and dictatorship. This was when the back bone that fueled the conflict in the West African Country was born. The regime of President Samuel Doe became one such monstrous regime that was tainted with widespread summary executions, rampant corruption and an institutionalized ethnic hatred, that became the hallmark of further divisions among the people of Liberia.
It could be recalled that upon coming to the saddles of power, the later President Doe spear-headed the summary executions of President Tolbert and his entourage of cabinet ministers, other high ranking senior governmental figures and family members of the late William Tolbert. The vicious young Samuel Doe who fell apart with all his comrades in the struggle, embarked on a systematic widespread torture, enforced disappearances, extra-judicial killings and flagrant restriction on freedom of expression. His government further suppressed activities of opposition parties, imprisoned opposition leaders and widely favored members of his ethnic Krahn whilst mistreating members of other ethnic groups; the Gio and Mano in particular.
Amidst a total domination of politics and the Military by members of Doe’s ethnic group, the Krahn, friction and military conflicts with marginalized ethnic groups such as the Gio and Mano became prevalent. General Thomas Quiwonkpa, the former number two man to Doe and an ethnic Gio who fled the country following an attempt on his life for an alleged coup attempt returns to Liberia in 1985 to overthrow Doe. To the surprise of the marginalized ethnicities, General Quiwonkpa was executed and the ethnic strife against members of his ethnicity begun to spread like wildfire.
In December 1989, Charles Taylor a former Lieutenant and a senior economist of the Doe regime who is both a descent of Americo and native Liberian led a rebellion from neighboring Ivory- Coast to overthrow the regime of President Samuel Doe. Charles Taylor’s action was the cause of the seven year civil war that ravaged Liberia claiming 200,000 lives and producing over 1 million refugees . The nature of brutality and suppression under Doe was so intense that Charles Taylor very easily garnered support from ethnic Liberians particularly the Gio and the Mano who became a systematic target of oppression after the failed putsch of General Quiwonkpa.
The National Patriotic Front of Charles Taylor triumphantly made it to the outskirts of the capital Monrovia within six months inflicting heavy casualties upon Doe forces. However a row between top commanders of the organization led to the breakaway of Prince Johnson giving birth to a splinter group called the Independent National Patriotic Front. Prince John’s splinter group that welcomed a contingent of ECOMOG soldiers from member states of the Economic Community of West African States to prevent Taylor from taking control of Monrovia finally captured and executed President Samuel Doe .
Following the power vacuum and struggle to take control of the helm of Liberian state of affairs the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), through the peace keeping force, brokered a peace deal and an interim government led by Dr Amos Sawyer was established. Charles Taylor who pioneered the rebellion however failed to recognize the interim government and continued fighting causing one of the worst humanitarian crises in the history of sub-Saharan Africa.
With so many peace agreements and cease fires brokered by the ECOWAS, Charles Taylor agreed to become part of a five man transitional government that led Liberia to its first democratic elections after signing the 1995 pact in Abuja, Nigeria . Mr. Taylor who won with a comfortable lead took charge of Liberian state of affairs until he was forced into exile in August 2003 following an intervention by US marines and Nigerian forces.
After Taylor went into exile the Liberian government and the two rebel factions signed a peace accord choosing Gyude Bryant as President of a National Transitional Government designed to lead Liberia through a transparent democratic process. Following the intervention by one of the UN’s largest peacekeeping force in Liberia, an election on November 23, 2005 that was internationally hailed as free and fair declared Ellen Johnson - Sirleaf as Africa’s first elected female President. It has a current population of 3,195,931 (95% indigenous people, 2.5% Americo-Liberians and 2.5% Congo People) and a growth rate of 4.8%, a labour force made up of 70% agriculture, 8% industry and 22% services, and a GDP (Purchasing Power Parity) of 2.821 (2006)
ANALYSIS OF CONFLICT AND IDENTIFICATION OF INDICATORS
The Liberian conflict that battered Sub- Saharan Africa was one of the worst humanitarian conundrums of modern times. It could be attributed to not only historical and political factors, but also socio-economic and cultural factors.
HISTORICAL FACTORS
The first historical factor is the marginalization and perennial antagonism of ethnic Liberians by Americo-Liberians, and the second being the pitting by the Krahn ethnic group of President Samuel who came to power in a military coup together with other indigenous ethnicities . The cause of the war could be traced far back to the formation of the modern state of Liberia predominantly by freed slaves who maintained dominance and control of Liberian state of affairs from Independence until the military coup of 1980. With the abolition of the slave trade, several freed African- American slaves were repatriated to Liberia meeting several indigenous ethnic groups who were very receptive of the African-Americans.
Unfortunately, having been socialized in the vagaries of the slave system and its caste-based social structure, the repatriated African-Americans were interested in establishing a “system of servitude akin to the southern plantation system in the United States” (Kieh 1998: 157). Under such arrangements, they would become masters to their indigenous Liberian brothers and sisters. It was such resultant polarization between the indigenous ethnic groups and the repatriated African- Americans that triggered the conflict, with several wars fought between the indigenous Liberians and repatriated African Americans . Such a polarization further lead to the military coup of master-sergeant Doe that resulted to the brutal summary execution of President Tolbert and senior members of his government together with some family members.
The indigenous ethnic Liberians have not only suffered heavy casualties during the wars, but were also not considered as equal citizens of Liberia since the establishment of the settlements in the mid-1820. However they were required to pay taxes and to perform an assortment of civic tasks. Although the government of President Tubman integrated the indigenous ethnicities into the political system, the marginalization and antagonism of the indigenous population continued to take root in Liberian affairs.
POLITICAL FACTORS
A number of political factors largely contributed to the crisis in Liberia. The backbone of the conflict was laid during the colonial era when the American colonization society was overly repressive and exploitative of the indigenous ethnic Liberians. This has made the Indigenous to feel marginalized and therefore develop hatred for the Americo-Liberians.
Human rights were violated by both the colonial regimes and subsequent regimes that followed. For example, resistance by indigenous Liberians during the pre-independence era was often marred by a brutal and a stiff repression by the government. Under the Doe regime, political murder was institutionalized as a device for silencing the opponents of the regime. A death squad during the regime of Doe beheaded Robert Phillips, an engineer and a member of the opposition Liberian Action Party (LAP), in 1985, following an alleged abortive coup . Also beginning in November 1985, the regime led a campaign of terror, death and destruction on the people of Nimba County killing several hundred people during the senseless orgy of violence . Such rights abuses also largely contributed towards the deepening of the crisis in Liberia.
A careful examination of the Liberian constitution shows a guarantee of the doctrines of separation of power, checks and balances and a judicial review. However all post independence administrations transgressed such legal constitutional doctrines and embarked on hand picking members of the National Legislature. In some cases executive members of government that required advice and approval of the senate before appointments, it was no hidden agenda when the President influenced the decision of judges.
Elections in Liberia from the pre-independence to the post independence also contributed largely towards instability and the fueling of the crisis. The culture of fraudulent elections is nothing new in the history of the country. From the pre- independence era, no free and fair elections were ever recognized as legitimate by the international community. In fact in 1927, the presidential election between the incumbent President Charles D.B. King of the ruling True Whig Party, and the opposition candidate Thomas J.R Faulkner was recorded in the Guinness Book of World Record as one of the most fraudulent elections in the world . Subsequent elections that also took place between 1955- 1987 were also equally fraudulent.
CULTURAL FACTORS
When examining how the cultural factors have fueled the crisis in Liberia, it is important to answer the question: What role ethnic and religious factors played in precipitating the 13years civil crisis in Liberia? In responding to this question, it is important to note that apart from the Americo-Liberians, Liberia has about sixteen major indigenous groups that do not include other Africans and those from the Caribbean . In Liberia, the Kpelle ethnic group is the largest and can be found in Bong County in central Liberia. They could also be found in other counties. The Kissi, Gbandi, Belle, and Lorma ethnic groups can be found in Montserrado, Loaf and Margibi counties respectively while Grebo, Kru and Krahn ethnic groups occupy the southeastern portion . The Bassas can be found in the south central, the west central sections and the east. The Gio and Mano ethnic groups could on the other hand be found in the north part of the country. The Mandingo group, which is the main entrepreneurial group, could be found in the north and west and all other sections of Liberian society . Conflict from time immemorial had always been natural and evolves around tenets of human society that are difficult to deal with. These tenets included issues of land and trade which are complicated dynamics that had always impacted Liberian society even before the resettling of freed slaves that pioneered the independence of Liberia.
With the resettlement of freed slaves in Liberia shortly after the abolition of the slave trade, ethnic conflict in Liberia took another twist. Tension between repatriated Americo – Liberians and the various indigenous groups grew to heights resulting to sometimes bloody wars. “The conflict revolved around issues such as territory, citizenship, and political participation, taxation without representation, cultural differences, and control of political and economic power” . Tension between Americo- Liberians and the indigenous continued until April 22nd 1980, when a 28 year old ethnic Krahn Master Sergeant Samuel together with junior ranks from other ethnicities overthrew the dominated Americo- Liberian government of President William Tolbert. “Ten days after the coup Master Sergeant Doe acting as the chairman of the peoples redemption council (PRC) and Head of State ordered the execution of thirteen of the most prominent figures of the Tolbert regime all Americo – Liberians” . These executions were shown on national television and the people’s redemption council gain support and popularity due to the promise of not only liberating the indigenous population from the oppressive rule of the Americo-Liberian, but also stamping out corruption and equally distributing resources among all ethnicities of the country.
Stunningly enough the regime of President Samuel Doe was caught up in the same vicious circle of repression and oppression against not only Americo – Liberians, but also against other ethnicities in the country. The regimes failure to adopt the required standards that are incompatible to the predecessors and the failed promises of healing wounds inflicted on other ethnic groups fueled the conflict to a much more dangerous dynamics. A flagrant manifestation of ethnic sentiments under the Doe regime further contributed to divisions among Liberians.
The Krahn ethnic group of President Doe began to take total control and dominance of Liberian state of affairs. Top military and security responsibilities plus other important government positions were entrusted to members of the Krahn ethnic group. The lawyers committee for human rights reported in 1990 that “during the regime of Samuel Doe, the perception of special treatment for the Krahn ethnic group exceeded reality as they were disproportionately represented everywhere in government”. It was such institutionalize ethnic division that swiftly brought rebel forces into the heart of Monrovia within only six months of the crisis. Marginalized ethnicities quickly rallied around Taylor forces from the onset of the rebellion.
Throughout the crisis in Liberia, ethnicity continued to be an instrumental value. Both political entrepreneurs and warlords used it well enough to garner and mobilize support for their private agendas and causes by appealing to the “crude primordial instincts” of the people. This was crucial and critical as over 85% of the Liberian population is illiterate. Manipulation and the lack of analytical skills to overcome and transcend the ethnic appeal were therefore lacking.
SOCIO-ECONOMIC FACTORS
From the early 1920’s, the Liberian peripheral capitalist economy which is non-industrialized and export oriented has been dependent on rubber, iron ore, timber and other minerals. Prior to the civil war, the economic system has since then divided Liberian society into a class system that has various clusters within the population. There was a ruling class that consists of not only Liberians in the state bureaucratic and private sectors, but also Liberians who are barons of International finance capital and owned all major means of production. It was this class of Liberian society that worked hard and collaborated in keeping other classes under control.
The elite class consisted of lawyer’s academics, technocrats, artists, students and other entertainment. This particular class was largely seen as the vanguard of Liberian classes as some of them collaborated with the ruling class whiles others collaborated with the working and peasant classes.
There was also a working class that comprised of labor workers from economic sectors such as the economy, agricultural, mining, and maritime and timber. This class predominantly sold labor to the ruling class. Some within this class also held simultaneous membership within the peasantry.
The peasantry forms the largest class in the Liberian economy and it is compose predominantly of farmers who engage in agriculture; largely producing cash crops. They usually reside in the inland and are the class that is predominantly deprived of social and other services by the state. It was such a resultant struggle that pitted the ruling class and its allies in the intelligentsia class on the one hand, against the working and peasant classes and some members of the intelligentsia class, on the other hand. “The loci of the conflict were abysmal distribution of wealth and income, political power and social services” . For example the ruling class which constituted 4% in the 1970s, and 6% in the 1980s, controlled 655 and 70% of the national wealth respectively (MOJA 1980: 3; Kieh 1989). In the midst of an appalling and deplorable living conditions for the subaltern classes, the ruling class and its government further embarked on wholesale corruption, exorbitant life styles and the government undertaking frivolous non- generating projects such as the $100 million spent to host the 1979 conference of the Organization of African Unity. One could therefore ascertain that the conflict was fueled by the inability of the ruling class to provide the “modicum of human needs” that was a major pressing issue during both the Tolbert and Doe regimes.
Socially, factors such as the educational and health care systems also contributed in igniting the flames of the conflict. Educationally Liberian school systems are divided in to the following four tiers: Primary (up to the sixth grade), junior high (seventh to ninth grade), high school (tenth to twelfth grade), and college or university level education respectively . Before the crisis, there were only two major universities- one a private university and the other a public one. It could also be recalled that all major educational institutions in Liberia were located in the capital city, its environs and the rest of metropolitan Monrovia.
Liberia’s illiteracy rate therefore stood at a dismal 85% with the majority from the rural dwellers. No concerted effort was made on the part of subsequent governments to address the illiteracy rate making the population vulnerable to manipulations and machinations by political and ethnic entrepreneurs. The high illiteracy rate has also demonstrated to the subaltern classes that members of the ruling classes were not interested in their welfare and the general development of the human resource pool of the nation. This has largely contributed to class antagonisms, and eventually to complications of the crisis.
Health care was a major driving factor of socio-economic concerns. Inadequacy of health services could be reflected in the lack of adequate hospitals, equipments and clinics. It was estimated that by 1989, only about 33% of the Liberian population had access to health care making the rural population vulnerable to diseases . With the ruling class using state funding to support the health needs of families and relatives living abroad, antagonism between the ruling class and other subaltern classes continued taking the forefront of Liberian state of affairs.
Actor Analysis
Ethnic Groups
The first actor of interest is the various ethnic groups that formed the core of the different rebel movements and served as a “ready” source of recruitment to fight. Charles Taylor’s National Patriotic Front of Liberia (NPFL) was of mainly an Americo-Liberian ethnic structure, Prince Yormie Johnson Independent National Patriotic Front of Liberia (INPFL) was baked by Gio and Mano tribes, Movement for Democracy in Liberia (MODEL) was Krahn ethnic backed, and Liberians United for Reconciliation and Democracy (LURD) was a Mandingo ethnic majority rebel movement. None of these groups had an interest in securing national peace, but rather to make a claim for their ethnic group, with then (the rebel leaders) as the representatives of their ethnic group. Traditionally, Americo-Liberians have dominated the political platform, followed President Doe and his Krahn group. Other groups felt it was an opportune time to make a claim for political representation. This is epitomized by Johnson, breaking away to form INPFL, at a time when the odds were in favor of NPFL to capture Monrovia. Another example was the unsuccessful marriage between Mandingos’ and Kahn’s in forming the United Liberation Movement for Democracy in Liberia (ULIMD).
In effect, these ethnic groups were not so much as interested in seeing a peaceful Liberia without them having a stake in the political affairs. This opposing interest had an enormous impact in the kind of relationship that existed between them and as a result were not prepared to work together. Each group tried to claim some form of victory at one time or the other, so as to inform the other group of their capabilities. A perfect example is the video-taping of how President Doe was tortured to death. The tapes were later sold throughout West Africa, just to show how potent INPFL was. Had all these groups been interested in seeing a peaceful Liberia, the death of President Doe should have provided the greatest window of opportunity, but it did not, each group felt it had enough to make zero-sum win. As a result, instead of these groups building on the genesis of the war, (ethnic discrimination) as a capacity to achieving peace, they rather expanded their opportunity for war.
Ethnic discrimination that informed the various actors and resulted in the mushrooming of rebel groups is the same thing that resulted in the erosion of the state control as identified as a cause of war. The 1980 coup was very popular with indigenous Liberians and felt they had been taken out of bondage. Doe was proclaimed a hero, but he “made himself the ‘hero’ of only his own ethnic group by replacing the Americo-Liberians who had occupied the commanding heights of Liberia’s political economy with Krahn elites”.
Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS)
Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), being the sub-regional organization felt the Liberian war was disturbing the peace and was immediately drawn into the war. Most of the ECOWAS leaders, if not all, just like President Doe, autocratic and undemocratic, felt threatened and decided to go to the aid of their comrade, President Doe. Led by Nigeria, Anglophone West Africa plus Guinea (a Francophone country that have experienced a massive influx of Liberian refugees) hurriedly mobilized under ECOWAS flag and formed ECOWAS Monitoring Group (ECOMOG) and went into Liberia to serve as an intervening force
The initial aim of ECOMOG was to serve as a middleman between the government and the rebel groups, but the interest of ECOMOG quickly changed from middleman position and became a faction on its own. ECOMOG went into Liberia with the interest of maintaining Doe government in power and as a result developed a working relationship with Doe and his people. As it became evident that Doe could not be saved, ECOMOG began to flip-flop, developing relationships with various rebel factions and sub-contracting their duties. Individually, ECOMOG soldiers began to serve their self-interest by getting involved in looting. ECOMOG quickly became a target and was attacked on a number of occasions, famous among then was the battle in Monrovia between ECOMOG and Taylor’s forces. Again, ECOMOGs changing relationships is thought to have resulted in the capture and subsequent killing of President Doe. Rumor on the West African sub-region had it that ECOMOG played Doe into the hands of INPFL and that ECOMOG was aware INPFL forces had laid ambush at the route Doe was going to use to attend the meeting with ECOMOG officers, but never cared to inform him or even call off the meeting.
Sub-Regional Actors
There were a number of sub-regional actors who though of using the war in Liberia to satisfy their own interest, chief among them were Ivory Coast, Burkina Faso and Guinea (the U.S. accused Blaise Campaore and Taylor of fueling conflicts in West Africa ). Burkina Faso served as the financial center for Charles Taylor and provided Taylor a placed to keep ill gotten money. Cote d’Ivoire served as the based from which Taylor will begin to lunch his killing spree. “Despite predictions that the Cote d’Ivoire – Taylor’s ties would end with the death of President Houphouet-Boigny, and subsequently the overflow of President Konan Bedie”, Cote d’Ivoire paid no mind. The relationship was cemented by the coming to power of General Robert Guei, an ethnic Yacouba.
It was this relationship that had a boomerang effect and fueled the Ivorian conflict. As Olurin indicates, Cote d’Ivoire was not able to transport all the weapons meant for Liberia, the rest had to be used and the best place was in Cote d’Ivoire. Liberian-Ivorian ties will cease to exist when Cote d’Ivoire felt Liberia was backing rebels in its country. There were reports of meetings between Taylor (now President) and Movement Populaire Ivorian du Grand-Quest (MPIGO) leader Felex Doh. As a result President Gbagbo also supported MODEL and led to major advancement in Liberia by MODEL.
It is Ivorian and Burkina be support of Taylor that reopened the Anglophone-Francophone decision, thereby impeding the effectiveness of ECOMOG in Liberia. Guinea, on the other hand, was accused by President Taylor of backing Liberian rebels, Guinea replied by saying its support was based on self-defense.
United Nations and Civil Society Groups
The interest of the UN at the initial stage of the war was little or non-existent, it only became an actor after things had gotten out of hand. Initially, ECOMOG deployed Liberia with no UN blessing. The UN, having no interest in getting involved, later approved of ECOMOG’s deployment as a Chapter 8 mandate even thought Chapter 8 calls on sub-regional bodies to seek UN approval before undertaking such an operation. The UN only got involved after ECOMOG had proven ill prepared, ineffective and incapable of handling the situation. As a result, the UN formed United Nations Mission in Liberia (UNMIL) as a peace-keeping force to Liberia. It must be made clear that in no way is the UN blamed for the horror that happened in Liberia, but the point is that the UN showed no interest from the get go, it stood on the touchline watering with an assumption that ECOMOG was a “peacekeeping Maradona”. The UN got involved too late, only after many lives had been lost. With its capacity, it could have done a better job than ECOMOG, but then Europe was also on fire at the time and geopolitical attention was more focused on the Balkans.
Civil Society Groups such as NGOs got involved because the war had created a refugee problem and provided them an opportunity to carry on the “gospel according to humanitarian aid”. Cote d’Ivoire alone was reported to have received about 72,000 Liberian refugees, not to mention of refugees in other countries. This created a burden on host governments and humanitarian organizations proved to be best suited for handling refugee issues. There was also the issue of IDP, s who were been exploited by both the government and rebel groups. It was thought that about 80% of the 200,000 Liberian IDP’s were women and children and were vulnerable. Since both government and rebel groups were busily killing themselves and these IDP’s, refugees and IDP’s needed some sort of protection. A kind only provided by Civil Society Groups.
The Liberian Government
The Liberian Government, be it that of Doe or Taylor, was the main object of rebel attack although rebel forces also fought among themselves. The Doe government at the initial stage expected help from his traditional benefactor, the United Sates. When help was not coming he turned to sub-regional help. When the U.S. provided Guinea a US$ 3 million military aid, President Taylor understood it to be an aid that was to help in destabilizing his government. Throughout the war, both governments interest was to hold on to power and was prepared in building relationships to achieve that. Doe relied on ECOMOG and Taylor relied on fueling conflicts in neighboring countries so as to take some of the attention and or pressure on him. One funny thing is that changes in geopolitical trends played against both governments but in different ways.
For Doe, he did not realize the end of the Cold War offered new challenges to autocratic leaders. The U.S. was no more interested in pumping billions of its dollars to support corrupt and ineffective governments. Liberia was no more of any strategic importance to the U.S. There was no power struggle between two superpowers, we had entered a U.S. led world and there was no need for the U.S. to waste money on such governments. This change in geopolitical trend had given non-state actor a pretext to question the status quo, and Taylor did.
President Taylor on the other hand realized the changes in the world order, and the resultant change in focus of the U.S. and Russia (USSR), and took advantage of the situation. What Taylor did not realize was the fact that the end of the Cold War had given rise to the emergence of civil society groups who served as a political watchdog group going around and exposing corrupt, autocratic and incompetent governments.
Risk Analysis
Ethnic Divisions and Hatred
Liberia is made up of 95% indigenous Africans (comprising Kpelle’s, Bassa’s, Gio’s, Kru’s, Mano’s, Krahn’s, Gola’s, Gbandi’s, Lona’s, Kissi’s, Vai’s, Dei’s, Bella’s, Mandingos, and Mende’s), 2.5% Americo-Liberians (descendants of slave from the United States) and 2.5% Congo People (descendants of slave from the Caribbean). These groups have historically been divided and prefer to see themselves as belonging to their ethnic groups rather than as a unified one. Indigenous groups have divided themselves based on ethnic history that portrays each ethnic group to be superior to the rest, indigenous groups together hate the other 5% because they see them (Americo-Liberian and Congo People) to have no right to claim Liberian heritage. Americo-Liberians on the other hand controlled and “exploited the country’s ethnic configuration through a measured and uneven distribution of economic and social rewards”. They over the years have dominated the political arena and have pitched one ethnic group against one another. To help solve this problem, the Liberian government in conjunction with UNMIL organizes sporting activities among the various communities with the aim of promoting peace and the realization of the oneness of all Liberians.
Unemployment, Poverty and Lack of Amenities
Liberia has a total population of approximately 3.2 million; out of this is about 80% who are unemployed. In effect, about 2,560,000 Liberian has no jobs. This makes such people a readily available source of recruit for any would be warlord. Since they have nothing to do to earn income, they can easily resort to illegal means to make a living, which in itself poses a great security threat to the current government. There is also widespread poverty that has eaten its way into the entire society. The number of people living below the poverty line is 80% of the population with a GDP per capita (PPP) of $900 as of 2006. The economy that was destroyed by the war and looting is still Agro based. The government is also not able to prove basic social amenities such as schools, hospitals, roads etc. In general, the war brought the Liberian economy to its knees and has still not been able to make any marked progress. In light of this, the government is working acidulously to turn things around. For example, the government is working very closely with the Chinese government in the areas of sports, trade, agriculture, health and more. The government has embarked on a water program to provide clean water to communities, reconstructing damaged roads, providing free public education, increased enrollment by over 40%, instituted the “fifty, five hundred, five thousand” educational program, qualified to be among six countries under the Bush administration’s Special Educational Initiative program and is working with the Clinton Foundation on HIV/AIDS.
Revolving Ex-Combatants
There are a lot of ex-combatants walking around Liberia with nothing to do, in general there are about 23,000 ex-combatants roaming the streets of Liberia, some of these people we must remember have not undergone the UN’s DDR and as such might still have some weapons and ammunitions in their possession. These people pose a potential threat due to the fact that they seem to be having been better off during the war than they are now. During the war they were able to get whatever they wanted by force and now they have to go around doing nothing. No wonder there’s been reports of Liberian ex-fighters inciting or getting involved in conflict in neighboring countries. To help solve this, the government is working closely with UNMIL in getting ex-combatants registered and provided with some help so they can fix themselves comfortably into the mainstream society. As of March 2007, UNMIL had registered 101,874 ex-combatants and 75,000 of them had either completed or were still undergoing reintegration programmes. UNMIL had also collected and destroyed “632 weapons, 77,504 rounds of ammunitions, 1,187 pieces of unexploded ordnance and 11,674 assorted spares and miscellaneous parts. During an interview with Tanu Bangura; a child soldier under the NPFL, “There were many child soldiers during the war and the International community needs to quickly assist in the integration and rehabilitation, otherwise most will pick up arms again as a means of survival”.
Domination by Afro-Liberians
As already stated, indigenous Liberian have over the years been dominated by Americo-Liberian who they consider not to be true Liberians. They harbor a bitter feeling about a group that even though it makes up only 2.5% of the population but have been able to dominate every aspect of Liberia’s history. They are perceived to be colonizers whose interest was only to dominate and control just as was done to them.
Control of Resources
Control over resources; especially natural resource such as timber, diamond, iron ore and gold has been a major issue and has served as a major contributor in sustaining the war in Liberia. Charles Taylor was able to fight such a prolong war because he had control over a significant amount of natural resources. Through illicit trade, he was able to sell these resources and was able to buy arms for his fighters. In light of this, the government has strived to take full control over the management of these and other resources so as to ensure an equitable distribution. The government has applied to be part of the Kimberly Process, instituted a sand mining policy, enacted a forestry reform law and established security within rubber plantations
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This report attempted to discuss four interrelated questions. The first is examining the historical background that laid the foundation for the conflict. Findings from the examination showed the struggle for the control and dominance of both resources and government between the indigenous ethnicities and the Americo-Liberians. It is further illustrated that the conflict was as a result of not only historical and political factors, but also socio-economic and cultural factors.
Second, the study gave an analytical exposition of the actors involve in the conflict and how they contributed in fueling the crisis to a full blown one in sub-Saharan Africa. Several actors in the crisis contributed in shaping the war. The Armed Forces of Liberia, the NPFL, the INPFL, ULIMO-J, ULIMO-K, LPC, and NPFL-CRC were all major actors that had a similar recruitment pattern, and an antagonistic relation with the larger Liberian society.
Third the report further addressed the current incentives on ground in Liberia that could become potential fueling agents of a crisis. Risk factors such as unemployment, poverty, the lack of basic amenities coupled with large number of revolving combatants, tension between ethnicities over control of resources and governance are key issues that most be properly addressed.
Fourth, with the aforementioned observations, it is therefore recommended that the Liberian government take the following concrete measures in preventing the country from any future crisis. Constructively increase youth involvement in education, vocational training and leadership developmental programs.
-Work to strengthen good relationships between different ethnic groups and help them adapt to new challenges.
-Create employment opportunities and other income generating opportunities for Liberians.
- Empower women and encourage women participation in national issues.
-Put into place anti-corruption mechanisms, the current zero tolerance for corruption is a step in the right direction that needs to be sustained and improved.
-Work to improve the infrastructure (roads, electricity etc) of the country. This will not be an easy task and will call for the involvement of all Liberians and the help of the international community.
-Work to improve the basic amenities such as water supplies, medical facilities etc. the government should ensure that the provision of these amenities is done on an equitable base, concentration on a particular county will be detrimental to the fragile peace the country enjoys currently.
-Work to create a connection between the national government and the local authorities. This will be in the form of institutional building and putting in place mechanisms that ensure a free flow if information between the national governments and the local governments.
-Create a truth and reconciliation commission to revisit horrors of the past.
There is therefore no doubt that once the above mentioned recommendations are positively considered, Liberia will be on its way of becoming a vibrant, stable and sustainable democracy.
GLOSSARY
ECOMOG: Economic Community of West African States Monitoring Group
LAP: Liberian Action Party
PRC: People’s Redemption Council
NPFL: National Patriotic Front of Liberia
INPFL: Independent National Patriotic Front of Liberia
ULIMO: The United Liberation Movement for Democracy in Liberia
LPC: The Liberian Peace Council
LDF: The Lofa Defense Council
NPFL – CRC: The National Patriotic Front of Liberia’s Revolutionary Council
AFL: The Armed Forces of Liberia.
USAID: United States Agency for International Development
UNMIL: United Nations Mission in Liberia.
LIBERIA AT A TIMELINE
1815 – 1817 Black Colonization
1820 – 18 47 From Colony to Republic
1847 – 1871 Nationhood and Survival
1848 Constitution Ratified and first elections held
1900 – 1997 One Nation, Many People
1919 - Liberia sign the League of Nations
1944 - Tubman was elected President
1946 - Right to vote extended to Liberia’s Indigenous peoples.
1971- President Tubman died in office
1972 - William R. Tolbert, Jr. was elected Liberia’s President.
1980 - A Military Coup led by Samuel k. Doe, assassinated President
Tolbert and overthrew the government.
1985 - Civilian rule was restored
1986 - A new constitution established the second republic of Liberia
1989 - Charles Taylor led rebellion toppled the President Doe.
1990 - Rebel forces (INPFL) executed Liberia’s former head of state Doe.
1995 - As various factions fought for control of the state, ECOWAS
Brokered a peace treaty between Liberia’s warring factions and
Tentatively negotiated a timetable for elections
1997 - Charles Taylor was elected President of Liberia’s third republic.
2003 - President Taylor was forced into exile following rebel advances on
Monrovia and Gyude Bryant selected as Interim President.
2005 - Ellen Johnson – Sirleaf was elected as Africa’s first female President.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Ademola Adeleke: The Politics in West Africa: The Ecowas Operation in Liberia. Journal of African Studies: Vol. 33, No. 4, p. 572.
2. Agence France Presse: Rebel Chiefs Death Proves Ivory Coast War Goes on Despite Reconciliation. April 29th, 2003.
3. Alfred Charles Sam and an African Return: A Case Study in Negro Despair
William E. Bittle; Gilbert L. Geis
Phylon (1960-), Vol. 23, No. 2. (2nd Qtr., 1962), pp. 178-194.
4. Allafrica.com; Interview: The Children are Crying But There’s Not Much to Do – Ellen Johnson Sirleaf. October 18th, 2007 www.allafrica.com/stories/printable/200710181026.html
5. Associated Press, Ledere, E.M., Countries Accused in Sierra Leone War, July
31st, 2000.
6. E.K.Aning: Eliciting Compliance from Warlords: The ECOWAS Experience in Liberia, 1990-1997Review of African Political Economy, Vol. 26, No. 81, Violence and Conflict Resolution in Africa. (Sep., 1999), pp. 335-348.
7. H. Howe: Lessons of Liberia: ECOMOG and Regional Peacekeeping (in Coping with Collapse in Africa)International Security, Vol. 21, No. 3. (Winter, 1996-1997), pp. 145-176.
8. M.B.Akpan: Black Imperialism: Americo-Liberian Rule over the African Peoples of Liberia, 1841-1964. Canadian Journal of African Studies / Revue Canadienne des Études Africaines, Vol. 7, No. 2. (1973), pp. 217-236.
9. CIA – The World Fact book: Liberia. www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/li.html
10. G.Klay: Irregular Warfare and Liberia’s First Civil War. “Journal of International and Area Studies” June, 2004; proquest. Bobst, New York NY. 10th Dec. 2007.
11. Globalis – Liberia. www.gvu.unu.edu/indicator_detail.cfm?IndicatorID=41&Country=LR
12. Inter Press Services: Rights – Liberia; War Threatens Survival of Children. April 25th 2003.
13. Intute: Science, Engineering & Technology; Liberia. www.intute.ac.uk/sciences/worldguide/html/940_economic.html
14. J.Thomas: Challenges facing the new Liberia. “African Analysis” London: Oct 31, 2003.
15. M.B.Akpan: Black Imperialism: Americo-Liberian Rule over the African Peoples of Liberia, 1841-1964. Canadian Journal of African Studies / Revue Canadienne des Études Africaines, Vol. 7, No. 2. (1973), pp. 217-236.
16. M.Yoon : Internal Conflicts And Cross-Border Military Interventions in Sub-Saharan Africa in the Post Cold War. “Journal of Political and Military Sociology” winter, 2005.
17. Olurin, A; Case of What You Sow You Reap, The Guardian (Lagos), December 15th, 2002
Online News Hour: Liberia’s Uneasy Peace. www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/africa
African Affairs, Vol. 94, No. 375. (Apr., 1995), pp. 165-197.
19. /liberia/post1980_timeline.html
20. Q.0utram: 'It's Terminal Either Way': An Analysis of Armed Conflict in Liberia 1989-1996
21. S.HILL: Liberia 1989-1994: A Study of Ethnic and Spiritual Violence. Review of African Political Economy, Vol. 24, No. 73, The ROAPE Review of Books. (Sep., 1997), pp. 355-371
22. The Economic and Commercial Councilor’s Office of the Embassy of the People’s Republic of China in the Republic of Liberia: Unemployment Rate in Liberia Hits 80%. Friday July 6, 2007. www.lr2.mofcom.gov.cn/aarticle/chinanews/200707/20070704860139.html
23. The News (Monrovia): 9,000 Liberian Return from the Ivory Coast, UNHCR Reveals. November 18th, 2002
24. T. Kamara : Civil War And Regional Conflict “Independent Analyst, Netherlands” May, 2003
25. Thomas S. Kamara: Liberia: Civil War and Regional Conflict. UNHCR, Emergency & Security Services, Writenet Paper No. /17, May 2003.
26. Thomas. P. wrubel: Liberia: The Dynamics of Continuity
The Journal of Modern African Studies, Vol. 9, No. 2. (Aug., 1971), pp. 189-204
27. United Nation Security Council: Fourteenth Progress Report of the Secretary-General on the United Nations Mission in Liberia. S/2007/151 March 15th, 2007 p.7
28. United Nation Security Council: Thirteenth Progress Report of the Secretary-General on the United Nations Mission in Liberia. S/2006/958 December 11th, 2006
29. United Nation Security Council: Twelfth Progress Report of the Secretary-General on the United Nations Mission in Liberia. S/2006/743 September 12th, 2006 p.13