America helped ruin Liberia. Now it must help repair it

[T_i_B]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Print/0,3858,4724393,00.html

The world cannot just watch as west Africa falls apart, the US secretary of state, Colin Powell, said last week. But the extraordinarily reluctant way in which the US has been edging toward the commitment of troops to Liberia shows the Bush administration still refusing to accept more than a limited share of responsibility for a country which America both helped to create, in the 19th century, and helped to ruin, in the 20th. The forces President Bush has put on standby off the coast may not even land, if the units which other west African nations are to send to Liberia prove capable of bringing the fighting to an end on their own. Even if they do set foot in the country, American engagement, one official said, will be limited in "both space and time".

On his recent African tour, Bush had to deal directly with the argument that, if Americans can go to war, among other reasons, to rescue Iraqis, then why cannot they undertake a modest deployment to a country with which America has close historical ties, and which is crying out for US help? On the one hand, the Bush administration believes that coalitions of the willing are the best model for interventions of whatever kind, and that UN involvement, although sometimes useful, is not a necessary condition for action. On the other, in the Liberian case, it has been cooperating with the UN, and working toward the dispatch of a regional peacekeeping force under the UN flag. It will be a force, however, which the US will support, but in which its soldiers will not serve. This position may, superficially, seem similar to that adopted by Britain, whose troops in Sierra Leone have never been part of the UN force there. But the British insisted on that separation so that they could take a more active and combative role, not because they have a UN taboo or so they could shirk the fray.

Whatever the theoretical rights and wrongs, the combination of a UN military presence and an independent expeditionary force has worked so far in Sierra Leone. The French case in Ivory Coast is different again, but still shows the former metropolitan country ready to respond to an emergency in a former colony.

Although the US stands in an essentially similar relationship to Liberia as Britain does to Sierra Leone, and more distantly, as France does to its former colonies in west Africa, it has consistently avoided the duties implicit in that relationship. In spite of its enormous influence there, the US never seriously urged reform on the elite of freed slave families who were Liberia's settler and ruling class until 1980. Without much consideration, Washington decided that the brutal and incompetent regime of Samuel Doe which was then installed in Monrovia was not only acceptable, but deserved substantial aid, and that its rigging of elections in 1985 was a step toward democracy. "Great powers don't reject their partners just because they smell," said Chester Crocker, the then assistant secretary of state for African Affairs, quoted in Mark Huband's book on Africa after the cold war.

[DoYouEverWonder]

1. W is just repeating the sins of his father

Liberia, in a sense, was a US Colony. It is the only African country that was settled and controlled by Americans. Each of the former colonial powers, that occupied Africa, usually take responsiblity for the country that they had settled. That is why the British are in Sierra Leone and the French are in the Ivory Coast. This is why the rest of the world expects the US to do something about Liberia.

When Samuel Doe was overthrown by Charles Taylor, Bu$h Sr. chose to sit back and let it happen. For the next 10+ years, Taylor has been one of the most corrupt and brutal of the current crop of dictators. Thanks to Taylor, al Qaeda had an easy and cheap (very cheap) source of diamonds to fund their operations, which Taylor then used the money to arm his rebel groups. If W really wanted to fight terrorism, he wouldn't have wasted his time chasing Saddam, he should have removed Taylor instead.

Now history repeats itself and W has chosen to go on vacation, while 1000's of more Liberians are killed in the latest upheaval. Despite the fact that everybody, including Taylor and the Liberian people are begging us to come in and take control. Bu$h Sr abandoned the Liberians during his term, now his son is abandoning the Liberians during his. At least they're consistant.

BTW: Another good reason for the US to do something about Charles Taylor is that he is an escaped felon from a US prison. How he got out of the US and into Africa no one really knows? I'm willing to bet Bu$h Sr. had something to do with getting his there.