|
The Bush administration is turning its back on an opportunity
for the United States to play a part in ensuring a lasting
peace for Liberia. By settling for a meager presence on the
ground and reiterating strict limits to any U.S. military participation
in Liberia, President Bush is sending a clear message that
the U.S. does not feel any responsibility for the future of
that country, which was founded by freed American slaves.
What analysts have described as a compromise - between calls
for action by the US State Department and insistences for inaction
by the Pentagon - is conveying an additional message to the
countries of West Africa: The U.S. is not really serious about
strengthening the region's primary institution for peace and
security, the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS).
Neither of these messages fits with the National Security Strategy
outlined by the President one year after the terrorist
attacks of September 11, 2001.
This administration should not forget its own words from
that document: "America is now threatened less by conquering
states than we are by failing ones." Nor should the legacy
of the failed Somalia intervention in 1993 continue to guide
U.S. policy on military intervention in Africa today. Instead,
such cases should be examples of lessons learned rather than
an excuse for inertia. Calls for caution from senior congressional
leaders, such as Sen. John W. Warner (R-VA), chairman of the
Senate Armed Services Committee, should drive the U.S.
to forge a clear definition of the objectives of the intervention,
not impede action. Military intervention in Liberia is
justified by two primary goals: to stave off a mounting
humanitarian crisis and to contribute to the rebuilding of
peace and security in West Africa.
Following NATO's use of force in Kosovo - without a UN Security
Council resolution - to protect Kosovar Albanians, the international
community has searched for criteria to guide legitimate military
intervention. Over the past two years, The Fund for Peace,
a Washington-based non-governmental organization, has taken
a specifically regional approach to this issue, surveying
opinion in Asia, Africa, Europe and the Americas. High-level
Africans from government, military, academia, media and civil
society were brought together from across the continent and
they arrived at a consensus, which was shared with U.S. and
international policy communities.
Most relevant to the Liberian discussion, the African
participants stated that outside military intervention is
legitimate in their region when "mass killings, mass atrocities,
or ethnic cleansing are occurring or are threatening to occur"
as well as "when the stability of a region is threatened by
internal war in a nation." Furthermore, legitimacy was placed
in the continent's regional organizations, both to authorize
and to implement military intervention. Such a consensus was a
dramatic departure from the traditional stance of the continent,
which had held fast to state sovereignty regardless of the
violence taking place within neighboring countries, and also
contrasted sharply with the views of other regions, which were
less forward-leaning in their own regional criteria. African
views have changed because the past decade has presented two
harsh realities: firstly, massive numbers of civilians are dying
as a result of African internal wars; and secondly, the
international community and the UN Security Council have repeatedly
failed to respond adequately when violence erupted, most
notably in the 1994 Rwandan genocide.
By placing the lives of civilians above the dictates of
state sovereignty, Africa's leaders are taking a critical
first step on the long path to stopping the violence that
has plagued the continent for decades. Realizing this goal,
however, requires resources and logistical capacity that Africa's
militaries do not possess. Thus, they are forced to ask for help.
Fighting between Mr. Taylor's forces and rebels has displaced
nearly one third of Liberia's population of three million and failed
attempts by rebels to take the capitol, Monrovia, left nearly
one thousand civilians dead. The Economic Community of West
African States (ECOWAS) and UN Secretary General Kofi Annan
have asked the United States to provide support to a multinational
force of African troops. Success came recently when outside powers,
namely France and the United Kingdom, contributed their firepower
and logistical know-how in Cote d'Ivoire and Sierra Leone,
respectively. Now it is time for the United States to play
its part because of its historical ties to Liberia as well
as its own self-interest.
Liberia presents a unique instance in which the United States
can demonstrate its ability to work closely with a regional
organization, ECOWAS, as well as with the United Nations,
drawing on the international legitimacy of both bodies.
In the current global setting, dominated by the perception
that the U.S. only knows how to go it alone, the logic of
cooperation with West African allies dovetails with the clear
humanitarian imperative. Without adequate attention, Liberia's
instability will continue to spill over into neighboring states.
The future of the region demands that war be stopped and rebels
reintegrated into the social fabric. Africa's leaders have
decided that this must happen and they have asked for help.
In this case, it would be a clear and legitimate humanitarian
intervention to answer that call.
Jason Ladnier
Jason Ladnier is the associate director of the
Regional Responses to Internal War Program at The Fund for Peace.
Contact
jladnier@fundforpeace.org
(202) 223-7940 x206
|
