Hey “Cakes”
Looks like we’re going through another one of those cycles where most well intended people are reacting to the unpredictable actions of ‘reactionaries’ whose strings to their trigger happy fingers are being pulled by money greedy financiers (Caucasians included) who are ‘living it up’ amongst us. Hmmmm — sometimes when I let my emotions run wild I really run wild. Got to remember to let my head control my heart.
Here is the “story” being told by “usually knowledgeable” (albeit sometimes contradictory) sources on recent events. This story positively reinforces my position of remaining proactive as opposed to reactive on the Liberian issue. “They” say that when Taylor pulled his “Clintonism” by redefining his meaning of the term “to step down”, the backers of the “rebels without a clue” (their quote) were led to believe that the major players in the international community had given up on Taylor. Even some members of the ECOWAS group had (visibly) thrown up their hands.
So, they sent in the bloodhounds to “take Monrovia”. Unfortunately for them, they had misread the UN’s “leadership” (i.e. Kofi Anan’s and those of his special assistants) strong position re Liberia — which is an interesting case study on the dynamics of multinational dysfunctional organizations. As you know, the “local reps” of these organizations quite often develop special relationships with elements on the ground. Often times these personal relationships end up dictating the organization’s bilateral relationship (goal/role) with the host country. Here’s an interesting formula to gauge this phenomena — the number of an organization’s retraction to statements made by a “local rep” is directly proportional to extent of the rep’s personal local relationships, divided by the strength/independence of its leadership to the 5th power. Go figure!
And this “relationship phenomenon” is not restricted to intergovernmental organizations. Those of us who lived the Liberian “near-miss positive political evolution” of the 70’s can laugh with impunity at the term “the international free press”. Most of the time the reports then being beamed to the world, via some of the most reputable news medias, originated as pillow talk(s). And those reports helped set the stage for what was to eventually happen in 1980 (allegations of the Jebo factor not withstanding). Hell, it’s not only in the movies where “affairs” dictate the policies — been there, seen that!
But, I digress. The story goes that before Taylor mustered the nerve to redefine his position on “stepping down” (encouraged by militant supporters at home and abroad), Kofi, some ECOWAS “leaders” and the British Foreign Ministry had started (not necessarily independent) talk/push for US involvement.
Here is where the story takes on the element of a Liberian Spider tale. The US reaction to this talk/push (“they say”) was to tell the “party” to the North to back off their “support” for the rebels from the northwest. The rebels from the southeast, it is said, are still trying to figure out who their “leader” (i.e. Financier) is, so they didn’t have to be told to back off. US supporters of the “back off” instructions (“they say”) received more credence when elements of this (US) administrations were reminded by elements of an earlier (US) administration of the 1990’s Prince Johnson/Charles Taylor fiasco. That one also cost Liberia and Liberians dearly. Some estimates place the number of death at over 100,000 including Americans (remember the Nuns?), Nigerians (remember the pictures of charred bodies of Nigerian soldiers hanging out of their tanks?) — give me a country and I’ll give you at least one name) lives. Liberians are still debating what/who spearheaded the breakup of that “love in” and to what end.
By the way, have you ever heard of any indictment of the “Prince”? I haven’t and I’ve got a copy of an AP picture (taken for the Philadelphia Inquirer) showing him executing a (Liberian) Red Cross worker — and let’s not forget his “authorized video” torture and murder of SKD! Not to mention the (alleged) point blank shooting of (my childhood idol) Michael Doe -- and a host of others.
I love this expression by George Santayana: “Even those who remember history are condemned to repeat it”. The reason this is so true when it comes to US/Liberian (/Africa, for that matter) is that US political leadership still get their perception of Liberians and things Liberia for the CIA County Manual, the occasional Leibennow or Gunter like books, and the latest New York Times/Washington Post-ish “news” account.
My eye opener came while “working the Hill” in the mid to late 80’s (before that labor of love of country became a pissing contest). To a then senior legislative aid (an African-American at that) of a influential member of the House’ subcommittee on Africa, the history of Liberia began and ended with the phrase: “founded by freed America slaves”. That experience is the major reason why I’m against term limit for US congresspersons — each one of them should be made to “serve” (with ever increasing reduction in pay and benefits) till they rectify any and all legislative mistakes they made during their tenure.
Memo to self: Earl, you’re letting your bile lead again — brain take over!
Back to the Spider story! “They say” that the forcefulness of that (back off) instruction was “the” reason for the “retreat beyond Tubman bridge” and had less to do with the effectiveness of Taylor’s rag-tag guns for hire. One can see the implication if this “story” is true -- hmmmm. Anyway, with this new stalemate, the players (and player-haters) were back to “reacting” to this new development — back to the “negotiating table” while the bigger (belatedly proactive) boys worked behind the scenery to extract their national and organizational best interest out of this international embarrassment called Liberian.
My current take on things (and Lord knows I’m no “Liberia expert” like Chet Crocker and his replacement -- “punt” intended) is that, in spite of the motions/reactions in Ghana, the direction of Liberia’s future remains as fluid as ever. Interestingly, where the county is headed may, yet again, not necessarily be decided by Liberians — neither a minority (as with the numerous interim governments) OR majority (as the constitutionally questionable elections that somewhat legitimized Taylor’s claim to “leadership”)!
One doesn’t have to go to “no card-cutter” to know where things are headed, given certain conditions. Even the Washington Post today figured that one out. Yeah, yeah, yeah — I know; read between the lines and you can tell which Liberian “political factions” they are in bed with. Hey, the “pun” is not intended!
To a large degree, Taylor still controls those leading “conditions” that will determine when the current crisis is dealt with. If he elects to stays (either in Monrovia, of going to ground in “the bush”) the suffering and deaths will get worse. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t thing Taylor has any longevity under either of these options. Times have (and he has) changed since he was a guerilla fighter. Remember how long Savimbi fought in the Angolan bushes? Once the players decided that he had to go it was like he had a global positioning device stuck to his butt — he just couldn’t shake government forces.
Talking the other day to someone I consider a “for real Liberianist” he said that no matter what people say about Taylor they can’t say he’s stupid. Assuming that to be the truth then Taylor’s only option is to negotiate (with the bigger boys) his best back door exit and hire the best damn lawyer his money can buy. Don’t buy into the media accounts of freezing of these guys money — the stories on that one is what best sellers are made of. And remember, he’s been there and done that — that’s the fiasco that started this phase of Liberia’s spiraling decline to 174th place on the world’s report card.
As a side note, here’s my take on whether Taylor is stupid or not — and this is not developed from hindsight. I’ve always said that if he was smart he would have announced that he would only be serving one term once it became obvious that he wasn’t going to get a chance to be “presidential”. And this was obvious early in his administration. Having done this he should have focused on a “reconciliation and truth type commission” and negotiating the best forgiveness program Liberians could afford.
There are a number of positive things this would have accomplished, I think. A timely Truth commission would have isolated the murders and sociopaths in society and “outed” the guys who gave them the orders. I’m still trying to get to the facts behind Emmett Johnson’s death in Bassa. As it is, it’s said that there is a highest bidder “murder-for-hire” network going on between the various fighting factions. No kidding, one person allegedly involved in the torture and murder of Robert (Phillips) is said to be still actively engaged in disposing of others. This decision may have also discouraged Taylor from crawling under the sheet with the likes of Sankor cause he would have realized he was only a short timer.
As it was, he decided otherwise. Stupid decision? I would (and did) say so. However, an astute friend put it to me this way. “it’s not stupidity that driving the 15 odd presidential aspirants (considering there’s so little left to exploit) — its ego; and Taylor’s got an ego the size of lake Peso.” So, that one is still up for debate.
Be that as it may, in either case -- if departure is his decision (Lord, hear our prayers) or if he choose to die for whatever his cause/reason -- Liberians will eventually get another chance of returning to the “civilized” world; whatever “civilized” means these days. One thing I hope it means is NOT eating other people— where the heck did that practice come from! What Liberians (and the REAL friends of Liberia) do with this another chance will determine how much lower the country and Liberians sink in this quicksand of negativity and infighting.
But mark my word, WHAT Liberians do with this other opportunity at independence will once again depend on how its presented to them. If they go the tried, tested and abandoned “interim government” route, my humble assessment is that we’re in for at least another 5-8 years (minimum) of instability. Look at it realistically. With some 15 political parties whose sole purpose is to insure that their members (or “leader’s’) “ethnic faction” wins the presidency, what chance in hell is there of ever unifying the country to even begin the process of recovery! That’s not a question; that’s a statement! I can just see it now -- divide and conquer; the ideal condition for incubating another Charles Taylor styled government.
An alternate solution being thrown around here is that of establishing a UN administered “administration” that would govern Liberia until the local political parties mature beyond personality cults and warring factions. While that is happening, it is argued, the UN administration would focus on reestablishing those basis institutions that foster “democracy” and social wellbeing. It’s a system that have worked for other “failed states” like Liberia — East Temor and Kosovo comes to mind. I suspect that the US is pushing this position and I’ll be watching the Sunday morning talk shows to see if me assumption is correct.
There are a number of reasons for my assumption. First is the fact that the latest group of US “African experts” is suggesting this alternative. In DC lingo, African experts usually mean former State Department officials of the same political persuasion of the President’s party. Being politically “in” these experts have access, and are usually used to prepare the public for upcoming action and/or gauging public reaction to proposed actions. Secondly, all of this happened around the same time the burner was being turned up be the UN, UK and the UA — Obasanjo, Mbeki and Wade especially. Another fact is this; after some hundred and eighty plus years (and I’m talking 1822 here) of politically distancing itself from Liberia, this US administrations is not going to get “down and dirty” with this generation of Liberians in correcting the “shituation” -- Bob Marley’s word, not mine! For them, it would be much better to have the UN (as “irrelevant” as it is — George W’s word, not mine!) pull this coal out of the fire.
For the UN official bureaucratic bunch, this is a “died and gone to heaven” solution. Another empire building opportunity coupled with the opportunity to play the role of (colonial) leader to Africa’s first Republic — the final and ultimate humiliation of a once proud people and a warning to the rest of the continent. Memo: Down, Earl, Down!! Under the Liberian scenario, my assumption is that the UN would be provided all the money they need to administer the country — plus the authority to used revenue from (what’s left of) the natural resources to augment their budget.
Under the right conditions this plan is doable — it’s (like they say) “something in the leopard’s mouth while the deer is allowed to grow”. The question here is (if this is the final decision), will the Liberian political power seekers allow it to work. The reason I have reservations here is my experience with former Senator Nancy Kassenbaum’s Economic Recovery Program for Liberia. Remember? That’s the project that sent US experts to manage key ministries with the goal of turning the economy around. That project could have also worked. But, for different reasons, both elements within the government and opposition sabotaged it. The opposition worked against it (using that dirty word “receivership”) because had it succeeded, “Moe’s” administration would have possibly received international economic legitimacy. Most government officials opposed it because they realized it would expose their “creative skimming mechanism”.
In any case, the challenge for us non-political-type professionals who would like to earnestly contribute to the timely social (human), economic, political (and in every other description), recovery is, how does one do this without having to brown-nose some real-world flunkie (there’s a better word I could use but I’ll keep this civil) for that opportunity. And then, given the opportunity, have to sacrifice ones principle and turn a blind eye while they and their cronies (literally) rape and plunder the people and country. Another concern (for some professionals) is making their professional contributions to the criticism of those (and their “supporters”) who would lose their politically assigned/connected “position” -- or the professional critics who have evolved this “pass-time” engagement to a science and revenue earner. One frustrated professional (who’s doing quite well in his six figure US job) calls them the “smoke-fish draggers”. You know, like a “red herring”?
Darn Cakes, this was supposed to be a quick email giving my assessment of what “we” can do to speed up the recovery process, and I haven’t even touch on that (yet). Let’s consider this a “back-grounder” for my suggestions that I promise I’ll send later. I promise.
--
"Birds of a feather flock together."
If you're an eagle, don't hang around chickens: Chickens Can't Fly!
Looks like we’re going through another one of those cycles where most well intended people are reacting to the unpredictable actions of ‘reactionaries’ whose strings to their trigger happy fingers are being pulled by money greedy financiers (Caucasians included) who are ‘living it up’ amongst us. Hmmmm — sometimes when I let my emotions run wild I really run wild. Got to remember to let my head control my heart.
Here is the “story” being told by “usually knowledgeable” (albeit sometimes contradictory) sources on recent events. This story positively reinforces my position of remaining proactive as opposed to reactive on the Liberian issue. “They” say that when Taylor pulled his “Clintonism” by redefining his meaning of the term “to step down”, the backers of the “rebels without a clue” (their quote) were led to believe that the major players in the international community had given up on Taylor. Even some members of the ECOWAS group had (visibly) thrown up their hands.
So, they sent in the bloodhounds to “take Monrovia”. Unfortunately for them, they had misread the UN’s “leadership” (i.e. Kofi Anan’s and those of his special assistants) strong position re Liberia — which is an interesting case study on the dynamics of multinational dysfunctional organizations. As you know, the “local reps” of these organizations quite often develop special relationships with elements on the ground. Often times these personal relationships end up dictating the organization’s bilateral relationship (goal/role) with the host country. Here’s an interesting formula to gauge this phenomena — the number of an organization’s retraction to statements made by a “local rep” is directly proportional to extent of the rep’s personal local relationships, divided by the strength/independence of its leadership to the 5th power. Go figure!
And this “relationship phenomenon” is not restricted to intergovernmental organizations. Those of us who lived the Liberian “near-miss positive political evolution” of the 70’s can laugh with impunity at the term “the international free press”. Most of the time the reports then being beamed to the world, via some of the most reputable news medias, originated as pillow talk(s). And those reports helped set the stage for what was to eventually happen in 1980 (allegations of the Jebo factor not withstanding). Hell, it’s not only in the movies where “affairs” dictate the policies — been there, seen that!
But, I digress. The story goes that before Taylor mustered the nerve to redefine his position on “stepping down” (encouraged by militant supporters at home and abroad), Kofi, some ECOWAS “leaders” and the British Foreign Ministry had started (not necessarily independent) talk/push for US involvement.
Here is where the story takes on the element of a Liberian Spider tale. The US reaction to this talk/push (“they say”) was to tell the “party” to the North to back off their “support” for the rebels from the northwest. The rebels from the southeast, it is said, are still trying to figure out who their “leader” (i.e. Financier) is, so they didn’t have to be told to back off. US supporters of the “back off” instructions (“they say”) received more credence when elements of this (US) administrations were reminded by elements of an earlier (US) administration of the 1990’s Prince Johnson/Charles Taylor fiasco. That one also cost Liberia and Liberians dearly. Some estimates place the number of death at over 100,000 including Americans (remember the Nuns?), Nigerians (remember the pictures of charred bodies of Nigerian soldiers hanging out of their tanks?) — give me a country and I’ll give you at least one name) lives. Liberians are still debating what/who spearheaded the breakup of that “love in” and to what end.
By the way, have you ever heard of any indictment of the “Prince”? I haven’t and I’ve got a copy of an AP picture (taken for the Philadelphia Inquirer) showing him executing a (Liberian) Red Cross worker — and let’s not forget his “authorized video” torture and murder of SKD! Not to mention the (alleged) point blank shooting of (my childhood idol) Michael Doe -- and a host of others.
I love this expression by George Santayana: “Even those who remember history are condemned to repeat it”. The reason this is so true when it comes to US/Liberian (/Africa, for that matter) is that US political leadership still get their perception of Liberians and things Liberia for the CIA County Manual, the occasional Leibennow or Gunter like books, and the latest New York Times/Washington Post-ish “news” account.
My eye opener came while “working the Hill” in the mid to late 80’s (before that labor of love of country became a pissing contest). To a then senior legislative aid (an African-American at that) of a influential member of the House’ subcommittee on Africa, the history of Liberia began and ended with the phrase: “founded by freed America slaves”. That experience is the major reason why I’m against term limit for US congresspersons — each one of them should be made to “serve” (with ever increasing reduction in pay and benefits) till they rectify any and all legislative mistakes they made during their tenure.
Memo to self: Earl, you’re letting your bile lead again — brain take over!
Back to the Spider story! “They say” that the forcefulness of that (back off) instruction was “the” reason for the “retreat beyond Tubman bridge” and had less to do with the effectiveness of Taylor’s rag-tag guns for hire. One can see the implication if this “story” is true -- hmmmm. Anyway, with this new stalemate, the players (and player-haters) were back to “reacting” to this new development — back to the “negotiating table” while the bigger (belatedly proactive) boys worked behind the scenery to extract their national and organizational best interest out of this international embarrassment called Liberian.
My current take on things (and Lord knows I’m no “Liberia expert” like Chet Crocker and his replacement -- “punt” intended) is that, in spite of the motions/reactions in Ghana, the direction of Liberia’s future remains as fluid as ever. Interestingly, where the county is headed may, yet again, not necessarily be decided by Liberians — neither a minority (as with the numerous interim governments) OR majority (as the constitutionally questionable elections that somewhat legitimized Taylor’s claim to “leadership”)!
One doesn’t have to go to “no card-cutter” to know where things are headed, given certain conditions. Even the Washington Post today figured that one out. Yeah, yeah, yeah — I know; read between the lines and you can tell which Liberian “political factions” they are in bed with. Hey, the “pun” is not intended!
To a large degree, Taylor still controls those leading “conditions” that will determine when the current crisis is dealt with. If he elects to stays (either in Monrovia, of going to ground in “the bush”) the suffering and deaths will get worse. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t thing Taylor has any longevity under either of these options. Times have (and he has) changed since he was a guerilla fighter. Remember how long Savimbi fought in the Angolan bushes? Once the players decided that he had to go it was like he had a global positioning device stuck to his butt — he just couldn’t shake government forces.
Talking the other day to someone I consider a “for real Liberianist” he said that no matter what people say about Taylor they can’t say he’s stupid. Assuming that to be the truth then Taylor’s only option is to negotiate (with the bigger boys) his best back door exit and hire the best damn lawyer his money can buy. Don’t buy into the media accounts of freezing of these guys money — the stories on that one is what best sellers are made of. And remember, he’s been there and done that — that’s the fiasco that started this phase of Liberia’s spiraling decline to 174th place on the world’s report card.
As a side note, here’s my take on whether Taylor is stupid or not — and this is not developed from hindsight. I’ve always said that if he was smart he would have announced that he would only be serving one term once it became obvious that he wasn’t going to get a chance to be “presidential”. And this was obvious early in his administration. Having done this he should have focused on a “reconciliation and truth type commission” and negotiating the best forgiveness program Liberians could afford.
There are a number of positive things this would have accomplished, I think. A timely Truth commission would have isolated the murders and sociopaths in society and “outed” the guys who gave them the orders. I’m still trying to get to the facts behind Emmett Johnson’s death in Bassa. As it is, it’s said that there is a highest bidder “murder-for-hire” network going on between the various fighting factions. No kidding, one person allegedly involved in the torture and murder of Robert (Phillips) is said to be still actively engaged in disposing of others. This decision may have also discouraged Taylor from crawling under the sheet with the likes of Sankor cause he would have realized he was only a short timer.
As it was, he decided otherwise. Stupid decision? I would (and did) say so. However, an astute friend put it to me this way. “it’s not stupidity that driving the 15 odd presidential aspirants (considering there’s so little left to exploit) — its ego; and Taylor’s got an ego the size of lake Peso.” So, that one is still up for debate.
Be that as it may, in either case -- if departure is his decision (Lord, hear our prayers) or if he choose to die for whatever his cause/reason -- Liberians will eventually get another chance of returning to the “civilized” world; whatever “civilized” means these days. One thing I hope it means is NOT eating other people— where the heck did that practice come from! What Liberians (and the REAL friends of Liberia) do with this another chance will determine how much lower the country and Liberians sink in this quicksand of negativity and infighting.
But mark my word, WHAT Liberians do with this other opportunity at independence will once again depend on how its presented to them. If they go the tried, tested and abandoned “interim government” route, my humble assessment is that we’re in for at least another 5-8 years (minimum) of instability. Look at it realistically. With some 15 political parties whose sole purpose is to insure that their members (or “leader’s’) “ethnic faction” wins the presidency, what chance in hell is there of ever unifying the country to even begin the process of recovery! That’s not a question; that’s a statement! I can just see it now -- divide and conquer; the ideal condition for incubating another Charles Taylor styled government.
An alternate solution being thrown around here is that of establishing a UN administered “administration” that would govern Liberia until the local political parties mature beyond personality cults and warring factions. While that is happening, it is argued, the UN administration would focus on reestablishing those basis institutions that foster “democracy” and social wellbeing. It’s a system that have worked for other “failed states” like Liberia — East Temor and Kosovo comes to mind. I suspect that the US is pushing this position and I’ll be watching the Sunday morning talk shows to see if me assumption is correct.
There are a number of reasons for my assumption. First is the fact that the latest group of US “African experts” is suggesting this alternative. In DC lingo, African experts usually mean former State Department officials of the same political persuasion of the President’s party. Being politically “in” these experts have access, and are usually used to prepare the public for upcoming action and/or gauging public reaction to proposed actions. Secondly, all of this happened around the same time the burner was being turned up be the UN, UK and the UA — Obasanjo, Mbeki and Wade especially. Another fact is this; after some hundred and eighty plus years (and I’m talking 1822 here) of politically distancing itself from Liberia, this US administrations is not going to get “down and dirty” with this generation of Liberians in correcting the “shituation” -- Bob Marley’s word, not mine! For them, it would be much better to have the UN (as “irrelevant” as it is — George W’s word, not mine!) pull this coal out of the fire.
For the UN official bureaucratic bunch, this is a “died and gone to heaven” solution. Another empire building opportunity coupled with the opportunity to play the role of (colonial) leader to Africa’s first Republic — the final and ultimate humiliation of a once proud people and a warning to the rest of the continent. Memo: Down, Earl, Down!! Under the Liberian scenario, my assumption is that the UN would be provided all the money they need to administer the country — plus the authority to used revenue from (what’s left of) the natural resources to augment their budget.
Under the right conditions this plan is doable — it’s (like they say) “something in the leopard’s mouth while the deer is allowed to grow”. The question here is (if this is the final decision), will the Liberian political power seekers allow it to work. The reason I have reservations here is my experience with former Senator Nancy Kassenbaum’s Economic Recovery Program for Liberia. Remember? That’s the project that sent US experts to manage key ministries with the goal of turning the economy around. That project could have also worked. But, for different reasons, both elements within the government and opposition sabotaged it. The opposition worked against it (using that dirty word “receivership”) because had it succeeded, “Moe’s” administration would have possibly received international economic legitimacy. Most government officials opposed it because they realized it would expose their “creative skimming mechanism”.
In any case, the challenge for us non-political-type professionals who would like to earnestly contribute to the timely social (human), economic, political (and in every other description), recovery is, how does one do this without having to brown-nose some real-world flunkie (there’s a better word I could use but I’ll keep this civil) for that opportunity. And then, given the opportunity, have to sacrifice ones principle and turn a blind eye while they and their cronies (literally) rape and plunder the people and country. Another concern (for some professionals) is making their professional contributions to the criticism of those (and their “supporters”) who would lose their politically assigned/connected “position” -- or the professional critics who have evolved this “pass-time” engagement to a science and revenue earner. One frustrated professional (who’s doing quite well in his six figure US job) calls them the “smoke-fish draggers”. You know, like a “red herring”?
Darn Cakes, this was supposed to be a quick email giving my assessment of what “we” can do to speed up the recovery process, and I haven’t even touch on that (yet). Let’s consider this a “back-grounder” for my suggestions that I promise I’ll send later. I promise.
--
"Birds of a feather flock together."
If you're an eagle, don't hang around chickens: Chickens Can't Fly!
Sunday, Jul 6, 2003
