Liberating Liberia?

The country has been in crisis for more years than anyone will acknowledge, so why does the US suddenly think intervention there will be the grand cure?

Liberia - the West African state founded by "recolonized" American slaves in the 1820s - has been anything but an example of liberty to its African neighbors. After so many years of war, perhaps nobody really knows the cause of the conflict. The most recent trouble began when the rebel leader-cum-President recruited enough support to have a successful coup, but the group he ousted has since rallied and has attempted to oust Mr. Taylor.

As a measure of the counter-rebellion's prospects, Mr. Taylor promises to resign as President if the US sends a peace keeping force. In the fine tradition of deploying peace keeping forces to places with no peace to keep, the US is seriously considering this intervention while Charles Taylor seriously reconsiders hisleave Liberia.

The intervention's goals would be simple: Keep the peace. But with no peace to keep, wouldn't the mission be like Somalia but with less famine and with the prospect of some oil finds? How is Liberia a threat to national security?? Are Al-Qaeda terrorists hiding there? Does Charles Taylor have a WMD program? In short, why intervene?

These questions all demand answers. Much is to be credited towards intervention for humanitarian reasons, but the unfortunate legacy of interventions for that reason is a general lack of success. The missions usually have short term results, but the famines and feuds resume within days of the missions' declared end - if the famines and feuds ever really ended at all. Despite this, the humanitarian argument is the angle the Bush administration seems to be working most vigorously. And while they work that angle, Mr. Taylor keeps changing his exit rules. Humanitarian crisis combined with inconsistency equals only one thing: A big future policy disaster.

The national security angle will be even more difficult to assert. Although it is a success that Saddam Hussein is gone in Iraq, the lack of WMD evidence leaves the Bush administration with a serious credibility problem in respect of future interventions based on allegations of what weapons another state may or may not have. This national security argument is now not at all in assertion in relation to Liberia - which is perhaps a strategically wise decision.

Failing the humanitarian argument and the national security argument, only the natural resources argument remains as viable. Apparently what is good for big oil is good for America. Liberia allegedly has wealth in natural resources such as a limited supply of oil and some diamond mines, but won't big oil companies have enough new sources of oil and pipelines in Iraq that they would not need an intervention in Liberia? The potential gains from those resources hardly equate to the cost of military deployment.

Go To Page: 1 2

Articles in this Topic    Discussions in this Topic