** Visit AAM's new website! http://www.africanassociation.org **

WHY IS IT LURD, MODEL SAY NO TO DISARMAMENT?
Analysis by Alex Redd
  Madison, WI
December 2, 2003




While I applaud the Association of Liberian Journalists in
the Americas (ALJA) latest press statement that anchored
its central theme on the boneheaded attitude of the
warring parties to the Liberian conflict, I would also
like to comment on few observations about the disarmament
process. Last Thursday, Liberian warring parties
deliberately walked out of a meeting on disarmament. The
warring parties reportedly demanded a political payback of
many government positions before they would be willing to
adhere to disarmament process. The Liberian people may now
understand the inherent motive of the so-called
liberators, who ostensibly cried liberation, liberation
with backing of the AK-47. It may seem cynical and absurd
when one only makes job as pre-requisite to adhere to an
agreement signed in the past that brought together the new
configuration of transitional members to pave the way for
peace and stability.  One would conclude that the warring
parties latest demand is a wound-out excuse. So say
organizers of the disarmament talk, who condemned the
warring parties’ action and said that there is no
connection between the agreement they signed in Accra and
their latest demand for jobs.

The Liberian warring parties latest action is a living
testimony that clearly demonstrates their unwillingness to
disarm, demobilize and to make Liberia a gun-free place.
While we all detest the autocratic style of the former
Liberian leadership, we should be poised to see more
boneheaded people with the tenacity to repeat the ideals,
values and beliefs of the past regime. They will delay,
dodge and despise the current process of disarmament.
Let’s look at this latest action of the warring parties on
a larger scale beyond mere job acquisition. This whole
liberation hand wringing struggle launched to remove
Charles Taylor by LURD and MODEL is not only about seeking
mere job but also the security that comes with the job:
self- security, clan security, power and money.


In the midst of this all, Amos Sawyer nailed it to the
wall few weeks ago in Philadelphia, when he appeared as
guest speaker at the installation program of the Liberian
community there. Dr. Sawyer cautioned Liberians not to
only weigh their internal problems against the
international community. Sawyer did provide a well-defined
prognosis of Liberia’s future. It was like a doctor’s
prescription to help rid disease from one’s body. The
prominent Liberian politician stressed “we are on our
own”, which means we should be able to first of all
resolve our underlying problems of personal vendetta or
differences. He called for a national reconciliation
conference for healing, which will enable Liberians home
and abroad to dialogue on Liberia’s inherent problems:
hatred, distrust and the disrespect for the rule of law
that have plague Liberia for so long.


So that is the prescription for the Bryant’s interim team
to thrust its energy on by coaxing Liberians into dialogue
to outline the essence of oneness, peace and stability.
For instance, the ethnic groups: Krahn, Gio, Mano,
Mandingo have deep-seated vendetta, derived motives and
differences to overcome the other with the sole intent to
wield power and self-security. Under the surface are
remnants of past regimes that are making every effort to
undermine progress of the other. For example, ULIMO-J of
Roosevelt Johnson (Krahn), ULIMO-K of Alhaji Kromah
(Mandingo), LPC (mostly Krahn) and the NPFL (mainly
comprise of Gio and Mano), in political competition,
undermined one another to prevail. Inherent in their
struggles to undermine one another is the Darwinian
favorite quote “survival of the fittest”. That is, to gain
power and political recognition.  Historically, we have
seen how some of these former warring factions
metamorphosized overtime to wield power and self-security
to dominate the other. So are the LURD and the MODEL now
crying out loud for jobs in government while they are
pillaging our natural resources and oppressing our people
in the hinterland. NGOs have repeatedly reported cases of
gross human rights violations: rape and sex slavery are
commonplace in rural parts of Liberia, where these
factions control.

LURD and MODEL are now threatening to hold the country
hostage unless adequate government positions are offered
to them. This whole scenario is a replica attitude of
former warring factions that demanded virtually everything
to quench their political and personal ego. What happened
in the end when Liberians gave political power to the
NPFL? The NPP (political wing of the NPFL) ended up
reducing Liberia to a bare state. Since this trend of
disrespect for the rule of law, hatred and mistrust
exists, the resulting end for a peaceful Liberia would be
to adhere to the call made by Amos Sawyer. That is, the
Bryant interim administration must work collaboratively
with international friends to engage in a well-organized
national reconciliation conference to discuss the future
of our country. The focus of this conference should not
only concentrate on Monrovia but other parts of the
country as well. The interim administration must now start
the groundwork to mobilize public opinion with the hope to
support the essence of disarmament. Let it be
understandable that members of these warring factions are
ought for a sense of security on all fronts. How can such
puzzle be solved? How can former violators of human rights
become useful citizens?  With sincere effort to galvanize
national and international support for Liberians to
dialogue on their own problems, there may be a chance for
the Liberian people to think about making their future
better.


The Gyude Bryant’s team should place more emphasis on a
comprehensive social rehabilitation program. The interim
administration should now begin a concerted effort of
public relations that will squarely focus on why
disarmament, demobilization and rehabilitation are
important components toward a secured future in Liberia.
This public relations campaign must concentrate on the
provision of social inducements for commanders and
fighters as well as their political backers serving in the
government. The current interim government in
collaboration with NGOs should work out modalities in good
spirit of providing a sense of safety and security for
members of the warring groups. Members of these warring
parties need physical security guarantee since they thrive
on gun totting as a special trade and access to power.
Comprehensive disarmament is not possible when there is no
well-defined public education campaign to clearly explain
the benefits of disarmament. In order to de-militarize
these fighters, Bryant and his international partners
would have to physically provide evidence of security
inducements, as a guarantee, to alleviate the clamoring
fear, distrust, hatred and lawlessness that currently
exist among some ethnic groups, members of warring
parties, ordinary citizens and political actors. Liberia
is currently a hostile environment where free expression
is not guaranteed.

Some Liberian scholars and technocrats would like to
return home to help rebuild their country. But the comfort
level to dispense their knowledge in a hostile environment
poses an obstacle. Historically, most of these prominent
Liberians who have the burning desire to return home, have
suffered impediments of intimidation, harassment,
brutality and death threats. For instance, remnants of
former regimes (Doe and Taylor) that had grudging
differences with these prominent Liberians are still power
drunk as members of the new interim government. How can
this highly charged political and personal differences be
resolved? How can our country be rebuilt when in fact
worst violators of human rights and human dignity
occupying higher positions? For example, some of the
current appointees in the interim government are
politically and academically incompetent. It was
shockingly revealed to many Liberians in the diaspora to
learn about some of these incompetent appointees. Would
the incompetent learn from the competent when in fact the
incompetent only knows how to express his grievances in an
arrogant, aggressive and hostile manner?  The incompetent
solely rests his faith on the AK-47. So, how would the
incompetent listen and reason with the competent?  If the
guns are taken away, can the incompetent mentally compete
with the competent on advanced political issues? No way!
The engineers of violence are currently occupiers of
higher positions in the interim establishment. They have
the guns as their power base and who would dare to take
away their power base from them when there is no physical
guarantee for job security and self-security.

This brings to the fore that the effort to take away the
guns from paranoid commanders and their fighters would
need not only concerted effort but commitment of a
well-defined social program that would serve as a basis
not to only convince, but to guarantee the future of the
warring parties to the conflict. The latest walked-out
action by members of the warring factions is all about a
sense of security guarantee at all fronts: job,
self-security, clan security and power. How can we beat
the clock to reverse this current trend? There's a strong
need to thrust our energy and effort on a massive
educational campaign that would primarily focus on
elements or characteristics that clearly define the
essence of disarmament, demobilization and rehabilitation
through national dialogue.


The author, Alex Redd, is a political commentator

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, visit:

        http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/aam.html

AAM Website:  http://www.africanassociation.org
----------------------------------------------------------------------------