COUNTRY VS CONGO: A REVISIT

Let’s stop pretending folks. If we think Country versus Congo is not an issue, we will be back in the time machine to 1980. Yes, the economic dichotomy between the haves and the have-nots is evident, but it is more an underlying dimension of the country versus congo rather than the primary reason for our current pitiful state of nation as some of my more educated brethren have postulated. The economic divide exists because the country and congo divide existed. If the congo man did not think himself superior to the indigenous man, he would not have subjugated him to indentured servant status for the majority of the life of the nation. The subjugation of the indigenes and basic exclusion from participation in the wealth and power of the nation combined with the continuous effort to maintain the status quo led to the destruction on our nation Obviously, wanting to sit at the boss man table but not given any opportunity to do so, force was the last resort to enact any change. With force came the coup, brutalities, senseless killings, and levels of corruption and impunity we had never seen before. We have to put the dirty laundry on the counter top and sort through them to determine what needs dry cleaning versus want needs to be washed and press versus what needs to be thrown out totally. We all know this is not solely an economic inequality issue. It goes beyond that. I know I have heard this statement so many times, “because that country ass got money now so he thinks he congo (or kwi) man? And that statement comes from both indigenous and Americo-Liberians. There are the indigenous haters who see one of their own being successful but not looking back to pick them up with him and then there is the congo hater who despises the fact that the country man thinks he’s his equal because he has education and money. On the flip side, I have heard statements line “no congo man can ever be president of Liberia again.” Where do we start? Well, I believe we have to open the forum for discussion. We have to lay our issues on the table, valid or not, for thorough examination, discussion, and testing. We have to realize that Liberia is for all of us and as rich as it is, if managed properly, we can all live in harmony. The congo people are not going anywhere and the plight of the indigenous Liberians have to be improved, whether by specific government programs or by the collective efforts of all Liberians.

Don’t get me wrong, there are quite a few Liberians on both sides of the divide who really want a Liberia of equality, one based on merit and opportunity devoid of nepotism, tribalism, classism, or marginalization of any particular group. However, as is typical in any society, the bad deeds tend to outweigh the good deeds and are more visible. There is no need for these dialogues to be acrimonious or hostile however they should be honest, intense, and direct. It is our inherent national responsibility to make every effort to eradicate this cancer from our midst by being more conscious of each other sensitivities, helping each other strive for a higher level of civilization and exposure, ensuring that quality education is every citizen’s right rather than a privilege, sharing our knowledge and understanding, and most importantly that the rule of law serves the purpose for every citizen and is not modified or customized based on position, power, or connections. We have to eliminate the radical thoughts and behavior that are spawned from ignorance or greed. Ethnicity and ethnic identification can be transformed into positive cogs in the development of a national identity. However, we cannot induce the inter-generational hatred or prejudice as the impetus for our personal development and aggrandizement at the expense of diminishing the opportunities of those who are of other ethnic persuasions.

Part of the Truth and Reconciliation commission’s responsibility should be to delve into the root causes of why people demonstrated certain behavior, carried out certain acts, or enabled certain activities to go on without any intervention. In a lot of cases, if Liberians had cared about each other or acted as their brother’s keeper, a lot of unnecessary deaths would have been prevented but because the target(s)/victim(s) in a lot of cases were not ethnically similar, there was no dissenting voice to prevent their demise. I have heard a lot of instances where lives were saved because of ethnic commonality and likewise where lives were lost because of ethnic dissimilarity. Now that we are in a period of peace, we have the opportunity to delve into such issues and make every effort to eliminate this cancer.

There has to be some deep, ingrained psychological issues at play here for a broke, semi-literate, unproductive, inarticulate, congo person(s) to look down upon and intimidate a well educated, upwardly mobile, highly productive country person. In the same token, I think it is incomprehensible how the indigene tends to feed into the false sense of congo superiority and consequently carries unnecessary baggage, insecurities, and negative emotions. We definitely need more than dialog and analysis to get over some of the complexes that exist. There needs to a complete transformation of our value system and our respect for our fellow men. There also exists the issue of “comfort.” A lot of times, because of a lack of common ground and the fear or reluctance to get to know each other, country and congo folks tend to function/behave abnormally or uncomfortably when they are out of their element and in the environs of others and to some extent avoid the company of each other. We need to release our mental limitations of association and similarities and deal with each other with basic respect, human decency, and on individual merit uninfluenced by tribe, shade of skin, acculturation, economic status, or lineage.

Another major fallout from the congo versus country dilemma is the lack of social consciousness for our fellow man. I believe that because there has been no overarching connectedness over time between the congo and the country and subsequently between the haves and the have-nots, majority of the multi-national concession deals that have been made have come with no overriding social benefits for the mass of Liberians who work for the muti-nationals and stand to benefit the least from their profits. Working conditions, basic employer responsibilities, basic employee rights, environmental concerns, and contributions to community development have not been a fundamental aspect of these contracts or a major concern of the Liberian negotiators because they are not affected by the absence of such provisions from these contracts. Going forward, it is my fervent hope that the GOL representatives and negotiators can focus on the inclusion of social benefit provisions for both local and foreign investor partners, especially for large scale investments. Given the high profit margin that these contracts tend to yield and the fact that labor is so cheap (and will remain cheap for a long time to come), Liberians need to negotiate for the ultimate benefit of Liberians and not simply because of the potential kickbacks or subcontracts that they or their cronies can benefit from such deals. It should be a conscious effort on the government’s part to ensure that our investment partners are fully knowledgeable of the inequalities that exist, its effort to bridge the divide, and its expectation that the investor partner will play an active role in helping facilitate our nation building process.

According to our president, “Unlike many privileged Liberians,…” she claims “…no American lineage.” Her “…grandparents were indigenous Liberians; the fourth was a German who married a rural market woman. That Grandfather was forced to leave the country when Liberia in loyalty to the United States declared war on Germany in 1914." Given her background, I believe the word “privileged” was used in the positive sense and not in the negatives sense as has been misconstrued by many. For me, privilege is not limited to economic benefits but extends to the fact that though her roots were predominantly humble and indigenous, she rose above the odds to what she is today and realizes that her status of education, financial worth, experience, and opportunity has far exceeded that of the average Liberian. I believe more Liberians should use her as an example of relegating your ethnic orientation to the background, focusing on self-development first, nation building second, and building diverse relationships. It is great to forge a cultural or cohort identity for positive reasons, like regional development, self-empowerment, community development, and other non-profit purposes. However, a lot of ethnic (including congo) groups and associations’ energies have been directed to funding activities not in the best interest of nation building or forging a cohesive national identity. It may be tough to legislate such activities but more conscientious tribal members should serve as national watchdogs to ensure that rhetoric of hate and divisiveness are not being spread in such forums.

As witnessed on the road to the presidential elections, Liberians are deeply divided on tribalistic and moral values. Even with the effort of the new government to strike some ethnic, gender, and age balance to its officials there is still significant criticism or in some cases optimism for the number of “congo” persons in the new administration. We have to bridge this divide and to do so, we must speak honestly, openly, freely, without prejudice or sycophancy and work together as one people with a common goal of national unity. We must take this new lease on our national life as an opportunity to deeply consider the issues that took us down the path of self-destruction and to establish a national plan of action to address them and pre-empt them. No longer can we be apathetic and consider the future of our country the “people’s thing” regardless of whether we are on the ground or in the diaspora. Each voice must be given the opportunity to be heard, the opportunity to grow, the opportunity to learn, and the opportunity to bridge the social and economic divides. The future of Liberia rests not with those who are educated, have great opportunities, or are economically viable, but it rests with those who are currently disenfranchised, unable to scratch a meager livelihood, the uneducated, the ex-combatants, the generation of dispossessed youths, those seriously psychologically afflicted by the years of war and hopelessness, basically the majority of our people. Only when we can begin to see tangible results of uplifting the underprivileged, only when they believe that they have a shareholder’s equity in the land, in the fruits of their labor, in the justice system, and in their communities can we begin to be comfortable in our small steps towards nation building.

Click here to read the enitre piece!

Country versus Congo: A Liberian Cultural Metaphor

Below is an article I wrote for a class in graduate school in 2002. I have penned a more current article on the Country and Congo issue which can be read above.

Country versus Congo:
A Liberian Cultural Metaphor

Isaac Vah Tukpah, Jr.
University of Maryland
Robert H. Smith School of Business

Dr. Martin J. Gannon
BMGT 765 Organizational Behavior:
A Multicultural Perspective

Spring 2002


Table of Contents

1. Introduction
i. Pre-coup
ii. Post-coup/Pre-war
iii. Civil War
iv. Post-war

2. Historical Analysis
i. History
ii. Geographical
iii. Political
iv. Economic
v. Religious

3. Cultural Issues
i. Common Indigenous Activities
ii. Integration versus Assimilation
iii. Education

4. Country versus Congo
i. Why

5. Current Situation
i. Economics
ii. Prognosis

Possible Metaphors Rejected
Especially Helpful Annotated References
Bibliography
Attachments
A. Ethnological Map of Liberia
B. Positions held by Relations of President Tolbert from 1972-1980
C. Proportion of Free Negroes as a Percentage of Total Negro Population in the United States
D. Negro Emigrants to Liberia through American Colonization Society
E. List of political parties in Liberia prior to the 1985 elections
F. List of political parties in Liberia prior to the 1997 elections
G. Paramount Chiefs Recruited for Firestone Project
H. Tribes on Firestone’s Labor Force
I. Recommendations of the International Commission of Inquiry Into the Existence of Slavery and Forced Labor in the Republic of Liberia


INTRODUCTION

Usually when two Liberian’s meet for the first time, one of the three most likely statements that one of them will utter is “What tribe are you?”, “Where are you from?”, or “Who are your parents?” The root of this questioning is basically to discern if the individual is “Country” or “Congo.” If your lineage is connected with one of the indigenous tribe, you are automatically “country” and contrarily, if you are not linked to any tribe you are considered “congo.” (See Attachment A) Although the passage of time, intermarriage, and socialization has created gray areas around the strict definition of both of these terms, generally “country” refers to an indigenous Liberian and “congo” refers to a combination of settlers and recaptured slaves. The settlers are free slaves who came to Liberia through the American Colonization Society and other local/state colonization societies and recaptured slaves are slaves who were recaptured from slave traders and returned to Liberia by way of the Caribbean and the Congo. The “congo” are also referenced as Kwi, mekin (Liberian English also colloquial for American), Americo-Liberian, and Americos. The “country” has also been referred to in more polite terms as indigene or native.

In this paper, I will demonstrate that the “country” versus “congo” phenomenon permeates every sector of the Liberian culture and is an appropriate metaphor for the people of this cleft and torn nation. This phenomenon has existed since the settlers touched the shores of Providence Island and has snowballed and gained momentum with the passage of time. As each group piles up numerous accusations of wrongdoing on the part of the other, and no serious attempt has been made to reconcile these differences or to create an opportunity for national healing, the dichotomy will continue to exist and separate the Liberian people.

Pre-Coup
Prior to the coup in April1980, Liberia had been an independent country for 142 years and was affectionately known as the one of only two African countries that had never been colonized. Liberia also enjoyed the reputation of not having had a military coup. However, in the few years before the coup, there were enough early warning signs including gross dissatisfaction by the mass of the people, civil unrest, demonstrations, and the introduction and embracing of socialist ideology by the educated indigene to let the keen observer anticipate such a drastic political reaction.

Even though Liberia had been a sovereignty for a long time, it had not integrated its people socially or economically and neither had it advanced progressively as a developing nation. Education of the masses has been a very slow process and the few educated indigenous folks were beginning to tire of the inequities in every aspect of society. Gradually from the early seventies, a socialist ideology with rhetoric geared towards highlighting the disenfranchisement of the masses and revealing the economic dis-equilibrium that existed began to take hold amongst the educated indigenes. Additionally, the progressive elements were actively exposing all the ails of the government including the gross nepotism that existed in appointed positions. (See Attachment B) By the late seventies, the universities were rife with proponents of these philosophies and the government began to take note as demonstrations and strikes were becoming a form of expression for discontent. As the “progressive” elements began to gain support and build momentum for their various movements, (including establishing farming cooperatives in the hinterland) their propaganda was swayed by the credo of doing whatever was necessary to achieve their objectives. With this approach, rice being the staple food of the Liberian people, and the government having announced in late 1978 a proposed increase in the price of rice from $22, the progressive elements under the leadership of PAL (Progressive Alliance of Liberia) decided to take the government head-on over this issue. While in the process of formal negotiations with the government, the progressives were arguing that the price of rice remains at $22 (per 100-pound bag). The were also threatening the government that they would stage a mass demonstration and simultaneously, their propaganda machinery was spreading word that the government would increase the price of rice to $30. They further fueled this incendiary situation by leaking word that they could supply rice for $5 a bag but the government was denying them the opportunity because the President (William R. Tolbert) and his family members were monopolizing the rice import industry. All this eventually culminated in government forces attempting to break up the demonstration on April 14, 1979, leading to altercations with demonstrators throughout the streets of Monrovia, resulting in the death of “an estimated two hundred persons...” (Boley, 1983, p. 104).

The fallout from this civil disturbance, was the arrest and imprisonment of the leaders of PAL. Eventually, on June 26, prior to the 16th Ordinary Session of the Organization of African Unity hosted by the Liberian government in July 1979, the progressive elements were given presidential pardon and freed from prison. Due to government’s resistance to their many reform demands, the progressive elements formed a political party, Progressive People’s Party, and in a Declaration of Intent requested the immediate resignation of the president on March 7th. This time, the government responded proactively, accusing the activists of sedition and treason. Government security officers mobilized to arrest and imprison the party leadership, members and alleged members, prior to any further civil disturbance in early March of 1980. This imprisonment was actually the harbinger of the military coup on April 12, 1980 led by Samuel K. Doe, a member of the Krahn tribe. As rumors spread that the imprisoned activists were going to be executed on April 14, the military preempted the government’s action and assassinated President Tolbert and overthrew his government. Officially, April 12 is recognized as the end of the Liberia’s first republic.

Post-coup/Pre-war
The coup was met with popular support among the majority of Liberian’s even though they abhorred the brutality with which the existing leadership was vanquished. Riding on a wave of popular endorsement by the people, Samuel Kanyon Doe and his People Redemption Council (PRC) suspended the Liberian constitution and governed by decree. However, as the novelty wore off, and some sense of normalcy began to return to people’s daily lives, the realization dawned that much had not changed and potentially, this new government was more brutal and ruthless.
Due to Doe’s insecurity and distrust of his colleagues as well as their desire to be the “man”, there were numerous reports of coup attempts that the populace was unsure what to believe. These accusations of attempted coups led to the arrest, imprisonment, and more often than not, execution of the direct accused. Family members and associates of the accused also suffered greatly as they were generally persecuted through dismissals, harassment, false imprisonment, seizure of property, employment rejection, and travel restrictions.

Even though the PRC had promised return to civilian rule during the infancy of their government, the intoxication of the power and position of head of state influenced Doe otherwise. His reign inspired the extreme ethnocentrism that has become commonplace in Liberia today. The initial victims were the “congo people” associated with the previous government, however, the primary cause of this polarization emerged from his fallout with General Thomas Quiwonkpa. Quiwonkpa was Doe’s right hand man during the coup, became the Commanding General of the armed forces, and was recognized as the strongman of the 17 men who constituted the council. Quiwonkpa and Doe disagreed about the return to civilian rule. Where Quiwonkpa wanted the military to return to the barracks, Doe wanted to become the president and as a result, in October 1983, Quiwonkpa, a member of the Mano tribe (primarily from Nimba County) was accused of plotting against the government, relieved of his position, and run out of the country. (newafrica.com, p.2) He returned in November 1985, mounted a semi-successful coup but never captured Doe and when Doe and troops loyal to him regained control of the capital city, Quiwonkpa and most of his supporters were killed. The failed coup led to an ethnic cleansing of the Mano and Gio (the sister tribe of the Mano) who also constituted a major portion of the armed forces of Liberia.

Through all this turmoil, Doe formed his National Democratic Party of Liberia (NDPL) in 1984 and was “elected” president in October of 1985. Doe appealed for national unity in the early stages of his presidency but ultimately, his actions did not demonstrate a genuine attempt for reconciliation as there was still widespread accusation of potential opponents and uninvestigated killings.

Civil War
In late December 1989, an armed insurrection led by Charles Taylor (who called his movement the National Patriotic Front of Liberia, NPFL) was initiated from Nimba County (the political sub-division of the Mano & Gio tribes who were consistently persecuted by Doe’s Krahn tribe). By mid 1990, there were several factions including a splinter group of the NPLF called the Independent National Patriotic Front of Liberia (INPFL) that were fighting for control of Monrovia (capital of Liberia). Because the internal fighting in Liberia was also affecting the West African region’s stability, ECOWAS (Economic Community of West African States) made several attempts to negotiate cease-fire or broker peace but to no avail. ECOWAS finally decided to send in troops (called ECOMOG, ECOWAS monitoring group) to enforce peace in August 1990. In September, Doe was killed after being captured during discussions with the INPFL that were being supervised by ECOMOG.

Earlier in August, a national conference of various Liberian parties to the dispute (excluding the NPFL) convened by ECOWAS in Banjul, Gambia elected an Interim Government of National Unity (IGNU) with Dr. Amos Sawyer, leader of the Liberian People’s Party, as president. ECOMOG installed Sawyer in Monrovia but the remainder of the country was under the control of Charles Taylor and other factions. In the next few years, several factions appeared on the civil war scene, including ULIMO (United Liberation Movement of Liberia for Democracy), LPC (Liberian Peace Council), and LDF (Lofa Defense Force). There were numerous peace conferences held that were brokered by ECOWAS, however due to unholy alliances of various factions at different points in time, none of these peace agreements stood the test of time. After numerous iterations of peace accords, councils of states, and interim governments, ECOWAS confirmed in mid-February 1997 that elections for the president and a bicameral parliament would take place in May. After some delay, elections were held in July 1997 with Charles Taylor winning 75.3% of the votes amid accusations of electoral improprieties from other contestants. In August 1997, Taylor was inaugurated as president and the war was considered officially ended.

Post-War
After seven years of civil strife, and presidential and legislative elections that were considered free and open the Liberian people were ready to reconcile their differences and begin national reconstruction. Even though approximately more than 250,000 people were killed, numerous others injured, and more than a million displaced, the general population was ready to move on. However, a “still unsettled domestic security situation has slowed the process of rebuilding the social and economic structure…” (CIA -- The World Factbook – Liberia, p. 1) There are also continuous efforts by NGOs to rehabilitate the child soldiers and others who were psychologically impacted by the war.

There are constant threats of invasion, fighting, and demands for the resignation of Charles Taylor from various parties involved in the civil war. On the other hand, there have been numerous instances of human rights abuses, unjustified arrests, accusations of attempts to overthrow the Taylor government, restrictions on freedom of press, and uninvestigated deaths perpetrated by Taylor or forces representing him. The combination of all these undemocratic activities represents the current atmosphere in this troubled land.

HISTORICAL ANALYSIS
History
Not too much is known of the pre-colonial history of the indigenous Liberians. It is generally believed that the ethnic Liberians migrated from Northern and Eastern Africa between the 12th and 17th centuries. As a region, the land that is now Liberia was never a part of the various sub-Saharan empires that existed through time, however, the break-up of these empires and the dispersion of its people led to the migration of four primary linguistic groups, “the Mende-tan, Mende-fu, Mel and Kru.” (Moore, 1979 p.1) On a tribal basis, the Kissi and Gola constitute the Mel; the Mano, Gio, Kpelle, Loma, Gbandi, Mende, Belle, Vai, and Mandingo constitute the Mende (fu & tan) and the Kru are made up of the Dei, Kuwaa, Bassa, Krahn, Kru and Grebo. Historians have not pinpointed the exact time or sequence of migration and it stands to reason that only thorough anthropological and archeological studies will enable Liberians to obtain full knowledge of their ancestral migration patterns. Amongst the indigenous Liberians, only two ethnic groups, namely the Bassa and the Vai were able to develop a written language by the middle of the 19th century. However, a few other groups including the Loma and Kpelle have since implemented their own writing system. (Moore, 1979 p. 1)

Even though Portuguese and other traders had contact with Liberians in the 1400s, a lot of that interaction has not been documented as has been documented since the free American slaves returned to Africa. As a precursor to their landing in Liberia, the American Colonization Society (ACS) sent Rev. Joseph R. Andrus and Ephraim Bacon in 1818 to negotiate for land for the free slaves. (See Attachment C) Initially, their negotiations with the Bassa King Jack Ben were unsuccessful. After several abortive attempts, Captain Stockton and Dr. Eli Ayres were sent on another mission to secure land for the settlers in 1821. This time, they negotiated with King George and the natives of Cape Mesurado. Allegedly, it is rumored that Captain Stockton, frustrated by the resistance of the natives forced King George to sign an agreement by pointing a gun at his head. With an agreement of “36 mile long and 3 mile wide strip” of coastal land for trade goods, supplies, weapons, and rum worth approximately $300” reached, a treaty was signed and the settlers were allowed to disembark at Cape Mesurado. (Library of Congress, p. 1) Settlers in Monrovia were “assigned a lot in town plus five acres on the outskirts for farming.” (Boley, 1983 p. 23) As time elapsed and new settlers were moving further out of the city, they were “given 50 acres of land with the stipulation that he builds a permanent house and put at least two acres of it into cultivation.” (Boley, 1983 p. 24)
Over time, folks in the United States lost interest in the ACS (American Colonization Society) as the representative body for the repatriation of free slaves to Africa. (See Attachment D) State and local colonization societies were formed, sent their personal representatives to negotiate for land in Liberia, and established their individual settlements. Some of these settlers included slaves and free men from Virginia, Maryland, Mississippi, New York, and Georgia. Simultaneously with the arrival of the settlers, recaptured slaves were also being resettled in Liberia. The US Congress had passed an act in 1819 that “authorized the president to send a naval squadron to African waters to apprehend illegal slave traders” and they had also allocated $100,000 to aid in the resettlement of these recaptured slaves to Liberia. These recaptured slaves who were initially known as the “congo” were treated separately from the colonists. Most of the recaptured slaves either were placed in servitude to the settlers or formed their own communities outside of Monrovia, which was inhabited predominantly by the colonists. Given this dynamic, there was effectively three classes of people in Liberia: the colonists (settlers), the recaptured slaves (congo) and the indigenes (natives). Over the last thirty years, the first two classes have integrated into one class called either congo or Americo-Liberians. However, there still remains a great divide between the integrated class and the indigenous Liberians.

Geographical
Liberia is located in West Africa in the area formerly know as the Grain Coast. It is bordered on the north by the republic of Guinea, to the south by the Atlantic Ocean, on the east by Cote d’Ivoire (Ivory Coast) and on the west by Sierra Leone. Liberia has a coastline of nearly 350 miles characterized by lagoons, swamps and sandbars. The interior has a varied landscape, from low plateau, to plains, to steep hills, to mountain ranges and tropical rain forests. The Liberian climate is primarily tropical and it has two seasons: rainy and dry. The rainy season produces significant rainfall with heavy showers. During the dry season, it is very hot and humid, but cooling off considerably at nighttime.

Political
In their attempts to secure land on the shores of Liberia, the initial attempts by representative of the American Colonization Society, Rev. Joseph R. Andrews and Ephraim Bacon, were unsuccessful. According to legend, the natives resisted any selling of land to the settlers but through force – Captain Stockton pointed his gun at King George’s head – an agreement was reached and a treaty signed. Liberia became a political entity in 1847 on July 26 when it declared its independence. This declaration was driven primarily by land issues with the British who were threatening encroachment and on a lower scale by the French, Portuguese, and Spanish colonists. The Liberian constitution was modeled after the US and was written by Professor Simon Greenleaf of Harvard University. The constitution was basically a replica of the United States’ and did not evolve naturally as a by-product of the free slaves interaction with the indigenous. Additionally, the settler leadership at the time was not versed in the structure or nuances of the constitution, the citizens had no knowledge of or understanding of the constitution and “for the natives, the term constitution or its content was incompatible with their traditional political philosophies.” (Boley, p 28) There were two main traditional political structures, “the incipient state or chieftaincy structure and the ‘stateless’ or acephalous structure.” (Dunn & Tarr, 1988 p. 11) The chieftaincy structure was predicated on a well-defined chain of command and there was no doubt who the central figure of authority was. On the other hand, in the acephalous structure, government was more nebulous but various organizations, specifically the secret societies and clans of like characteristics shared the centralized authority responsibilities.

Given these three co-existing political structures in the new republic, quite naturally, opposition resulted and there was a lot of disharmony between the natives and the colonists. The indigenous Liberians over centuries had developed their form of governance and this new “leadership” that had no respect for their recognized leaders, laws, elders, traditions, or customs did not inspire national unity. Numerous wars were fought against the natives, particularly against the Golas, Grebos and Krus. With the assistance of the United States and its own soldiers, the Americo-Liberians managed to subdue or negotiate with all warring factions. Even though the settlers had come over to Africa with the mentality of a two-multi party electoral system, throughout the history of Liberia, attempts at multi-party co-existence has always been refuted by the dominant political structure. In Liberia’s commonwealth stage, prior to declaring its independence, the political structure was primarily divided on a commercial versus agricultural basis, pitting the Monrovians against the inland settlers. With the emergence of its nationhood, the political framework changed to one of color, basically the mulatto settlers against the black settlers. The mulattos formed the Republican Party which predominantly held power from the emergence of the nation in 1847 to 1877 except when the True Whip Party, formed by black settlers in 1869 emerged victorious with its first president in the person of Edward J. Roye (1870-1871). Since 1877, when the True Whig party regained power with the election of Anthony W. Gardner (1878-1883), the True Whig party dominated the political landscape and crushed all opposition until the 1980 coup. According to Boley and my personal experience, “nearly every Liberian, especially those in the employ of Government, was assumed to belong to the True Whig Party and behaved as such.”
In the mean time the natives who were basically excluded from the political process continued to wage internecine wars throughout the various presidencies until 1944 when President William V. S. Tubman ascended to power. All these resistance efforts and encounters did nothing to get the natives incorporated into the political system because their “tendency to emphasize local or ethnic loyalties” exceeded their ability to unite as a single force. (Dunn & Tarr, p.47) This strong ethnicity or focus on primarily tribal issues limited the ability of the natives to unite as one group and have their voices heard. That trend continues today as numerous political parties formed in Liberia are typically based on ethnic origin and have not proven that they can form a coalition to unseat the incumbent or unpopular candidate with power. (See Attachment E for list of political parties prior to the 1985 elections that Samuel Doe won and Attachment F for a list of political parties prior to the 1997 elections that Charles Taylor won.)

At the onset of his presidency, Tubman went to great lengths to incorporate the various ethnic indigenous populations into government as well as the opposition to his candidacy. To the dismay of the congo who preferred the status quo, “Tubman inducted into the National Legislature members of the tribal ‘element’ to represent the aboriginal segment of the Liberian population.” (Boley, 1983 p. 64) In the previous presidency, Edwin Barclay (1930-1944) had implemented a dual-state structure in which the chieftaincy and the state structure coexisted under the centralized government of Liberia. This new government featured “an administrative hierarchy involving the president, his interior secretary, district commissioners, and paramount chiefs.” (Dunn & Tarr, 1988 p. 56) The Kru and Grebo who did not want to convert their political structure to conform with the chieftaincy structure of the other indigenous tribes rejected this process to no avail. Similarly, disgruntlement by warring tribes who would be effectively neutralized did not inhibit this political structure from being implemented. The major result of this new structure was that judicial authority of the hinterland had been effectively transferred to an “administrative position within the Interior Department” leaving the district commissioners, the secretary of the interior and the president as the hierarchical judicial officials of the hinterland. (Dunn & Tarr, p. 57)
Even though some indigenous citizens were involved in the political process, the majority of them were considered non-entities and the “congo” (as the combined settlers and recaptured slaves were called) continued the political domination throughout the life of the republic. In the late 60s and early 70s when more indigenes began to be educated and desired to have a voice in the decision making process a sort of cultural awakening was being experienced in Liberia. With the creation of two primary opposition political groups in the early 70s, comprising indigenous Liberians and disenfranchised Americo-Liberians, more Liberians began to get involve in the political process and realize that they had a channel to voice their concerns and a force to champion their cause.

Economic
The economic disparity in Liberian began early during the infancy of the settlers’ arrival in Liberia. They were given “a lot in town plus five acres on the outskirts for farming” if they lived in the city and later “50 acres of land with the stipulation that he build a permanent house…and put at least two acres…into cultivation…” (Boley, p.32) This private land ownership concept was alien to the natives where the basic ethos was “the household functioned as a self-contained economic unit which provided for the needs of everyone.” (Saha, p. 48) Additionally, the economic orientation of the natives can be seen as more horizontal collectivism where each member of the tribe had “the right to cultivate any piece of land assigned to him for cultivation.” (Saha, p. 49) The traditional egalitarian system was alien to the Americo-Liberians who were more oriented to a vertical collectivism that revolved around maintaining an unequal balance in opportunity for the core group whose best interests were intrinsically aligned to their leader’s. Unlike the vertical individualism that existed in market-dominated nations where inequality resulting from the free market was acceptable since in general, the field was considered level, loyalty to the leader or president was the order of the day the dynamics of the relationship between the president and his flunkies affected every walk of life, from elected positions, to political appointments, and to private business opportunities. (Gannon, p. 15)

The primary economic activities were agriculture and trade. Initially, it was individual agricultural farming by the natives and then the settlers introduced plantation farming which was not conceptually appealing to the indigenous Liberians. With limited revenues from these activities for the government coffers of the young republic of Liberia, the government sought to find alternative means of revenue. Due to financial constraints facing government, loans were the primary outlets and in a lot of instances, the loans were poorly negotiated and the government seldom received the full amount of funds borrowed. The poster child of the poorly negotiated agreements, unsuccessful foreign concession policy, and loans by the government is the Firestone Plantation Company agreement and the requirement for provision of labor by the government. The Firestone Rubber Company, the first multinational company in Liberia, was granted one million acres of farm land for ninety-nine years at $0.05 an acre in 1923. The government used Chiefs to recruit labor where Firestone “paid the chiefs one cent a day for each boy (laborer) and the same sum to the Government Bureau (Labor Bureau).” (Boley, p.42) The cheap labor in Liberia actually helped to decrease the price of rubber on the world market “from over $1.40 per pound in 1925 to less than $0.16 cents per pound in 1930…” (Boley, p.44) (See Attachment G & H)

During this period, there were allegations of indigenous Liberians being taken forcibly to Fernando Po to work on Spanish cocoa plantations. Strong recruiting was said to be done on the Grand Gedeh, Sinoe, and Maryland counties. The League of Nations appointed a commission, the International Commission of Inquiry into the Existence of Slavery and Forced Labor in the Republic of Liberia, to investigate the allegations. The Commission submitted its findings on September 8, 1930 and had some strong recommendations including: an open door policy, education for all, break barrier between civilized and uncivilized, cease humiliation and degradation of chiefs, cease shipment of laborers to Fernando Po and illegalize pawning and domestic slavery. (See Attachment I for full list of recommendations) Due to political pressure resulting from the scandals and the commission’s findings, President Charles D. B. King who was elected in 1920 was forced to resign in 1930 along with his vice president.

When Tubman ascended to the presidency in 1944, he introduced the Open Door Policy of Liberia (this policy had been recommended by the League of Nations commission). This policy actually opened the door to numerous foreign investment that were not concerned with the development of the environment they were investing in but basically the maximum level of exploitation that could be achieved. Even though this policy was accompanied with a Liberianization policy, there was no significant effort exerted to include Liberians from all walks of life into the process. Token jobs were allocated to select Americo-Liberians within the various foreign concessions but the indigenous Liberians were not given the level of education necessary or the access to opportunity that would afford them integration into this new economic policy. With unrestricted foreign investment in the private sector and the public sector supported by foreign aid, the Liberian leadership has never focused on developing internal revenue generating activities on a secondary level but has been content in depending on primary export commodities for its economic growth. Additionally, this dependency on global capital was “not accompanied by ‘structural changes to induce complementary growth or by institutional changes to diffuse gains in real income among all sectors of the population.’” (Dunn & Tarr, 1988 p. 25)

The functioning of government tended to depend on foreign investment, foreign aid and foreign loans. The involvement of the president in economic decision making, especially the power to change, amend, or adjust concession policy at will was commonplace during the Tubman administration. During most of the late fifties to the period prior to the coup in 1980, “the concession sector formed nearly one third of total Domestic Revenues.” (Kraaij, p. 12) Even during the Tolbert administration foreign investment was perceived as the “indispensable bulwark to Liberia’s socio-economic development. (Kieh, p. 50)
Liberia is essentially an agricultural economy with the vast majority of its populace engaged in traditional or subsistence agriculture. Commercial agriculture is basically the domain of foreign concessions however there are some commercial farms owned by the Americo-Liberian elite. The other major economic activity is mining, an activity again dominated by foreign concession. Most foreign concessions have very low domestic employment above the laborer level. With the stagnation of raw material prices on the world market and specifically a decrease in the demand for iron ore and rubber, the economy of Liberia has been in a decline since late 1970s.

Economic policy in Liberia really began in 1864 when “foreign trade activities were limited by the ‘Ports of Entry’ Law,” restricting European merchants to trade in only six specific areas. (Kraaij, p. xiv) This restriction contributed to the rebellion of the natives who already resented the forced domination by the settlers. Additionally conflict amongst the settlers from various settlements (due to settlement location and color) limited the viability of any economic policy. These issues of political survival affected the implementation of a viable economic policy that was further aggravated by “the negative impact of foreign loans, incorrect collection of taxes, improper management of government funds and embezzlement of public funds.” (Kraaij, p.12) Given this background, the government was using its meager resources to simply maintain its infrastructure, not develop opportunities for all Liberians or increase the per capita income.
In such an environment of limited production possibilities and tight resources, the tendency is highly likely for one group to dominate power & wealth. The elite Americo-Liberian constituted less than 2% of the population but controlled 95% of the wealth. The other 98% consisted of the indigenous masses and the ethnically mixed population that lived in urban areas but were poor. The repatriates were followed by the Doe government which constituted a small group of socio-political elite made up primarily of Doe’s ethnic group, members of the progressive left, and sycophant repatriates of the deposed Tolbert government. This trend of vertical collectivism still exists today in the Charles Taylor government.

Religious
There are three primary forms of religion in Liberia: the indigenous religious beliefs which varies among the various tribes, Christianity, and Islam. Generally, tribes had sacred areas that were dedicated exclusively for religious worship or as burial grounds for the elders, chiefs, zoes (medicine men and women) and royalty. Various tribes had various deities they worshipped but all tribes had zoes or some elder who interacted with the spirits and the deity on behalf of the tribes. In a lot of instances, these elders were high standing members of the Poro and Sande societies, (the generic name given respectively to the male and female tribal initiation societies) who administered the rites of passage for young men and women in their various communities. Most religious observances consisted of singing, dancing and offering some form of sacrifice to the deities. The Mandingoes and the Vais were the primary practitioners of Islam and true to their religion were continuously attempting to convert others to Islam.
The Americo-Liberians were primarily christians. They recognized christianity as the only true religion and thought the indigenous Liberians paganistic and hedonistic in their form of worship. Along with Caucasian missionaries, the Americo-Liberians sought to convert the natives to christianity and to a large extent were successful as the percentage of Christians and indigenous believers are currently the same at forty percent. Given the 40% Christianity, a significant number of indigenous and some Americo-Liberians practice dual religions. Consistent with the conversion to Christianity, there was major effort on the part of the colonists to change the names of the indigenous Liberians to western ones at baptism. It was also common practice for indigenes to take a given first name and the surname of the family who they worked for or lived with. However, with the gradual increase of educated indigenous Liberians, there was a mass reversion to the indigenous names. (My father was one of those who reverted from his assumed surname of Jackson back to his father’s surname of Tukpah. He did not change his given first name Isaac as quite a few others did.) It was also common practice for the settlers to condemn some of the core practices of the indigenes like polygamy as heathen and uncivilized, however the informal practice of “polygamy” became widely accepted as the settler men liberally helped themselves to the available indigenous women, and more often than not had several children by several different indigenous women.
The indigenous religious consciousness consisted of belief in a powerful, invisible force that controlled all things including the elements (weather, lightning, thunder, good & evil phenomena, man and his day-to-day behavior). (Moore, 1979 p. 9) In many tribes, the Poro society was the intermediary between these higher beings or ancestral spirits and the layman, thereby giving them supernatural powers that enabled them to wield control over their tribal brethren.

CULTURAL ANALYSIS
Repatriate slaves from the US who brought western traditions and values to bear founded the Liberian nation. With this mentality of a national “western oriented” culture, and the majority of its citizens being indigenous with their own culture and traditions that are totally different from the western way, it’s a national culture that does not encompass the majority of the population. With the exclusion of the indigenes in the first 100 or so years of the republic, the emergence of a traditional culture has been slow. However, with the ascendancy of Tubman to the presidency and later the advent of Tolbert to power, the efforts to encourage, increase cultural awareness, and preserve cultural heritage has surged. Increasingly, there has been significant collaboration of the repatriates and natives through marriage, political affiliation, press, government, business, and sports. This transformation has taken a backseat to ethnocentrism that have been spurred by the 1980 coup, the ethnic cleansing of the Gios & Manos by the Krahns, the civil war, revenge, and other unmitigated atrocities directed at certain groups because of their tribal affiliation. Prior to the coup, and in the early days of the nation, cultural pluralism existed and it was not uncommon to find members of different tribes living among other tribes. According to Warren d’Azevedo, “ethnicity and loyalty were not identical, nor did ethnic difference preclude a wider range of social interaction including intermarriage.” (Saha p. 97) However, since the coup, ethnocentrism has fostered and there has been a lot of tribal polarization in the last twenty-two years than at any time in the history of Liberia.

Common Indigenous Activities
Indigenous Liberians had engaged in smelting and processing iron ore for centuries. As indicated by various implements used by the natives and their weapons of choice, cutlass and spears, iron ore processing was an integral part of their cultural activities. Basketry and weaving were also fond past-times of the natives, especially the coastal natives who fished for a living. Pottery and painting were also primary activities of the indigenous Liberian. The primary colors used to paint were brown, white and red clay. Most tribes also engaged in wood sculpting as most traditional rituals involved dancers or devils that were masked according to the ceremony. Along with the dancers, music and singing were primary activities that the natives engaged in. Some tribes had specific types of dances for different functions such as wedding, funeral, childbirth, change of seasons, Poro or Sande societies induction, prayers and any other activity that warranty festivity.

Integration versus Assimilation
Given that the recaptured Africans were not afforded the same amenities as the repatriates, there was quicker integration between the indigenes and themselves. The recaptives were usually taken as servants or “forcibly indentured and apprenticed to Liberian subjects, the adults for seven years and the children till …twenty-one.” (Boley, p. 24) These two suppressed groups bonded more easily and the differentiation between them and the colonists was illuminated by J. P. Pinney who wrote “the natives are, as to wealth and intellectual cultivation, related to the colonists as the Negro of America is to the white man;… A colonist of any dye…think himself degraded by marrying a native.” With regards to integration, he further wrote “…so little effort is made by the colonists to elevate them (the natives) as is usually made by the higher classes in the United States…” It is clearly seen that there was a concerted effort on the part of the Americo-Liberians to remain a class unto themselves and limit their integration with the natives.

Efforts to encourage, increase awareness, and preserve the indigenous cultural heritage was paid lip service for the first 100 years of the republic. However, from the late 40’s during President Tubman’s presidency and the introduction of the Open Door Policy to the Tolbert presidency (with mantras such as Total Involvement for Higher Heights, create a Wholesome Functioning Society, and getting the natives from Mats to Mattresses) genuine efforts towards integration and preservation were made.

In 1952, the Bureau of Folklore was created in the department of Interior. Simultaneous with the creation of this bureau, foreign scholars and researchers began to develop interest in Liberia and the indigenous element. By 1964, ground was broken and construction begun for a National Cultural Center that was completed a year later. A major step was taken when the Bureau of Culture Affairs and Tourism was established as a wing of the Ministry of Information. This positive trend continued with the proliferation of other cultural institutions such as the National Museum, The Africana Museums, The Tubman Center for African Culture and the W. V. S. Tubman Library/Museum. With the support of cultural activities booming, cultural groups for dance, drama, and choral performances were springing up everywhere. Cultural recognition went to another level when president Tubman was invited to witness the rite of initiation of a group of boys into the Poro Society in Besao, Bomi Territory (now Bomi County). More recognition was forthcoming when the national cultural troupe was invited to participate in various international festivals of art and culture.

With all of these efforts, there still has not been a seamless integration of the indigenous Liberians into the dominant minority Americo-Liberian culture. There has been assimilation on both sides but there are still stark differences and significant effort to reconcile differences is not evident. Except for a token few, the majority of the indigenes remained uneducated, uninformed, and denied access to the opportunity to share in the wealth of the country. The literacy rate is a mere 38.3% (CIA World Factbook, p. 3) Seemingly, it was the responsibility of the token few to ensure that the kinsmen were kept in line and subscribed to the status quo. Most of the efforts only tended to preserve the indigenous way of life, not necessarily integrate it into the every day life of the republic. Additionally, there was resistance by some tribal members who did not feel that cultural nationalism was the appropriate route as they felt there were significant territorial cultural differences that were not been reflected in the creation of a national “cultural” effort. Ultimately, the inability of the different tribes to integrate with each other and more importantly for the indigenous culture to integrate with the westernized Americo-Liberians has turned Liberia into a cleft nation.

Education
The traditional education was basically fostered by the Poro and Sande societies that taught boys and girls to become sound citizens of their communities and served as their transitory medium from childhood to adulthood. These institutions were responsible for the education of their charges in the history, lores, customs, and norms of their respective tribes. They were also responsible for training them in the finer points of life, including sexual behavior and expectations, social services, leadership, courage, respect for authority, and self-discipline.

The secular education was the domain of the Americo-Liberians and in the early stages of the republic, only few indigenes were allowed to attain western education. English was the language of choice and the Americo-Liberians were not inclined to incorporate indigenous Liberian languages in the schools. However, Edward W. Blyden, noted writer, educator, scholar, diplomat, and statesman, who emigrated to Liberia in 1850, proposed and advocated “to remove virtually the whole of English literature from the curriculum of the college” upon becoming president of Liberia College in 1981. (Saha, p. 107) Obviously, the settlers who for all intents and purposes had marginalized the indigenous culture and were not willing to allow co-existence at such a level greeted this heresy with resistance. Other educated Liberians obviously embraced Blyden’s idea and even as late as the 1970s an indigenous author and cultural proponent, Kona Khasu, propagated that “Liberian schools should incorporate in their curricula more Liberian literature…ballads and folk lyrics should be demanded…Shakespeare should be de-emphasized.” (Saha, p. 108) Nonetheless, the English language was the national language and the primary medium of education in schools, colleges, business, and every day life.

COUNTRY VERSUS CONGO
In comparing the value systems of the indigenous versus the Americo-Liberian, one see some stark differences between the two peoples. Even though these differences and similarities are not absolute, they represent the majority of each group. We have already discussed the religious, political, cultural, and educational differences between the two groups. In this section, we will focus on other dimensions across which we can compare the two groups.
The typical Americo-Liberian is a more individualistic person, more concerned for his personal or inner circle aggrandizement than opportunities that will benefit the larger group or society as a whole. The indigene is more in tune with his community and looks toward establishing and creating group benefits. Both groups do tend to exhibit nepotism and prefer family or a circle of close friends to strangers however, it can be argued that the Americos have traditionally preferred alliances with strangers primarily due to the economic windfall rather than collaborating with indigenous Liberians. The Americo-Liberian is more confident in his/her expectations of privilege and seeks to validate the legitimacy of his/her birthright to the silver spoon. On the other hand, the native Liberian seeks to be included in the main stream. His efforts are expended towards a synthesis and integration of his values and customs with those of the imported western culture. Even though there are diehards that seek to isolate themselves from the congo, majority of the indigenous folks want to assimilate into this culture and be accepted as equals.
Where the indigenous folks would like to preserve their culture and co-exist in the western world, the Americos do not take pride in the indigenous culture or local languages, except when it is politically expedient for them to do so. Most Americos exhibit a superiority complex whereas indigenous Liberians may not necessarily have an inferiority complex but a heightened sensitivity to anything negative or perceived to be negative about their ethnicity or culture. Because of their love for culture and their desire to maintain their cultural traditions, the indigenes are generally perceived as uncivilized whereas the Americo-Liberians perceive themselves as the epitome of civilization. Phrases such as “you can take the man out of the country but you cannot take the country out of the man” symbolize the general congo mentality that the native man can never be civilized. As lamented by a Liberian professor residing in the United States, “the neglect of local culture is such that the national sense of development is the replication of Western ideas, paradigms and institutions. This orientation impedes the emergence of a national culture.” (Saha, p. 96) The existence of a dualistic culture with one side having shades of pluralism of ethnic orientation also inhibits the development of a national culture.

The diet of both cultures are pretty similar except that ethnic groups tend to indulge in their particular ethnic dishes more often whereas the Americo-Liberians tend to have a wider variety that includes most of the various ethnic dishes. Western cuisine is also more expensive and is generally not a part of the regular diet of indigenous Liberians. Liberians in general believe in the dignity of labor however due to the indenturing of indigenous Liberians to the Americo-Liberians, certain jobs or activities are deemed too lowly to be performed by some Americo-Liberians who designated these tasks to the natives. With this warped perception, the typical Americo-Liberian expects to be in a superior-subordinate relationship with the native Liberian regardless of other parameters that should determine superiority in the particular relationship.

I believe that deep down, Liberians are generally good people however, the last thirteen years have really tested my faith in the people I know and love. I know Liberians as a fun loving people who will celebrate every occasion with pomp and pageantry. Even though we are not goal setting people and most times do not achieve the specific timelines we set for ourselves or the activities we are involved in, we generally try to get the job done. We have a high tendency to dwell on the past and hope for the future rather than being very proactive to enact change in the future. We are open with our emotions and expressions even though we are low context due to the numerous languages and the need to be explicit in our communication so as not to be misunderstood.

Why
All of the above begs the question as to why the indigenous Liberians and the Americo-Liberians have not reached a happy medium even though they have co-existed in a small land mass for 180 years. I propose that the lack of significant progress in the cultural integration and assimilation of the two groups has contributed greatly to this divide. Compounding the separation is the diehards on both sides of the issue who have relentlessly denigrated the others, refuse to admit the wrong doings of their ancestors, and continue to perpetuate the differences between the two groups. Liberians in general are very proud people, sometimes to a fault. Even though a large segment of the population have been calling for national reconciliation and there have been numerous conferences on how we can best resolve these differences, there has been no real convergence of the two cultures. According to Sir Harry Johnston, Liberia was an attempt at atonement by the U.S., Britain, and partially France for slavery. At the time of his writing, circa 1906, he posited that “…the main future of these Negroes in the United States who cannot be absorbed into the American community …lies in the West Indies and …tropical South America.” (Johnston, p. vi) He believed that they had become too widely separated in physical constitution, in political and commercial ideals from Africa to resume with ease the African citizenship of their forefathers. Looking at the present, his words seem like a prophecy still being fulfilled.

CURRENT SITUATION
The current atmosphere in Liberia is dismal. The basic needs of the citizenship are not being met and it seems like government has no ability to live up to its civic responsibilities, not including the numerous promises that are made to the Liberian people. There has also been consistent threats from rebels who have had several skirmishes with government troops and have been calling for the resignation of Charles Taylor. All political activity has been suspended even though elections are upcoming. Thousands of Liberians are refugees all over the world and cannot return home for fear of retribution or due to the fact that they have lost everything.
Economics
Liberia is in serious social and economic ruins at the moment. The key to the recovery of Liberia lies in the process of reconciliation and cultural integration. Currently, the economy is basically dependent on timber exports and maritime revenue, as well as illicit diamonds operations. The entire economic policy from a fiscal and monetary perspective needs to be overhauled through some stringent policies and measures geared towards domestic investment in production and service industries. Liberia needs to decrease its reliance on the country's primary products, i.e., rubber, iron ore, timber and gold whose value has declined on the world market due to decreased demand for said products. We need to focus on the formation of domestic capital and implement policies that will encourage and increase domestic production. The engrained Liberian practice of nepotism, promoting familial and social connections should be aggressively eliminated and meritorious qualifications should become the measuring standard for jobs, contracts, and other economic opportunities.

A primary concern should also be a strategy for redistribution of wealth and a concerted effort to reduce the imbalances created by disparities in income and employment opportunities. Liberia must promote an enabling environment that encourages the growth of new economic activities in manufacturing, agriculture and a service sector of the economy.

Prognosis
Even though most Liberian’s are very pessimistic about the future of the country and have no faith in a total recovery, I believe that the burning desire most have to return home can be transformed into the energy or force necessary to enact change. The discussions about national reconciliation will have to be elevated from its present verbiage and politically-correct posture to a more serious, truthful, and detailed examination of the factors and circumstances that have reduced a once proud nation into a rubble. Reconciliation should become a government initiative that is designed to reach understanding amongst the various parties, encourage tolerance, ensure that the perpetrators acknowledge their guilt, reach compromises, and make every effort to appease the aggrieved parties. Policies should also be implemented that will enable the creation of a viable middle class the will bridge the gap between the haves and have nots.

Nearly all Liberians believe that Charles Taylor is the fulcrum on which the future of Liberia hinges. Even though there is a lot of resentment directed towards Taylor, if he could address the current socio-economic and political problems in a systematic fashion that includes a diverse cross-section of the population I believe Liberians will be willing to work with him. The first step in this direction should be a genuine repatriation program that will ensure the safety of all Liberians who return home as well as a reclamation program that will ensure properties are returned to the rightful owners.

One significant development that has been occurring over the last few years is the increased assertiveness of Liberians about their basic human rights and civil liberties. This development is confirmed by the proliferation of advocacy and watchdog groups monitoring human rights violations in prison, in community life, in government, and in the security and communication professions. Another key factor that will enhance the progress to recovery will be influx of new leaders with new ideas on the political scene as the recycled politicians have not been able to truly engage Taylor in significant dialogues leading to some form of power sharing and amicable resolution of genuine grievances. All of the above will be for naught if the Liberian leader is focused on maintaining absolute control of the state and its machinery. Taylor will have to revert from his obsession with absolute power and create an environment that is accountable to the Liberian people.

POSSIBLE METAPHORS REJECTED
The Liberian Party
The Liberian Party is a metaphor that I thought long and hard about using. I thought it captured the happier side of Liberians and reflected to some extent their ability to forgot about their issues and problems and enjoy themselves. However, such a metaphor will not fully represent the masses because a vast number of Liberian’s have not lived a “party life” nor has life been easy for them in the last few years. Even though this metaphor could have sufficed, I rejected it because it does not capture the full picture of Liberians today.

Going to the Farm
Going to the farm is a somewhat appropriate metaphor for numerous Liberians as quite a few still depend on the land for subsistence and for commercial purposes, work on others farms, or work on the plantations of foreign concessions, local companies, or rich individuals (who also visit their farms). However the farm is also representative of the indenturing of indigenous Liberians and the exploitation that has gone on in terms of labor and flesh. Rich Americo-Liberians have used the farm as an opportunity to profit economically from the cheap labor of the indigenes, their wives, and children as well as an opportunity to be sexually indulgent with the females, sometimes very young (age of consent is 13), of their choice. Therefore I felt that focusing on the country versus congo sorts of captures this metaphor in a way and also provides we with greater research resources.

The Liberian Pride
Pride is a virtue inherent in nearly all Liberians, sometimes to a fault. Liberian’s can be so prideful as to look down on others and feel certain activities are below their level. I have always been intrigued at the prejudice/discrimination Liberian’s (particularly Americo-Liberians) have displayed against foreigners (especially other Africans) in their own country and against other foreigners when they are themselves in a foreign country. I did not focus on this subject because it is narrow and would have been primarily anecdotal or based on my experience with no opportunity for substantial research.

ESPECIALLY HELPFUL ANNOTATED REFERENCES
Boley, George E. S. (1984). Liberia: The Rise and Fall of the First Republic. New York: St. Martin’s Press.

Dunn, D. E. & Tarr, Byron S. (1988). Liberia: A National Polity in Transition. Metuchen, NJ & London: The Scarecrow Press, Inc.

Gannon, M. (2001). Understanding Global Cultures: Metaphorical Journey Through 23 Countries, (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

Kieh, George Klay (1992) Dependency and the foreign policy of a small power: The Liberian Case. San Francisco, CA: Mellon Research University Press.

Moore, Bai T. (1979). A Review of the Culture and Customs of the Different Ethnic Groups in the Republic of Liberia. Monrovia, Liberia: Ministry of Information, Culture Affairs & Tourism.

Saha, Santosh C. (1998). Culture in Liberia: An Afrocentric View of the Cultural Interaction Between the Indigenous Liberians and the Americo-Liberians. African Studies: Volume 46. Lewiston, US; Queenston, Canada; Lampeter, UK: The Edwin Mellen Press




BIBLIOGRAPHY
Aning, E. K. (1997). The International Dimensions of Internal Conflict: The Case of Liberia and West Africa. Copenhagen, Centre for Development Research. Working paper. http://www.cde.dk/working_papers/wp-97-4.htm.

Bellman, Beryl L. (1984). The Language of Secrecy: Symbols and Metaphors in Poro Ritual. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

Best, Kenneth Y. (1974). Cultural Policy in Liberia. Paris, France: The Unesco Press.

Boley, George E. S. (1983). Liberia: The Rise and Fall of the First Republic. New York: St. Martin’s Press.

Bowier, J E. Z. (1988). Annual Report of The Ministry of Information, Culture and Tourism to the National Legislature of the Republic of Liberia. Monrovia, Liberia: Ministry of Information, Culture Affairs & Tourism.

Burrowes, Patrick C. (1989). The Americo-Liberian Ruling Class and Other Myths: A Critique of Political Science in the Liberian Context. Philadelphia, PA. Temple University: Institute of African and African-American Studies.

CIA World Factbook – Liberia: http://www.odci.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/li.html

Dunn, D. E. & Holpoe, S. E. (1985). Historical Dictionary of Liberia. Metuchen, NJ & London: The Scarecrow Press, Inc.

Dunn, D. E. & Tarr, Byron S. (1988). Liberia: A National Polity in Transition. Metuchen, NJ & London: The Scarecrow Press, Inc.

Fulton, Richard M. (1971) Liberia: An Evaluation of Rural Research. Rural Africana: Current Research in the Social Sciences. East Lansing, MI. The African Studies Center, Michigan State University.

Gannon, M. (2001). Understanding Global Cultures: Metaphorical Journey Through 23 Countries, (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

Harley, George W. (1941) Notes on the Poro in Liberia. Cambridge, MA. The Museum (papers of Peabody Museum, vol. 19. No. 2.)

Huband, M. (1998) The Liberian Civil War. International Specialized Book Services

Indiana Immigrants to Liberia: http://www.statelib.lib.in.us/WWW/ihb/inemigrantslifelib.html

Johnston, Sir Harry (1906). Liberia. London, England: Hutchinson & Co. Paternoster Row.

Kieh, George Klay (1992) Dependency and the foreign policy of a small power: The Liberian Case. San Francisco, CA: Mellon Research University Press.

Liberia: African-American Mosaic Exhibition. Library of Congress. http://lcweb.loc.gov/exhibits/african/afam003.html

Moore, Bai T. (1979). A Review of the Culture and Customs of the Different Ethnic Groups in the Republic of Liberia. Monrovia, Liberia: Ministry of Information, Culture Affairs & Tourism.

Newafrica.com. Africa South of the Sahara 2000.

Saha, Santosh C. (1998). Culture in Liberia: An Afrocentric View of the Cultural Interaction Between the Indigenous Liberians and the Americo-Liberians. African Studies: Volume 46. Lewiston, US; Queenston, Canada; Lampeter, UK: The Edwin Mellen Press

Spine. The Politics of Miseducation: The BWI of Liberia 1929-1984

Van der Kraaij, F. P. M. (1983). The Open Door Policy of Liberia – An Economic History of Modern Liberia. Bremen: Im Selbstverlag des Museums.



ATTACHMENT A – Ethnological Map of Liberia



ATTACHMENT B – Positions Held by Relations of President Tolbert from 1972-1980

Position Relationship
1. Minister of Finance Brother
2. President Pro-Tempore of Senate and
Senator, Montserrado County Brother
3. Deputy Auditor-General Brother
4. Mayoress of the City of Bentol Sister
5. Assistant Minister of Education/Supervision Daughter
6. Deputy Minister of Education/Instruction Daughter
7. Chairman, House Foreign Relations Committee and
Representative, Montserrado County Son
8. Deputy Minister of State for Presidential Affairs Nephew
9. Assistant Minister of State for Presidential Affairs Nephew
10. Agricultural Attache to FAO, Rome, Italy Nephew
11. Executive Secretary Niece
12. Minister of Defense Son-in-law
13. Minister of National Security Son-in-law
14. Deputy Minister of State for Presidential Affairs Son-in-law
15. Commissioner of Immigration Son-in-law
16. Assistant Minister of Public Works Son-in-law
17. Mayor, City of Monrovia, Brother-in-law
18. Deputy Governor, National Bank of Liberia Nephew-in-law
19. Liberia Ambassador to France Sister-in-law
20. Army Chief of Staff Nephew-in-law
21. Director, National Security Agency Nephew-in-law
22. Deputy Director, National Police Nephew-in-law


Adapted from Liberia: The Rise and Fall of the First Republic. Boley, George E. S. (1983). New York: St. Martin’s Press.
ATTACHMENT C – Proportion of Free Negroes, Coastal States, 1790

States 1790 1810

Delaware 30.5% 75.9%

Maryland 7.2% 23.3%

Virginia 4.2% 7.2%

North Carolina 4.8% 5.7%

South Carolina 1.7% 2.3%

Georgia 1.3% 1.7%


Adapted from Liberia: The Rise and Fall of the First Republic. Boley, George E. S. (1983). New York: St. Martin’s Press. p. 5.
ATTACHMENT D – Status and Recorded Numbers of Negro Emigrants to Liberia
1822-1867 Under the Auspices of the American Colonization Society and Others*

Born Free 4,541

Purchased their freedom 344

Emancipated to go to Liberia 5,957

‘Free men’ 753

From Barbados 304

Unknown 68

Total 12,009 **

Settled by Maryland Society 1,227

Recaptured African slaves settled in
Liberia by US Government 5,722

Grand Total 18,958


Adapted from Liberia: The Rise and Fall of the First Republic. Boley, George E. S. (1983). New York: St. Martin’s Press. p. 22.

*Adapted from American Journal of International Law, Supplement, Vol. 4 (1910)
(New York: Johnson Reprint Corporation), pp. 532-33.

**Note correction: Total number of emigrants settled by American Colonization
Society is 12,009 instead of 11,909. Grand total of settlers is 18,958. See J. Gus Liebnow, Liberia: The Evolution of Privilege (Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press, 1969), p. 8.

ATTACHMENT E – Political Parties Prior to the 1985 elections won by Samuel K. Doe

Party Origin & Leader
National Democratic Party of Liberia (NDPL) Formed by Samuel Doe to enable his candidacy in the return to civilian government
Liberian People’s Party (LPP) Formed by remnants of MOJA under the leadership of Amos Sawyer
United People’s Party (UPP) Formed by members of the banned (by an act passed by the Liberian legislature in 1980) People’s Progressive Party (PPP) under the leadership of Gabriel Baccus Matthews
Liberia Action Party (LAP) Formed by Tuan Wreh, counselor at law
Unity Party (UP) Formed by Edward Kesselly, former chairman of the Constitution Advisory Committee formed during the PRC reign
National Integration Party (NIP) Formed by E. Sumo Jones, former minister of commerce in the Tolbert government
Convention Democratic Party (CDP) Formed by Wade Appleton, counselor at law
People’s Liberation Party (PLP) Formed by Hawa Clemens Danquah, housewife
First All-Integrated Republican Party (FAIR) Formed by Edwin Dunbar, engineer
Labor Party (LP) Formed by Joseph W. Nimley
Liberia Unification Party (LUP) Formed by Gabriel Kpolleh, former public school teacher


Copied from Liberia: A National Polity in Transition. Dunn, D. E. & Tarr, Byron S.
(1988). Metuchen, NJ & London: The Scarecrow Press, Inc.


ATTACHMENT F – Political Parties Prior to the 1997 elections won by Charles G. Taylor

Party Leader/Chairman
National Democratic Party of Liberia (NDPL) Isaac Dakinah
Liberian People’s Party (LPP) Togba-Nah Tipoteh - chairman
United People’s Party (UPP) Gabriel Baccus Matthews – chairman
Liberia Action Party (LAP) Cletus Wotorson
Unity Party (UP) Charles Clarke
National Patriotic Party (NPP) Charles G. Taylor
All Liberia Coalition Party (ALCOP) Lusinee Kamara
People’s Progressive Party (PPP) Chea Cheapoo - chairman
Reformation Alliance Party (RAP) Henry Boimah Fahnbulleh - chairman
Free Democratic Party (FDP) Roderick Nyennatee Lewis – chairman
Liberia National Union (LINU) Henry Moniba - chairman
True Whig Party (TWP) Rudolph Sherman – chairman


Source: CIA World Factbook – Liberia, http://www.odci.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/li.html

ATTACHMENT G – Ideal Recruiting Report of

Chief District Section Tribe No of Men

Sent Arrived

CC Kpama Yomo Kakata Kpama Kpelle 15 15
CC Kpabah Gbeles Kakata Gbelee Kpelle 10 7
CC Gbalokai Kakata Konoyea Kpelle 11 11
CC K. Daniel Kakata Queline Kpelle 14 10
CC D. Livingstone Kakata Sanoyea Kpelle 10 18
CC K. Lupu Kakata Mekllie Kpelle 14 14
PC B. Zinnah Bopolu-Suehn Popolu Kpelle 24 24
PC Menyongai Kakata Gibi Bassa 42 38
PC Vana Woo Bopolu-Suehn Kongba Gola 13 13
PC Varfee Sirleaf Bopolu-Suehn Mecca Mandingo 9 9
PC Mongru Sanniquellie Gborplay Geh 32 32
PC Mongru Sanniquellie Stolay Geh 21 21
PC Wydordea Tappita Messonah Manp 27 21
PC G. Toweh Tappita Boe-Quella Gio 18 8
PC Wydordea Tappita Yarwin Mano 17 12
PC Weipah Tappita Doe Gio 16 11
PC Segbeh Dahn Tappita Gbai-Gblor Gio 14 6
PC Nyonton Paye Tappita Kpiaplay Krahn 16 16

Total 334 287

Note: ‘PC’ designates Paramount Chief, leader of a Chiefdom within a District; ‘CC’
Means Clan Chief, leader of a clan within a Chiefdom; and ‘TC’ represents Town
Chief, leader of a Clan within a town.

Adapted from Liberia: The Rise and Fall of the First Republic. Boley, George E. S. (1983). New York: St. Martin’s Press. p. 42.

ATTACHMENT H – Tribes as Represented on Firestone’s Labor Force

Tribe Number

Bassa 2,685

Belle 435

Buzzie 4,004

(T) Tcjoem 31

Dey 73

Gbandi 1,594

Gio 3,975

Gizzie 1,969

Gola 766

Grebo 2,585

Kpelle 5,486

Krahn 571

Kru 563

Mandingo 247

Mano 3,666

Mendi 1,197

Vai 259

Total 30,016

Adapted from Liberia: The Rise and Fall of the First Republic. Boley, George E. S. (1983). New York: St. Martin’s Press. p. 43.


ATTACHMENT H – Recommendations of the International Commission of Inquiry Into the Existence of Slavery and Forced Labor in the Republic of Liberia

(a) Institution of an ‘open door’ policy, since the ‘closed door’ policy which for so long seems to have been favored by the Liberian Government, is not in the best interests of the Republic; that it is, in fact, at the root of the financial and other major difficulties in which the country is now involved. It impedes development by masking maladministration, discouraging research, delaying civilization and education, preventing competition and generally stifling commercail enterprise…

(b) Extension of education to all alike.

(c) Native policy to be radically reconstructed.

(d) Barrier between civilized and uncivilized to be broken.

(e) Policy of suppression to be abandoned.

(f) Humiliation and degradation of chiefs to cease.

(g) Re-establishment of tribal authority of chiefs.

(h) Complete reorganization of administration of the interior.

(i) Removal of present District Commissioners.

(j) Substitution of European or American Commissioners with Assistant Commissioners.

(k) Institution of some form of Civil Service.

(l) Rearrangement of the political division of the country.

(m) Pawning and domestic slavery to be made illegal as preliminary to total abolition.

(n) Shipment of laborers to Fernando Poo (sic) to cease.

(o) Road program to be curtailed.

(p) Much stricter control of Frontier Force soldiers.

(q) Reconsideration of duties of Frontier Force soldiers.

(r) American immigration to be encouraged.

Adapted from Liberia: The Rise and Fall of the First Republic. Boley, George E. S. (1983). New York: St. Martin’s Press. p. 56.

Click here to read the enitre piece!

Royce, Bipartisan Group of Lawmakers Call for former Liberian President Charles Taylor to Be Brought to Justice

Royce, Bipartisan Group of Lawmakers Call for former Liberian President Charles Taylor to Be Brought to Justice; Bipartisan, Bicameral Group Contacts Secretary Rice ahead of Thursday’s meeting with Liberian President-Elect Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf.
source: http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=58145



12/14/2005 12:48:00 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To: National and International desks, Political Reporter

Contact: Sam Stratman of Office of Committee on International Relations, U.S. House of Representatives, 202-226-7875, or Edward Burrier (Office of U.S. Rep. Ed Royce), 202-226-1500

Royce chaired the House Subcommittee on Africa for eight years (1997-2005). He is currently the vice-chairman of the panel.
Text of the letter to Secretary Rice:
December 13, 2005

Dear Madame Secretary:

On the occasion of Liberian President-Elect Ellen Johnson- Sirleaf's visit to Washington, we write to respectfully request that you make the status of former Liberian President Charles Taylor a paramount concern of the United States in your conversations with the President-Elect. It is our hope that you will strongly recommend to President-Elect Johnson-Sirleaf that she call upon the government of Nigeria to transfer Charles Taylor to the custody of the Special Court for Sierra Leone, which has indicted him for war crimes and crimes against humanity. The treatment of Taylor is a matter of security and justice for the West African people.

The election of Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf in November promises a new beginning for Liberia. Liberians enthusiastically demonstrated their faith in the democratic process, marking the freest and fairest election in their country's history. In 2003, Congress, on a bipartisan basis, played a leadership role in appropriating $200 million for relief and reconstruction efforts in Liberia. Since that time, Congress has worked to ensure strong funding for Liberia during the appropriations process to see that the basic needs of the Liberian people are met. Many in Congress look forward to continued work with you and the new Liberian government to confront the country's many political, development, and other challenges.

We would be considerably more optimistic about Liberia's future, however, if Mr. Taylor faced the 17-counts of war crimes and crimes against humanity charges that the Special Court has lodged against him. In our view, progress in Liberia, and the international community's considerable investment in the region, is in jeopardy so long as Mr. Taylor is permitted to elude justice and meddle in Liberian politics. Of equal importance, justice must be pursued for the people of West Africa, who were brutalized in the war Taylor is accused of fueling. The United States and other governments have strongly supported the Special Court and its mandate, both financially and politically. This investment risks producing little return, however, if Mr. Taylor remains outside of its reach.

Unfortunately, Nigerian President Olusegun Obasanjo has resisted numerous calls, including by the United States Congress, to transfer Mr. Taylor to the custody of the Special Court. However, President Obasanjo has committed to consider an extradition request made by a democratically-elected Liberian government. That is why we are asking you to request that President-Elect Johnson-Sirleaf now call for the Nigerian government to deliver Mr. Taylor to the Special Court.

Last month, we were encouraged to see the United Nations Security Council unanimously adopt a resolution, cosponsored by the United States, mandating that the U.N. peacekeeping force in Liberia arrest and transfer Mr. Taylor to the Special Court for Sierra Leone to stand trial if he were to return to Liberia. This resolution -- which emphasized that Taylor's stay in Nigeria is temporary and recognized him as a threat to the region -- is further indication of the international community's strong desire to see Mr. Taylor face the Special Court. Additionally, the European Union, days after President-Elect Johnson-Sirleaf's election, issued a statement that the new Liberian government "must cooperate fully with the international community to ensure that former President Charles Taylor is brought to court." Should Mr. Taylor continue to evade justice, the international community may show reluctance to continue with its strong support for the reconstruction of Liberia and Sierra Leone.

President-Elect Johnson-Sirleaf has a strong democratic mandate to call for Mr. Taylor to be placed in the custody of the Special Court. Such a call by the Liberian President-Elect would send a powerful message that the use of violence to achieve political ends is no longer acceptable in West Africa, and would help usher in a new era for the rule of law in the region.

Madame Secretary, Mr. Taylor must be held accountable. Achieving this end will require decisive and quick action by President-Elect Johnson-Sirleaf, backed by the United States. While some will argue that the "timing is not right," we believe that the present situation provides a unique window of opportunity. Delay only works to Mr. Taylor's advantage. The time for action is now.

Thank you for considering our views.

Sincerely,

/S/

Representative Ed Royce

Representative Henry Hyde

Senator Barack Obama

Senator Lincoln Chafee

Representative Betty McCollum

Senator Patrick Leahy

Representative Frank Wolf

Senator Jack Reed

Representative Vic Snyder

Representative Sue Kelly

Representative Dianne Watson

Senator Russ Feingold

Representative Chris Smith

http://www.usnewswire.com/

-0-

/© 2005 U.S. Newswire 202-347-2770/

Click here to read the enitre piece!

REACTION TO WEAH’S INTERVIEW

Below is my personal transcription of George Manneh Weah’s interview (press Ctrl + click to activate link or copy to your browser: http://upload3.putfile.com/videos/34522131214.mp3 ) by Star Radio Lower Margibi Correspondent Archie Weaver. Lie man says, I have listened to the interview at least 100 times and I am still shocked speechless. Luckily for me, I can use the pen to transform my thoughts into words. In a previous article, I advised George to be a gentleman and concede. So much for listening to the advice of a friend. Now, I am more than confused with where he’s going because I have much love for my brother. He has brought many happy moments to me as a staunch Invincible (Invisible) Eleven fan, even prouder moments as a Liberian when I swelled my chest to tell numerous soccer enthusiasts I have met in the U.S. that he is a personal friend of mine. We hung out together, we talked politics together, and we played soccer together! But where has that George gone?
Let me make it clear that George and the CDC are entitled to due process. As the “aggrieved party” they have every right to contest the elections. I am disappointed that more information is not forthcoming from the NEC. Unfortunately, some are considering their snail pace tantamount to dragging their feet. Some have even gone so far to speculate that they may be intentionally dragging their feet until the inauguration takes place. I find these speculations post haste. According to Part III: Complaints: Types, Section 7. Contested Election, article 7.1 of the Regulations on Complaints and Appeals (July 20, 2005) “Under the Liberian Constitution, Article 83(c) and the New Elections Law, Chapter 6, the primary method for complaint and appeal for parties and candidates contesting an election is through the contested election procedure (or post-election contestation) that seeks to overturn the results of an election. The statutory timelines and procedures … must be strictly complied with.” According to Section 7.4 of the same document, (http://www.necliberia.org/content/legaldocs/guidelinesandreg/complaintsnappeals.pdf ), “As provided in Section 6.2 of the New Elections Law, for those complaints involving a contested election, the NEC shall have thirty (30) days to consider the complaint and undertake the necessary investigation before making its determination. In order to accept and consider a post-election contestation complaint, the NEC must find that the errors alleged were not harmless and that they were proved to have affected the results of the election.” Certainly, the CDC must have filed their protest within the statutory timelines, which is “within seventy-two (72) hours after the occurrence of any event complained of, and in accordance with Section 6.6 of the New Elections Law, all such exceptions must be filed not later than five days after elections day.” If the CDC has so complied, the outer limit for a decision from the NEC is December 16th. Hence, I will advise my friend to bide his time until December 16th and I will also caution my friend that if he really loves and wants a peaceful Liberia, he should desist from making incendiary (conscious, sub-conscious, or unconscious) statements until a decision has been rendered regarding the CDC’s protest. Subsequent to any dissatisfaction he may have with the NEC’s decision, he can utilize Section 11.1 which states “A complainant whose complaint is rejected in whole or part by the NEC may appeal to the Supreme Court of Liberia…” However, the complainant must notify the NEC of their intent to go to court three (3) days before submitting their petition to the court and the NEC has three days to respond to the decision to go to court and an additional three days to review its decision and “communicate in writing its further decision based on” the subsequent review.

Given all of the above, George and the CDC must exhaust the due process before bringing their case to the court of public opinion which is sometimes constituted by easily misguided persons who may interpret/misinterpret the strong words of their leader(s) to be a call to arms. I suggest that the handlers/advisers of the CDC standard bearer ensure that he goes nowhere near a microphone or press person for fear of what he may say. At the moment his statements are borderline seditious and treasonable. There should beno reason for him to escalate the rhetoric or inflame his discontented followers. Yes, it’s great for George to stand for a cause, especially one he really believes in but to be delusional to the point where he is declaring himself “President of Liberia” is simply incredible to me. Displaying “fraudulent” ballots, making declarations, and spewing accusations are just not enough to convince anyone of the massive level of conspiracy required to rig an election, especially one that was closely observed by the international community. The CDC must make a logical, legal case and pursue the due process of law instead of issuing strongly worded statements that could be destabilizing to the fragile peace we are currently holding on to and/or interpreted as inimical to peace in Liberia.

TRANSCRIPT OF THE INTERVIEW
Star Radio Lower Margibi Correspondent Archie Weaver asked Weah if he still maintained he was cheated.

WEAH: I can tell you I am the president of this country. No matter what happened. Like I said to President Mbeki whether you take me out or not it will not change anything. What will change is, uh the peace prevail and justice be done. And give the mantle (word inaudible) to those who deserve it and those that were elected by the people. So uh if not if the world want to change that then we need to go on the table and discuss that when we discussing the country future. There’s no victor in the elections, even though I was but if they say that uh uh they are going to nominate somebody which of course is not right because we are talking about transparency, accountability and true democracy and uh uh peacefulness if they think that it just gonna go like that and this a revolution somebody has to go for the cause and we are prepared. We are prepared for uh Liberia to be free for Liberia to be staple (sic) run by an elected president the president that the people elected so I am back home, people say a lot of things I know they have the media they have everything they saying that I ran away from Liberia. How can I run from my country? There was legitimate government I stayed here with all the harassment and I stayed here. I served my nation. I cannot run no matter what the circumstances may be I will always be around here. You know I will always be around. This is my country and nobody can take me from this country.

Q. Ambassador Weah, you met with President Mbeki and President Kuffour what they asking you to accept and what they asking you not to accept?

WEAH: Well uh uh they telling me we need to have a meeting because it’s very serious. There should be no victor we should look for a way forward for a peaceful Liberia so I think it was a good message and uh Honorable President Mbeki was not thinking about who they select or who they elect. What he was thinking about is that uh how Liberia can be peaceful because it is very important for Africa so I think it was uh a very good thing.

Q. So as candidate for CDC what are you going to accept?

WEAH: I was elected by the people and I was elected by the people. I showed the evidence and uh As far as I am concern I am the president of the Republic of Liberia. So whether they accept that or not I was elected and uh the world must know that I won a peaceful election. Two times I was elected and uh we have to face that.

Q. So you still serious?
WEAH: Definite! I showed evidence and everybody know and uh so there’s a need for us to discuss and I am very happy that I am back home you know to see my supporters. I remain resolute no matter what happen you know and I will always seek for a peaceful Liberia and for Liberia to move on and for Liberians to enjoy the country once again.”

Click here to read the enitre piece!

A SPECIAL REQUEST TO THE BRAIN REPLENISHMENT MIGRANTS

“DO BETTER THAN TRI-COLOR TRAFFIC LIGHT”

This article is a special request directed to those in the diaspora who already have, are in the process of, or are considering returning home. The opportunity is there for many to return to Liberia to contribute and to improve their personal lot in life. There is room for everyone but each person has to contribute their share in a synergistic manner for the whole to exceed the sum of the parts. Whether you were able to achieve your academic goals or not while you were abroad, whether you were insular in your social circles or not, by virtue of being in the diaspora, you had to be exposed to different and sometimes better/more efficient ways of doing things than the way they were/are being done in Liberia. You have a lot to offer and you must take it as a responsibility to realize that potential and in the process assist others in our nation building.

We must work to build a strong civil society, thereby creating a strong middle class that will bridge the divide between the haves and the have-nots. By virtue of our exposure to other African, European, Asian, & American cultures, most of us have seen and understand how effective any group, organization, or nation can be when there are overarching goals to reach and people are selfless and will sacrifice to reach those goals. We have to be consistent in our demonstration of and our respect for law and order. We must send a consistent message that we will adhere to the laws of our country, refusing to accept or pay bribes at government ministries or bureaus for government services. We have to focus on creating a greater level of entrepreneurship, collectively (not individually), pressuring government for increased Liberianization of business opportunities and concessions. In our personal and business interactions, we must set and demand high standards of work ethic and professionalism, making sure we commit to consistently mentoring and modeling positive behavior.

Going to Liberia should not be a get rich quick scheme. Liberia is not a hustle to be had or elephant meat to chop your share off. As one of my friends has succinctly stated, “if you are making $50,000 in the U.S. and hardly able to support one household consisting of a family of two to three, how can you take a government job in Liberia and be able to support two households?” Obviously if you do, there will be pressure to generate the level of income necessary to continue supporting your family abroad as well as live the lifestyle society expects you to in Liberia. The likely result of one seeking to meet those responsibilities/pressures is the temptation to resort to corruption.

Another contact said this in an email: “A lot is going on on the ground (the place is fertile and lot of "strangers" running back not knowing what to do like chicken without head)…” Couple of things jumped at me. It seems like our returning brains really have no focus of what they are returning for and how they can contribute to the society, but may be trying to capitalize on any potential opportunity or create opportunities. The second issue, which is of a more serious nature, is that my friend, who is a very good guy, will call his fellow Liberians “strangers.” This leads me to believe that there is a sense of distinction between those who have been on the ground and those who are recently returning. I am not sure how strong or negative that distinction is but I think it is important that the returnees make every effort to understand the sensitivities of those who have endured so much through no fault of theirs. As much as the temptation may be there, we have to resist exhibiting a sense of entitlement or superiority to those with lesser skills and resources. For those of us who have been in democratic societies, we must be willing to champion the mentality of citizenry participation, meritocracy, equal opportunity, philanthropy, and good governance. The freedom of speech should be encouraged. We can no longer be comfortable or complacent with the status quo that has existed since I can remember. We have to operate with the urgency of change elements. As eloquently stated by our president-elect, the new Liberia involves “a new political order, a new social order, a new economic order. It involves far-reaching reforms--constitutional reform, land reform, judicial reform, civil service reform and decentralization of power.” (http://www.time.com/time/archive/preview/0,10987,1134752,00.html)

The task ahead is momentous but we cannot be complacent with only making cosmetic contributions to Liberia. We cannot be complacent with the euphoria of the feel-good story from the conduct of Liberians during the elections to the historical results of the elections. Sadly, the only significant “infrastructural” development that comes to mind during my formative years in Liberia is the switching of the traffic light from red & green to red, yellow, and green, and besides, not all stop lights were changed either. We must not accept mediocre or sub-standard. We must strive for excellence, continually punching the clock to achieve our goals. Our intent has to be genuine, and we must develop our love for Liberia. We must become patriots and demonstrate our love for Liberia daily. According to the Webster’s II New College Dictionary, a patriot is “one who loves, supports, and defends one’s country.” We can only love our country if we can begin to love each other, support each other, buy Liberian, patronize Liberian, support Liberia, make the extra effort to interact with and involve other Liberians in the positive things we do. We must care that our fellow Liberians have bread on their table too. We must care that our literacy rate is abysmal. We must care that our moral infrastructure is bankrupt. We must care that “ignorance, disease, and poverty” are the norm rather than the exception in Liberia. We are too rich a country that we cannot adequately provide for our people in a more distributive and efficient manner.

In closing, I would like to leave you with a few quotes on patriotism. The first is from Felix Adler who says, “Love of country is like love of woman--he loves her best who seeks to bestow on her the highest good.” Another from Calvin Coolidge about America is very relevant to Liberia today, it goes, “Patriotism is easy to understand in America; it means looking out for yourself by looking out for your country.” Why can’t we do that? Instead of only looking out for only “me”, “myself”, and “I”, let’s keep our country in our focus! A favorite of mine is “Patriotism is not necessarily included in rebellion. A man may hate his king, yet not love his country.” As much the majority of us have at one point or another hated our despotic leaders and wanted to get rid of them, taking up arms has never yielded the desired results. Let’s move forward with much love for Liberia. Let’s utilize all democratic principles to the maximum to enact change. Most importantly, Liberia is our country. No one can love Liberia more than the Liberians! Liberia is very special and regardless of all the negatives that currently pervade us like cancer, Liberians have the ability to resuscitate and breathe strong life into their MOTHERLAND!

Click here to read the enitre piece!

A LITTLE BIT OF PERSPECTIVE

Hi folks. Please allow me a moment of your time to clarify some misunderstanding. It has been interesting the last few days trying to respond to the various reactions to my writings. I apologize to those I did not get to but if you share my view, then there is really no urgency to respond to you, hence I have given those with contrasting or alternative opinions a little more attention. There are also some who have postulated that my tone is changing when I complimented the President-elect on her credentials and her first act of appointing a transition team. No, my tone is not changing. I am still advocating the prosecution of those who hold the greater responsibility for all the lives we lost and the crimes committed against the Liberian people. I am not an angry, bitter, or marginalized Liberian. I am not a malcontent or one who will agitate simply for agitation sake or to be against the dominant institution or powers that be. My position typically stems from my sense of right and wrong and the passion I have for my country. I am not an Ellen critic or a government critic. I am simply one who believes that those who hold the public confidence and represent the interest of the people should do the “right” thing.
For example what is there not to applaud about Ellen’s immediate response to the public outcry about “tainted characters” being on the transition team by removing Paul Mulbah from the team. (http://allafrica.com/stories/200512060446.html) Even if the team had been published timely, just the act of recognizing the truth in the public criticism of specific members and acting accordingly is in the best interest of the country. This rapid response however should not set the expectation that the president-elect will waver on every appointment or decision when there is public outcry because I (and hopefully others) expect her (and her team) to be thorough in their due diligence, able to validate appointments/decisions, and have the information/data to support and articulate why certain decisions were made prior to disseminating information or announcements for public consumption.
More importantly, I am concerned about the potential that members of her inner circle/advisory team formed the “transition team” and the published list did not have her final stamp of approval prior to release. If this is the case, then there may be some loose canon(s) that Ellen will have to rein in and control if she expects her “first word to go to court.” Additionally, there are others on the team that need a second look and I hope the Iron lady will continue to revisit the list (and her future cadre of government appointees) until it meets her standard of excluding those who have known human rights violations, corrupt public service records, and histories of incompetence.
Clearly, this administration will be under intense public scrutiny from all sectors of local, diaspora, and international society for a myriad of reasons, some justified and some unjustified. If they expect to gain the trust and confidence of these special interest groups, then gaffs like premature announcements, non-exhaustive vetting, and reversals on major decisions cannot be the order of the day. We look forward to a revised list that will be more indicative of the philosophy of the president elect: no human rights violation, no corruption, inclusion, good governance, highly qualified, and balanced (ethnic and generational). In her own words, we should “…look at every political party, ethnic group and religion, and find people who meet our requirements of competence and honesty.” (http://www.time.com/time/archive/preview/0,10987,1134752,00.html)

Click here to read the enitre piece!

THE IMPORTANCE OF EDUCATION FOR A PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE

L,
Thanks for the comment. I will post it to the Blog so that others can read it.

I agree with everything else you say except the EDUCATION piece. I intentionally omitted the use of the word EDUCATION. Education can be formal and informal. There is no dismissing the value a person gains from the college environment, whether they actually EARN their degree or not. However, not everyone with letter designations after his/her name is actually knowledgeable or competent with regards to the subject matter those letters represent. Therefore, I don't think we can legislate presidential qualification on EDUCATION. I can't stress enough how important I think academics is or how academically inclined I am but I don't think education is the most important qualification for a president. I think leadership, vision, intellect, analytical depth, political and governmental understanding, experience, perseverance, moral fortitude, articulation, and fairness are some qualities that precede pure academic education.

Kudos to the Liberian people for selecting the best in the field of candidates. We definitely avoided international ridicule by the choice we made. Now let's work together on the tasks at hand. If George or others decide to sulk and be childish, they will be left behind. I think a high majority of Liberians are really ready to move forward so the tolerance for progressive roadblocks will be very low.
----- Original Message -----
From:
To: libpatriot@verizon.net
Sent: Friday, December 02, 2005 12:33 AM
Subject: Re: POST ELECTIONS BLUES & TRANSITION: Say it ain't so George!

What is said in your email is correct,but I think you neglected to mention
the most important qualifications which
should be a pre requisite for any campaign , any where -EDUCATION!!
INTELLECT and EXPERIENCE. I think that in the future
the Election Commission or whoever is responsible for campaign
registrations should be required to up grade and revise the
procedure to ensure that only individuals who are truly qualified are
accepted as candidates. Liberia has to do it right this time
around if she expects to be respected by the rest of the world and to move
forward and get us out of the quagmire in which we now
find ourselves.Of all the candidates, Ellen is the most qualified and the
people voted accordingly. Liberians everywhere must show
their support. We have a leader of whom we can be proud. There is a lot of
work to do and this is is not the time for childish
sulks and delusions.

LS

Click here to read the enitre piece!

Visitor Commentary: Post Elections Analysis

From:
To: libpatriot@verizon.net
Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2005 6:33 AM
Subject: RE: POST ELECTIONS BLUES & TRANSITION: Say it ain't so George!

Greetings, Brother Tukpah:

You are very correct in you analyses.

Now that the Liberia 2005 General Elections end game is imminent, I too have been reviewing various strategic elements of these elections. Please permit me to share my observations with you.

This election was won or lost on the presence or absence of strategic intelligence, humble awareness, and proactive diligence. Also, Mrs Sirleaf's experience led her to be a hungry lion, but Mr Weah's inexperience led him to be bluff boy.

During December 2004 while visiting Washington DC, I met with Mr Sylvester Williams from the CDC camp and advised that CDC's victory in the Presidential elections would be the result of research and knowledge of the lay of the new political landscape of Liberia which now includes the international community as the most significant resource provider. Obviously, my advice was not heeded.

On the other hand, my advice to Mrs Sirleaf in January 2005, while sitting in the Monrovia offices of the Governance Reform Commission, was that she had to stick to her quest like white on rice - to not give up like she did at the 2003 Accra Peace Talks - that she had to widen, deepen and strengthen her network - that she create and derive relevance from Liberians especially in the United States. I explained that if she stood strong for her challenge then people from unexpected corners would stand for her. I am honored that she heard my advice.

It should be noted that there was significant impact on local government operations, in coordination of electoral responsibilities and security as well as in the selection of poll workers, by the newly organized District Development Committees in counties such as Bong, Lofa, Gbarpolu, Nimba, Bomi and Margibi. These DDCs have been funded by USAID and UN.

Another significant and influencing element was the Liberian-UNMIL Staff - particularly those serving as Human Rights Officers conducting voter education. Interestingly, the Liberian-UNMIL Staff met with the SRSG Mr Alan Doss just after the first-round and received guarantees as to the permanance of their jobs regardless of which candidate would prevail in the runoff. The Liberian-UNMIL Staff also received assurances of the UN's presence in Liberia until at least 2008.

Mrs Sirleaf and key UP operatives are in close liaison with the over 160 Civil Affairs Officers distributed throughout Liberia. These are key persons with extremely significant advisory clout. I believe that this is where the difference was brought to bear during the interval between the first and run-off rounds. None of the Civil Affairs Officers were adequately engaged by CDC.

A little known issue is that just after the first round ended, the USA provided "voter education" funding which was linked to how CDC or UP would participate in the debates program. When CDC rejected debates, the funding for "voters education" was unilaterally distributed by elements favorable to debates! (Read between the lines!). In short, the final result of these elections may be hinged on USD400,000 provided by the USA!

Another aspect of these elections may well be the role played by the combination of the Christian churches and the Poro in reaction to Islamic interests and the "sinners" (ie, non Poro such the Krahn).

Over a year ago, several UN and EU Civil Affairs Officers spoke of the 2005 elections as "Breaking with the past". Perhaps some of these UN and EU officers would have preferred Mr Weah to be President, because they felt they gave Mr Weah "standing" by having appointed him a Goodwill Ambassador. These UN and EU officers may now be embarrassed that Mrs Sirleaf's campaign staff bested them! We should hope that there is little bad blood between Mrs Sirleaf and some of these UN/EU senior officers assigned to Liberia.

Perhaps it is timely for us to know that the assignment of new US Ambassador Donald E. Booth may have been the best thing for Mrs Sirleaf and his presence in Liberia may have also encouraged various personnel on the USAID-funded District Development Committees throughout Liberia to work on behalf of Mrs Sirleaf in the "voter education" programs. We know that Ambassador Booth is no stranger to Liberia having served as Commercial Officer at the USEmbassy/Monrovia from 1979 to 1981. During that time, among other portfolios, Mrs Sirleaf was President William Tolbert's Deputy Minister of Finance. Interestingly, Mr Booth was the USEmbassy/Monrovia contact to whom President Tolbert directed me to deliver the written outlines for the next government of Liberia after the Tolbert Administration. (I did so late 1980 after I was released from the BTC Post Stockade and still have a copy of the document.)

Ambassador Donald Booth's presence may confirm that the United States 1980 effort to widen political opportunity in Liberia has run its course, an instance which the UN/EU will go along with the USA because - as General Klein has been apt to say - "money talks, bullshit walks, and we know who has the money" (meaning the USA!).

Best regards,

---
PAX ET BONUM
Don't wait... Just go there....

Click here to read the enitre piece!

EMAIL RESPONSE: POST ELECTIONS BLUES & TRANSITION: Say it ain't so George!

John,
Thanks for the compliment. I will post this response along with your email.

I didn't say we can't prosecute them. I said it was a waste of my time to criticize them because there was just no accountability at all. I didn't say the rest of us should "shut up." We had a legislaive body that made laws just to accomodate themselves and their interests, an executive branch that was focused on material things, and a very weak judiciary. Hopefully Bryant won't try to take the car home like his legislators are doing. My guess is the days of granting monopolies, especially to foreigners, is over. We need effective Liberianization policies that will at the minimum give Liberians an incentive to invest in the private sector and the opportunity to thrive in business.

In my opinion, a case against those criminals will not be effective on an individual basis on several fronts. Firstly, an individual could be easily intimidated, not have the funding to hire a great lawyer(s) who will be dedicated to his case, and not have the support system necessary to pursue such a case to the extent that it may last a very long time. Secondly, the case against these guys are crimes against humanity, not necessarily any one person and they are all in violation of international laws. Thirdly, the U.S. has a "system" that's proven and has worked. They can enforce the final decision of the courts. I am not sure we have the system, the infrastructure, or the collective fortitude to enforce adverse decisions against these criminals at this point in time. We need the backing of the international community couple with sancions if we don't follow through. Finally, the court will be so clogged up with the numerous individual cases, some of probably no consequence, but most of significant weight that it may paralyze the functionality of some courts. Additionally, we may not have the staffing to handle that kind of volume. I did not say the government should make this a priority or the first order of the administration. I am simply saying Ellen shouldn't be dismissing the idea of bringing Taylor to Liberia and then handing him over to the Special Court in Sierra Leone as someone else's responsibility.

Take care and let's keep working towards a better Liberia. Both infrastructurally and morally.
----- Original Message -----
From: CUFFEY11@aol.com
To: libpatriot@verizon.net
Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2005 6:35 AM
Subject: Re: POST ELECTIONS BLUES & TRANSITION: Say it ain't so George!


Dear Vah,
Damn it! Damn it! Damn it! That is what I was talking about the other day.Let the brothers drink from the fountain of knowledge and intellitualism.Your analysis on most issues were crisp and to the point.
On the issue of not criticizing an interim government I strongly differ because they are still accountable for good governance regardless of their mandate. For an example should we shut up when the government or the chairman purchase an armor car for over half a million bucks when he is heavily protected by the UN peace keepers? Increase the price of Rice when he has practically given monopoly to George Haddad and his other cronies?
On the issue of prosecuting Charles Taylor and other warlords I have a different approach and its not for the sake of peace slogan.I personally believe in the judicial system.If whoever have a case against people like the George Dwehs and Prince Johnsons and to name a few,take your case to the courts.With surmountable evidence those guys can be brought to justice regardless of their positions in the government.We see it work here please tell me while it cannot work over there.I just don't think the government should make it a priority.
Anyway bro. thanks again for the insight and look forward to hearing from you very soon.


Always,
JBC 11

Click here to read the enitre piece!

POST ELECTIONS BLUES & TRANSITION: Say it ain’t so George!

Please say that you are not standing your ground on this election fraud issue. Please say that you were not a part of your party’s Executive Committee’s decision to suspend Cole Bangalu, Chairman of the Congress for Democratic Change (CDC), for attending the announcement of the official result of the run-off election. It’s scary that the thought process coming out of the Weah camp is that it was impossible for him to lose to Ellen? It is one thing to think you were cheated but a whole different ball game to harbor the delusional thought that it is impossible to lose to another candidate. I am not sure what his advisors are telling him or whether this philosophy is emanating from the recesses of his brain, but elections (political or otherwise) is not only about popularity, it is also about campaign strategy, mobilization, reaching out to people, rapid reaction to negative propaganda & 11th hour allegations, campaign continuity, political astuteness, building the right coalition and alliances, identifying key team members that are acceptable across the spectrum of voters, and most of all being convincing in the delivery of your message. In my opinion, majority or all of the above were lacking in the Weah campaign for the run-off elections. I don’t know that Ellen really won the elections as opposed to Weah losing the momentum he had from the first round by resting on his laurels. Credit Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf with her strategy of campaigning via helicopter, allowing her access to numerous areas that would have otherwise been unreachable via motor vehicle within the time span the candidates had prior to the November 11 runoff and giving the populace the impression that she would go to the max to reach out to them.

It’s sad to say but what Manneh and his people assumed was the mandate of the people simply was not. A 28% “majority” of registered voters in the October elections is not a “majority” especially considering the high probability that the significant number of Liberians in the diaspora, for whatever number of reasons, would not have voted for him and they certainly utilized whatever influence they had to divert votes from him in the run-off elections. It is time for George to be graceful and dignified and concede to Ellen. He’s is on the precipice of losing any future political cachet if he continues to be influenced by his advisors, especially those whose only path to “making it” would have been his occupancy of the Executive Mansion. Realistically, if the powers that be really wanted to “deny” Weah the presidency, he would not have been in the field of twenty-two to begin with. It is no secret that Weah is a French citizen and that due diligence was not fully exercised on all constitutional fronts in vetting the candidates for the presidency. Weah has to recognize the magnitude of conspiracy that would have been necessary for his allegations of fraud to be true. He won lowly populated Southeastern Liberia (handily winning Grand Gedeh, Grand Kru, Sinoe, and River Gee and barely won Rivercess) but lost the heavily populated counties by close to 193,000 votes. But then again, when has it ever being fair when a Liberian loses. We seldom take full responsibility for our losses. It’s either the referee or somebody else’s fault.

What Manneh accomplished as a political neophyte is nothing short of amazing but he shouldn’t limit himself to these elections as the end all be all of his political career. Political careers typically have a tendency to be longer than most others (take a page out of Ellen’s script) so he should utilize his current stature and accomplishments in this election as a springboard for greater gains in 2012. If he is in the game to stay, he should start his campaign for 2012 now. He should begin to galvanize his party, set and pursue some personal goals regarding education and experience, identify quick hit targets that could enhance his legitimacy as a political force and solidify his reputation of giving, and surround himself with reliable and reputable advisors that will enhance rather than devalue his political currency. Focusing on the election fraud issue will only result in him losing credibility, losing his international goodwill, and losing the opportunity to ever approach the threshold of the presidency again. What is his ultimate redress here, take up arms and fight for the presidency? I don’t know him to be an advocate of violence, regardless of the rumors of “rebel financier and supporter” but if he keeps on backing himself into a corner, that option may be his only resort.

Contrary to the perception of a few of my readers who have emailed saying that I don’t respect the president elect by my tone or by calling her Ellen, I have the utmost respect for her as a female and mother, her enduring political career, and her professional accomplishments. I believe that with her entry into the history books, she has elevated herself to be classified amongst the one name icons of the world, including the Peles, Shaqs, Oppongs, Kobes, etc. Her journey and accomplishments make her a prime role model for the women of today, especially the African and Liberian females. However, she is not exempt from being suggested to or constructively criticized. We as Liberians must realize that the issues are not personal or relational but all about the good of the country. Only through escalation of the dialog, thorough discussions of the relevant issues rather than the use of force, and diversity of opinion will we be able to progress to a truly enriched and civilized society. Congratulations to Ellen! Now the work to rebuild, reconstruct, rehabilitate, reconcile, redevelop (or is it develop), and reprogram begins. Let no one think that a magic wand can be waved and things will be fine in a year or two.

Let’s segue into one of the most overused phrases in the current Liberian lexicon, “in the interest of peace.” This phrase is overused and is seen as the answer/response to every contra opinion or every request for the government to take action. The stumbling blocks to peace have to be removed. We cannot be paralyzed or held hostage by the threat of rebel activity or insurgency. We cannot continue the “transition government” mentality! The transition government was basically a concession to the warring parties. Liberians and the international community essentially said, we gave the rebels and remnants of Charles Taylor’s government a two year window to steal as much as they want to steal, prostitute, bastardize, corrupt, violate, etc. do whatever you want to do with the country. We can’t continue with that wild, wild west mentality that every head of a ministry, government corporation or bureau has his/her own fiefdom and can do whatever he/she pleases. I am of the opinion that sometimes preaching to the choir serves no purpose. In one of my last articles two years ago, I let you know that criticizing the corrupt Transition Government was going to be a useless exercise because there was absolutely no accountability of the various branches (inter and intra) of government to each other or the Liberian people. Each branch or sub-branch was an autocrat to itself (see the pillaging of government resources and the inability of GSA to recoup all the office equipment and automobiles stolen since the election), interacting with other branches only when that interaction was viable or beneficial to the deal of the moment. Hopefully with an incoming “elected” government whose leader postulates good governance, accountability will rule the day. I laud Ellen for immediately appointing a transition team to work with the Gyude Bryant government to potentially ensure some semblance of an orderly transition.

Ellen has to be firm and utilize the force of the law in order to clean out our act. She has to dispense with the typical “Liberian mother’s” qualities of patience and leniency. TRANSITION HOLIDAY is over! We have basically had anarchy in Liberia for the last 25-158 years depending on your perspective. It’s time that we begin the conversion to a civilized and democratic country. One in which the government and its officers are truly accountable to the people. In order to do that, we have to clean house. The elements of destruction must be removed, either through the ballet box or the weight of the law. We cannot continue to be held hostage to the warlords or their backers by the threat of violence or insurgency. Government must maximize the presence of the UN forces to implement law and order across the land. No region or area in Liberia should be exempt from enforcement of the law. We have to really focus on infrastructural development to ensure the accessibility of remote areas and enable a rapid government forces response to any indication of insurgency or unrest. Without prosecution, the threat of unrest will always be there (see Alhaji Kromah’s threat of cutlass mutilation to UP supporters celebrating Ellen’s victory.) National security is a premium. No threat or risk situation should be taken lightly if we are to make any progress. We have to move forward, therefore every aggression or threat must be met with the full force of the law rather than the lame statement “in the interest of peace.”

P.S. I like Ellen’s most recent response to questions about Charles Taylor’s future: “Sirleaf said on arrival in Cote d'Ivoire on Tuesday: "Allow me to have consultations with West African leaders, whom I am visiting, to take guidance from them before we take a position on that."” (see http://allafrica.com/stories/200511291319.html for the full article) Hopefully with more consultations, she will see things my way.

Click here to read the enitre piece!

My picture for my profile

Click here to read the enitre piece!

LET'S TALK ABOUT IT & THEN WORK AT IT

LET'S TALK ABOUT IT & THEN WORK IT
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ABOUT THE ARTICLE "Liberians Must Pursue the Prosecution of Charles Taylor & Warlords"

From: Isaac Vah Tukpah, Jr.
To:
Cc:
Sent: Monday, November 28, 2005 12:41 AM
Subject: Re: Liberians Must Pursue the Prosecution of Charles Taylor & Warlords


Gentlemen,
Greetings! You both had similar comments so I elected to respond to you both in the same email. If this is offensive to you, please let me know and I apologize.

I really do praise the Lord daily for all he has done for Liberia and continues to do. I believe the Lord has his plans for Charles Taylor, his associates, and the other grave violators of Liberia. However, there are also laws, due process, and media for addressing and rectifying wrongs that men commit against men. I really do believe that we should give peace a chance but I think prosecuting criminals and giving peace a chance are two different issues. If we continue to let the overused phrase "in the interest of peace" be the Liberian mantra, we will continually harbor criminals and the threat of rebel insurgency will hold us hostage to the people we feel can pick up arms if we rub them the wrong way. I am not a negative person and I am not being negative in my articulation of the issues I believe to be important. I am simply trying to ensure that we do not sweep this dreadful aspect of our national history under the rug and act like it never happened. Prosecuting these criminals is a major part of our reconciliation and rehabilitation as a nation.

Yes, we do have a lot of work on our hands and in that respect, I appeal to all Liberians to join hands, rally around our president-elect, and remake Liberia into a "glorious land of liberty." I will continue to be optimistic about our potential to rebuild because I believe our countrymen are some of the smartest and most talented people in the world. However, we have to create an atmosphere where we can nurture the talented, allow genius to be demonstrated, reward the hard and efficient workers, establish a meritorious system, eliminate the "old boys network", develop patriotism, and limit corruption to a minimum. In order to do that, we cannot allow criminals and gross violators of the law to run around with impunity and total disregard for their fellow Liberians or the law of the land. Accountability has to start somewhere and I really believe that if Ellen can establish a zero-tolerance policy from the get go, surround herself with a strong supporting cast that will proliferate that mentality, and be consistent in their actions and message, we can create a new nation based on merit rather than social or political affiliation.

One point of correction. I did say in my article that I did not support Weah or Ellen but I did not say I supported any other candidate. So like you, I did not support any candidate. Those who are in my circle of political discussion will confirm that I have said that if I had a vote, I would have voted for Ellen or Brumskine because given the cast of characters that were on the presidential slate, I felt that either of the two had a better chance of lifting us up to international respectability.

Take care and God bless.


From: "Chucky "
To: "Isaac Vah Tukpah, Jr."
Sent: Friday, November 25, 2005 7:56 AM
Subject: Re: Fw: Liberians Must Pursue the Prosecution of Charles Taylor & Warlords

> Its time to move on from this and let Liberia recover
> from 20 years of civil strife. Put Charles Taylor and
> his associates in hands of the almighty, Lets mend
> Liberia and make a better.Regars
>

From:
To: Isaac Vah Tukpah, Jr.
Sent: Saturday, November 26, 2005 8:22 PM
Subject: RE: Liberians Must Pursue the Prosecution of Charles Taylor & Warlords


I do not know you in person but somehow your message reached me. Many such messages have reached me in the past and I’ve elected to remain silent to them. This time, however, I feel it a civic duty to respond to your comments below.

My message to you is simple: Let’s give peace a chance. After more than a decade of unimaginable suffering by the Liberian people (I experienced this first hand having lost my home and lived as a refugee in my own home for over a year), I think the least we can do at this time in our country is THANK GOD FOR BRINGING US THIS FAR AS A NATION AND PRAY THAT THE NEW LEADERSHIP WILL DO THE RIGHT THING FOR LIBERIA AND THE LIBERIAN PEOPLE, ESPECIALLY THE LIBERIAN CHILDREN.

Your opinion below may have some truth to it. However, it is missing a lot of facts and details to substantiate your claims. All I’m really trying to say is now is not the time to speak negativity. I believe there’s a time for everything and the situation we have on our hands in Liberia calls for positive opinions. We need people like you and myself to speak about the astronomical illiteracy rate in Liberia and provide suggestions for improvement in this area; to recommend strategies for the development of our roads, health care system, electricity, etc. Sincerely, I do not see this as just an Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf problem, I see it as a challenge to all Liberians. I beg of you to speak optimism to the minds of Liberians at home and abroad no matter what your political affiliations.

Note that I speak as a neutral person in this situation. I, unlike you, did not support any candidate but prayed that the Liberian people at home who had the opportunity to vote choose the right candidate. Please, let’s give peace and development a chance.

May God Bless You.

Regards,
Felix

Click here to read the enitre piece!

Liberians Must Pursue the Prosecution of Charles Taylor & Warlords

Here we go again. Are we crossing a deal with the devil? Are we trying to sweep the past 15 years under the rug? Are we really that weak as a people that we will accept the carnage wreaked on Liberia by the warlords and Charles Taylor as a thing of the past? I honestly believe that it is incumbent upon every Liberian to bring to justice, Charles Taylor and the war lords who are primarily responsible for the depths to which our beloved nation have sunk. Who can Ellen hold accountable if she cannot begin to rectify the wrongs of the past? Even in present day America, there are efforts to correct the wrongs of slavery and various groups are seeking direct apologies and reparations. Are we going to allow the major proponents of the warring factions to continue to co-exist in our midst with impunity? Where are the reparations to liberia and those who suffered the most from the senseless killings and devatations of the last 15 years? Ultimately, if we cannot hold them accountable now, who can hold her accountable in the event she has to resort to dictatorial and despotic tactics? We must set a precedent here and go after Charles Taylor and the warlords. There have to be legal remunerations for the sins and wounds these people have inflicted on Liberia. I understand that quite a few Liberians are devoid of patriotism but the detestable actions of these warlords and Charles Taylor against Liberia is similar to rape and assault and has had a crippling effect on at least two generations of Liberians, if not three.

What is the fear factor here? Are we afraid that if we go after Charles Taylor there will be a resurgence of armed conflict? Or is it that a deal has been cut between Charles Taylor, Jewel Howard Taylor and Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf that if the Taylor family supporters in Bong County throw their support behind Ellen (10,353 votes in the October Election versus 53,608 votes in the November 8 run-off) she will back off pursuing the request for Charles Taylor and subsequent prosecution? It is common knowledge that Ellen and Charles were bedfellows and fell out but was that pact so strong that after having been elected president, she has no inclination to pursue the prosecution of Charles Taylor and his cohort of warlords? Or is it the possibility that Ellen holds as much responsibility for the death of hundreds of thousands of Liberians and if Charles Taylor were to go before a war crimes court, her complete role in his invasion of Liberia will be exposed, and she will have equal culpability for the grave crimes, crimes against humanity, and all the other major violations of international humanitarian law that occurred since Christmas eve of 1989? There is precedence for trial of incumbent presidents for crimes against humanity.

It has been clearly documented that Nigerian president, Olusegun Obasanjo, has said that if a freely elected Liberian government requests Taylor's extradition, he will turn him over to said government for either trial at home or in Sierra Leone. Unfortunately, our president elect has been quoted as saying that "It is better that he be sent straight to Sierra Leone. That's where the trial will be. There is no need for him to come here first"[1] when she knows that Obasanjo will not go back on his word of releasing Taylor directly to the Special Court of Sierra Leone. One of the reasons I did not support George Weah for president was I did not believe he had the political maturity to make the difficult decisions or could objectively weigh the pros and cons of controversial issues and make executive decisions befitting a president. I did not support Ellen but I believe that based on her career, political experience, and tenure in government, she has that capability. Therefore, her preceding statement seems more like a cop out or avoidance of making a major decision. As president, it is her responsibility to spearhead such an important process for the country and not pass the buck. We are watching and waiting to see what the Iron lady does! If she cannot become a champion of the people, someone will have to fill that void!

Justice in this case can be delayed but at some point, it will not be denied. Part of our national rehabilitation and reconciliation has to be the prosecution of those who "bear the greatest responsibilitÿ" for all the crimes that have been committed against the people of Liberia and through Charles Taylor, the people of Sierra Leone also. The Liberian government must take a stand here for its downtrodden people. The mere fact that Taylor remains at large in a nearby country, living in luxury, manipulating, meddling, and influencing Liberian and regional politics, is a slap in the face to justice and democracy. In order for Ellen to continue to elevate faith in the democratic process in the hearts of Liberians, that the recent elections have engendered, she must pursue the extradition of Charles Taylor from Nigeria, his prosecution and the prosecution of the warlords who hold the greatest responsibility for the crimes inflicted upon Liberia. The elections have gone a long way in letting the international community know that we are in the process of moving in the right direction. If we cannot do the right things by international standards, we are encumbering our progress and holding ourselves hostage to the limitations that will be imposed upon us with respect to aid for redevelopment. We must consider and comprehend that if our citizens are guilty of violating those laws, a concerted national effort to bring them to justice is our civic and international responsibility.

Click here to read the enitre piece!