Liberia

[Djinn Raffo]

From: cnn

Bush may send 500-1,000 troops to Liberia

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush could announce as early as Thursday that he is sending 500 to 1,000 peacekeeping troops to Liberia, two senior officials told CNN.

Facing mounting international pressure to have the United States lead a Liberia mission that also would include West African peacekeepers, Bush discussed such a deployment Wednesday, the officials said.

U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan and others have talked of a U.S. deployment of 2,000 troops, but U.S. officials told CNN any deployment would be no more than half that.

The officials said the timing of the announcement could be slowed by efforts to get Liberian President Charles Taylor, who faces war crimes charges by a U.N. court in neighboring Sierra Leone, to step down and leave the war-torn country.

The White House official line is that Taylor should leave now and face war crimes trial later. But Bush used different language Wednesday regarding Taylor, saying simply that he should leave the country.

Many analysts read the new Bush language as a sign the president was prepared to accept Taylor going into exile in a country that would not extradite him to Sierra Leone.

Bush has been reluctant to commit U.S. troops to Liberia, which was founded in 1822 as a settlement for freed American slaves, and hoped West African peacekeepers would be enough, with the possible exception of Marine reinforcements at the U.S. Embassy in Monrovia.

But Secretary of State Powell has been arguing in favor of a U.S. commitment, sources said -- citing recent peacekeeping commitments by France in the Ivory Coast and Great Britain in Sierra Leone.

Bush leaves this weekend for his first trip to Africa, and the Liberia issue has become a test of his promise to make a commitment to promoting peace, democracy and economic development in Africa, administration officials said.

One senior official said, "There will be a U.S. role, but the details are still in somewhat of a flux."

Another senior official said "it is not sealed" but a force of 500 to no more than 1,000 Army troops was under serious discussion and that there were "strong indications" a final decision in favor of a deployment "will be sooner rather than later."

Despite suggestions by some administration officials to the contrary, neither Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld nor Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Richard Myers has expressed reservations about involving U.S. troops in Liberia, key aides to both men told CNN.

An aide to Rumsfeld said the defense secretary believes the mission would fit into the category of "lesser contingencies" the Pentagon is prepared to handle. Sources close to Myers said the general shares that view.

Pentagon officials acknowledged forces are stretched thin overseas -- in Afghanistan, Iraq and the Balkans -- but said the small number of troops required for Liberia would not create problems.

But other administration officials said the Pentagon is wary in part because of the humiliating memories of the last major U.S. deployment in Africa -- to Somalia -- which ended in retreat 10 years ago after 18 Americans were killed.

Several senior officials said reports that Bush had already signed orders authorizing a deployment were inaccurate.

But these officials said planning was intensifying, including detailed conversations with the United Nations and with West African nations that would be part of a peacekeeping mission.

Pentagon sources told CNN a unit of 50 U.S. Marines known as a FAST team -- for Fleet Anti-terrorism Security Team -- was on standby in Rota, Spain, for possible deployment to reinforce security at the U.S. Embassy.

Several hundred Americans remain in Liberia, where intense fighting between Taylor's government and rebel forces has continued despite a June 17 cease-fire.

Nigeria had been working with Taylor on a possible deal for him to take refuge in that country. One problem, however, is that Taylor has agreed to deals before, then backed out.

Officials said the United States was working closely with members of the Economic Community of West African States on diplomatic efforts, particularly Ghana and Nigeria.

Comments Tuesday by White House press secretary Ari Fleischer that Bush was considering sending troops provoked a nearly instantaneous reaction in Monrovia, where thousands of people gathered outside the U.S. Embassy to cheer a possible American presence.

"We feel America can bring peace because they are the original founders of this nation, and secondly, they are the superpower of the world," one man said.

[Reeka]

I just don't get this thinking that we are somehow responsible merely on the basis that Liberia was founded by "former American slaves." I mean it is an independent nation. Would be different if they were like, for instance, Puerto Rico, the Virigin Islands or Samoa.

I just fail to see the logic here. I mean Britain just in the 1800's controlled major portions of the world. Are they forever thereafter responsible for those, now sovereign, nations? Hell, does this logic make Britain responsible for us since we were former colonists?

Personally, I view this as a damned if we do or damned if we don't situation.

[John D Harris]

Majik, Cerek what is the old expression something about chickens coming home to roost?

Miss Reeka Ma'am, Being the smart lady that your are, you should know that the British empire is the old evil and therefore no longer responsible for anything. But the USA is the current resident evil of the world and must be held responisble for everything that anyone else decides it should be held responsible for. Now I want you to write 100 times:

The British Empire is the old evil, and the USA is the new evil in the world.

No fair cutting and pasting
Ok, you can cut and paste but just don't tell me

[Cerek the Barbaric]

I also find it interesting that the EU, UN, and other forces are saying they are only asking for the U.S. to provide "support" in the form of 2000 troops...but then they say they U.S. should be "leading" the effort because Liberia was founded by former slaves.

So I guess the U.S. is really being asked to offer "leading support"

[Donut]

Originally posted by MagiK: Sounds like the [perfect job for the UN and the Eu. No need for the USA to go "Imposing it's will" on people. After all don't want that Hegemony to get any bigger or more dominant.

Just your colonial past coming back to haunt you.

[Donut]

A Post-Colonial Storm, and America's Blind Spot

By Somini Sengupta
New York Times
date, 2002

At a popular restaurant here on the water's edge, the dinner menu offers a rare item: a vegetarian version of the traditional West African groundnut stew. Vegetarianism is anathema in this part of the world. But adjustments have had to be made in Sierra Leone because the world is here. Tens of thousands of foreigners have come to help restore peace in this tiny West African country. Pakistani peacekeepers patrol the streets. Norwegians are putting up houses for amputees (the most compelling casualties of Sierra Leone's decade-long war). The Bangladeshis have built a "friendship school." War criminals are to be tried in a new courthouse, under construction now, courtesy of foreign donors. Already, 17,000 United Nations peacekeepers, the largest such force in the world, have disarmed the warlords and drug-addled child soldiers who carried on this country's decade-long war. Some people call this the United Nations of Sierra Leone.

Today, Sierra Leone makes a strong case for international intervention. What makes it all the more remarkable - and fragile - is what stands next door: a portrait of neglect, an American invention called Liberia.

The contrast is striking. The World Food Program can no longer deliver food aid to much of Liberia because its workers keep coming under attack by armed thugs. Liberian refugees have rushed by the hundreds of thousands into neighboring countries. Liberian mercenaries have ranged across West Africa, in search of new conflicts and attendant looting opportunities. Liberian enemy factions - the government of President Charles Taylor in one corner and rebels in another - have made deadly alliances with rebel leaders and heads of state in next-door Guinea and Ivory Coast. These are foul wars of revenge and greed. The misery they produce cannot be healed without ending the carnage in Liberia, analysts of the region agree.

But Liberia gets scant international attention. That negligence is a product of Liberia's peculiar history. The British took the lead in corralling international intervention for Sierra Leone, its former colony on this patch. The French have had 4,000 soldiers planted in Ivory Coast, its former colony. Liberia does not have a conventional colonial history. It was founded by freed American slaves in 1847; "the love of liberty brought us here," the Liberian coat of arms reads.

For nearly 150 years, Liberia remained a virtual American colony, and during the cold war it ranked among Washington's most useful allies. The memory of that strategic alliance sits on the outskirts of the capital. It is called the V.O.A. refugee camp, named after the Voice of America radio transmitter that once stood there. The United States has never recognized itself as an imperial power, let alone a colonial one. Even the title of "occupying power" is worn uncomfortably today in Iraq, where the now frayed term "liberator" has been the label of choice.

So America's former virtual colony seems to be nowhere near the top of Washington's priority list; in fact, not even on the Africa list. "The end of the cold war produced a strategic disengagement, and Liberia is Exhibit A in terms of the consequences," said Chester A. Crocker, the Reagan administration's point man on African affairs. "There isn't a sense of strategic interest or a sense of historic responsibility that makes us take a more forceful stand."

The International Crisis Group, a research and advocacy organization, calls Liberia "the eye of the regional storm." The United Nations high commissioner for refugees, Ruud Lubbers, on a swing through the region last week, called it the "epicenter" of the human crisis in West Africa. Mr. Lubbers described Liberia's predicament as an emblem of the world's inattention to the continent. "It is an icon of the problem," Mr. Lubbers said of Liberia, "the violence, the gross negligence of the international community."

The United States has been reluctant to endorse peacekeeping missions in Africa. But it has quietly supported the Sierra Leone war crimes court, which is investigating the role of the Liberian president in the conflict and suggests that it may indict him. The United States also gives military aid to Guinea, an ally of the rebel group now gunning for control of the Liberian capital. Rebels are said to control some 60 percent of Liberian territory. Fighting continues unabated.

The Liberian war's backdrop is international neglect. The relationship between Africa and the outside world has almost always been an unhappy one. A little more than 100 years ago, in the scramble for Africa, as it was called, the European powers sat down together to bargain and parcel out the continent's riches. Today, a mixture of self-interest and historic ties compels the British and French to re-engage in their former colonies. Perhaps they and the other traditional power in West Africa, the United States, should follow the lead of the 19th-century imperialists and sit down to bargain again. Only this time the object should not be to divide the spoils but to bring a measure of peace to this ravaged place.

----------

[Djinn Raffo]

from: ABC News

U.S. Planning for Intervention in Liberia

U.S. Military Commander in Europe Planning for American Intervention in Liberia

WASHINGTON July 3 —

The U.S. military commander in Europe has been ordered to begin planning for possible American intervention in Liberia, defense officials said Thursday.

Specifics on the number and types of U.S. troops are still to be worked out and approved by President Bush, two officials said. But a directive called a "warning order" was sent overnight to European commander Gen. James Jones, asking him to give the Pentagon his estimate of how the situation in the West African nation might be handled.

Bush is trying to decide how to respond to international pressure that he send up to 2,000 troops to help enforce a cease-fire in the country, wracked by fighting between forces loyal to President Charles Taylor and rebel groups trying to oust him.

Officials said a plan also is under consideration to send only a small group of troops as a show of interest and to protect the U.S. Embassy.

Some in the administration have suggested that a contingent of several dozen soldiers at the embassy in Monrovia along with stepped up diplomatic efforts might suffice. In line with that, one official said, U.S. officials said they are pressing the effort to get Taylor to leave the country.

Bush Wednesday repeated his call for Taylor to step down.

"One thing has to happen: Mr. Taylor needs to leave the country," Bush said. "In order for there to be peace and stability in Liberia, Charles Taylor needs to leave now."

Other military options are to send 500 to 1,000 Americans who might coordinate logistics for any peacekeeper mission, provide it with communications equipment, further evaluate the situations in Liberia, assist non-governmental organizations there and so on, two officials said.

Taking that role, rather than the lead in a peacekeeping force, would allow the United States to keep down the number of Americans required a major consideration with so many already deployed around the world for the war against terror and stabilization in Iraq.

Taylor has refused to leave office. A U.N.-backed court in neighboring Sierra Leone has indicted him for crimes against humanity for his backing of rebels in that country, where atrocities included hacking off victims' limbs.

Taylor told CBS Radio on Wednesday that U.S. troops would be welcomed his country, that he would be willing to leave Liberia in about three months and called for the United Nations war crimes charges against him to be dropped.

He said he was not sure if "asking the democratically elected president to leave is the solution, but I will leave," he said.

"Of course," Taylor added later, "that is subject to hearing what President Bush has to say."

Bush is under pressure make a decision before he visits Africa next week. The trip doesn't include a stop in Liberia, founded in 1847 by freed American slaves.

Secretary of State Colin Powell has talked a number of times in recent days to U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, who would like to see the United States lead a multinational peacekeeping force. African nations have offered 3,000 troops for such a force.

Besides Annan, France, Britain and both sides in Liberia's fighting also have pushed for an American role. In Washington, the Congressional Black Caucus also called on Powell to persuade the White House to intervene quickly.

Bush is reluctant to send troops purely as peacekeepers, officials have said, but might be more inclined if the troops were given a clear mission as part of a defined coalition. Besides that, the U.S. military has plenty on its plate without sending troops to Liberia.

More than 10,000 American troops are still working in and around Afghanistan, and nearly 150,000 troops are stationed in a violent and troubled postwar Iraq.

The current round of fighting in Liberia began three years ago as rebels began trying to oust Taylor, who won contested elections. Fighting killed hundreds of civilians in Monrovia just last month, and the war has displaced more than 1 million Liberians.

Because of the violence but apart from the question of U.S. peacekeepers several dozen U.S. Marines have for days been on standby at a Spanish military base in case they are needed for quick deployment as extra security at the U.S. Embassy in Monrovia or to evacuate Americans.

[johnny]

Here's what i don't understand. They offer Taylor refuge in Nigeria, but after looking at a list of Taylor's crimes, shouldn't he be brought to justice just like Saddam ?

[Donut]

Originally posted by johnny: Here's what i don't understand. They offer Taylor refuge in Nigeria, but after looking at a list of Taylor's crimes, shouldn't he be brought to justice just like Saddam ?

Saddam has been brought to justice??!! When did that happen?

[johnny]

Well, that's what they're TRYING to do, aren't they ? I'd hate to see someone like Taylor live like a king for the rest of his life like Idi Amin for example. He found refuge in Saudi arabia, and has nothing to worry about. That's not right. Saddam is being hunted down, and so should these characters, instead of letting them walk away with it.