Paul Staines ponders the grim events unfolding in Liberia and wonders who is going to support what action… if any
The Left seems strangely quiet about Liberia. Bad things are happening in that inappropiately named land, Liberians themselves are calling for intervention – US intervention. Various European foreign ministries hint that they think US intervention might be a ‘good thing’.
The UN offices and food programs have come under attack form Liberian government forces. UN Secretary General Kofi Annan urges the Security Council to dispatch a multinational intervention force to Liberia to prevent ‘a humanitarian catastrophe’. Annan hinted a strongly worded letter to the Security Council president, that this should be led by the United States. He also said it should be authorised under chapter Vll of the UN Charter which permits the use of force to restore order. (Why didn’t we use that in Iraq?)
Even France urged Washington to take the lead on military intervention in Liberia. The Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), which is brokering peace talks between the Liberian government and rebels in the Ghanaian capital Accra, has also urged the United States to take a leading role in the dispatch of peacekeepers.
French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin, said during a visit to Ghana on Saturday that Britain and France had “assumed their responsibilities” in two of Liberia’s neighbours, Sierra Leone and Cote d’Ivoire, where they had led recent military interventions to halt civil war. Villepin said it was now time for the United States to do the same in Liberia, which was founded by freed American slaves in the early 19th century.
The Left here faces a tricky dilemma – unable as ‘anti-imperialists’ to ever give the US the benefit of the doubt they prefer, I suspect, to let Liberia go up in flames rather than sanction a US led intervention.
Paul Staines
Oh, I’ve heard the left here actively deriding the US for not going into Liberia. The criticism (!) is that Bush is only interested in fighting countries that are relevant to the war on terrorism. Because that’s, like, so selfish.
Remember the Clinton Doctrine: it’s okay to send the military into a region – for compassionate missions – provided the US has no strategic or economic interests in the area. That is, it’s okay to fight if you have no conceivable reason to do so. Except altruism.
Liberia’s got quagmire written all over it.
Going into Liberia would be rather daft. Africa doesn’t want the US so why they hell should we help them? There is no strategic interest there, so why meddle?
Why the US ? Is it the only country in the world ? Why not, say, India, China, Brazil, Canada ? They are all enthusiastic members of the UN, aren’t they ?
Whenever anything needs to be done everybody (meaning Anan and the likes) adresses the US. And when the US sometimes does intervene it gets condemned by all the do-gooders.
I have not the faintest doubt in my mind that if the USG did decide to intervene in Liberia, the very same people who are begging for that intervention now will suddenly start howling like scalded banshees about ‘American imperialism’ and ‘Bush is worse than Hitler’ etc etc ad nauseum.
Quagmire? In Africa? You must be joking. When the Brits or French intervene in Africa, they go in with a battalion or two, kick the living shit out of whoever caused them to go there in the first place, prop up/change/adjust the government in the country in question and then leave.
Guess this really proves that the euro-weenies really are weenies, doesn’t it!!!
Let them go in there, just as the french have in the Congo and screw it up royally whilst we sit and giggle at them…serve them right !!
“Quagmire? In Africa? You must be joking.”
No Perry. Unfortunately he may be serious. That may end up being the problem in Iraq too, but not from the Fedeyeen. The problem is all the civilian civil ‘servants’ who inhabit the US government. There are too many of them and the poor things need something to do. One can’t just march into a country and kick some ass. There are health concerns, educational concerns, equality concerns, economic welfare concerns, ecologic concerns, employment concerns, pollution abatement concerns, infrastructure concerns…do I have to go on, or are you getting the picture?
There was a tremendous difference between the Vietnamese refugees and the Cambodian refugees who came to the US after the war. To their credit, most of the Vietnamese were able to throw off the influence of “Uncle Sugar” after a couple of years, but it was apparent back in 1975 and 1976. The Cambodians, who had never had contact with US goverment assistance, were much more self reliant when they first got here. Perhaps Ho Chi Minh actually saved us from the real quagmire. If we had ‘won’ we might still be there today, worrying about intractable unemployment, drug and crime problems in the Southeast asian ghettos.
The US can’t send troops to Liberia, that would be imperialism, and then the Europeans would hate us and say bad things about us and draw cartoons with Uncle Sam’s foot on the neck of an African, but then, of course, if it’s okay with Kofi then, well, maybe it’s not imperialism, maybe the BBC should take a poll. Yeah, that’s the ticket, a world opinion poll by the BBC and the UN that should be what sets US foreign policy! Whew, just when I thought we might get spit on again, I guess these troops aren’t going to be babykillers like those troops in Iraq but that, of course, is imperialism because its not okay with Kofi and the BBC and European idiot opinionmakers.
500 to 1000 troops, with a declaration as early as tomorrow morning. Most interesting.
500 to 1000 troops is a terrible idea. If we send troops in, there should be enough to be overwhelming or none at all. I know our people are good. I am not questioning that at all. But Custers men were undoubtedly skilled Indian fighters and Civil War veterans too. If the enemy is a little better equipped and trained than you thought – and much more numerous – however skilled you are, you can still have a very bad day.
I think one of the more instructive comparisons that can be made in recent history is between the Beirut incursions of Dwight Eisenhower and Ronald Reagan. Eisenhower’s may not even be remembered by many because it was successful and uneventful. It was also made by at least a full Division strength task force. Reagan’s was made by what was called at the time, incorrectly, a “Token Force”. Incorrectly because a token is supposed to represent something else. There was nothing else there. As I recall, the truck bombing of the barracks was only the most spectacular of a number of disasters. And unlike Ike’s operation, which restored Beirut to its status as the ‘Paris of the Middle East’, Reagan’s, for all its good intention, left Beirut as more of an East Berlin or at best a South side Chicago.
The Americans may not be able to intervene in Liberia, even if they wanted to. According to an analysis posted at U.S.S. Clueless, the U.S. Army is maxed out right now, what with its commitments in Iraq, Afganistan, South Korea, and the Balkans. They may have to activate National Guard divisons to cover for regular Army divisons when they rotate out of the field for (badly needed) R+R.
If the UN invitation for the US to intervene in Liberia is agreed by the interested State, there won’t be no-one deploring US imperialism for there wouldn’t be any.
If the US turns down the UN sollicitation, then another (other) candidate(s) or must be singled out and a working solution envisaged.
There’s nothing wrong about that. It’s just a legal, collective, sound approach of problem-solving & team-working.
Kodiak.
Kodiak has this delusional notion that the UN is a source of moral authority. The UN is an association of murderers, tyrants and kleptocrats. This is the body which elected Libya as the head of its human rights arm.
An association of nation-states is as much a source of moral sanction as an association of mafia family bosses.
Going back to an earlier thread – privatize the country. Issue an Invitation to Tender to run the place for say 20 years. Even route it through the UN. The US and Japan offer to pick up the tab (although I maintain it would be self-funding). That would send the UN into a socialist spin and they would spit the dummy. Then go ahead and do it anyway.
Dear Perry,
It’s not Kodiak who has it, but the 195-or-so signatory States, perhaps including a vast majority of their population.
And it’s not moral, but legal authority >>> YOUR COUNTRY SIGNED IN…
I know Libya as human rights watchdog is not the ideal configuration any one would dream of. But that’s a start… Libya lately moved towards further integration to normality (even she’s still bargaining with immigrants influxes between Great Syrta & Lampedusa).
Well, I don’t think my country is governed by maffia.
Perry: be nice & optimistic.
Assess the real progress compared with what the world looked like just 20 years ago.
It’s not because we’ve got different views that I am the devil or an idiot…
I don’t eat Anglo-Saxon babies for my breakfast…
Humanity and hope are two very similar things, aren’t they?
😉
Le meilleur est toujours pour demain.
Kodiak.
Kodiak: Why should the fact 195-or-so Mafia Capos get together and sign something make me more impressed? Legal does not equal moral. I do not give a phuk about legal when it clashes with moral… in fact to do something which is legal but immoral is objectively wrong whilst doing something moral which is illegal is objectively right. Legal issues when divorced from moral issues are simply acts of politics and politics is about force. Nation-states are not moral entities, they are at just political entities, so why on earth should the fact ‘my’ country (by which you mean state) signed something matter a hoot to me?
States are exactly like Mafia protection rackets… they ‘protect’ you even if you do not what them to and use force against you if you try to stop paying for those unwanted services.
Perry,
Your personal views are fine. Nobody wants you to be impressed by something you don’t like.
I agree that if a collectivity passes a law decreeing that bullying the elderly is from now on deemed a regular behaviour that’s on top of that granted total impunity, it is immoral, yet legal.
The legality prevailing in such a sick community would just be something grotesque.
Does the UN ressemble this kind of mad assembly above-described?
Politics is not only force, but vision too.
If it were just about force, small & smart countries would be wipped out.
Ideas & convinction play also a role.
Look at Norway, South Africa, Lebanon.
You may opt to be distinguished from the State on the territory of which your main residence happen to be built on. Thats’ your right as conscious human being.
That doesn’t mean this mentally, historically, politically superstructures called States are shits as such.
It’s just that you’ve got troubles to cope with their existence & their influence.
A State is not exactly a supermarket where you can buy pensions or maternities or health care or voting rights or legislation as you want them. You can’t call the manager to complain about the clerk who isn’t diligent enough to provide you with mysteriously due services as you would with a help desk line.
You’re not supposed to be a consumer yelling for a yes or shouting for a no. You’re a citizen expected to behave in harmony for the common good.
Mein Gott!!!
That was absolutely socialist (I hope I won’t be forced to denounce my family & friends to the next sheriff).
Kodiak.
“If the UN invitation for the US to intervene in Liberia is agreed by the interested State, there won’t be no-one deploring US imperialism for there wouldn’t be any.”
Bullshit. Even if the UN begs the US to sort out Liberia, there will be plenty of bitching from the usual suspects about how the US is being imperialistic.
Let us not forget, after all, that the UN passed a resolution authorizing the US to get rid of Saddam Hussein. The terms of that resolution were clearly understood to not require any further UN action, and it was never repealed. The US intervention in Iraq was nothing more than the enforcement of an existing UN resolution. Did that stop anyone from bitching about the US imperialists when we enforced the resolution? Not that I know of. It certainly hasn’t stopped Kodiak from bitching about it.
Sorry. x-posted with Kodiak. A few remarks:
“Does the UN ressemble this kind of mad assembly above-described?”
Pretty much, yeah. It put one of the worst human rights violators in charge of the human rights commission, put one of the worst WMD proliferators in charge of the non-proliferation comission, and its most prominent activity, judging by numbers of resolutions, is condemning the only free nation in the mideast.
“Ideas & convinction play also a role.
Look at Norway, South Africa, Lebanon.”
Norway – whatever. Wake me up when Norway makes a difference in the world.
South Africa – rapidly heading into the toilet with a catastrophic crime rate, stunning official corruption, and a genuinely insane policy for dealing with one of the world’s worst AIDS epidemics.
Lebanon – sorry, Kodiak, Lebanon is not really an independent nation anymore. It is a Syrian satrapy, and probably not the best example of small nations prevailing over stronger nations through the quality of their opera companies, or whatever point you were trying to make.
“You’re a citizen expected to behave in harmony for the common good.”
The battle cry of totalitarian butchers everywhere. Pol Pot would be proud.
To follow up on T. Hartin’s excellent posts: what happens when some Nigerian soldiers (nominally under US command) commit “atrocities” in Liberia? Are we all headed for the ICC? I just think we need to think about the legal (as well as moral) implications of this action.
Perhaps the left is still trying to find evidence that Exxon has plans to build a pipeline from Nigeria to Liberia. Once they have the goods, then they’ll speak up.
T. Hartin,
I decidedly fall in love with your so incredibly French propension to overstate what’s even unstatable.
The UN begs (???!!!…) the US >>> have a joint if you want but please stop chimerise about your personal fantasies et come back to plain reality: US belongs to UN, final dot.
I promise on my devilish, Froggish, unAnglo-Saxonish, unprivatisedish soul that I won’t bark at the excellent Mr Bush if this mean Texan strictly abides to the mandate he’s about to be given by his boss: Koffi Annan.
Oh by the way: do you have any news about the umpteenth UN resolution enjoining the US appendix called Israël to behave in a more civilised fashion?
T. Hartin,
1/ “It put one of the worst human rights violators” >>> are your referring to Powell or to Bush?
2/ “Norway – whatever. Wake me up when Norway makes a difference in the world” >>> is this stance typical of the US ability to make new friends before you could say Jack Robinson?
3/ Lebanon may be governed by a disgusting satrap. But this excellent people have at least 5 different religions (including atheism), speak at least 6 different languages (including Fr of course, & Engl accessorily…) & are friend of at least 80% of the States of the world >>> not exactly like the uniformised US…
4/ What can I reply to the last (& least!) sentence? Well, I wish you the merriest happiness.
Kodiak.
KELLI! FOR HEAVEN SAKE!…
The posts by T. Hartin are NOT excellent.
Kodiak.
Kodiak,
Pardonnez-moi, mon ami, but T. has made some excellent hits today.
I am quite certain he did not wish to dismiss Norway as flippantly as it came across–they are excellent whale hunters and as such greatly admired around the world:) Overrated creatures, anyway.
We can probably all agree that, as there is no properly functioning Liberian state, no one there has “invited” the US in. Kofi Annan’s position is akin to someone who invites friends in to someone else’s house while they are away on vacation. Poor manners indeed.
Now, would anyone care to answer my question? The Nigerians have a terrible reputation for violating human rights (as though this were unique in Africa). If we go into Liberia with them, are we to be held accountable for their behavior? And in a related question (I’m full of them today!) has anyone noticed that “human rights groups” are already up in arms because Bush is hinting that if Taylor leaves the country he will not be brought before an international tribunal? Jesus Christ! Have these people no sense?
Now, Kodiak, I await your response with breathless anticipation.
Kelli, don’t be cruel to me…
About the Annan’s invitation, the illustration is striking, yet unconvincing.
No-one on Earth is ready to almagamate a regular army as the US army & Nigerian soldatesque… Not even the Frogs.
Kodiak.