Articles
by Arthur
Dennis
How
The Factions Betrayed Their Cause in The
Liberian Civil War
By:
Arthur B. Dennis
This article is in two parts. The first
part deals with the principle of just
cause and how it applies to civil war;
and the second part reflects on how the
warring factions betrayed their cause
in the just-ended civil war in Liberia.
Part
l
Principle
of Just Cause
Just
cause, by definition, is the justifiable
ground for resorting to war. The principle
of just cause grew out of the just war
theory of jus ad bellum (meaning, the
justification for resorting to war), a
theory credited to Hugo Grotius, the Father
of International Law. Grotius second theory
of just war is "jus in bello"
(or conduct of war in accordance with
the rules of war); while the third theory
is jus post bellum (or justice and peace
after war). Grotius listed a number of
grounds that constitute a just war, but
modern-day human rights advocates believe
that the grounds for resorting to a civil
war must be limited to (a) self-defense,
and (b) social justice, a broad term covering
political, socio-economic, educational,
legal, and democratic and other human
rights issues in society. Human rights
advocates also argue that the credible
ground for self-defense in every life-threatening
situation is clear and real danger, while
the ground for social justice is good
faith.
In
a just war, a faction fighting in the
cause of self-defense or social justice
can be indicted for war crimes, but no
faction can be indicted for starting or
participating in any just war for either
of the cause. For instance, if a government
persecutes an ethnic group for the misbehavior
of few members, and other members of that
ethnic group take up arms in self-defense,
causing civil war to break up, their ground
is justified in the cause of self-defense.
And if the government takes action to
contain the situation, that is also a
cause since every government has a duty
to maintain peace and security.
Similarly,
as Herman Kelman rightly puts it: "in
a healthy democratic society, there is
time to obey, and there is time disobey,
a time to say yes, and a time to say no,
a time to speak in words, and a time to
speak in actions." In other words,
if the citizens' demand for social justice
falls on deaf ears, and they decide to
speak in action, causing civil war to
break up, they have a cause. If the government
takes action to restore peace, that is
also a cause. In any of the cases, both
parties are only required to respect the
rules of war.
The Nigerian civil war involves a classical
case of self-defense, while the American
civil war and the Liberian Sasstown civil
war involve a real-world case of social
justice.
Self-Defense:
A Case of Nigerian Civil War
The
Nigerian civil war, which started July
2, 1967, grew out of the January 15, 1966
military coup staged by Ibo junior officers
from Eastern Region. In that coup, they
killed politicians and senior military
officers mostly from the Northern Region,
and later turned the affairs of state
to General J. Aguiyi Ironsi (also an Ibo).
On July 29, 1966, junior officers from
the Northern Region staged a counter-coup
in revenge, killing General Ironsi and
many senior Ibo officers from the East.
Later, they turned the affairs of state
to General Yakabu Gown, a moderate Northerner.
The northerners started killing the Ibos
by the hundreds daily not only in the
military but every where in the country,
forcing thousands of other Ibos to flee
to the Eastern Region where Col. Odemuwu
Ojukwu (also an Ibo) was governor. Having
failed to get security protection under
the Federal Government, the Ibos, on May
30, 1967 broke away and declared a state
of Biafria. The Federal Government fought
back and civil war broke up.
On January 10, 1970, General Phillip Effiong,
speaking for the Ibos in his surrender
speech, said "throughout history,
injured people had to resort to arms in
their self-defense, and we are no exception.
Because of the insecurity generated by
the events of 1966, we took up arms and
fought in defense of that cause.".
For
his part, General Yakubu Gowon, accepting
the surrender, said: "the primary
objective of the Federal Government in
the war was to preserve the territorial
integrity and unity of Nigeria."
Meaning, the two parties in the war had
a cause.
Social
Justice: A Case of American Civil War
The
American civil war, which started, April
12, 1861, grew out of the issue of slavery.
The institution of slavery was introduced
in the United States to provide cheap
labor in order to boost the American economy.
But in the years that followed, the North
wanted slavery to be abolished on humanitarian
ground, while the South wanted slavery
to be maintained on economic ground. At
that time, the South depended largely
on agriculture and cotton plantation for
economic survival. And so for the South,
slavery was not only a means of cheap
labor but also a major source of economic
power.
In
the 1860 presidential elections, slavery
became a major electoral issue. The Republican
Candidate Abraham Lincoln's platform called
for non-expansion of slavery, while the
Democratic Candidate Stephen A. Douglas'
platform called for popular sovereignty,
advocating that the people, not the Federal
Government, should decide the question
of slavery in their own state. The South
supported Douglas platform and hoped he
would win so slavery could be maintained.
But on November 6, 1860 Lincoln defeated
Douglas. On December 20, 1860, South Carolina
broke away from the Union followed by
other Southern states at which time they
formed the Confederate States of America.
The Federal Government fought back to
preserve the Union and civil war broke
up.
On
April 29, 1861, the Confederate President
Jefferson Davis said: "We feel that
our cause is just and holy; we protest
solemnly in the face of mankind that we
desire peace at any sacrifice;; we ask
no conquest, no aggrandizement, no concession;;
all we ask is to be left alone…."
That was the Confederate's cause in the
war
For
his part, President Abraham Lincoln said
"the vision of our Founding Fathers
is for us to form a more perfect Union.
Therefore, my dissatisfied fellow countrymen,
you have no oath registered in Heaven
to destroy this Union, but I am under
solemn oath to preserve, protect, and
defend it. That was the Union's cause
in the war.
Social
Justice: A Case of Liberian Sasstown Civil
War
The
Sasstown civil war, which started 1931,
grew out of the Sasstown Kru rebellion
against the Liberian Government in demand
of social justice. The grievances at the
top of the list included Taxation without
representation (that is, paying taxes
to a government that had no room for indigenous
population). and (b) Taxation without
development in returns. The government
under Edwin J. Barclay dispatched troops
to contain the rebellion, and civil war
broke up. In the end, the soldiers brought
down the rebellion, forcing the ring leaders
and other high-profile players to flee
the country. Meaning, the Krus had a cause,
and the government also had a cause.
A
War of Just Cause
 |
|
|
Samuel
Doe
|
|
The
Liberian civil war, which started December
24, 1989, began with two rival factions,
each claiming a cause. The Gio-Mano dominated
National Patriotic Forces of Liberia (NPFL)
led by Charles Taylor, which initiated
the war, claimed that President Samuel
K. Doe rigged the 1985 elections and abused
fundamental human rights of citizens (apparent
reference to the mistreatment of Gios,
Manos and Americo-Liberians under the
Doe regime); as such, President Doe should
step down. At the opposing end was the
government of President Doe, which claimed
that it was defending the country in accordance
with the constitution. Both parties had
a cause and the necessary sympathy for
their cause. But in the years that followed,
the conflict degenerated into an ethnic
warfare, creating over ten other splinter
factions, each claiming a cause. And as
each faction emerged in the war, people
would sympathize with their cause and
cheer for them.
During
the first round of the civil war (December
1989-August 1997), the warring ethnic
groups that played a high-profile role
were the Gios and Manos supported by the
Americo-Liberians who fought under the
banner of NPFL; the Krahns who fought
under the banners of AFL, LPC, and ULIMO-J;
and the Mandingoes who later went solo
and fought under the banner ULIMO-K. During
the second round of the war( 2000-2003),
the factions that played a high-profile
role were Taylor's Government forces,
the LURD (comprising mostly Krahns and
Mandingoes), and MODEL (largely comprising
Krahns).
Gio
and Mano Ethnic Groups: The Gio and
Mano people took up arms in self-defense
against collective guilt persecution under
President Doe government. It started from
the 1983 Nimba raid where Captain Robert
Saye and other prominent Nimba citizens
were killed. And because Captain Saye
and others involved were from the Gio
and Mano ethnic groups, collective guilt
arrest was made but not on a large scale.
On
November 12, 1985, General Thomas Quiwonkpa
staged a failed coup where he and several
of his supporters were killed. But because
General Quiwonkpa and most of his collaborators
were from the Gio and Mano tribes, the
government loyalists went on a rampage
and started indiscriminately arresting
Gio and Mano elements on a large scale,
forcing thousands others to flee the country
into exile. Those who remained in the
country lived in constant fears until
the NPFL, comprising mostly Gio and Mano
exiles, started the war in Nimba. But
the way the government forces aggressively
responded to the NPFL attack in Nimba
intensified the fears of local citizens
and drove most of them to either flee
the country or join NPFL in self-defense.
Krahn
Ethnic Group. The Krahn-speaking population
in Liberia consists of Grand Gedeh Krahn,
Nimba Krahn, and Sinoe County Sarpo Krahn.
The entire Krahn-speaking population was
drawn into the war based on the sentiment
of collective guilt, starting from the
days of the 1980 military coup.
The
enlisted soldiers who staged the 1980
coup came from various ethnic backgrounds
of the country. During the night of the
coup, Master Sergeant Samuel K. Doe was
the highest-ranking officer among them
and so they appointed him to head the
military government. But because Doe was
an ethnic Krahn, the sentiment that surfaced
in the streets was that the Krahn people
seized power in a military coup.
In
the months that followed, the military
officials and the civilian cabinet took
a joint decision and executed thirteen
former government officials, mostly Americo-Liberians.
But the sentiment that followed the execution
was that the Krahn people killed thirteen
Americo-Liberians. Today, this sentiment
is still hunting the whole Krahn population.
When
the government security forces were dispatched
to contain the1983 Nimba raid where some
Nimba citizens were killed, the sentiment
that followed was the Krahns killed Nimba
people. Again when President Samuel K.
Doe and General Thomas Quiwonkpa were
having a misunderstanding over some assignment,
the sentiment in the street corners was
the Krahns and Nimba people were fighting
over power.
When
the government security forces foiled
the November 12, 1985 coup in Monrovia
where General Quiwonkpa and several Nimba
citizens were killed, an incident which
was followed by mass witch-hunting arrests,
the blame for all the human rights violations
in that crisis was placed squarely on
the head of the entire Krahn-speaking
population.
In
other words, during the ten-year period
of President Doe's regime, every negative
thing he did in his official or private
capacity, the blame would be on Krahn
people ; every negative thing the Doe
government officials or security forces
did, the blame would be on Krahn people.
And because President Doe was a Krahn
man targeted by the NPFL for elimination
in the war, the entire Krahn-speaking
population was also targeted for elimination
in the war. It was this persecution based
on collective guilt that compelled thousands
of ethnic Krahns to either flee the country
or take up arms in self- defense.
Mandingo
Ethnic Group: Before the war, the
Mandingoes were the most marginalized
minority ethnic group in the country.
For this reason, close to 100 per cent
of the Mandingo people in the pre-war
years focused their living entirely on
business with little or no interest in
government jobs. The U.S. State Department
even commented on this issue in its 1998
Human Rights Report.
However,
what we eye-witnessed and what we gathered
from several sources led us to believe
that the Mandingoes were marginalized
based on three fundamental moral grounds.
Firstly, the Mandingoes share common language
and common religion with several ethnic
groups in Guinea, Ivory Coast, Mali, and
other Muslim states; and because of this
commonality, most Liberians at the time
perceived them to be foreigners. Secondly,
in the pre-war years, over 80 per cent
of the country was composed of believers
of Christianity, while close to 100 per
cent of the Mandingo population was composed
of believers of Islam; and because the
doctrines of Islam are diametrically opposed
to the doctrines of Christianity, most
Liberians at the time perceived Islam
to be a foreign religion imported by the
Mandingoes to decimate Christianity.
The
third moral ground has to do with their
opposition to inter-tribal marriage. Before
the war, nearly every Mandingo family
in the country was rigidly governed by
the age-old Muslim tradition, prohibiting
marriage or romantic relationship between
Muslim believers and non-Muslim believers.
In those days "Karflee was the term
used in Mandingo language to describe
a non- Muslim believer.
However,
if a Mandingo man wanted to openly date
or get married to a Karflee, he could
do so but was required to first convert
her into a Muslim. Only Mandingo women
could not be seen in public in those days
openly dating or marrying Karflees, a
practice which did not go down well with
most citizens. Even in one of the reconciliation
meetings held in Nimba at the end of the
war in 1997, the Gio and Mano attendees
were very vocal on this issue. In response,
a Mandingo elder got up and said, if inter-tribal
marriage will bring peace between the
Mandingoes and the local people in Nimba,
then I have three daughters, any Gio or
Mano man who wants to marry any of them,
let him go ahead. The entire attendees
burst into laughter. Anyway, these were
the pre-war issues held against the Mandingoes.
During
the early period of the war, the Mandingoes
met with President Doe in Monrovia and
Ganta and pledged their loyalty and support
to his government in the war. Soon thereafter,
the Mandingoes in Nimba and elsewhere
started coming under full-scale attack
by the NPFL, killing several of them and
forcing others to flee the country. In
the end, most of them formed an alliance
with the Krahns under the banner of ULIMO
and took up arms in self-defense.
The
reason for attacking Mandingoes in the
war is mixed. During the war, some NPFL
loyalists told us in confidence that Mandingoes
were business people with money; and so
their pledge of loyalty and support was
not only a pledge of alliance with President
Doe but also a pledge of funds for President
Doe to finance the war. In contrast, other
NPFL sources claimed that the reason was
based partly on the pre-war issues against
the Mandingoes aggravated by the pledge
of loyalty and support. However, as far
as the principles of just war are concerned,
none of the reasons given constitues a
credible ground to target any unarmed
civilian. Therefore, the attack on the
Mandingoes was totally unjustified and
so they had every righteous cause to self-defense.
Americo-Liberians:
During the period of the war, we heard
several voices of Americo-Liberians over
BBC and foreign televisions cheering for
Taylor; and we read several publications
bearing names of certain Americo-Liberians
supporting the NPFL with funds. We also
heard some Americo-Liberian voices on
the airwaves supporting the NPFL cause,
accusing President Doe of rigging the
1985 elections, and abusing the fundamental
human rights of citizens, as such, he
should step down.
On
the surface, that was the stated cause.
But deep down underneath, the real unstated
cause was the execution of the thirteen
government officials, mostly Americo-Liberians;
the confiscation of their property, the
witch-hunting arrest and detention that
followed; and the scare tactics used by
the military government which drove hundreds
of other Americo-Liberians into exile.
Even if the Americo-Liberians had openly
stated these issues as their cause, under
the clear and real danger standard, their
cause would have still been a legitimate
ground to claim self-defense or social
justice.
Because
there are no provisions under the Uniform
Code of Military Justice or the Constitution,
providing that people should be executed
by firing squad and their property confiscated
on guilty charges of rampant corruption
and misuse of public office as alleged
by the military government. The military
leaders should have used their popular
support to foster peace and national reconciliation,
and not to have done what they did.
Part
II
How
the Warring Factions Betrayed their Cause
in the War
We
have seen that all the factions had a
cause in the war and had the necessary
public sympathy to support their cause.
But sadly, this sympathy died before the
war even ended. The reasons are obvious.
First, the war crimes committed in the
war by these factions targeted their enemies
as well as their own supporters and those
they claimed they had come to liberate.
Secondly, the daily alarm raised over
the indiscriminate looting of the nation's
natural resources in the controlled areas
of these factions fell on deaf ears throughout
the period of the war. Thirdly, several
faction leaders used the cause of their
followers to pursue their own political
ambitions, thereby turning the whole crisis
into a drama of "Animal Farm."
For
example, in the first few days of his
BBC interviews in the war, Charles Taylor
made it emphatically clear that he was
not interested in power but only wanted
President Doe to step down. But in the
months that followed, he started proclaiming
himself President of Liberia, and did
not relent until he became President.
Meaning, Taylor's demand for social change
was made to pursue power, not for the
cause of his followers.
 |
|
|
Alhaji
Kromah
|
|
Alhaji
Kromah, leader of the ULIMO-K, also initially
proclaimed that he was not interested
in power but only wanted Taylor to abandon
the armed struggle and turn to the ballot
box. But later, he too abandoned his promise
and engaged in power-sharing struggle
for membership on the five-man presidency.
George Boley, leader of the Liberian Peace
Council (LPC) made similar promise but
later compromised it for membership on
the five-man presidency. During the 2000-
2003 war, leaders of LURD and MODEL also
made the same promise but later joined
the power struggle for positions in the
current Transitional government. And fourthly,
the rampant corruption and looting of
public property in government, while civil
servants went unpaid for years.
Concluding
Comments
At
the end every civil war, the first task
of every government is to formulate the
appropriate reconciliation strategies
and policies that will guarantee lasting
post-war stability. For example, at the
end of the civil war in the United States
in 1865, no one was held responsible for
the war, and no one was tried. Instead,
all participants of the civil war were
granted general amnesty under the reconciliation
slogan "with malice towards none,
and charity for all…." The post-war
stability achieved from the 1865 general
amnesty is 140 years old today and has
created the necessary environment for
the American people to realize the dream
of their Founding Fathers-"TO FORM
A MORE PERFECT UNION…."
Nigeria
also used the same general amnesty to
achieve post-war stability. At the end
of the war in January 1970, no one was
held responsible for the war, and no one
was tried. Instead, all those who participated
in the war were granted general amnesty
under the reconciliation policy of "No
victor, no vanquished with a call that
the end of the war was a victory for reconciliation
and national unity." Today, Nigeria's
post-war stability is 35 years old and
still on solid ground.
The
27 years of political stability achieved
under President Tubman also developed
from the general amnesty he granted players
of the 1931 Sasstown civil war. Before
Tubman assumed office in January 1944,
most of the Sasstown Krus, who started
the 1931 war, were in exile while others
were still languishing in prison. And
so he granted general amnesty to all participants
of that war under the reconciliation slogan
"No more native man, no more congo
man, and no more pay back. The lesson
of the Sasstown war gave rise to the Unification
Policy; and the Unification Policy ushered
in the government of national unity which
paved the way for the indigenous population
to be represented in the national legislature
and other branches of government.
The
Truth and Reconciliation Commission, which
calls for truth-telling in exchange for
forgiveness, was used by South Africa
to achieve post-apartheid stability, while
Rwanda and Sierra Leone are still experimenting
with the war crime tribunal strategy.
However,
the sustained post-war stability in America,
Nigeria, South Africa, and Liberia under
President Tubman, was not achieved through
a hard-handed policy of an eye-for-an
eye. Rather, it was achieved through a
soft-handed policy of forgiveness. Therefore,
we should adopt either the Truth and Reconciliation
Commission Model used by South Africa
or we adopt the General Amnesty Model
used by United States, Nigeria, and Liberia
under President Tubman. And whatever model
we agree to adopt will cover only war
crimes committed in Liberia but not war
crimes committed in foreign states. The
fate of Liberians who exported war into
those foreign states where such war crimes
were committed will be determined by the
International War Crime Court. THE
END
