U.S. hypocrisy has no place in Liberia

As a proud African male, I am indeed saddened by the violent
battles that have ravaged Liberia. But as I watched former
President Charles Taylor exit the country on a jet headed for
asylum in Nigeria, I could not help but experience split
emotions.

On one hand, I felt a great sense of optimism for the future of
Liberia and the continent of Africa as whole. I also take a great
deal of pride that peace became a real possibility prior to any
direct involvement from U.S. or European troops.

But on the other hand, the lack of international involvement
also causes feelings of suspicion. Why didn’t the United
States deploy peacekeeping troops until after the fact? Liberia has
been fully engulfed in its most recent civil war for over a decade,
but the United States waited until Taylor left the country and the
rebels began to withdraw before sending military aid.

Even as various prominent activists, such as Jesse Jackson and
Maxine Waters, demanded the United States send peacekeeping
regiments, the Bush administration remained largely apathetic.
Although the White House eventually sent several staffed fleets of
naval ships to the area, they remained distant from the Liberian
coast, awaiting action only in the limited case of providing
emergency escape assistance to Americans and other foreign
parties.

Finally, on Aug. 14 as the rebels began to depart, about 200
Marines landed in Monrovia to help repair and police the ravaged
city. While the assistance is appreciated, one wonders if it is not
too little, too late.

Why did the United States remain so uninvolved with the events
in Liberia, especially considering our current program of regime
change and democracy installation throughout the world? It is my
opinion that special interest dictates American policy. In
particular, there must be a compelling economic advantage for
politicians and corporate executives to justify military
involvement in any region. Given that scenario, Liberia fails to
provide an attractive target for the American ruling caste.

Or does it? It must be understood that Liberia was established
in the mid-1800s by the United States (through the American
Colonization Society) for a very precise reason. Liberia was to be
a dumping ground for formerly enslaved Africans whose presence in
America was no longer desired by whites, particularly white
slaveholders. Some people believed the African people were becoming
a dangerous element in colonial society because they could not
co-exist with whites.

Thus, the creation of the nation of Liberia. Of course the
United States paid no attention to the fact the area was already
occupied by indigenous people who had been there for centuries.
This reality is vitally important when understanding the historic
and contemporary instances of civil war in Liberia, which was
caused in large part by American-instigated strife between
repatriated Africans from America and indigenous groups.

But Liberia did not remain just a dumping ground. U.S. interest
in the area expanded to include the country’s natural material
wealth. Although the area has available oil, Liberia and its
neighbor and fellow European creation, Sierra Leone, also have an
abundance of valuable jewels such as diamonds. For decades, forces
have been fighting in the region over the control of diamond mines.
As a result, places like Liberia and Sierra Leone have been the
scene of some of the most brutal fighting in Africa.

One of the prime reasons the United States and its ally,
Britain, have chosen to look the other way is because those
“conflict diamonds” continue to find their way into the
hands of American and British corporations at cheap rates, allowing
those businesses to make great profit and fortunes from jewelry
sales.

So, why did the United States refuse to commit peacekeeping
troops to Liberia? The answer is simply that the conflict in
Liberia did not threaten the interest of the United States and its
European allies. In fact, it has actually benefited them ““
first, as a place to send an unwanted portion of society, and more
recently as a valuable resource for precious gems at bargain prices
from warring rebel groups.

There will be those who will point out the involvement of the
United States in Somalia in 1993 as evidence against my assertions
about American military policy. However, the United States had and
continues to have great selfish interest in the Horn of Africa
region, as its recent building of a base in Djibouti proves. The
intervention of the American troops against a Somali military
leader, which became famous in the movie “Black Hawk
Down,” was done in large part out of concern that instability
in the region would handicap U.S. access to the Middle East through
eastern Africa ““ not for humanitarian reasons.

Does the United States deserve applause for finally sending a
small military contingent to Liberia at this late date? Should they
even be there at all? I say no. In fact, the United States should
be held liable for their role in creating and instigating the
conditions of war within the very country it created.

I am pleased with the leadership Nigeria and other African
nations have shown in bringing peace to its fellow west African
nation. As African people we need to work independently from the
colonial powers to solve our own problems and heal our own people.
Like the invasion and occupation in Iraq has shown, the United
States is a country operated on gross and vicious hypocrisy. Such a
government has no place on the African continent.

Barnes is a fourth-year African American Studies
student.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *