In Defense of Charles Taylor: Perspectives from Liberia

It is beyond my imagination that anyone would believe the president of Liberia would go into Sierra Leone because he wants to terrorize the people and take their wealth.

That was Liberian warlord-turned-president Charles Taylor testifying at The Hague this week for his role in the Sierra Leonean civil war, a conflict that raged for 11 years and claimed nearly 50,000 lives. Taylor has been alternately cogent and bombastic in his own defense. Not surprisingly, the more lurid details from the trial have provided the most popular grist for the media mill both in Liberia and abroad (see, for example, coverage in the New York Times, ABC, and the Liberian Analyst). With every headline, the charges that Taylor ridicules as beyond the imagination seem only more irrefutable, his crimes more outrageous and cruel.

Meanwhile, to many Liberians, Taylor remains a hero. For foreigners like myself, this is not an easy thing to understand. At times, his popularity seems a byproduct of his savagery. During the Liberian civil war, recruits for Taylor's National Patriotic Front of Liberia (NPFL) were often heard chanting a grim refrain: "He killed my ma, he killed my pa, I'll fight for him." A decade later, this mystique has not dissipated in many pockets of the country. While we in the international peanut gallery gape at the spectacle of the trial - a murderer defending indefensible acts - many Liberians continue to endorse Taylor and his charismatic brutality.

Why?

Over lunch the other day, I asked two Liberian colleagues and ardent Taylor fans to explain to me their views on the trial. Johannson Dahn and Zeleh Kolubah (featured in this blog post as well) once fought as rebels in the NPFL. They now work at the National Ex-combatant Peacebuilding Initiative, a local NGO that provides psychosocial counseling for veterans of the war. Taking particularly sharp aim at the U.S. and its inept meddling in Liberia over the past two decades, Dahn and Kolubah offered an eloquent if not always convincing defense of their former commander-in-chief. This is what they told me.

For my Liberian colleagues, the sham of Taylor's trial began with his election as president in 1997 and the almost instantaneous calls for his resignation from around the world. "There was a serious war being fought in Liberia," explains Dahn. "Taylor was elected by the Liberian people. He had a mandate to protect their lives and property." Of the voices demanding Taylor's removal, none was so hypocritical as that of the Americans. When the war erupted in 1989, some 2,000 heavily-armed American Marines were stationed just off the Liberian coast. But then-President George H.W. Bush refused to send a single American soldier to help diffuse the crisis, and when a smaller contingent finally grounded in Monrovia, they were ordered only to protect the enormous embassy compound and the American civilians hiding inside. Throughout the subsequent 14 years of war, the American government sat on its hands as thousands of Liberians were slaughtered. Asks Dahn: "What interest did the Americans have in telling Taylor to leave if they did not have any interest in protecting the Liberians themselves?"

Taylor's indictment was no more lawful or legitimate than his exile in 2003. Now it was Bush the Younger's turn to tinker with Liberian politics. "The indictment was carried to the White House for review and revision," says Dahn. "Why? Is that the advisory board to The Hague?" Taylor is accused of 11 counts of war crimes in Sierra Leone. This is the stuff you'll recognize from Hollywood: cannibalism, child soldiers, sex slaves, hands, ears, and noses hacked off as punishment for minor misdeeds or for no reason at all.

To Kolubah, this is nonsense. "I fought with the NPFL," he explains. "We did not forcefully amputate people." The fact that forced amputation never entered the NPFL's repertoire suggests that someone other than Taylor must have been calling the shots in Sierra Leone. "If Taylor cannot be linked to forced amputation," asks Dahn, "then how can he be linked to massacres and other war crimes?" Who, then, is responsible for the atrocities perpetrated there? Dahn offers a categorical answer: "The Sierra Leoneans themselves."

And what of the crimes committed in Liberia? In the press, much has been made of Taylor's justifications for the grisly NPFL tactic of mounting human heads at road blocks as warnings to passersby. "Yes, it's true," says Dahn. "When enemy soldiers got killed, the bodies were used to instill fear in the advancing enemy." But this, he argues, is no different from the signage we use in the West to warn each other away from hazardous things. "On some of the chemicals you produce, we see signs with human skulls and cross-bones. What do those signs mean? They mean death. They mean danger."

When I suggest that there is a difference between a drawing of a skull and the real thing - and that, in any event, the dead deserve a proper burial - Dahn agrees. "But this was a warzone," he says. "There was no chance to bury the dead because of sustained gunfire and enemy attacks. And which one will be more fearful? A head that is dead and rotting? Or a silly picture?"

Of course, the views of two ex-combatants are hardly representative of the beliefs among Liberians as a whole. Still, I have heard similar opinions echoed around the country, from people of wildly different backgrounds and political bents. These arguments may not persuade you of Taylor's innocence (for the record, they do not persuade me), just as the trial will not convince many Liberians of his guilt. Loyalties die hard. For those of us watching from the comfort of our Western sensibilities, it is tempting to explain away this devotion as the result of ignorance or dogma. How can so many Liberians still adore Taylor after all we've learned about his crimes? Don't these people read the newspaper?

In reality, loyalties survive for reasons steeped in culture and history, story-telling and myth-making. The same lesson that Dahn and Kolubah teach about Liberia applies to the U.S. as well, where our own political allegiances seem sometimes to defy empirical evidence. The experiences of our two countries are hardly comparable, but the point is the same.

Meanwhile, as Taylor takes the stand for crimes that Dahn and Kolubah insist he did not commit, the other architects of the Liberian crisis are free to live, work, and hold office in their home country. Dahn calls them Charlie's Angels: "They're clean. Pure from heaven. No spot on them. But they are imposters." Taylor is their "sacrificial lamb" - a "brave, generous man," a man "who does not lie," a "humanitarian." Says Dahn: "All these white collar guys you see around here in the big vehicles, supported by Americans. They are very good planners of very bad things. And they have met their match: Charles Taylor. Oh yeah."

 

Comments

[ANNUK]

Rob,
Despite finding several answers in your post, I could perceive a conflict in Liberia look very interesting and enriching experience through your article.
Throughout the world there have existed and people like Taylor, is not the only one who has the responsibility to "protect" the lives of a country and work for democracy and peace-building on track to meet human rights. Taylor is charged with many crimes that will continue to go unpunished by the international community, but his popularity is so high in their country because they may have a support of political, economic and psychological. However, this whole issue requires a deeper analysis than a simple glance easily from a single conflict;
There is something that my attention is the U.S. role in this process given the commitment of this government to work towards democracy and the fight against terrorism.
And, I have some questions for you.
- Which is the role of U.S. compared to many crimes against humanity committed in Liberia?.
- How the ONG works in Liberia through the counseling to veterans of the War?.
- What is the peace proposal provided for this organization?.
- The families of ex-combatants receive any financial support, educational, social?
- What is your perception of child victims of the conflict, there is a repair process or work for long around them ?
- It is possible to think that this country would have something to show us that not only war, death and sadness?.
Ann

[Bateman]

Mr. Blair, do you believe that it was right or wrong for George W. Bush to intervene in Liberia ("tinker with Liberian politics") and play a role in Charles Taylor's 2003 resignation?

[Robert Blair - Huffpost Blogger]

This is a tough question. American foreign policy in Liberia has been schizophrenic and often counterproductive. I think it was right for the international community to clamor for Taylor's indictment, but I think our own credibility in joining that call was deeply damaged by our previous mistakes in the country -- foremost among them, our willingness to back the murderous, dictatorial regime of Samuel Doe, and our refusal to contribute to the peacekeeping efforts when violence erupted in 1989. Bush (the younger) obviously was not responsible for these mistakes, but by the time he took office, I'm not sure the U.S. had much moral authority left to encroach on Liberian politics. One obvious counterargument to my view is that Bush's intervention was an attempt to correct the errors of previous administrations -- maybe too little too late, but at least he did something. I'd be very interested to hear others' opinions on this point.

[Bateman]

Thanks for your reply.

Since the United States is so powerful, even a neutral or noninterventionist posture in any international situation can regarded as a sin of omission. Inevitably, the US is perceived as either a collaborator or an aggressor against either regimes or insurrectionists, and therefore is blameworthy for any human rights violations that one or both of these sides perpetrate. This extends to trade as well as military intervention - if we trade we are enabling a regime, if we ban US companies from doing business there we are choking it off.

There is no neutrality for a colossus like the US, only a set of imperfect options. So we have to choose sides between the KLA and Milosevic, or between Sudanese rebels and Khartoum. In these conflicts and others, armed forces on both sides were guilty of heinous violations.

A lot has been written recently about US interventionism, but the other side of the coin - and for which the US is also critiqued - is failure to act in some fashion (militarily, economic sanctions) in places like Afghanistan (in the 90s), Sudan, Rwanda, Bosnia etc. I recall earlier campus campaigns to 'Save the people of _______.' And if we do act, it predictably argued that it was not early enough or with enough force.

[jbaud]

Charles Taylor's defense is that he is not guilty because there were Liberians who supported him. Is sort of like Bush saying that he was not responsible for the Iraq military adventure because many Americans initially supported it. True, many Liberians, including the current President Johnson-Sirleaf supported Taylor in his quest to unseat Samuel Doe (a military dictator and murderer) but no sooner did Taylor showed his true color than they abandoned him. Should all the people who initially support him be guilty of war crimes. You might have to put 200,000 people on trial.

More importantly, this is a guy who according to reputable news accounts recruited child soldiers and murdered his political opponents and subjects people in Liberia to terror for years. This is not even to mention his exploits in Sierra Leone. If Taylor is not guilty, than they ought to free the folks who have been sentenced to long prison term for the genocide in Rwanda. That dude is a terrorist - it's that simple.

[Robert Blair - Huffpost Blogger]

Your first point is an important one. Here's a quote from Kolubah that I didn't include in the piece: “Every Liberian embraced the war. Every Liberian said, ‘Yeah, let Taylor come.’ Because there was a desire for change. We thought this thing was just going to last a couple weeks, and things were going to be finished.” Sound familiar to anyone?

[GrainOSand]

“experiences of our two countries are hardly comparable”

But might they be connected by history, original sin, and persistent and consistent meddling?

“The life of the nation is shot through with a certain falseness and hypocrisy, which are all the more tragic because they are so often subconscious rather than deliberate ... The soul of the people is putrescent, and until that becomes regenerate and clean, no good work can be done.”
Frantz Fanon

[Robert Blair - Huffpost Blogger]

Absolutely. Not easily comparable, but certainly connected.

[Samaja]

Robert,

Your attempt to dignify Taylor or suggest his innocence through his killers diminishes, in my view, any objectivity your article tends to carry. It is not easy to find Liberians who are direct victims of Taylor's attrocities in Monrovia. That you failed to do. Taylor is not being tried for acts of violence perpetrated in Liberia, but Sierra Leone. Those who participated in crimes similar to his and still roaming in Monrovia, will face the hands of justice, when it comes to crimes committed during the Liberian conflict. Honestly, Taylor and his lawyers are on the wrong side of the allegations against him. The trial in The Hague is not about who created the monster; it's about what the monster did? I am a Liberian and I can state categorically that Taylor nurtured, supported, supplied and benefitted from the Sierra Leonean conflict. In fact, he was THE MAJOR BACKER to Foday Sankoh and the RUF. Who invaded Sierra Leone from the border crossing in Tiene in March 1992? It was the NPFL led by the late Oliver Vaanii, Taylor's NPFL special forces commander for Bomi and Grand Cape Mount County. How was Sierra Leone invaded? The NPFL disguised a truck loaded with a heavy artillery gun so that Sierra Leonean soldiers would think Taylor's rebels were bringing loot to sell at the Bo Waterside market; backed it up across the Mano River bridge; and opened fire on Sierra Leonean soldiers and civilians. Who headed the NPFL? Charles Taylor.

[Robert Blair - Huffpost Blogger]

My goal was not to dignify or defend Charles Taylor; it was to share with a primarily Western audience the views of those who do. For those of us following the trial in the American press, the verdict is as good as in. But for many Liberians, the question of his guilt remains open and very controversial. What's more, I think the fact that the trial is being held thousands of miles from the sites where Taylor is alleged to have committed these crimes lends an implicit, undeserved credence to Western opinions about the conflict. As a result, it's easy for us to conclude not just that Taylor is guilty, but also that everyone else agrees with that assessment. That, obviously, is not the case. I would also add that there are MANY direct victims of Taylor's atrocities in Monrovia. As I explain below, I chose to focus on the views of Taylor supporters because I think that's a perspective to which we, as Western readers, tend to have limited access. I do appreciate the detailed evidence you give on Taylor's crimes in Sierra Leone. I think many of us would agree with your arguments.

[Jack12]

Well my friend, I hope that when your job is done here, you will move to Germany and tell us how the supporters of Hitler felt he was " innocent". There is always another perspective, and there will always be one.
You certainly seems to be putting your Yale education to great use. My advice to you, go back and look at some of the videos and see what happened to people in both Liberia and Sierra Leone. and maybe you wil appreciate even more the feeling of your rebel friends.

[Jack12]

Listen ... we all know that there are liberians who support this monster. You do not need to waist your time interviwing former criminals about this. ok. There are several thousands who raped , mutulated and killed for this guy and they all love him. We already know that. People still celebrate Nazis in the US. we also know that . But the great majority of Liberians want this monster to rot in hell forever. Do not try to tell us otherwise. If you want some attention, maybe you should do something usefull while in Liberia...­. maybe assisting those who survived Tylor's attrocities.

[dmay]

From what I've read, Taylor was quite charismatic - too bad he did not work for the good of Liberia and Africa.

You do realize that there are always those leftovers that will support a despot, don't you? I saw Pol Pot's grave last year and it had fresh flowers and incense from his admirers. (To avoid this in Germany, they refuse to identify the site where Hitler was killed)
When I saw this I didn't think, oh Pol Pot must have been misunderstood.

Charles Taylor's legacy is one of death, destruction and set Liberia back decades. Any one who supports him must have their motives questioned (is it a case of cognitive dissonance; they can't accept they supported such a man? Or were they from his tribe and benefitted from being in power? or?).

[buzzygirl]

I am almost sure this comment will not be published. Every comment I have written here about Taylor have not been published. But for the eyes that will rest on this, hear this: Charles Taylor needs to rot in hell. He is not only responsible for the thousands of lives destroyed in Sierra Leone, he preyed upon the Liberian people.

Charles Taylor, like the rest of the dictators around Africa, was greedy and opportunistic. He is to blame for much of the destruction in Liberia. For anyone to back him, is just plain irresponsible.

I hope that he gets the book thrown at him.

[Jack12]

Wow...I hope you are kidding here. I am glad that Bushe's rule is over, and that Chenney and Rumsfeld are no longer calling the shots in Washington. But to compare Taylor to these people is an insult not only to Liberians, other africans, but to all mankind. And I know what I am talking about. My uncle and many other brave soldiers from my native Guinea ( a border contry with liberia) gave their lives ( as part of force sent by west african military contingent) to defend innocent Liberian against Tylor's brutalities. My family housed and fed douzens of young kids that besides losing their parents, were often raped , mutulated ( some as young as 4-5 years old). I cannot explain to you the human suffering these Liberian refugees went through to get to my country.
Yes. Tylor is guilty, not only in Liberia, but also in Sierra Leone and in Guinea too. He attacked my country after going into Sierra Leone. That was his big mistake. With tanks coming from Guinea, he knew he had to run away. I only wish we caught him . His skull might be hanging somewhere in a check point today. So you , idiots from yale and I don't know where else, go and talk to the people who lost everything in this war and listen to what they say. Not the former rebels, but the raped women, and those who suffered what is worse than hell.

[FoonTheElder]

I would sure like to hear the real story about Pat Robertson's investment deals with Taylor in Liberian gold and diamonds from 1999 forward. Of course, as the Bush Administration did with Saddam, they will sentence him to death before he can tell any of the tales that will hurt the Republican Party. It has already been determined that the U.S. government helped him escape from a U.S. prison.

http://www.msmagazine.com/sept03/sizemore.asp

[BonoboAlly]

Robert,

I'm going to have to disagree with your methodology a bit here. I'm also a student working and researching in Liberia (I'm based in Gbarnga) and I think that interviewing two former NPFL soldiers may not be the best way to assess Liberians attitudes towards Charles Taylor. I have also encountered many "supporters" of Taylor, or at least people who don't want to see him at the ICC, even working in NGO's. However, it's more complicated than just star power. The man subdued the nation for almost 14 years. He was a household name. His influence, both good and bad, touched everyone. To try him internationally is to try the Liberian people for their complacency.

And more to the point, the ICC is not, as many of my informants have told me, trying George W Bush for his war crimes internationally. I know, as an American it's hard to compare the two, but for Liberians, his inaction here, as well as the two wars he started, make him a likely comparison, especially when they hear of different European groups eager to try him. Many Liberians view the ICC as a group biased against Africans (look at who they target and investigate and you'll see the logic behind this). I'm not saying that I completely agree. I'm just saying it's more complicated than you suggest.

Ally Krupar
"An American University Master's Candidate working and researching in Liberia over the summer."

[Robert Blair - Huffpost Blogger]

Thanks for your comments, Ally. I agree, and should have made explicit in the piece, that the opinions of my two colleagues are by no means representative of Liberian views in general on the Taylor trial. They do, however, offer one set of justifications for Taylor's actions that I have heard repeated around the country. Also, I did not mean to suggest that star power alone is fueling his popularity. Quite the opposite: the wartime chant that I mention -- "He killed my ma, he killed my pa, I'll fight for him" -- is evidence that something more complicated is going on. Finally, I agree with the comparison between Taylor and W. In fact, the piece was inspired by a conversation with a Liberian who asked me to explain Bush's enduring popularity among some Americans. I found myself resorting to the same simplistic arguments that I've heard used to explain Liberian support for Taylor.

[fr33d0mhawk]

Wow, it appears neoconsim is an international problem. Defending Taylor by pointing out the hypocrisy of Bush (who'dve thunk it) is a classic neocon tactic. The same technique was used by the Bush admin in justifying torture of innocent civilians. It involved saying Saddam is a bad guy , so his guilt justifies torturing innocent civilians. Neoconism is a scourge. One day I pray the world's liberals will join forces and forever keep neocons out of government and politics in general. Neoconism will be the doom of mankind, mark my words.

[Robert Blair - Huffpost Blogger]

Well, I suspect neocons might make the same prediction about the "scourge" of liberalism. That is, in part, the point I try to make in the article and below in my reply to Jack12.

[leftionthenews]

Your assumption that Taylor is guilty based simply on the charges against him seems akin to the "evidence" mounted for fraud in the recent Iranian election, which consists largely of the "belief" that "we know" that Mousavi won and actual evidence of fraud isn't necessary.

I know nothing of the evidence in this case, and offer no opinion on it. But based on this article alone, the only evidence you present, from two ex-soldiers, is a rebuttal of the charges against him.

And, to put it mildly, the evidence for war crimes committed by George Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, et. al., not to mention a long line of American officials that preceded them (going back long before the self-confessed war criminal Robert McNamara), are orders of magnitude greater than any war crimes that may or may not have been committed by Taylor (or Milosevic or anyone else the West puts on show trial).

[Jack12]

Wow...I hope you are kidding here. I am glad that Bushe's rule is over, and that Chenney and Rumsfeld are no longer calling the shots in Washington. But to compare Taylor to these people is an insult not only to Liberians, other africans, but to all mankind. And I know what I am talking about. My uncle and many other brave soldiers from my native Guinea ( a border contry with liberia) gave their lives ( as part of force sent by west african military contingent) to defend innocent Liberian against Tylor's brutalities. My family housed and fed douzens of young kids that besides losing their parents, were often raped , mutulated ( some as young as 4-5 years old). I cannot explain to you the human suffering these Liberian refugees went through to get to my country.
Yes. Tylor is guilty, not only in Liberia, but also in Sierra Leone and in Guinea too. He attacked my country after going into Sierra Leone. That was his big mistake. With tanks coming from Guinea, he knew he had to run away. I only wish we caught him . His skull might be hanging somewhere in a check point today. So you , idiots from yale and I don't know where else, go and talk to the people who lost everything in this war and listen to what they say. Not the former rebels, but the raped women, and those who suffered what is worse than hell.

[Robert Blair - Huffpost Blogger]

Thanks for your comments, Jack. I've heard from many, many victims of the conflict here, and their stories are heart-breaking. The reason I chose to interview these two individuals is that I think they offer a particularly articulate defense of Taylor. You may not agree with them, but these are views that many Liberians (at least many that I've spoken to -- again, not a representative sample) seem to share. This is something we have to contend with, whatever our opinions of Taylor and his trial.

[leftionthenews]

The comparison: Bush et al. (AND the Democratic Congress) are responsible for the deaths of more than one million Iraqis. How does Taylor stack up on that score? Robert McNamara (and others, of course) was responsible for the deaths of well over a million Vietnamese AND hundreds of thousands (and, quite likely well over a million) Japanese thanks to his role in the fire-bombing of Japanese cities in WWII. How does Taylor stack up on that score?

[Rusty5329]

"based on this article alone, the only evidence you present, from two ex-soldiers, is a rebuttal of the charges against him."

That was kind of the point. He wasn't writing another American piece about how horrible Taylor was, he was presenting Americans with a view that we don't often see.

[Jack12]

wow . i knew we might desagree, but I never knew you people can be so dumb! I see the Teabaggers all the time comparing Obama to Hitler and I tought no one could be dumber. ..well , i was wrong. Trust me my friend , I you saw what happened to people in Liberian , and Sierra Leone - in Tylors' hands, you would stop blogging and just pray for those who survived. I know, I was there. I was what happens, and helped those who survived.

[Robert Blair - Huffpost Blogger]

As I mention in my response to Ally, I think Bush and Taylor both committed horrible crimes, and the comparison is worth making, if only for the sake of scrutinizing our own government with the same eagerness that we critique other heads-of-state around the world. On the issue of "orders of magnitude," well, I doubt it. More to the point, I suspect that supporters of Bush et. al would say similar things about the popularity of JFK or Clinton or other darlings of the American left. That's really the point: loyalties that we happen not to share make easy targets for condescension and unfair simplification. (In this piece, I'm sure I'm guilty of the same thing.)

[Republicrats]

"Foreign aid might be defined as a transfer
from poor people in rich countries
to rich people in poor countries.­"
-- Douglas Casey