Home |  About Theliberiandialogue |  Contact Us

Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf finally confesses to funding Liberian civil war   

Wednesday, September 28, 2005

         By Tieh Kofa/ Monrovia Liberia

 In what commentators consider a sad day in her political campaign, Ellen Johnson Sirleaf recently admitted at a political gathering in Minnesota, USA, that she did support Charles Taylor's NPFL's insurrection which killed at least 200,000 Liberians.

Sirleaf's support for Taylor has been a hot political issue and dogged her during the 1997 elections when she ran against Taylor, but even then she skillfully evaded the question. Analysts and pundits are now wondering what has coerced Sirleaf's public confession.

 Is it because Taylor is not standing in the October 2005 elections? Is Ellen encouraged by the presence of another candidate who also supported Taylor? Or is it a genuine expression of guilt inspired by the need to feel purged of a ghost that has haunted her recent political life? Answers may vary.

Since Sirleaf has been such a highly controversial political figure, such public apology cannot be left at that as some expect. For me, her apology must be put in the larger context of her continued quest for the Liberian presidency. The magnitude of this confession has to be brought to bear on all Liberians. The timing of the admission must be considered.

Why did it take all this time for her to publicly own up to the truth? If anything, she should have come clean with the Liberian people long time ago. That a woman who is desperate to be president of a people foolhardily refuses to admit that which all the people know is troubling. Such is plain deceit, and deceit is what Liberians now dread the most in the Executive Mansion.

During the 1997 elections, Taylor's supporters, especially those in Nimba and Gbarnga, who not only knew of Mrs. Sirleaf's support but experienced and felt it, pressed her hard on the issue but she dodged. Why did she avoid it then? The simple answer is she believed admitting then would have undermined her electoral credibility.

She thought by admitting then, she would be making it clear to voters that she was standing against the miscreant and demon she had created. She would have had to answer a litany of embarrassing questions. Why did she trust Charles Taylor in the first place?

 What democratic attribute did he bring to the political table, making her to buy guns for and place him at the head of the NPFL? Why did she not trust another political character, say an H. Boimah Fahnbulleh who reportedly had men trained and organized?

Mrs. Sirleaf was fully aware that Taylor had embezzled $1,000, 0000 from the Liberian government’s coffers as Director General of GSA, and was put in prison in the United States because of that.

How could an individual of her international standing, having worked for the World Bank and the United Nations, organizations that demand accountability, transparency and trustworthiness of its employees, entrust Liberia's political future to a proven rascal?

Because she did not want to face these hard questions while Taylor was a factor in those elections, she ducked every time they were raised. Sirleaf was smart to know her admission then would have revealed, and even now reveal, ominous signs about her leadership and her role in Liberian politics.

In trusting and arming a reckless character like Taylor to unseat Samuel Doe, Sirleaf confuses Liberians as to her real intentions and motivations for political change. It is important we briefly explore this motivation. Was her hatred of Doe really because of his lack of democratic credentials, or did it derive from the role he had played in dethroning an old and corrupt True Whig Party, of which she was a part?

It cannot be lost on us that Sirleaf was an elite member of the True Whig Party, having served as finance minister under Tolbert. The overthrow of Tolbert dealt a crippling blow to her influence and status, and it can only be expected she would fight back in one form or another. Why did Sirleaf who was a rather passive finance minister under Tolbert suddenly decide to become explosively active in Liberian politics after 1980?

Was her militant posture premised on a genuine need for change in Liberia? I tend to think not. True, Doe was a dictator, but he also offered Sirleaf a platform to achieve her real motive: ingeniously restoring Liberia to the influences of the TWP. The first step in this stratagem was to gather moderate TWP partisans and ideologues to form a new political party and take advantage of the changed reality in Liberia.

This was how the Liberian Action Party, (LAP) came into being. It is well known that Mrs. Sirleaf personally funded the formation of LAP. LAP was Sirleaf's idea of maintaining TWP's influences in post-1980 Liberian politics. Her next move was to identify a popular indigenous with strong TWP connection.

Nobody fitted this bill more than Jackson F. Doe. She trusted Jackson Doe with the leadership of LAP because he had risen to prominent positions within the TWP during the 1970's. Jackson Doe even came one-step shy of being appointed Tolbert's vice president.

So without a doubt in Sirleaf's mind, he could be trusted to protect the interests of that group in the event of an LAP victory. Unfortunately, as always with Sirleaf, things did not go as planned. Doe reportedly rigged the 1985 elections. Sirleaf's game plan was trashed. Although she won a seat in the senate, she would not operate outside her game plan and was forced back to the drawing board.

Opportunities were plenty. Political tension between Doe and Thomas Quiwonkpa lent a fresh opening to Sirleaf to begin testing Doe militarily. As always without caring about the aftermath of her plans, she instigated the 1985 Quiwonkpa coup, (we await apology for this one too but will leave it until then) which failed miserably, leading to the butchering of many innocent Liberians. This was a second failure, which was colossal in Sirleaf's political calculation.

How could she fail twice? Politically, Jackson Doe did not deliver. Militarily, Quiwonkpa was a disaster of careless proportion. The clock was ticking. The "Iron lady" had to fashion something bigger; a grandiose military plan , but not just a plan. Two previous ones had failed. This time for her, it mattered more who was in charge and not just that there be a plan.

Since Quiwonkpa's democratic and civilizing attitude of mixing guns and the bible did not produce results in 1985, Sirleaf wanted a more demonic hoodlum who cared far less about human lives. The important issue was removing Doe and securing the interests of her TWP political cronies, so it did not matter who did the shooting as long as the job was done.

This was why she might have hustled Taylor out of a Massachusetts jail (another apology?), impressed by the fact that he had a proven record of thievery, since that was the character she looked for. But there are other more deceptive reasons as well. She saw in an alliance with Chucky an opportunity for a final restoration of the TWP order.

They both come from the same Americo-Liberian lineage and she could not imagine a more perfect Liberian world in which the two would exert great influence. But again she was mistaken from the get go. She forgot she was a card-toting member of that order who enjoyed all its perks, but Taylor was not. This was the vital missing link in her planning equation.

She failed to factor that Taylor had always been disgruntled with the TWP and bears a certain ill will to establishment figures of that era. The fact of Taylor's opposition to Tolbert while he served as president of ULAA and his immediate acceptance of a position in the PRC government was totally lost on her. She learned the hard way that though Taylor did not learn finance or politics at Harvard, he acquired them from the streets.

After all this why should we be impressed by Sirleaf's apology? Or is she now admitting because she no longer is the only candidate with known supportive links to Charles Taylor? One never knows with Sirleaf. The idea of running a campaign and knowing that similar charges leveled against you will also be parried to other candidates can be very relieving.

 Imagine a presidential debate between Sirleaf and Charles Brunskine. That certainly captures Sirleaf's dream. In such a debate, Taylor would be zeroed out as an issue. But Sirleaf needs to know Brunskine's existence is not sufficient to mute the serious charges about the role she played in visiting tragedy upon the lives of our people. Given all that surrounds this woman's political career, we cannot take her apology at face value.

 Too much is at stake here and she has too many things to apologize for. Not only did she fund the killing of Liberians which she now considers a "mistake," she has proven that she was sober in that decision when she remarked that if Doe refuses to leave the Executive Mansion, "it will be leveled and rebuilt."

Sirleaf now says "it was a stupid statement I made that I shouldn't have made no matter the situation, and I apologize for that; I made a mistake we all make mistakes; I am not perfect." No. No. No. Sirleaf still doesn't get it. This thing is not about who makes mistakes or about who is perfect or not. We all are not perfect. But here is what this is about.

Sirleaf buys guns and gives them to a criminal and probably advises him not to make the mistake Quiwonkpa made. To get it right this time at all costs. It does not require rocket science to know that when guns are given to bandits with no democratic credentials people can expect to die. But that's one thing. Then she is asked about Doe's refusal to leave the mansion and Taylor's shelling of it.

The woman flatly brags that if the mansion is leveled it will be rebuilt. For her, the mansion is a mere building built by money from the Tubman era, made of planks, irons and grids, and not inhabited and surrounded by people whose lives are valuable. The Executive Mansion sits amid a densely populated area.

 She is fully aware that before it is completely shelled, half of Buzay Quarter, or Capitol Bye Pass, surrounding enclaves would have to be razed. Innocent lives would be lost. But again that is the least of her concerns. Now she says she is sorry in the usual Liberian way, and we are expected to forgive her, lavish her with flowers and elect her our next president.

We must forgive her for arming Taylor. We must forgive her for saying that the Mansion should be leveled even though innocent folks would die in the process. How are we to forgive someone who buys guns for a criminal and brags that if the guns destroy buildings and lives (sure Sirleaf thinks lives can be rebuilt) they will be rebuilt? Since when have Liberians become such empty chambers echoing forgiveness everyday of their lives?

 The irony of the situation is that though she begs for forgiveness she thinks Taylor should be prosecuted. Crass arrogance and shamelessness!!! Doesn't Ellen know she is the last person to campaign for Taylor's prosecution? In prosecuting those who commit genocide or war crimes against humanity, full account will have to be made of those who supported them in the process.

Now that Mrs. Sirleaf has admitted she funded Taylor's war efforts, which led to upwards 200,000 deaths, she too may have to appear before any war tribunal looking into those deaths. But here is the interesting part. Taylor may decide to entangle her in his defense testimony, and she will definitely have to appear to clear her name.

Now fast forward a bit and make Sirleaf Liberia's next president (please don't forget to rewind time back to the present). Are Liberians prepared to have a sitting president appear before a war crime tribunal? I sincerely think we deserve far better. These are some of the reasons that need compel Mrs. Sirleaf not only to apologize but to abandon her quest for the Liberian presidency.

In justifying while she deserted Charles Taylor, Mrs. Sirleaf commented, "when reports reached us that former political allies of ours, including the late Jackson F. Doe and Gabriel Kpolleh had been killed by Taylor forces, we cut off our support." Again is this the real reason? This is plain misleading. The woman is even deceptive in apologizing.

 Kpolleh's death or disappearance remains mysterious, as there is no clear timeline as to when it occurred. After the war, the Liberian Unification Party, LUP, went out to ascertain the true story of what had happened to its Standard Bearer, so how can Mrs. Sirleaf say she abandoned Taylor because of Kpolleh's death.

She abandoned Taylor by July of 1990 and by then information about Kpolleh's killing was unavailable. Or maybe it was available to her since she may have been in contact with those who did the killing. Sirleaf principally distanced herself from Taylor when she finally understood that the bandit was on a personal hunt for the Liberian leadership and would not submit to control.

Taylor flatly refused to be a pawn in Sirleaf's game of Liberian power chess. That is what happens when you deal with bandits, hustlers and political misfits.

Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf's admission forces us to examine the larger context of her political role in Liberia. Who is this woman and what claims does she have to Liberian political power? She served as finance minister in a TWP administration in which government officials personalized the resources of our country. As Finance minister she simply bankrolled the draining of our nation's coffers. And she cannot deny this.

 One cannot serve as finance minister during a regime that was corrupt and claim innocence to such corruption. Finance ministers determine the cash flow of governments and are extremely in the know about who is getting what. Can Sirleaf now tell the Liberian people she did not know about anything that financially went wrong during her administration at the finance ministry? Don't we get another apology here too?

Today, she is campaigning for national audits and lambasting officials about corruption, but has said nothing about her role as finance minister under Tolbert. Neither have I heard journalists asked her such hard questions. Don't we need an audit of persons who served in corrupt regimes and are now depicting themselves to be clean? Or do we Liberians just care about present corruption but turn a blind eye to past ones.

Present corrupt practices are the past ones of the future. Sirleaf absolutely does not deserve a reputation of financial propriety until she accounts for her fair share in or knowledge of corruption during the Tolbert administration. She was not forced to serve in that administration, and her service there compromises any claim she now makes about financial propriety.

Today she masquerades as a freedom fighter and an advocate of transparency and accountability, demanding a presidential stage that only national patriots and men and women of unblemished past deserve. Her political past is as troubled as the country whose destruction she financed. A troubled country does not need a troubled president.

 Sirleaf and others of her ilk who subjected our people to tyranny and chaos must know that Liberians are not stupid. They may be poor but they indeed have a good sense of history. The October 2005 election will be a beginning to make that history visible to all.

 These elections will be about issues, values, character and personal history. So those who have already started apologizing will need to do something better. True forgiveness will only come when they look deeper into the uttermost recesses of their skeletal closets and bring out the bogeymen hiding there for all to see. That will be the beginning of genuine forgiveness.

But then again, to forgive is not to elect. Those who destroy a country cannot restore it. Charles Taylor proved this dictum to all Liberians, and they know that lesson all too well. The restorer has already been identified.