Liberia: The American Factor — an Update

.... The U.S. only needs to avoid the costly foreign policy mistakes it made during the Samuel Doe era decades ago, and by doing so, ensure a mutually beneficial and enduring relationship with the people of Liberia — one that puts a premium on the aspirations of the people rather than on exaggerated geopolitical considerations alone.

“History Doesn't Repeat Itself, but It Often Rhymes” – Mark Twain.

In January 1987, some 14 months after the so-called “Quiwonkpa Invasion” of November 1985, I wrote an article for the iconic London-based West African magazine which carried the headline, Liberia: The American Factor’

Written at the height of the tumultuous years of the Samuel Doe era, the piece was inspired by my sincere effort to help the American Administration at the time understand, and get alerted to the seismic political undercurrent that was bubbling under the country’s socio-political landscape, and the gathering storm that was beckoning on the country’s horizon — in the wake of the blatantly rigged 1985 elections. 

The publication couldn’t have come at a more propitious time also — just when America’s 60th Secretary of State, George P. Shultz (RIP), was visiting Liberia, as part of his whirlwind six-country West African tour. Sadly, the advice and warning embedded in said article for an urgent need to have the U.S. correctly gauge the rising political temperature in the country, and appropriately course-correct its policy trajectory in Liberia, seemingly went unheeded as reflected in the outcome of Secretary Shultz’s visit.  

And so it was, that by the time the U.S. could alter its stance on the Doe regime, the freight train carrying dozens of vehicles and heading toward Liberia had in fact left the station, making it difficult, if not impossible, to prevent the disaster that subsequently befell the country. 

Professor Shultz’s visit came at a time when James Keough Bishop was U.S. ambassador to Liberia. Accompanying Secretary Shultz on his trip to Liberia was Chester Croker, the U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs in the Ronald Reagan Administration — arguably the point man in chiseling America’s Liberia policy at that point in time.

During Secretary Shultz’s visit to the Executive Mansion, he is reported to have only “mildly” chided the master-sergeant-turned civilian head of state for the government’s economic and financial mismanagement. It was more of a slap on the wrist of the Doe regime than a condemnation of the widespread corruption that the Doe regime had sunk into — only a few years after the ex-master sergeant and his men had overthrown and shot dead a sitting President and 13 other government officials for, among other allegations, “rampant corruption.” 

(I recall that when the late Rufus Darpoh and I, then editors of the government-run newspaper, the ‘New Liberian, editorially took on the junta for indulging in the same corruption miasma as those they had overthrown just a few months prior, we were quickly arrested, detained at the Barclay Training Center (BTC) military barracks, and threatened with a firing squad). 

Secretary Shultz later doubled down on his misrepresentation of the situation in the country by describing the patently rigged 1985 Presidential election as free and fair and “quite open.” This, despite the elections having been universally adjudged as anything but free, fair, and credible. 

The Secretary’s faux pas ignored overwhelming evidence of pre-election intimidation of political opponents before, during and after the elections, including the banning of  Baccus Mathews’ political party; before that, the invasion of the University of Liberia and brutalization of students and faculty members; and the tipping of the electoral scales in favor of Doe’s party, including the burning of ballots cast for the opposition which were strewn along roadsides in the interior of the country, and the subsequent illegal counting of ballots at the Unity Conference Center, outside of the purview of the legally constituted Elections Commission.

Regarding the state of the Liberian media at that point, Secretary Shultz angered local media personnel when he declared that “There is freedom of the press” in Liberia.  Again, this statement flew in the face of the recurring arbitrary arrests and detentions of media personnel; extra-judicial closures of news outlets (including the Daily Observer newspaper, which suffered more than any other media entity during the Doe regime); arbitrary detentions of media personnel; the banning of the Press Union of Liberia (PUL); and the existence of the most blatant form of prior restraint ever imposed on the media in the country, in the form of the infamous and catch-all “Decree 88A” which dangled over the Liberia media like the Sword of Damocles. 

The observations of Secretary Shultz were so jarring to many observers in and out of the country that Secretary Shultz got caught in the crosshairs of the ‘New York Times’ which debunked his conclusions, referring to them as “bewildering” and a gross distortion” of the facts on the ground. The New York based Lawyers Committee for Human Rights also rubbished the opinions of the senior foreign policy officials visiting the country, and prophetically warned that the U.S government’s ill-advised policy toward Liberia could lead to serious problems down the road.

It was clear that those who were shaping U.S. policy for Liberia at the time were listening to a different drummer in the political dance that was playing out in plain sight of the U.S. embassy in Monrovia at the time. It apparently never dawned on them that Liberia, at that point in time, was sitting on a powder keg waiting to explode. 

Highly offended by the Secretary Shultz’s remarks, the Liberian opposition viewed his mischaracterization of the country under Doe as confirmation that America’s geopolitical considerations motored by the Cold War had completely overshadowed the barefaced stealing of a consequential election in a faraway backwater ‘banana republic’, scarred by human rights violations, extra-judicial killings, and widespread corruption. 

Fast forward to the present and some 36 years later since the American Factor article was published in the West African magazine, and as Liberians gear up for another highly consequential round of elections, U.S.-Liberian relations seem to be at another inflection point. Hence the need for this recollection of the past U.S. policy toward Liberia some three decades ago. 

This memory recall is perhaps timely in light of the “mixed signals” some Liberians think are emanating from Mamba Point, and other influential U.S. foreign policy-related institutions. The acerbic indictment of Liberian Diaspora talk show hosts by outgoing U.S. ambassador to Liberia, Michael McCarthy, and, coming on the heels of that, the recent hush-hush visit by a high-powered Liberian delegation to Langley, Virginia, have raised eyebrows among some Liberians — leaving them wondering what in the world the U.S. may be up to as the country revs toward another defining general and presidential elections. 

This update on ‘Liberia: The American Factor’ is not necessarily the sounding of an alarm that Liberia is tethering on an apocalyptic political and security slope, or that what was transpiring under the military-civilian government of Samuel Doe is a 100% replication of what is currently obtaining in the country. Nor is it that the U.S. may be repeating its policy mistakes in Liberia during the 1980’s. To the contrary, it is only meant to jog memories and hearken back to what went wrong in terms of American policy toward Liberia at that challenging time in Liberia’s history — in the hope that lessons have been learned since then.

Except for those who have been hiding under a rock somewhere all the while, or are known sycophantic individuals attempting to ingratiate themselves with the present dispensation (as they did during the Samuel regime), clearly, all is again not well in the Republic. The country is deeply and bitterly polarized.

Ethnic fault lines have become more pronounced as a small group with shared geographical contiguity virtually monopolizes the levers of power. Intimidation of political opponents is increasing in the lead-up to elections. University students are again under pressure. Rampant sleaze and influence peddling are corroding the economic well-being and the moral fiber of the body politic, while poverty and hunger run riot among the people as the cost of living continues to skyrocket. 

On the security front, there is the frightening partisan posture of the security forces, with the hierarchies of the Police and the Army making no secret about their atavistic support for a leadership with whom they share either partisan or ethnic affiliations — even as citizens and residents alike live in fear and insecurity on account of unexplained and mysterious deaths, and never mind that the country is now negatively viewed in our subregion for illicit activities such as drug trafficking and money laundering.  In the midst of all these, meanwhile, a largely emasculated legislative branch remains at the beck and call of an overarching executive.

In addition to these disquieting developments, not-so-subtle maneuvers are being carried out to wrongfoot opponents in the pending consequential elections  — as reflected, among other actions and activities, in the distorted census results; the not-so-efficient registration process that is already afflicted with glitches; and the overt capitulation of the judicial branch of the government to the impulses of the executive.

At this writing, the Supreme Court is slow walking, if not patently ignoring well-founded complaints from an opposition party in respect of urgent electoral matters. This blasé attitude on the part of the highest court in the land does not inspire confidence that it will capably and impartially adjudicate subsequent elections-related disputes arising out of the pending elections. 

Liberia is evidently at another crucial crossroads in its long running march to   becoming the viable state it has yet to develop into some 176 years after its founding, and in its relationship with America. It is the one country that the U.S. arguably came close to having as a colonial outpost in Africa. And never mind that successive U.S. administrations have never really acknowledged in any substantive and serious way the illusory concept of Liberians’ ‘special relationship’ with America, what the U.S. says or does in regard to the country often gains traction with the government and people of the impoverished nation. 

When I wrote my article on the “American Factor” in January 1987, it basically had two idea thrusts: (1) to assure our “traditional ally” that she didn’t have to lose sleep over where Liberia stood in America’s ideological competition with, say, communist Soviet Union at the time, and (2) to urge the then U.S. administration to always stand with the Liberian people by doggedly supporting particularly their democratic aspirations and, by so doing, maintain and solidify the already enduring admiration and respect the generality of Liberians have always had for America. 

Some 36 years later, I have felt the need to recall that bygone era and draw some generalized analogy between then and the present in order to again remind American foreign policy officials about the consequences of ill-informed policy approaches toward Liberia, in the hope that this time around they will get it right.  

Given the deep affinity most Liberians have for America, there should be no question that their country will ever succumb to the imagined influences of any Wagner group of mercenaries or Russian or Chinese expansionism and infiltration. If the U.S., Russia, and China were to open wide their borders today and invite Liberians to migrate into their respective countries without visas, nearly 100% of Liberians will troop into the U.S. If possible, some will even walk the distance to the shores of the U.S., and the chances in such a hypothetical case are that Liberia will be emptied of its youthful population. That is how much Liberians hold the U.S. in awe and in high regard.

Thus, American foreign policy toward Liberia in particular should not willy-nilly be based on appeasing a particular Liberian leader or government for fear that such a leader or administration would tilt the country toward America’s ideological adversaries. That is why America’s out-of-step foreign policy approach it adopted toward Liberia during the Doe administration was so perplexing to critical observers.

Indeed, an enduring U.S-Liberia relations can be even more deepened and long-term if the super power weaves its foreign policy around the broader interests of the Liberian people, rather than on the ruling elite of the day — even as one acknowledges that international relations are often officially conducted between governments.

Such a people-centered policy approach recognizes that leaders and regimes come and go, but the people endure in all the periodic regime changes. Consequently, the democratic aspirations of citizens of a country which is positively or derisively referred to in the subregion as “Little America” should always be the fulcrum on which American policy should be based—and not on the personal desires and whims of a transient leader or regime. 

That stated, it has to be emphasized that Americans cannot be expected to take Liberia’s palm kernel out of the fire, but can only render help where necessary and possible. Liberians will ultimately have to take the lead in the struggle to make life better for themselves and consolidate democracy and the rule of law in their country against all odds, fundamentally through good governance.

After all, it was the English writer, William Penn, who once opined that “The limits of a tyrant are circumscribed by the people he rules”; a view echoed subsequently by the American activist, writer, and abolitionist, Frederick Douglass, when he also declared that “The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress.” 

In other words, the people always have the power within themselves to limit, and, when necessary, terminate a leader’s power or rule — ideally by democratic means such as through the ballot box. And so, all that Liberians expect and request from their biggest financial benefactor is to always endeavor to timely exert its influence appropriately in assisting Liberians in their never-ending struggle to create a better environment in which they and their families can thrive.

And, at this point in time, there can be no better way to achieve this desired end in the short term than by ensuring that the October elections are free, fair, and credible, with an outcome that reflects the will of the majority of the people.

In this regard, it has to be pointed out that America has continued to significantly and materially support successive elections processes in Liberia, primarily through USAID. It is currently funding certain elections-related activities, including support for the deployment of elections monitors in the country — several months ahead of the October elections.

Not too long ago, the Joe Biden Administration signaled its disapproval of corruption at official levels by sanctioning some state actors, never mind that many critics see the targeted action as too limited and too late — and one which barely scratched the surface of a huge corruption iceberg, having thus far spared other kingpins of malfeasance in the country. 

Up until his strident attack on the Liberian talk show hosts in the Diaspora at the tail end of his tour of duty (in a statement that was worded more like a MICAT press release), the departing American ambassador had also been generally regarded favorably by many Liberians, as he tried to ratchet up the pressure on the government while at the same time occasionally playing basketball with the Liberian leader.

Many now look forward to his presumed successor, Mark Chirstopher Toner, to quickly come and bear down on the dire need to hold credible and transparent elections in the country — as already promised by the Liberian leader to the international community.

Liberians certainly do not expect the United States to determine which of the many Presidential and Legislative aspirants the Liberian people should vote for. That’s not their call. The voters have a few good Liberians to choose from among those who are vying for the Presidency and seats in the legislature in the ensuing elections. And so, it is left to Liberians to make the necessary informed choices. As the French-Italian philosopher, Joseph de Maistre, once said, “In a democracy people get the leaders they deserve.”     

Thus, all what Liberians are asking for from the U.S. and other external well-wishers and donors, as they get ready to go to the polls in a few months, is to help Liberians in creating a level playing field and a credible elections process that will produce a credible outcome reflecting the will of the majority of voters. Along with political party representatives, the U.S. and other interested elections observers must particularly scrutinize the tallying and counting of ballots, where all manner of skullduggery often takes place in most African elections.

The outcome of the rigged elections Secretary Shultz’s mischaracterized during his hours-long trip to Liberia 37 years ago, bears out such potential trickery. That same outcome also dramatically demonstrated how rigged elections can be a trigger for generalized conflict. The U.S. must therefore exert its influence on the government to ensure that when Liberians go to the polls in October, they do so not only in safety but also with the assurance and the expectation that their votes will not be stolen from them — and the result of their participation will accurately reflect the mandate of the majority, irrespective of which party or presidential candidate ultimately emerges victorious.

All told U.S. strategic interests in Liberia will always be guaranteed regardless of which leader or political party may be in power. It is just what it is. The U.S. only needs to avoid the costly foreign policy mistakes it made during the Samuel Doe era decades ago, and by doing so, ensure a mutually beneficial and enduring relationship with the people of Liberia — one that puts a premium on the aspirations of the people rather than on exaggerated geopolitical considerations alone. As George Santayana once noted: “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it”.

Editor’s note: The views expressed in this commentary are solely of the author and do not necessarily represent that of the Daily Observer newspaper.