President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf announced last week that she will, as she had said two years ago, face the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) and tell her side of the story regarding whatever role she might have played during the war. This is a welcome development, on at least two points. First, her appearance would remove that veil of suspicion that the president has been held under by those who want to see her as a “war-monger” throughout the 1980s during the military rule. The second positive development that this public discourse brings is that, for the first time, a senior member of the government would make such a deposition.

Many were surprised or even disappointed that at some point, President Sirleaf was tempted to couch her testimony in a book rather than speak to the Liberian people. We thought that a book had nothing to do with the process of the TRC. Now, the President says that the book was just another dimension and that she was always prepared to appear and would do so as soon as called upon by the Commission. She said what she feared was that her appearance could be turned into a spectacle and debase the whole purpose of her testimony. She will set an example for others to follow, and Liberians would have a clear idea of what she did and when she did it.

For President Sirleaf, the task will be a daunting one. She will be confronting an opinion pool already saturated by rumors and accusations as to what she did or did not do; what she said or did not say in the years of national turmoil. During the 2005 campaign, an entire media narrative was developed around her role in the war and used by the opposition as a weapon. Voters saw beyond those accusations and elected her. In 2003, during the Accra Conference, her campaign was sabotaged by accusations that she planned to bring a war crimes tribunal and put all warlords in jail. Now, she is being accused in some quarters for instituting the TRC so that she and others would not face a war crimes tribunal. Before and during the 2005 campaign, she explained the extent of her involvement with the NPFL and Mr. Charles Taylor, how it started and how it ended and the mistakes that were made along the way. The TRC will afford her a stage to put to rest some of the issues.

Her appearance will hopefully bring to the front others who have been sitting quietly in the corners, using her as a shield. Now they will have to come up and speak up. It is time for the TRC to go from the sensational and gruesome stories to a different level of understanding the conflict.

As it ends its statement taking around the country in Capemount, the TRC unearthed every possible kind of violence and savagery that one could imagine in a war: cannibalism, rape and indiscriminate killings. From Liberia, the TRC traveled to the US and held hearings in Minnesota and again listened to more victims of atrocities. However, unlike in Liberia, there were no foot soldiers in the US to narrate their actions.

So far, besides accounts of victims and a few low-level child-soldiers acting under the influence of narcotics and cheap booze, very little has ever been heard from those who might have played a conceptual role in the warfare that began in 1979. Another shortcoming of the process so far, is that nobody has come to speak of 1979, 1980 and the years immediately following the military coup, which somehow set the stage for the war.

During the TRC hearings in the Minnesota, US, it was heartening to hear former US Assistant Secretary of State Herman Cohen talk about his government’s role or absence of role in the prosecution of the war.

The appearance of Mr. Cohen at the TRC hearing merits some questions. Who invited him? Why didn’t TRC invite higher policy makers from the same era? We however found some contradictions in his testimony as reported in the media.

In 1992, the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Côte d’Ivoire, Mr. Amara Essy said that Mr. Cohen met with then Ivorian President Felix Houphouet Boigny, early in 1990. Mr. Cohen informed the Ivorians that the conflict in Liberia was containable and that the US would ensure that it never spill over. According to Mr. Essy, who is well and alive in Abidjan, Mr. Cohen said that the American government was in touch with every party to the conflict and that they were working on a solution. At the end of that meeting, President Houphouet Boigny declared to the press that the conflict was an intra- Liberian conflict and Côte d’Ivoire had no role to play in it.

In 1996, after the April 6 Fracas, the US Congress started a process of consultations that would have led to imposing sanctions on countries fueling the war in Liberia. Ambassador Cohen was then the lobbyist for Côte d’Ivoire. He provided every possible argument he could find to prove that Côte d’Ivoire never played any role in the conflict besides providing safe heaven to Liberian refugees. He was particularly interested in what the late Houphouet Boigny had told President Amos Sawyer in Abidjan in 1993.

In 1993, after ECOMOG jets dropped a bomb on an Ivorian bridge, President Sawyer, with the encouragement of Ghana, Nigeria and the US Embassy in Monrovia, traveled to Abidjan for a one –day visit to cool off the tension. During the meeting, Houphouet informed Sawyer that contrary to what was rumored, he had never met Charles Taylor prior to the first Yamoussoukro ECOWAS Peace Talks. He said that when he heard about the attacks on Liberia, he asked his Foreign Minister, Mr. Essy to call in the American Ambassador for clarification. Houphouet said the Liberian Ambassador in Abidjan had protested near their Foreign Ministry, claiming that the US was aware of the attack. According to Houphouet, the American Ambassador said they knew nothing about the attack and that they would call Washington and get back to him. A few weeks later, Mr. Cohen arrived in Abidjan and assured Houphouet Boigny not to worry and that the war would be contained.

Former Ivorian military leader Robert Guei, then Chief of Staff of the Ivorian army, was a close friend of Taylor. The Ivorian Minister of National Security was from a small village just a few miles from the Nimba border and had family relations in Liberia. Houphouet told Sawyer that he would not deny that Ivorians, including people of his administration may have played a personal role in the war but said his government had no official involvement. He said even Doe had recruited many Ivorian Krahns to serve as bodyguards. In the end, Congress never imposed sanctions on Côte d’Ivoire as it did with Burkina Faso. It is surprising now to hear Mr. Cohen accusing the Ivorians and the Burkina for starting the war in Liberia. Is this a cover up or has he uncover new facts?

While the roles of Burkina Faso and Libya are clear, in terms of their support, funding and arming of the Taylor rebellion, what Côte d’Ivoire and the US did or did not do is still to be credibility documented. The TRC would need to carry out more research as to who was in government in those countries and what they did and when. The process must also include testimonies from Burkina Faso and Libya, at least to uncover the truth. Blaise Compaoré and Muammar and their lieutenants could all provide crucial information.

At home, the announcement that Senator Prince Y. Johnson has accepted to face the TRC came as a breath of fresh air, because, for the first time, besides victims and low-level soldiers, one of the prominent personalities of the war would speak up. However, Senator Johnson decided to condition his appearance on that of others, including Harry Greaves and Boima Fahnbulleh. He also asked the Chairman of the TRC and Commissioner Sheikh Kafumba Konneh to be disqualified for from his hearing because of their past activities. And as he did earlier, he keeps insisting that he has made his peace with the family of Doe and therefore he would not go in there to talk about that key episode which marked the entire war process.

Senator Johnson appearance is important and will throw lights on various aspects of the war. The TRC is not a tribunal and therefore the presence of the Chairman Verdier and Commissioner Konneh will have no special effect on what he has to say. He can also make the case about the death of President Samuel Doe at his base, whether this was an act of war or not. If he has precise information about Greaves and Fahnbulleh, the TRC is the best forum to make them available to the nation. Senator Johnson can also throw lights on how they were recruited by Charles Taylor, how they reached Libya through Burkina Faso and why, after capturing Samuel Doe, he decided not to turn him over to ECOMOG. He could tell the public who provided him with ammunitions and other logistical support after he broke away from Charles Taylor.

The TRC could gain much if it carried out its own in-depth research on some of the events prior to inviting key figures. In so doing, it could orient the debate and the process would not turn into a series of unverifiable monologues of allegations. Witnesses could provide information that may help the TRC to ask meaningful questions to get to the truth.

The ultimate goal of all the TRC exercise must be to create a nation where every Liberian feels safe and at home and where symbols of the state represent the aspirations of the majority. Liberians could try and document how many people died in the years of political violence, between 1979 and 2003, write their names on a monument and promulgate a national day of reconciliation. The end of the war and the beginning of the democratic process is one that all Liberians could relate to.

As Liberia prepares to celebrate its 161st anniversary, a great number of its people may still perceive July 26 as the beginning of colonization while it marks the start of freedom and statehood for another group. On Independence Day, in many ceremonies around the country, prayers culled from the Bible – and/or the Qur’an would mark the opening and closing of receptions and other festivities when in fact it is written that Liberia is a secular state and nowhere is it said that Liberians are Christians or Muslims in their majority. Every official document in Liberia carries a seal with the inscription “The love of Liberty brought us here,” a statement that only one group of people can identify with. The Liberian flag is a copy of the American flag; streets in Monrovia still carry what many perceive as colonial names. These issues are all related to national reconciliation. On many occasions, Dr. Amos Sawyer said that the nation needs to re-examine its symbols to give them a national appeal, something that all Liberians can feel proud of and take ownership of.

When we spoke to Mr. Cyrus Badio, the spokesman for President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, he said that “it is important to note that the President has never said she would not appear before the TRC. She has always supported the Commission and has even urged all officials called upon to cooperate.” The TRC and the rest of Liberia are waiting. Her appearance, followed by Senator Prince Johnson and others will certainly bring out more testimonies. But as Mr. Badio noted, the event must not be turned into a spectacle and a charade.

It would take lots of courage to unearth the ugly past. The TRC process is just a beginning. After the truth has been brought to the surface and every dead given an honorable burial, Liberia would make a giant step toward national reconciliation.

---

© 2008 by The Perspective
E-mail: editor@theperspective.org

To Submit article for publication, go to the following URL: http://www.theperspective.org/submittingarticles.html