Share

--

--

How deeply— if at all— should the United States involve itself in Liberia? Joseph Siegle, the Council's Douglas Dillon Fellow and a specialist in international development and humanitarian assistance, debates Jack Spencer, a defense and national security senior policy analyst at the Heritage Foundation who has written extensively about military readiness.

The debate took place July 30-31, 2003.

Joseph Siegle:
No country likes to deploy troops for humanitarian missions. Yet experience shows that such deployments are necessary. Without robust international intervention, these crises drag on. Moreover, such conflicts have a nasty habit of spilling over into neighboring countries, incurring ever greater costs. An estimated 350,000 people have been killed by the instability in Liberia. At least 1 million are displaced. Rape, maimings, and child soldiers have become commonplace. And, as we speak, conditions are getting worse. Food and water supplies have been cut off. Tens of thousands are at risk of starvation and disease.

Over the last decade, a norm has evolved whereby the first-world country with the closest ties to the nation enduring a humanitarian crisis takes the lead in generating a resolution. It is backed up by an array of international actors. The British-led effort in Sierra Leone, the French deployment in Ivory Coast, and the Australian intervention in East Timor are all examples of how such undertakings can be effective. In Liberia, the world is looking to the United States to play the lead, given America's close historic and Cold War ties to the African nation founded by freed U.S. slaves.

The United States should take this crisis by the horns: pressure all sides into a renewed ceasefire, deploy 2,000 marines at the head of an international force to stabilize the situation, oversee the demobilization of the militias, and facilitate a transition to an interim government, as is being negotiated by the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS).

Jack Spencer:
While the humanitarian crisis in Liberia is tragic, deploying U.S. troops on the ground now would be inappropriate and ineffective if the goal is to achieve long-term stability. Indeed, until the Liberians establish a political settlement, no international peacekeeping force should be deployed. The fact of the matter is that there is no peace to be kept. Troops trained and equipped for peacekeeping would not be prepared for action in Liberia. Given that multiple warring factions continue to fight and have shown no sign of submitting to peace, the objective of the invading force must be to take sides in the civil war and defeat the other— essentially to achieve regime change in a nation that poses no threat to the would-be invaders. This is the only way to bring about a long-term solution to Liberia's problems from without.

A far better option would be to help the Liberians establish a peace settlement from within. Then, if the Liberians ask for an international peacekeeping force to help them sustain the peace and stabilize the nation, it would be appropriate for the international community to send in peacekeepers. The United States could provide leadership, logistics, and communications for such a force to ensure its success. It should not, however, provide ground troops. Besides the fact that Americans make poor peacekeepers, U.S. military forces are already stretched thin doing things around the world that only they can do. Other nations are fully capable of providing a peacekeeping force.

The United States should help Liberia establish long-term stability, but it would be wrong to suggest that the best way to help is to send troops, especially when an external military resolution will not solve the problem. The African continent has for too long been subjected to artificial borders, artificial leaders, and artificial policy. Let's not subject it to an artificial peace.

Siegle:
We agree that a military intervention is not an end in itself. It has to produce a stable political outcome. We disagree on how to get there. Negotiations made under fire are inherently unstable— as we are seeing. Rather, establishing a stable security context first is more likely to pave the way to a durable political settlement. With security, humanitarian assistance can flow and businesses can re-open. As tensions are defused, a lasting political accord— involving more than the warring parties— becomes realistic.

Toward this end, an effective international stabilization force must be militarily credible and politically neutral. This is what will foster cooperation from all sides and enable subsequent demobilization. Taking sides in this conflict where there are only bad guys would be disastrous. When the Nigerians led a peacekeeping force in Liberia in the early 1990s, they did not command sufficient credibility. Furthermore, the Nigerians did take sides and were drawn into extensive combat— and casualties. Over time, they engaged in looting themselves. Sending in an undermanned West African force this time risks another peacekeeping debacle.

The unparalleled respect Liberians have for U.S. troops makes them far-and-away the most credible and neutral leaders of this intervention. And while U.S. troops would rather avoid peacekeeping missions, they have done a fine job whenever called upon to do so.

Spencer:
Let us assume that at some point an international military force will be appropriate. The question then becomes: What role does the United States play? I would argue that this role should be limited in scope and duration and should not include any ground troops.

Other nations are capable of providing the military forces necessary. Neighboring African nations, for whom this is vitally important, should take the lead. And there are European nations that chose not to help liberate Iraq that could provide adequate teeth for the operation.

Americans are equipped and trained to fight wars, not be international peacekeepers. That's the way it should be. As demonstrated in Kosovo, Afghanistan, and Iraq, only the United States can move large forces globally and defeat adversaries in short amounts of time with low casualty rates on both sides. Furthermore, the United States is engaged in other operations that are vitally important to both it and the world. It has 11,500 troops in Afghanistan, 150,000 in Iraq, and still more conducting other missions worldwide. This is in addition to its peacetime responsibilities, such as preventing large-scale aggression in regions of vital importance and maintaining access to the high seas.

Besides, the United States is not neutral, as peacekeepers must be if they are to be effective. In fact, the Bush administration has more than once identified [Liberian President Charles] Taylor as the problem and called for Taylor to leave the nation. Even if it were neutral, it would not be perceived as such.

Then there is the likelihood that the public won't support such operations. Americans simply will not tolerate seeing their young men and women dying in the streets of far-flung nations for something with no connection to American national security.

Siegle:
Let's talk about U.S. national security. While Liberia is primarily a humanitarian crisis, there are U.S. national interests that bear consideration. Al Qaeda has been consistently linked to Charles Taylor by European and U.N. investigators as part of a diamond smuggling/money-laundering operation. The trail on this runs from 1998 until after September 11. Liberia is also implicated in a plot to smuggle surface-to-air missiles from Latin America to al Qaeda. Indeed, as we learned in Afghanistan, even seemingly unimportant countries can pose security threats to the United States.

We also have economic interests in this region. Nigeria supplies 7 percent of U.S. oil— a level that is expected to double in the next 10 years. The longer this conflict embroils West Africa and diverts Nigerian troops and resources, the less Nigerians will be able to deal with their own many problems, not least of which is an increasingly militant Islamic population in the north.

U.S. equivocation in Liberia also has implications for U.S. global leadership. A key theme of President Bush's recent trip to Africa was that there is a compassionate side to U.S. foreign policy. The failure of the United States to take decisive leadership in Liberia provokes cynicism of this claim. And U.S. moral leadership is indispensable to combat a host of transnational threats for which we need the enthusiastic cooperation of many global partners.

Spencer:
We agree on many points. As was just pointed out, Liberia specifically, and West Africa generally, are important and that importance is growing. The difference of opinion seems mostly to be over what to do about it.

Al Qaeda has apparently had some presence in Liberia. That is why we must address the problems there. However, the presence of al Qaeda does not justify a military invasion. If that were the case, the United States could likely justify invading any nation on Earth, including itself. As for Afghanistan, we should have learned a lesson there. I hope that lesson is not that the United States should invade because there is internal instability, but that the United States and the rest of the international community should not turn their backs on these failing states. The best way to help is to remain involved with them diplomatically, politically, and economically and encourage them to achieve political solutions to their internal problems by helping them create the conditions for peace.

This is what the United States is attempting to do with the draft resolution that it recently submitted to the United Nations Security Council on Liberia. This resolution will allow for an international peacekeeping force, assuming certain conditions are met. These conditions, such as establishing a ceasefire and providing immunity from the International Criminal Court, are exactly what are necessary to create the conditions for a successful peacekeeping effort.

Siegle:
This conflict will not be resolved on its own. Indeed, recent experience tells us that left alone, civil wars in Africa tend to persist and further disintegrate. Even if the rebels were to defeat Charles Taylor, they would not have the legitimacy or capacity to maintain control. A new round of hostilities would ensue.

This conflict is ready for resolution. All sides have called for a U.S.-led stabilization force, there is widespread war-weariness among the population and the militias, Liberia's neighbors are actively engaged in seeing this conflict brought to closure, and all sides have acknowledged the need for a political solution. Given the acute levels of distrust and animosity among the warring parties, however, they simply can't do it on their own.

The backing shown for the draft U.N. Security Council resolution demonstrates the support and flexibility the world community is willing to provide the United States in Liberia. Furthermore, a restructured Liberia does hold out prospects for a stable peace. Prior to the 1990s, Liberia did not have a history of civil war.

The United States can bring this crisis to a quick end at relatively low cost and risk, save thousands of Liberian lives, and stabilize the region. It's in our interest, it's part of our international responsibility, and it's the right thing to do.