advertisement

coguamanam@hotmail.com Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

ANNOUNCE THIS ARTICLE TO YOUR FRIENDS

CHARLES TAYLOR'S CONTINUED STAY IN NIGERIA:
IN WHOSE INTEREST?

harles Taylor is in Nigeria as a guest of the Nigerian Government. If you disagree with that, it is likely that you would agree that Taylor is in Nigeria as Obasanjo's personal guest. But most importantly, he is wanted by the international community to account for his alleged war crimes in the West African region, especially in Liberia and Sierra Leone. Nigeria has refused to give up Charles Taylor, a man whose hands are soiled with the blood of many innocent victims of war, banditry and political brigandage. Taylor is a man whose ravaging campaigns left in their trail "sorrows, tears and blood" (apologies to Fela). Taylor's political ambition has yielded countless widows, orphans, refugees, amputees and many others whose lives have been permanently changed by his brutal bid for, and subsequent occupation of, the Presidential Mansion in Monrovia.

Victims of Taylor's tragic power grab in Liberia encompass virtually all nationals of West African countries and elsewhere. The human, emotional and economic costs of this man's ambition are equally distributed across the West African region and indeed the entire international community. Just as some families and individuals bore more than an ordinary brunt of Taylor's ignominious misadventure, some countries have paid in immeasurable terms as a result of his recklessness. Nigeria is one of such countries.

Indeed Nigerians were high-prize targets of Taylor's brutality before and after his disastrous hold on power. The reasons for Taylor's pathological hatred for Nigeria are outside the present discussion. But it will hurt the memories of Nigeria's two leading journalists and many innocent Nigerians who died at the hands of Taylor's sadistic army if he continues to stay in Nigeria with undeserving privileges. Nonetheless, to challenge Charles Taylor's stay on the basis of his wickedness toward Nigeria and Nigerians will trivialize the larger issues at stake.

Now, why is Nigeria hesitating to surrender Charles Taylor so that he could account for his alleged crimes? Put in a different way, why is Taylor not man enough to face his accusers and prove his innocence? To answer the first question, we need to first address why Nigeria granted Taylor political asylum. Nigeria's imperial President has argued that his country's granting of asylum to Charles Taylor was not a unilateral decision. Nigeria, he says, agreed to take Charles Taylor away from Liberia at the behest of the international community when it was clear that Taylor was an obstacle to peace and a stumbling block to the restoration of Liberia. This was at a time when no country was willing to step in and do what it seemed only Nigeria was cable of doing, wisely or foolishly.

advertisement

According to the Nigerian government, Taylor could have chosen to remain in power; after all, he was an elected President. He relinquished power, Nigeria argues, because of the assurance of the international community that he should not be harassed while in exile. Nigeria feels that it was on the basis of such assurance that she brokered a deal to have Taylor leave Monrovia for exile in Nigeria. It is only "honorable" that Nigeria defends that gentleman agreement. Nigeria prides itself to have brokered such a messy deal!

For the above reasons, Nigeria does not seem in a hurry to budge on the weight of subtle attempts by Washington and London to secure Nigeria's re-think on the Taylor situation. This is so despite some nuances of a carrot and stick scenario that has associated Nigeria's lame interest in a Permanent Seat at the United Nations Security Council and her debt cancellation drive with the Charles Taylor question. As preposterous as this may sound, the diplomatic world is driven by a lot of undercurrents that are worse than preposterous. In the diplomatic realm nothing is ruled out. As incredible as this link may be, it requires asking whether Charles Taylor is such a prized commodity that can compete with even the least consequential of Nigeria's national interest.

Beyond brazen speculations, Nigeria's insistence upon not giving up Charles Taylor needs further interrogation. I am appalled to think that Nigeria's huge human and material investments for peace in the Liberian crisis and its spill over to Sierra Leone was made so that the central figure in that crisis should be shielded from justice. Could Nigerian and indeed ECOWAS soldiers who paid the supreme prize with their lives in Liberia and Sierra Leone think the trouble was worth its while if Taylor and his ilk are allowed to escape from justice at Nigeria's instance? How seriously does Nigeria expect her men and women in uniform to respond to national call to service when Nigeria behaves in a manner that suggests that their lives and sacrifices are worthless?

Some may argue that Taylor was a democratically elected President. Nigeria is well within acceptable norms to insist that an agreement or understanding entered with him as a President deserved to be honored. Along these lines, Obasanjo has argued, that if any authority can annul that agreement, it is a democratically elected government in Liberia and, by extension, any legitimate successor regime. But we should not allow this shallow line of reasoning to detract from the well known fact that Taylor's route to power was by the barrel of the gun and not the ballot box. That was the reason he was quite prolific in grabbing power but totally bankrupt in nurturing peace. Hence, his inability to keep the power and willingness to abdicate it affirm his total lack of legitimacy in his political misadventure in Liberia. His so called election was a sham performed upon a people in state of helpless resignation. The allegations of war crime against Taylor encompass his activities before and after he came to power. There is no doubt that Taylor has a case to answer, even if we limit the charges to his alleged atrocities before he joined the league of Liberia's infamous Presidents in the tradition of Samuel Doe.

Luring Charles Taylor out of power provided Nigeria and indeed the international community the opportunity to bring him to justice. Standing logic and reason on their head, Obasanjo and his aides, however, believe that handing over Taylor to enable him to stand trial would generate a bad precedent. You are entitled to ask, bad precedent for whom? The bad precedent hypothesis is one within the lunatic fringe of the Nigerian government's grandstanding on Taylor. However, Charles Taylor's political asylum in Nigeria is already one bad precedent too many. Excusing the bad precedent argument for the time being, the President and his diplomatic aides appear to personalize the debate. They consider Charles Taylor's stay in Nigeria as an initiative with Royal imprimatur.

Since his Majesty's commitment to Taylor is unchangeable and unchallengeable, that is that. The President's ego is made to transcend the urgent desire of the international community to hold the likes of Charles Taylor accountable for their atrocities. What the President and his men fail to realize is that in diplomacy and politics nothing is cast in stone. In Africa's pre-colonial traditional diplomatic culture, warriors were disarmed by the deployment of smart overtures. You do not stand in the face of warriors to take away their weapon. You tell them how awesome the weapon looks, admire the weapon and then when the warrior's guard is let loose, you confiscate the weapon.

Therefore, even if Charles Taylor were given any assurances as a condition of his agreeing to accept Nigeria's offer of asylum, on what basis is he deserving of such assurances? I suggest that whatever understanding that existed then has served its purpose. Such understanding should be seen for what it ought to be. It was a lure that led the bull out of the china shop. The bull has been caged, and it should be made to face the music for all its havoc. What has Nigeria to gain by insisting otherwise?

Charles Taylor does not know the meaning of honour. He is undeserving of any. The President's insistence on the sanctity of the alleged undertaking by the international community to not harass Taylor or cajole Nigeria into surrendering him is a self-serving ego massage that does not promote Nigeria's interest, permanent or temporary. Nigeria's national interests and that of the West African region is better served by bringing dictators such as Taylor to justice and holding them to account. Nigeria should quit flip flopping and seize the prevailing opportunity to hand over Taylor for trial. How does Taylor's continued stay in Nigeria serve our national interest? Do Taylor as a person and his blood tainted followers constitute part of Nigeria's national interest for which we can compromise other potentially competing interests by continuing to provide him a safe haven? Is it in Nigeria's national interest that would-be Taylors in the West African region can count on Nigeria to provide them a safe haven when the day of reckoning comes?

Another aspect of the condition for Taylor's asylum that is frequently mentioned in the media is that he was expected to shun any tendency to politically interfere in the affairs of Liberia while the hemorrhage he inflicted is being contained. Recent pressures on Nigeria by the international community to hand over Charles Taylor for war crime prosecution have nuanced Taylor's violation of this condition under Nigeria's watch. This in itself is a serious indictment on Nigeria even as it presents her a compelling reason for the termination of the Taylor asylum. This option would not require dragging the international community into the equation.

If the allegation is true, then conclusively, Taylor has played into the hands of the unseen but highly felt international community. He would have then compromised his juicy Nigerian deal that handed him a temporary ticket to fly from justice. Assuming that the allegation of Charles Taylor's continued political interference in Liberia while he is on asylum in Nigeria is unfounded, Nigeria has not provided evidence to debunk such claim. Unfortunately, such claims have continued to gain currency in the popular media and within the international community. I do not suggest that Taylor's refrain from political interference in Liberia is good enough to earn him an escape from justice. However, the fact that his adherence to such condition is subject to suspicion, doubt and speculation shows how shallow and nonsensical Nigeria's continued shielding of Taylor from potential grip of justice has become.

It is not out of place to question the moral high ground upon which members of the international community are pressuring Nigeria to hand Taylor over for prosecution. Already, recently, the respected Guardian Newspaper (Nigeria) editorial supporting Nigeria's refusal to hand over Charles Taylor alludes to this.

The United States, for example, which is at the forefront of this move, has shunned the International Criminal Court (ICC) initiative. Presently, it has a bilateral agreement with Nigeria as with other third world countries in support of its bid to undermine the ICC. That is a matter for another day. But the seeming irony here only helps to reinforce the fact that in diplomacy, as in politics, nothing is cast in stone. That is the reason those who defend Nigeria's refusal to deliver Taylor for war crime trial on the basis of the assurance of the international community that Nigeria will not be pressured to surrender him are so naïve that they miss the point.

America's double standard on world affairs demonstrates that in international law and relations nations with strongest leverage dictate the agenda and set the terms of engagement. In the case of Charles Taylor, America's double speak is not enough to justify his escape from justice. His alleged war crimes were committed against humanity as a whole and Africa in particular.

Nigeria's continued harbouring of Charles Taylor does not advance our national interest. It makes nonsense of several year of Nigeria's commitment of human and material resources to the Liberian and Sierra Leonean crises.

Taylor's asylum in Nigeria is an ugly precedent that disparages both the dead and living victims of these conflicts. If of any values at all, it is this: Taylor's stay in Nigeria massages the President's ego. I hope the President will not continue bluffing the demands of the international community which, in this case, coincides with popular sentiments in Nigeria and the West African region.

It may yet get to a point where the tides turn, and the President may find himself in a desperate need to save face should things become further messed up. Now is the time for the President to save himself and Nigeria the continuing embarrassment of his government's ill-articulated and highly unpersuasive drama orchestrated by Taylor's continued stay in Nigeria.