The Need to Retool Liberia's Relationship With the U.S.
By Robtel Neajai Pailey,
20 January 2012
AllAfrica
Liberian Observer
Two very significant and interconnected events happened this week in Liberia - President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf was inaugurated for a second term with a subdued opposition attending the ceremonies, and former Liberian President Charles Taylor was implicated in a Boston Globe article for serving as a CIA informant beginning in the early 1980s and spanning many decades.
Taylor, Taylor, How Did Your Garden Grow?
America's facilitation of Taylor's escape from a maximum security prison in Boston in 1985 - while he was facing extradition to Liberia for allegedly stealing US$1 million from the General Services Agency, which he headed during President Samuel Kanyon Doe's regime - was always rumored but never corroborated. I remember covering the first day of Taylor's trial in the Hague for Pambazuka News, and interviewing Stephen Rapp, the then chief prosecutor, about whether or not his investigations into Taylor's exploits in Libya and Sierra Leone ever unearthed the real causes of his 'escape' from the maximum security prison in Massachusetts.
Rapp was tight-lipped, yet appeared confounded by this mystery as well. When Taylor eventually confessed during the Hague trial that he strolled out of prison after a guard conveniently opened his cell one night, we all knew that something was awry: "I am calling it my release because I didn't break out," Taylor testified. "I did not pay any money. I did not know the guys who picked me up. I was not hiding [afterwards]."
The Taylor-CIA connection has re-inscribed for Liberians an age-old dilemma, what to do with our so-called historical relationship with the United States, which has been fraught with betrayal after betrayal. Liberians who have been commenting on various notice boards are justifiably angry, upset and disappointed, but not surprised. This is the validation we've been wanting for years, and it comes on the heels of the inauguration for a second term of our head of state, who was ironically pictured dedicating the new U.S. Embassy in Liberia this week, with a smiling Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in the foreground.
Some Liberians, under anonymity, are arguing that U.S. authorities who courted Taylor for intelligence be brought to justice for crimes against humanity in the Liberian civil war, that the International Criminal Court - now headed by a female Gambian national - should exhibit blind justice, that instead of hauling African and non-Western leaders to the international body for prosecution, they too should face the full weight of the law. I tend to agree with these arguments, however radical and farfetched they may seem.
Inquiring Liberian Minds Deserve to Know
The Globe article recounts that the CIA has said releasing further information could be a national security threat. A threat to whom, might I ask? Liberians deserve to know the nature, duration, scale, and scope of the CIA-Taylor relationship, it is a part of our national history, and must be recounted in the history books for our children, and our children's children to remember that a relationship with the U.S. must be monitored at all times.
Liberians are not gullible, nor are we unsophisticated in realizing that one plus one equals two. We've always known that the dubiousness surrounding Taylor's escape from the Massachusetts maximum-security prison was the beginning of the end for us. And if the implications of the Globe article are true, then the CIA could provide more answers.
It's no wonder that the U.S. didn't intervene in the Liberian civil war, though Liberians begged and pleaded for its "father/mother" to stop us from killing each other. One U.S. diplomat at the time even said that "Liberia is of no strategic interest to the United States." It begs the question, if Liberia was of "no strategic interest" during the war, when we were killing ourselves and each other in the name of liberation, what is Liberia's strategic interest to the U.S. now, when U.S. NGOs and development workers abound, and the Peace Corps has reinserted itself?
This should send a strong signal to Liberians and Liberia once and for all that America cannot be trusted. From Noriega, to Osama, to Saddam, to Samuel Doe, authoritarian leaders who end up in the U.S.'s good graces are never there for long.
Limits of Reciprocity
What Liberians and the Liberian government should be doing is strategizing, devising our own "Liberia Policy for the U.S." which factors in seriously our checkered history with unsentimental bias.
We should also rely on a corpus of intellectual and creative work that has already investigated our 'limits of reciprocity' with the United States. Liberian filmmaker Nancee Oku Bright's film, Liberia: America's Stepchild, explores the torturous relationship between Liberia and the United States, with her thesis being that the U.S. sees Liberia as an 'outside' child, one who is illegitimate upon conception and can be used and abused at will without consequence. And Liberian academic Dr. D. Elwood Dunn also interrogates this relationship in his book, Liberia and the United States During the Cold War: Limits of Reciprocity, showing that the Cold War placed Liberia in a very strategic position to exploit its relationship with the United States, yet with unintended consequences.
In this new political dispensation, it should be clear that Liberia should hold the U.S. at arm's length, that hosting AFRICOM or any U.S. satellite post is out of the question, that we have to use them just as strategically as they have used us. With the geopolitics of China and other emerging nations, Liberia needs to develop a "Look South Policy," not because we have become alienated, as in the case of Zimbabwe, but because we have made a conscious decision to explore other options, remembering that the U.S. will act only in its interest and leave those caught in the crossfire to fend for themselves.
We deserve to know the details of Taylor's relationship with the CIA. It is crucial to our development planning, historical remembrance, healing and nation-building.
Born in Monrovia, Liberia, Robtel Neajai Pailey is currently pursuing a doctorate in Development Studies at the University of London's School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS), as a Mo Ibrahim Foundation Ph.D. Scholar.
Saturday, May 26, 2012
Liberia: Taylor's CIA Link - Boston Globe retracts story
By Othello B. Garblah,
26 January 2012
The New Dawn (Liberia)
The Boston Globe, a New York Times Company newspaper, has admitted that its report quoting US Defense officials as confirming that ex-President Charles Taylor worked as a hired US spy agent lacks evidence.
"The article was not based on adequate reporting and drew unsupported conclusion...the agency offered no such confirmation," Mr. David McCraw, Vice President and Assistant General Counsel of the New York Times Company said in a letter to Mr. Taylor's lawyer Wednesday.
"The Globe had no adequate basis for asserting otherwise and the story should not have run in this form," an editor's note published Wednesday along with the letter addressed to Courtenay Griffiths said.
When this paper contacted The Globe's Editor Martin Baron via email Wednesday to confirmed whether his paper had retracted the story, directed this writer to the link where the said editor's note was published, saying "It was published here..."
The Globe in its Tuesday January 17, 2012 edition under the caption ("Former Liberian Dictator Charles Taylor Had US Spy Agency Ties") reported that US Defense Department officials had confirmed "what has long been rumored" that Taylor worked with US spy agencies during his rise as one of the world's most notorious dictators.
Relevant Links
In his letter to Courtenay Griffiths QC, on Wednesday January 25, McCraw said the paper arrived at this conclusion after a careful review of the article by its editors and concluded that the said article was not based on adequate reporting.
In an editor's note published on its website with the letter addressed to Mr. Taylor's lawyer, The Globe admitted that the said article on the Taylor's CIA link drew unsupported conclusions and significantly overstepped available evidence when it described Mr. Taylor as having worked with US spy agencies as a "sought-after source."
"The story, based on a response by the US Defense Intelligence Agency to a long-pending records request from the Globe, described the agency's response as having "confirmed its agents and CIA agents worked with Taylor beginning in the early 1980s."
But the agency offered no such confirmation; rather, it said only that it possessed 48 documents running to 153 pages that fall in the category of what the Globe asked for - records relating to Taylor and to his relationship, if any, with American intelligence going back to 1982. The agency, however, refused to release the documents and gave no indication of what was in them," paper said in its retraction published Wednesday.
The paper adds that "one of the grounds for that refusal was suggestive, citing the need to protect "intelligence sources and methods," but that, by itself, fell well short of a sufficient basis for the published account.
There has long been speculation that Taylor had such a role, speculation fueled in part by Taylor's own suggestion in trial testimony that his 1985 escape from prison in Plymouth, Mass., may have been facilitated by CIA operatives. But Taylor, now standing trial before a UN special court on charges of rape, murder, and other offenses, denies he was ever a source for, or worked for, US intelligence."
The Full Text of the Editor's note below:
For the record: Story overreached in calling Taylor intelligence source
Editor's note: A front-page story on Jan. 17 drew unsupported conclusions and significantly overstepped available evidence when it described former Liberia president Charles Taylor as having worked with US spy agencies as a "sought-after source." The story, based on a response by the US Defense Intelligence Agency to a long-pending records request from the Globe, described the agency's response as having "confirmed its agents and CIA agents worked with Taylor beginning in the early 1980s."
But the agency offered no such confirmation; rather, it said only that it possessed 48 documents running to 153 pages that fall in the category of what the Globe asked for - records relating to Taylor and to his relationship, if any, with American intelligence going back to 1982. The agency, however, refused to release the documents and gave no indication of what was in them.
One of the grounds for that refusal was suggestive, citing the need to protect "intelligence sources and methods," but that, by itself, fell well short of a sufficient basis for the published account. There has long been speculation that Taylor had such a role, speculation fueled in part by Taylor's own suggestion in trial testimony that his 1985 escape from prison in Plymouth, Mass., may have been facilitated by CIA operatives. But Taylor, now standing trial before a UN special court on charges of rape, murder, and other offenses, denies he was ever a source for, or worked for, US intelligence.
The Globe had no adequate basis for asserting otherwise and the story should not have run in this form.
_________________________
Original Story
Former Liberian dictator Charles Taylor had US spy agency ties
Boston GlobeJanuary 17, 2012
By Bryan Bender
WASHINGTON - When Charles G. Taylor tied bed sheets together to escape from a second-floor window at the Plymouth House of Correction on Sept. 15, 1985, he was more than a fugitive trying to avoid extradition. He was a sought-after source for American intelligence.
After a quarter-century of silence, the US government has confirmed what has long been rumored: Taylor, who would become president of Liberia and the first African leader tried for war crimes, worked with US spy agencies during his rise as one of the world’s most notorious dictators.
The disclosure on the former president comes in response to a request filed by the Globe six years ago under the Freedom of Information Act. The Defense Intelligence Agency, the Pentagon’s spy arm, confirmed its agents and CIA agents worked with Taylor beginning in the early 1980s.
“They may have stuck with him longer than they should have but maybe he was providing something useful,’’ said Douglas Farah, a senior fellow at the International Assessment and Strategy Center in Washington and an authority on Taylor’s reign and the guns-for-diamonds trade that was a base of his power.The Defense Intelligence Agency refused to reveal any details about the relationship, saying doing so would harm national security.
Taylor, 63, pleaded innocent in 2009 to multiple counts of murder, rape, attacking civilians, and deploying child soldiers during a civil war in neighboring Sierra Leone while he was president of Liberia from 1997 to 2003. After a proceeding that lasted several years, the three-judge panel of the UN Special Court for Sierra Leone is now reviewing tens of thousands of pages of evidence, including the testimony of about 100 victims, former rebels, and Taylor himself, whose testimony lasted seven months.
“We hope the verdict will come in the first quarter of this year,’’ said Solomon Moriba, a spokesman for the court in The Hague.
Moriba said any relationship Taylor had with American intelligence was not related to his case before the court, but those who investigated the atrocities said it might explain why some US officials seemed reluctant to use their influence to bring Taylor to justice sooner.
After Taylor stepped down as Liberian president in 2003 following his indictment, he lived virtually in the open for three years in exile in Nigeria, a US ally. The Bush administration came under intense criticism from members of Congress for not intervening with the Nigerian government until Taylor was finally handed over to the court in 2006.
Allan White, a former Defense Department investigator who helped build the case against Taylor on behalf of the United Nations, said the news reinforced suspicions he had for years.
“I think the intelligence community’s past relationship with Taylor made some in the US government squeamish about a trial, despite knowing what a bad actor he was,’’ White said in an interview.
Taylor’s lawyer in the war crimes trial, Courtenay Griffiths, did not respond to several calls or e-mails seeking comment.
The Pentagon’s response to the Globe states that the details of Taylor’s role on behalf of the spy agencies are contained in dozens of secret reports - at least 48 separate documents - covering several decades. However, the exact duration and scope of the relationship remains hidden. The Defense Intelligence Agency said the details are exempt from public disclosure because of the need to protect “sources and methods,’’ safeguard the inner workings of American spycraft, and shield the identities of government personnel.
Former intelligence officials, who agreed to discuss the covert ties only on the condition of anonymity, and specialists including Farah believe Taylor probably was considered useful for gathering intelligence about the activities of Moammar Khadafy. During the 1980s, the ruler of Libya was blamed for sponsoring such terrorist acts as the Pan Am Flight 103 bombing over Lockerbie, Scotland and for fomenting guerrilla wars across Africa.
Taylor testified that after fleeing Boston he recruited 168 men and women for the National Patriotic Front for Liberia and trained them in Libya.
Over time, the former officials said, Taylor may have also been seen as a source for information on broader issues in Africa, from the illegal arms trade to the activities of the Soviet Union, which, like the United States, was seeking allies on the continent as part of the broader struggle of the Cold War.
Liberia, too, was of special interest to Washington. The country was founded in 1847 by freed American slaves who named its capital, Monrovia, after President James Monroe. The American embassy was among the largest in the world, covering two full city blocks, and US companies had significant investments in the country, including a Firestone tire factory and a Coca-Cola bottling plant.
A former ally of Taylor’s, Prince Johnson, told a government commission in Liberia in 2008 that he believed US intelligence had encouraged Taylor to overthrow the government in Liberia, which had fallen out of favor with Washington for banning all political opposition.
Taylor’s ties to Boston reach back four decades.
He arrived in 1972 and attended Chamberlayne Junior College in Newton and studied economics at Bentley College in Waltham. While in Boston, he emerged as a political force as national chairman of the Union of Liberian Associations. In 1977 he returned to Liberia and joined Samuel Doe’s government after a coup in 1980.
Taylor served as chief of government procurement in the Doe regime but fled Liberia for Boston in 1983 after being accused of embezzling $1 million from the government. He was arrested in Somerville in 1984 and jailed in Plymouth pending extradition.
The acknowledgment now that Taylor worked with US intelligence agencies at the time raises new questions about whether elements within the government orchestrated the Plymouth prison break in 1985 - as Taylor claimed during his trial - or at least helped him flee the United States.
Four other inmates who also escaped that night were soon recaptured.
“Why would someone walk out of a prison that’s never been breached in a 100 years?’’ said David M. Crane, who was the chief prosecutor for the Sierra Leone war crimes court from 2002 to 2005 and now teaches at Syracuse University College of Law. “It begs the question: How do you walk out of a prison? It seems someone looked the other way.’’
Taylor recounted the episode during his trial testimony, insisting that a guard opened his cell for him.
“I am calling it my release because I didn’t break out,’’ Taylor testified. “I did not pay any money. I did not know the guys who picked me up. I was not hiding [afterwards].’’
He said two men - he assumed they were American agents - were waiting for him outside the prison and drove him to New York to meet his wife. Using his own passport, he said, he traveled to Mexico before returning to Africa.
Brian Gillen, the superintendent of the maximum security jail in Plymouth who was director of security at the time of Taylor’s escape, declined to comment when reached last week by the Globe.
Taylor reemerged in Liberia in 1989 as head of a rebel army.
“I assigned an officer to maintain a watch on the Taylor people,’’ recalled James Keough Bishop, US ambassador in Liberia from 1981 to 1989.
Bishop said he was not aware of ties between American intelligence and Taylor.
After a series of bloody civil wars that lasted much of the 1990s, Taylor eventually assumed power. He was elected president in 1997.
Several former officials and specialists believe US intelligence had probably cut ties with Taylor by the time he became president, but Farah said he believes that even in the early years of their associations with Taylor, US intelligence agencies knew what kind of character he was.
“Even at the time, there were atrocities going on,’’ he said. “He wasn’t clean when they hooked up with him. We had a high tolerance for people who were willing to inform on Khadafy. The question is whether he actually provided anything useful.’’
_________________________________________________
See also:
Charles Taylor 'worked' for CIA in Liberia
BBC
US authorities say former Liberian leader Charles Taylor worked for its intelligence agencies, including the CIA, the Boston Globe reports.
The revelation comes in response to a Freedom of Information request by the newspaper.
A Globe reporter told the BBC this is the first official confirmation of long-held reports of a relationship between US intelligence and Mr Taylor.
Mr Taylor is awaiting a verdict on his trial for alleged war crimes.
Rumours of CIA ties were fuelled in July 2009 when Mr Taylor himself told his trial, at the UN-backed Special Court for Sierra Leone in the Hague, that US agents had helped him escape from a maximum security prison in Boston in 1985.
The CIA at the time denied such claims as "completely absurd".
But now the Defence Intelligence Agency, the Pentagon's spy arm, has disclosed that its agents - and those of the CIA - did later use Mr Taylor as an informant, the Globe reports.
Globe reporter Bryan Bender told the BBC's Network Africa programme that Pentagon officials refused to give details on exactly what role Mr Taylor played, citing national security.
But they did confirm that Mr Taylor first started working with US intelligence in the 1980s, the period when he rose to become one of the world's most notorious warlords, Mr Bender says.
Mr Taylor was later elected Liberia's president.
He has been accused of arming and controlling the RUF rebels in neighbouring Sierra Leone during a 10-year campaign of terror conducted largely against civilians.
If convicted, Mr Taylor would serve a prison sentence in the UK.
He denies charges of murder, rape and using child soldiers.
_____________________________
Boston Globe: We 'overreached' on Charles Taylor-CIA story
Posted By Joshua Keating
Foreign Policy
January 25, 2012 - 3:17 PM
Last week, I wrote a post linking to a front-page story from the Boston Globe on links between former Liberian President, now-war crimes defendant Charles Taylor and the CIA. The piece reported that, in response to a Freedom of Information Act request by the Globe, the U.S. government had confirmed that Taylor had worked with U.S. spy agencies while he was a rebel leader fighting to overthrow the Liberian government.
Today, the Globe has issued a near-retraction of the story:
A front-page story on Jan. 17 drew unsupported conclusions and significantly overstepped available evidence when it described former Liberia president Charles Taylor as having worked with US spy agencies as a “sought-after source.’’ The story, based on a response by the US Defense Intelligence Agency to a long-pending records request from the Globe, described the agency’s response as having “confirmed its agents and CIA agents worked with Taylor beginning in the early 1980s.’’
But the agency offered no such confirmation; rather, it said only that it possessed 48 documents running to 153 pages that fall in the category of what the Globe asked for - records relating to Taylor and to his relationship, if any, with American intelligence going back to 1982. The agency, however, refused to release the documents and gave no indication of what was in them.
One of the grounds for that refusal was suggestive, citing the need to protect “intelligence sources and methods,’’ but that, by itself, fell well short of a sufficient basis for the published account. There has long been speculation that Taylor had such a role, speculation fueled in part by Taylor’s own suggestion in trial testimony that his 1985 escape from prison in Plymouth, Mass., may have been facilitated by CIA operatives. But Taylor, now standing trial before a UN special court on charges of rape, murder, and other offenses, denies he was ever a source for, or worked for, US intelligence.
The Globe had no adequate basis for asserting otherwise and the story should not have run in this form.
The fact that these "records relating to Taylor and to his relationship, if any, with American intelligence" exist but the CIA won't release them is only going to increase the curiosity about what they contain. The correction is unlikely to stop the rumor mills in Monrovia, Washington, or The Hague.
Welcoming the Liberia-Is-a-Christian-Nation Campaign
Because of the Kind of Liberia We Will Have – Part I
The New Dawn (Liberia)
Monday, 27 February 2012
By Paul Y. Harry
It has been reported that a group of very faithful and we-will-do-anything-for-Jesus Christians, Christians who believe both in the Christian principles and faithfully and sincerely applying those principles in their words and deeds – that is, in the entire lives – have begun a campaign aimed at changing Article 14 of the current Liberian Constitution, which states that “no religious denomination or sect shall have any exclusive privilege or preference over any other, but all shall be treated alike … Consistent with the principle of separation of religion and state, the state shall establish no state religion,” to something like “Liberia is a Christian nation, although other religions will be accommodated and tolerated,” because, according to them, Liberia was founded on Christian principles, interpreted to mean that Liberia is a Christian nation.
Welcoming the Liberia-Is-a-Christian-Nation Campaign - Because of the Kind of Liberia We Will Have – Part I
As indicated earlier, a campaign to arrive at this state has already begun and, to make their drive gain traction or be weightier, those true-Christian-principles believers are seeking at least one million signatures from like-minded Christians.
Like ex-President Charles Taylor and his “Liberia for Jesus” crusade in 2002, when he prostrated at the SKD Sports Complex, saying, “Jesus, you are the President of Liberia; I am not,” these true Bible and we-really-believe-in-and-live-the-Christian-principles believers say they want to return Liberia back to the Christian principles upon which it was built.
Seriously, this is welcome news and development for our country and its people. But who would oppose the idea of making Liberia and its citizens speak and live the Christian principles set out in the Bible? We welcome it, for we know the kind of Liberia we will have.
We await the day on which that declaration will be made. Oh, God, let Liberia be declared a Christian nation sooner than later. We have longed for such a Liberia for years. Let the one million signatures be obtained in the twinkling of an eye.
But who would kick against declaring Liberia a Christian nation, when Liberia and Liberians would no longer be the same, when a complete transformation would take place?
But isn’t declaring Liberia a Christian nation about making the nation and its people practice in their national and individual lives, their public and private lives, the Christian principles set out and promulgated by Jesus and His apostles?
Who would kick against it, when declaring Liberia a Christian nation would make Liberia different from what it is now, in terms of its citizens’ desire to shun evil and live a godly life?
But who would reject it, when declaring Liberia a Christian nation would cause all politicians and government officials, including the President, to no longer mention the word “zoes” in the expression: “Our chiefs, elders and zoes”? In other words, who would kick against it, when “zoes” would be no more?
Who would oppose it, fellow Liberians, when declaring Liberia a Christian nation would make a top female government official who was recently honored by the chiefs, elders and zoes of Bong County, giving her a zoe-related traditional title, would return to the zoes and elders and say, “Liberia is now a Christian nation. Take back the title you gave me; I don’t want it”?
Who would kick against it, when declaring Liberia a Christian nation would cause prostitution and prostitutes to disappear from our Christian nation? Isn’t it good news?
Frankly, this is not an idea to oppose, because when Liberia is declared a Christian nation, men and women, boys and girls, will no longer go to motels, hotels or places of that nature for the purpose of having sex secretly, for it would be a new Liberia.
Who would oppose it, when declaring Liberia a Christian nation would cause all pieces of worldly music to disappear from the Christian nation that we would have? Let it be declared today, not tomorrow.
But who would frown on such a development, when declaring Liberia a Christian state would stop the operation of night clubs in our new Christian nation?
Would anyone really go against it, when declaring the country a Christian state would cause all men and women, boys and girls, to stop engaging in oral sex, when everyone would realize that no woman is to suck a man and no man is to suck a woman, as the declaration would force them to know instantly that God never made their mouths for their private sex organs? Let Liberia be declared a Christian nation now, not later.
But who would be irritated by it, when the declaration would stop the commission of fornication and adultery in our society, the Christian nation of our day?
Would anybody step on the idea? We don’t think so, as declaring Liberia a Christian country would cause pastors, deacons, bishops and other church leaders to refrain from eating church money or secretly having sex with the members of their church.
But why kick against the idea, when declaring Liberia a Christian state would cause women not to think about or have abortion, a practice that has caused the deaths of thousands of innocent, unborn kids? And why reject the declaration, when it will cause doctors, physician assistants and nurses to stop performing abortion?
But who would want to reject such a campaign, when declaring Liberia a Christian nation would cause all politicians and public officers to stop practicing corruption and anything resembling it in our new Christian nation? Who would reject the idea, when in the new Christian Liberia all business deals, including concessions agreements, would be transparently done? Wouldn’t this the kind of Liberia that any citizen would like to have?
Would anyone be that audacious to reject the new Liberia, when the declaration would cause criminal activities to cease, for a Christian Liberia would be a completely different Liberia?
But who would really oppose the declaration, when Liberia would now be a country where no one would sue another person, since the Christian principles talked about also involve loving your enemy, praying for those who hate and ill-treat you and forgiving seventy times seven those who wrong you?
Seriously, my people, it is in the interest of the country and its people for Liberia to be declared a Christian nation, and we pray that the God-fearing Christians, the we-live-only-for-Christ believers that are behind this campaign should not rest their case until they achieve their dream, for we know that they and those affixing their signatures to the one-million-signature petition are sure that the declaration will spiritually transform Liberia and its people.
But, seriously, folks, if declaring Liberia a Christian nation would have no impact on the spiritual lives and attitudes and behavior of the people of this land, especially those calling themselves Christians and supporting this Liberia-should-be-declared-a-Christian nation campaign, then why waste resources on the campaign, and why start such a campaign, in the first place? Is it because some pastors want to sit in studio at a radio station for callers to say to them, “Men of God, we support you for what you are doing; may God bless you and your families for standing up for Jesus”?
Because of the Kind of Liberia We Will Have – Part 2
The New Dawn
Tuesday, 06 March 2012
By Paul Y. Harry
It is now well-known that a group of very faithful and we-will-do-anything-for-Jesus Christians, Christian who are faithfully and sincerely applying in their words and deeds the Christian principles set out in the Bible, has begun a campaign aimed at changing Article 14 of the current Liberian Constitution, which states that “no religious denomination or sect shall have any exclusive privilege or preference over any other, but all shall be treated alike … Consistent with the principle of separation of religion and state, the state shall establish no state religion,” to something like “Liberia is a Christian nation, although other religions will be accommodated and tolerated,” because, according to them, Liberia was founded on Christian principles, interpreted to mean that Liberia is a Christian nation.
Like ex-President Charles Taylor and his “Liberia for Jesus” crusade in 2002, when he prostrated at the SKD Sports Complex, saying, “Jesus, you are the President of Liberia; I am not,” these we-really-believe-in-and-live-the-Christian-principles believers say they want to return Liberia back to the Christian principles upon which it was built.
Let it be borne in mind that whether Liberia was founded on Christian principles or not, we all, I suppose, welcome the idea of making the people of Liberia live their lives based on the Christian principles as we know it to be recorded in the Bible. We all welcome the idea and the campaign.
Seriously, fellow Liberians, who would oppose this we-want-Liberians-to-live-according-to-Christian-principles campaign, when declaring Liberia a Christian nation would cause our government officials to stop misusing gas slips?
We welcome the idea because declaring Liberia a Christ-like nation means that people will stop committing sins and the land will be a God-fearing place. The declaration is welcome because it will cause our government to stop dealing in secrecy and operating diabolically.
But who would oppose it, when declaring Liberia a Christian state would make the revenue to be generated from the oil that has been discovered not to be marred in corruption? We will now have a new nation – a Christian nation.
Could the declaration be made today? We want for Liberians to live their lives based on the Christian principles. For instance, if Liberia is declared a Christian nation, it will be hard, if not impossible, for anyone to use profane language, as the Bible says that our words should be seasoned with salt. The declaration will cause all to refrain from using bad language. Isn’t this good news?
But who would be brave to kick against a campaign aimed at making Liberians love their neighbors as they love themselves? Declaring Liberia a Christ-like nation will ensure this, as those behind the campaign are sure that the “Liberia is a Christian nation” declaration will not only be on paper, but will be manifested in the lives of the people? Who wouldn’t be happy about this?
Who would really kick against it, when declaring Liberia a Christian nation would not only cause all to believe in Jesus Christ, but to also go to church every Sunday?
There is no way that anyone would be brave to oppose making Liberia and its people operate on Christian principles because when Liberia is declared a Christian state, all Christians will instantly follow I Corinthians 1:10, which tells Christians: “Now, I beg you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you: but that you be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.” There will no longer be Catholics, Lutherans, Baptists, Independent Baptists, Presbyterians, Methodists, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Later Day’s Saints, Pentecostals, and so forth, for the desire to follow he Christian principles will cause all to shun division and be of the same mind and of the same judgment. Isn’t this great news for the land and its people? Let Liberia be declared a Christian nation today!
But who would oppose the campaign, when living by the Christian principles would cause unfaithfulness or cheating in relationships or marriages to stop completely?
But who would refuse to let Liberia become a Christian nation, when declaring it a Christian state would cause all of our politicians and political leaders to be honest people, when politicians will no longer make empty and vague promises during any political season?
Look! Let Liberia follow the Christian principles that those behind the we-want-Liberia-to-be-declared-a-Christian-nation campaign want Liberians to live by. It is a great endeavor because declaring Liberia a Christian state will cause all the chiefs, elders, zoes and others practicing polygamy in the interior and other places in our land to stop immediately. The practice of polygamy is not part of the Christian principles we’re talking about, so there will no longer be polygamy in the new Liberia.
Making Liberians live by Christian principles is a good thing, as it will make our country the talk of the world in terms of moral uprightness, as we will be completely different from all other nations with declared state religions because unlike theirs, which is only paper-oriented, Liberians, especially the Christians that are behind the campaign, will show it in their daily lives.
We can only welcome the campaign to declare Liberia a Christian state with open arms because the declaration will cause teachers to stop accepting bribes and for students to stop offering bribes for grades. It will also cause teachers to stop having sex with students for grades. We are talking about the new Liberia, which will be based on Christian principles. We can’t wait to have that new Liberia.
We don’t see why anybody would oppose the campaign, when it is clear that returning Liberia to the Christian principles upon which it was built would cause us to live like the people who established Liberia on the principles talked about? For example, part of the Christian principles introduced by those who established the country on Christian principles was to exclude the natives they met here from the citizenry. Indeed, there is a need for us to return to such a Christian principle. Es, Liberia was built on Christian principles.
Let Liberia be declared a Christina nation. Let the one-million signatures make us return to those Christian principles upon which the country was founded. We need that because we, especially those behind this campaign, are convinced that Liberia will be spiritually and morally resuscitated, and Liberia and its citizens will experience a new era of moral uprightness. We can’t wait to see the arrival of that new Liberia, a Liberia whose people will speak and act based on the Christian principles set out in the Bible.
Christian principles-based Liberia, we await you!
Liberia: A Country Founded on Imperialist Principles
The New Dawn (Liberia)
Thursday, 08 March 2012
By Mohamed Dukuly (Sydney)
The present debate about returning Liberia to a Christian state is not only a malicious effort for destabilization but also a sign of how the colonial churches succeeded in their role as facilitators of Americo-black imperialism in the place now called Liberia.
The quest for Christian statehood is based on the misconception that Liberia was founded on Christian principles. This idea has been around for a while and mainly shared and promoted by some uncritical Liberian Christians who are seeking to continue the ideological imperialism in Liberia. The fact is, Liberia was NOT founded on Christian principles. Especially if Christian principles mean the “principles of living that Jesus Christ taught about our general behaviour and relationship with one another as human beings and creations of God”.
This paper is aimed to shed light on the idea that Liberia was founded on colonial imperialist principles to serve as dumping place for former American black slaves, primarily for the interest of those who once enslaved them. It was a situation whereby the imperialists American Government, through the American Colonization Society (ACS) imposed themselves on a foreign land and people for the purpose of enhancing their economy, political and social interest, as well as enforcing their imperialist culture and religion on the native population.
We are all aware that prior to the formation of the private organization that led the colonization of Liberia, the question of what to do with the black population in America was always alive in the minds of the American people. Amongst the various debates and discussions going on then, the popular solution most people leaned towards was the idea to remove free black slaves to some sort of territory beyond the border of the United States of America (see Sherwood, 1916).
Some of the well-known arguments advanced then were that: Politically, the two races could not live in harmony with equal political power because there will be prejudices and recollection of injuries between them. Physically, one race could oppose to the other on the bases of “color, form and beauty”. Morally, it was argued that blacks were inferior to whites in intelligence and moral ideals. The only solution therefore was “to transfer the blacks to another country” (ibid, p.493).
By the late end of the 18th Century, advocates for the deportation of blacks to Africa project had gained higher momentum and well known individuals like Thornton who was ready to sacrifice his entire fortune for the project and Hopkins who introduced the idea of the need to salvage Africa. However, Efforts made then were mainly through individuals but paved the way for the formation of the American Colonization Society (ACS) (ibid, p. 507)
The American Colonization Society (ACS) was formed in1816 as collective effort aimed to facilitate the colonization of free blacks of the United States (Poe, 1970).Key people behind the ACS were both “religious” and secular. There were individuals like Reverend Finley who believed in the idea of divine mission to colonize free blacks into Africa and slave holders from the South who supported the ACS because it meant to remove dangerous elements from their society. There was Paul Cuffe a philanthropist and rich businessman of the Quakers community whose interest was to just do something about the plight of black slaves. The interesting thing was that both religious and socio-political arguments were constantly used for different audience just to gain support for the ACS at all cost (see Sherwood 1970). The ACS later won the support of the American government under the leadership of James Monroe and no need to mention here that this was done purely for the interest of America.
Colonizing Africa was not an idea supported at all quarters of the black leadership. Some blacks truly argued that “colonization was an attempt to mask the ongoing problem of slavery, and in the process provided white colonizationists an opportunity to mollify their consciences without genuinely addressing the larger issues”. On the other hand, others saw it as once in a life time opportunity to obtain a full flesh freedom and sense of dignity in a land they can call theirs. While the religious patrons saw it as a God given opportunity to plan their form of Christianity in Africa in disguise of something else (see Stepp, 2007).
One year after what some called “dodgy procurement of land” by the ACS in Cape Mesurado of present Liberia; the first colonist ship arrived in March 1822. Despite intense resistance from the indigenous people the colonists occupied the Island, named it as Christopolis and began building dwellings (Holsoe 1971). Historians recorded that from March up till December that year (1822) indigenous people put up series of resistance against the colonists but failed in their efforts to prevent them from settling.
Even the questionable account of King Kamara’s (Sao Boso) intervention at the time did not help to prevent attacks against the colonist. As the indigenous leaders around the coastal areas of the Island who are mostly known by their imperialists imposed names including “Kings Bromley, Todo, Governor, Konko, Jimmy, Gray, Long Peter, George, Willey, and Ben, as well as all of King Peter's and King Bristol's…” (ibid, p .338); put their warriors together and executed a massive attack on the colonist in November of 1822 but failed to get them out.
Few months after the arrival of the first ship, ACS brought in Reverend Jehudi Ashmun, to administer the colony on their behalf. A Reverend that the black colonist led by Reverend Lott Carey revolted against due to what they called “Ashmum’s unfair attitude” towards them. Internal revolts plus perceived threat of encroachment from imperialist Britain and France were too real to be taken for granted. By 1847, the colony was declared Independent from ACS (White control) and named Liberia with its capital as Monrovia.
The story of Christianity on pre-Liberian soil can not be told without mention of Reverend Lott Cary. He and Teague led the first Baptist Mission into West Africa. The key source of the claim that Liberia was founded on Christian principles is principally premised on the works of those two men and later by activity of Reverend Day of the Southern Baptist Mission. Lott Cary established the first church in Liberia and became vice governor of the colony; while Teague became part of the team that drafted the 1847 Liberian Constitution. However, it is important to be aware of the following salient points about early Christianity in pre-Liberia.
Firstly, Lott Carey and Teague were never official delegates of the American Colonization Society (ACS) to Africa. They were sent by the Triennial Convention upon the recommendation of William Crane to spread Christianity in Africa. The two Christian missionaries plus their families first settled in Sierra Leone and later joined the colonist in 1822 for Liberia. In fact it was recorded that Lott Carey had Sierra Leone in mind as destination while his contract was being arranged by the Church group (see Poe 197 p. 51).
Secondly, prior to setting off for Africa, both Lott Carey and Teague were seriously urged to keep away from politics of the colony as much as they could and to “render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s...” (See Stoughton to Carey and Teague in Seventh Annual Report of Baptist Board for Foreign Missions, 1821,p. 397) as cited by (Poe19 p. 55).
Thirdly, Lott Carey involvement into politics was not favoured by everyone in the Triennial Convention. This is why the first report sent to the six Triennial General Missionary Convention one year after his death included the remark that “.... could he (Lott Carey) had devoted his whole time to (the work of the church) much good might have been expected to have resulted from his labours....” (See Fisher, 1922, p. 416). This is one of the reasons why some writers argue that Lott Carey and his Christian team had plans different than that of the American Colonization Society. Unfortunately, their Christian work was somehow an encoded imperialism.
In spite all of these; indigenous Liberians will always remember Reverend Lott Carey as the great colonial missionary who died from injury sustained while preparing ammunition to be used for killing our people (Stepp, 2007, p. 51).
It should therefore be noted that reference made to Christianity and God in the 1847 Constitution should not seen as a genuine attempt to seeking goodness for all (indigenous inclusive). The reality then proved that this was not the case. Ironically, every social injustice issues they experienced as mentioned in the preamble of the 1847 constitution were the exact issues native people were to later be faced with from the so-called “Christian country” (see Liberian 1847 constitution). This is why it is important to raise the question of which Christianity were they talking about? Was it a Christianity that suited their understanding of “freedom”- a concept they understood as the acquisition of property, Black control of churches and their own destiny with their own “distinctive political culture”(Denise 2011). Or was it Christianity without Jesus Christ (Burrowes, 2011) that was being used as cover for imperialism and subjugation of the natives?
What is clear among scholars and at least echoed by Dunn (1997, p.712) is that once established in the place now called Liberia, these former slaves, and their descendents proceeded to enslave the ethnicities among whom they settled in the I820S in an exactly similar fashion which characterised European colonial rule over Africans in other parts of Africa .
These black colonists or settlers were filled with combination of anger about their past experience, extreme desperation and desires to get out of the control of their former slave masters. Their sole focus was on themselves and their plight. So they could do anything to get what they wanted. An example of their mindset then is illustrated by Burrowes (2001), when he recorded that once in 1841 when the president of the American Colonization Society (ACS) wrote Teage to complain about an offensive article in the Liberian newspaper against the whites, Teage (one of the Christian leaders then) responded that as in common with all colored men, he had certain sentiment.... and it was his indefeasible rights to hold those opinions against their former slave masters. What sort of Christianity then that the country is said to be founded on when everything that transpired since their presence on our soil were based on injustice, exploitation and unfair sufferings of native people?
Truly, Christianity filled with unfairness and injustice should not be equated with the Christianity connected to Jesus Christ. The latter is true Christianity while the former is imperialism in disguise. Against this background, it can be said that the founding of Liberia is nothing other than an exercise of imperialism.
In the first place the land was taken by treachery and presented to us as normal transaction. Fisher (1922) listed gunpowder; rum tobacco iron pots, looking glasses and other items not more than $ 300 as the exchange articles for the “valuable track of land which was the nucleus of Liberia”. The claim about signing treaty with native chiefs is a bit of mockery. How could they possibly do a fair deal with chiefs that were not literate in English language and did not speak English? No wonder the natives refused to allow them settle and put up fight to the best of their abilities.
Native people who out-numbered the imperialist at almost 100 to one ratio were denied every form of political participation in the so called “Christian country”. The 1847 constitution that is said to have set the Christian principle basis of Liberia did not assign any citizenship to the native people yet still they later introduced and imposed compulsory hut-tax on them. Not only that land was forcefully taken but natives were more or less a defector subjects to those colonial imperialists. A good “imperialist Christianity” – I guess!
They also practiced a very harsh form of assimilation policy in Liberia whereby natives were forced to undergo a “brainwashed education” to become “Christians” for several reasons. One of those reasons was to make religion an antidote to critical consciousness towards any attempt to question their hegemony. Another was to make their form of Christianity as a deliberate attempt to disrupt the cultural and moral value system existed in pre- Liberia (see Akpan, 1973, pp. 226-227). Not surprising that even in this day and age, one still sess the impact of the decade long brainwashed education in Liberia.
When it was clear that the assimilation policy was not working due to resistance from the Poro and Sande societies on one hand and Islam on the other, the colonial imperialists instituted an indirect rule system that subjected the natives to some of the harshest forms of maltreatments and exploitations. Like other colonial imperial powers, Liberia colonial imperialists placed natives against each other. They formed the Liberian Frontier Force, an on record notorious force to implement the indirect rule policy. Through this Frontier force, the Liberian colonial imperialists created the right atmosphere that allowed them to do to the natives what they experienced from their slave masters (see ibid pp. 229-231)
In conclusion, it is save to state that any claim that links the founding of Liberia to “Imperialist Christian principle” is not only demeaning to real Christianity but also an expression of concocted fallacy based on “brainwashed education”. In view of the historical situation explained earlier plus the realities seen on the ground in present day Liberia, the most rational position on the matter is the view that Liberia was founded on imperialist principles- those that advance domination, exploitation, institutional discrimination and social inequality.
Reference
Akpan, M. B. (1973). Black Imperialism: Americo-Liberian Rule over African Peoples of Liberia, 1841-1964. In Canadian Journal of African studies, Vol. 7, No. 2.
Burrowes, C.P. (2001) Black Christian republicanism: a southern ideology in early Liberia, 1822 to 1847. In the Journal of Negro History. Vol. 86, No. 1.
Dunn, D. E. (1987). Black Colonialism: The Americo-Liberian Scramble for the Hinterland by Yekutiel Gershoni; African and American Values: Liberia and West Africa by Katherine Harris; Big Powers and Small Nations: A Case Study of United States-Liberian Relations by Hassan B. Sisay. Review work in: The Journal of Modern African Studies, Vol. 25, No. 4. pp. 712-715
Dennis, D. A. (2011) the Mississippi Colonial Experience in Liberia, 1829-1860 (Doctorate Desertation). Retrieved from ProQuest. UMI 3466928
Fisher, M. M. (1922). Lott Carey. The Colonizing Missionary. In the Journal of Negro History, Vol.7, No.4
Flowers, E. H. (2008). “A Man, a Christian... and Gentlemen?” John Day , Southern Baptists, and the Nineteenth Century Mission to Liberia. In Baptist History and Heritage, Vol.43, No.2
Holsoe, S.V. (1971). A Study of Relation between Settlers and Indigenous People in Western Liberia, 1821-1847. In African Historical studies, Vol. 4, No. 2
Poe, W. A. (1970). Lott Cary: Man of Purchases Freedom. In Church History: Studies in Christianity and Culture, Vol.39, No. 1 [Peer Reviewed Journal].
Sherwood, H. N. (1916). Early Negro Deportation Projects .In The Mississippi Valley Historical Review, Vol.2, No. 4
Sherwood, H. N. (1917). The Formation of American Colonization Society .In The Journal of Negro History, Vol. 2, No.3
About the Author
The Author is a trainer and facilitator with several years of group work experience with families and individuals from CALD background. He holds a BA (ED) History from Bayero University in Nigeria and postgraduate qualifications in Social Science and Family Mediation from Australia. He is presently pursuing his Master degree in Social Work at the Charles Sturt University in Australia.
Thursday, 08 March 2012
By Mohamed Dukuly (Sydney)
The present debate about returning Liberia to a Christian state is not only a malicious effort for destabilization but also a sign of how the colonial churches succeeded in their role as facilitators of Americo-black imperialism in the place now called Liberia.
The quest for Christian statehood is based on the misconception that Liberia was founded on Christian principles. This idea has been around for a while and mainly shared and promoted by some uncritical Liberian Christians who are seeking to continue the ideological imperialism in Liberia. The fact is, Liberia was NOT founded on Christian principles. Especially if Christian principles mean the “principles of living that Jesus Christ taught about our general behaviour and relationship with one another as human beings and creations of God”.
This paper is aimed to shed light on the idea that Liberia was founded on colonial imperialist principles to serve as dumping place for former American black slaves, primarily for the interest of those who once enslaved them. It was a situation whereby the imperialists American Government, through the American Colonization Society (ACS) imposed themselves on a foreign land and people for the purpose of enhancing their economy, political and social interest, as well as enforcing their imperialist culture and religion on the native population.
We are all aware that prior to the formation of the private organization that led the colonization of Liberia, the question of what to do with the black population in America was always alive in the minds of the American people. Amongst the various debates and discussions going on then, the popular solution most people leaned towards was the idea to remove free black slaves to some sort of territory beyond the border of the United States of America (see Sherwood, 1916).
Some of the well-known arguments advanced then were that: Politically, the two races could not live in harmony with equal political power because there will be prejudices and recollection of injuries between them. Physically, one race could oppose to the other on the bases of “color, form and beauty”. Morally, it was argued that blacks were inferior to whites in intelligence and moral ideals. The only solution therefore was “to transfer the blacks to another country” (ibid, p.493).
By the late end of the 18th Century, advocates for the deportation of blacks to Africa project had gained higher momentum and well known individuals like Thornton who was ready to sacrifice his entire fortune for the project and Hopkins who introduced the idea of the need to salvage Africa. However, Efforts made then were mainly through individuals but paved the way for the formation of the American Colonization Society (ACS) (ibid, p. 507)
The American Colonization Society (ACS) was formed in1816 as collective effort aimed to facilitate the colonization of free blacks of the United States (Poe, 1970).Key people behind the ACS were both “religious” and secular. There were individuals like Reverend Finley who believed in the idea of divine mission to colonize free blacks into Africa and slave holders from the South who supported the ACS because it meant to remove dangerous elements from their society. There was Paul Cuffe a philanthropist and rich businessman of the Quakers community whose interest was to just do something about the plight of black slaves. The interesting thing was that both religious and socio-political arguments were constantly used for different audience just to gain support for the ACS at all cost (see Sherwood 1970). The ACS later won the support of the American government under the leadership of James Monroe and no need to mention here that this was done purely for the interest of America.
Colonizing Africa was not an idea supported at all quarters of the black leadership. Some blacks truly argued that “colonization was an attempt to mask the ongoing problem of slavery, and in the process provided white colonizationists an opportunity to mollify their consciences without genuinely addressing the larger issues”. On the other hand, others saw it as once in a life time opportunity to obtain a full flesh freedom and sense of dignity in a land they can call theirs. While the religious patrons saw it as a God given opportunity to plan their form of Christianity in Africa in disguise of something else (see Stepp, 2007).
One year after what some called “dodgy procurement of land” by the ACS in Cape Mesurado of present Liberia; the first colonist ship arrived in March 1822. Despite intense resistance from the indigenous people the colonists occupied the Island, named it as Christopolis and began building dwellings (Holsoe 1971). Historians recorded that from March up till December that year (1822) indigenous people put up series of resistance against the colonists but failed in their efforts to prevent them from settling.
Even the questionable account of King Kamara’s (Sao Boso) intervention at the time did not help to prevent attacks against the colonist. As the indigenous leaders around the coastal areas of the Island who are mostly known by their imperialists imposed names including “Kings Bromley, Todo, Governor, Konko, Jimmy, Gray, Long Peter, George, Willey, and Ben, as well as all of King Peter's and King Bristol's…” (ibid, p .338); put their warriors together and executed a massive attack on the colonist in November of 1822 but failed to get them out.
Few months after the arrival of the first ship, ACS brought in Reverend Jehudi Ashmun, to administer the colony on their behalf. A Reverend that the black colonist led by Reverend Lott Carey revolted against due to what they called “Ashmum’s unfair attitude” towards them. Internal revolts plus perceived threat of encroachment from imperialist Britain and France were too real to be taken for granted. By 1847, the colony was declared Independent from ACS (White control) and named Liberia with its capital as Monrovia.
The story of Christianity on pre-Liberian soil can not be told without mention of Reverend Lott Cary. He and Teague led the first Baptist Mission into West Africa. The key source of the claim that Liberia was founded on Christian principles is principally premised on the works of those two men and later by activity of Reverend Day of the Southern Baptist Mission. Lott Cary established the first church in Liberia and became vice governor of the colony; while Teague became part of the team that drafted the 1847 Liberian Constitution. However, it is important to be aware of the following salient points about early Christianity in pre-Liberia.
Firstly, Lott Carey and Teague were never official delegates of the American Colonization Society (ACS) to Africa. They were sent by the Triennial Convention upon the recommendation of William Crane to spread Christianity in Africa. The two Christian missionaries plus their families first settled in Sierra Leone and later joined the colonist in 1822 for Liberia. In fact it was recorded that Lott Carey had Sierra Leone in mind as destination while his contract was being arranged by the Church group (see Poe 197 p. 51).
Secondly, prior to setting off for Africa, both Lott Carey and Teague were seriously urged to keep away from politics of the colony as much as they could and to “render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s...” (See Stoughton to Carey and Teague in Seventh Annual Report of Baptist Board for Foreign Missions, 1821,p. 397) as cited by (Poe19 p. 55).
Thirdly, Lott Carey involvement into politics was not favoured by everyone in the Triennial Convention. This is why the first report sent to the six Triennial General Missionary Convention one year after his death included the remark that “.... could he (Lott Carey) had devoted his whole time to (the work of the church) much good might have been expected to have resulted from his labours....” (See Fisher, 1922, p. 416). This is one of the reasons why some writers argue that Lott Carey and his Christian team had plans different than that of the American Colonization Society. Unfortunately, their Christian work was somehow an encoded imperialism.
In spite all of these; indigenous Liberians will always remember Reverend Lott Carey as the great colonial missionary who died from injury sustained while preparing ammunition to be used for killing our people (Stepp, 2007, p. 51).
It should therefore be noted that reference made to Christianity and God in the 1847 Constitution should not seen as a genuine attempt to seeking goodness for all (indigenous inclusive). The reality then proved that this was not the case. Ironically, every social injustice issues they experienced as mentioned in the preamble of the 1847 constitution were the exact issues native people were to later be faced with from the so-called “Christian country” (see Liberian 1847 constitution). This is why it is important to raise the question of which Christianity were they talking about? Was it a Christianity that suited their understanding of “freedom”- a concept they understood as the acquisition of property, Black control of churches and their own destiny with their own “distinctive political culture”(Denise 2011). Or was it Christianity without Jesus Christ (Burrowes, 2011) that was being used as cover for imperialism and subjugation of the natives?
What is clear among scholars and at least echoed by Dunn (1997, p.712) is that once established in the place now called Liberia, these former slaves, and their descendents proceeded to enslave the ethnicities among whom they settled in the I820S in an exactly similar fashion which characterised European colonial rule over Africans in other parts of Africa .
These black colonists or settlers were filled with combination of anger about their past experience, extreme desperation and desires to get out of the control of their former slave masters. Their sole focus was on themselves and their plight. So they could do anything to get what they wanted. An example of their mindset then is illustrated by Burrowes (2001), when he recorded that once in 1841 when the president of the American Colonization Society (ACS) wrote Teage to complain about an offensive article in the Liberian newspaper against the whites, Teage (one of the Christian leaders then) responded that as in common with all colored men, he had certain sentiment.... and it was his indefeasible rights to hold those opinions against their former slave masters. What sort of Christianity then that the country is said to be founded on when everything that transpired since their presence on our soil were based on injustice, exploitation and unfair sufferings of native people?
Truly, Christianity filled with unfairness and injustice should not be equated with the Christianity connected to Jesus Christ. The latter is true Christianity while the former is imperialism in disguise. Against this background, it can be said that the founding of Liberia is nothing other than an exercise of imperialism.
In the first place the land was taken by treachery and presented to us as normal transaction. Fisher (1922) listed gunpowder; rum tobacco iron pots, looking glasses and other items not more than $ 300 as the exchange articles for the “valuable track of land which was the nucleus of Liberia”. The claim about signing treaty with native chiefs is a bit of mockery. How could they possibly do a fair deal with chiefs that were not literate in English language and did not speak English? No wonder the natives refused to allow them settle and put up fight to the best of their abilities.
Native people who out-numbered the imperialist at almost 100 to one ratio were denied every form of political participation in the so called “Christian country”. The 1847 constitution that is said to have set the Christian principle basis of Liberia did not assign any citizenship to the native people yet still they later introduced and imposed compulsory hut-tax on them. Not only that land was forcefully taken but natives were more or less a defector subjects to those colonial imperialists. A good “imperialist Christianity” – I guess!
They also practiced a very harsh form of assimilation policy in Liberia whereby natives were forced to undergo a “brainwashed education” to become “Christians” for several reasons. One of those reasons was to make religion an antidote to critical consciousness towards any attempt to question their hegemony. Another was to make their form of Christianity as a deliberate attempt to disrupt the cultural and moral value system existed in pre- Liberia (see Akpan, 1973, pp. 226-227). Not surprising that even in this day and age, one still sess the impact of the decade long brainwashed education in Liberia.
When it was clear that the assimilation policy was not working due to resistance from the Poro and Sande societies on one hand and Islam on the other, the colonial imperialists instituted an indirect rule system that subjected the natives to some of the harshest forms of maltreatments and exploitations. Like other colonial imperial powers, Liberia colonial imperialists placed natives against each other. They formed the Liberian Frontier Force, an on record notorious force to implement the indirect rule policy. Through this Frontier force, the Liberian colonial imperialists created the right atmosphere that allowed them to do to the natives what they experienced from their slave masters (see ibid pp. 229-231)
In conclusion, it is save to state that any claim that links the founding of Liberia to “Imperialist Christian principle” is not only demeaning to real Christianity but also an expression of concocted fallacy based on “brainwashed education”. In view of the historical situation explained earlier plus the realities seen on the ground in present day Liberia, the most rational position on the matter is the view that Liberia was founded on imperialist principles- those that advance domination, exploitation, institutional discrimination and social inequality.
Reference
Akpan, M. B. (1973). Black Imperialism: Americo-Liberian Rule over African Peoples of Liberia, 1841-1964. In Canadian Journal of African studies, Vol. 7, No. 2.
Burrowes, C.P. (2001) Black Christian republicanism: a southern ideology in early Liberia, 1822 to 1847. In the Journal of Negro History. Vol. 86, No. 1.
Dunn, D. E. (1987). Black Colonialism: The Americo-Liberian Scramble for the Hinterland by Yekutiel Gershoni; African and American Values: Liberia and West Africa by Katherine Harris; Big Powers and Small Nations: A Case Study of United States-Liberian Relations by Hassan B. Sisay. Review work in: The Journal of Modern African Studies, Vol. 25, No. 4. pp. 712-715
Dennis, D. A. (2011) the Mississippi Colonial Experience in Liberia, 1829-1860 (Doctorate Desertation). Retrieved from ProQuest. UMI 3466928
Fisher, M. M. (1922). Lott Carey. The Colonizing Missionary. In the Journal of Negro History, Vol.7, No.4
Flowers, E. H. (2008). “A Man, a Christian... and Gentlemen?” John Day , Southern Baptists, and the Nineteenth Century Mission to Liberia. In Baptist History and Heritage, Vol.43, No.2
Holsoe, S.V. (1971). A Study of Relation between Settlers and Indigenous People in Western Liberia, 1821-1847. In African Historical studies, Vol. 4, No. 2
Poe, W. A. (1970). Lott Cary: Man of Purchases Freedom. In Church History: Studies in Christianity and Culture, Vol.39, No. 1 [Peer Reviewed Journal].
Sherwood, H. N. (1916). Early Negro Deportation Projects .In The Mississippi Valley Historical Review, Vol.2, No. 4
Sherwood, H. N. (1917). The Formation of American Colonization Society .In The Journal of Negro History, Vol. 2, No.3
About the Author
The Author is a trainer and facilitator with several years of group work experience with families and individuals from CALD background. He holds a BA (ED) History from Bayero University in Nigeria and postgraduate qualifications in Social Science and Family Mediation from Australia. He is presently pursuing his Master degree in Social Work at the Charles Sturt University in Australia.
Lesson for Warlords - U.S. Finally Dumps Boley
The New Dawn Liberia
Monday, 02 April 2012 01:00 E. J. Nathaniel Daygbor
Fate and time have a way of dealing with every man no matter his past or current roles so it has been with former Liberian rebel leader Dr. George Boley, who has been held at a federal detention facility outside Buffalo since 2010, under a U.S. ‘Child Soldiers Accountability Act’. Boley has been finally deported to Liberia after spending two years in federal custody.
He arrived at the Roberts International Airport on Friday onboard a Delta Airlines flight and was immediately handed over to officers of the Bureau of Immigration and Naturalization (BIN).
Boley had been living in upstate New York near Rochester until his arrest two years ago and subsequent deportation. He was brought to Monrovia for a brief appearance at the BIN Headquarters on Broad Street, Monrovia and subsequently handed over to family members.
The 62-year-old leader of the defunct Liberia Peace Council is reported to have presided over authorizing executions, massacres and rapes during counterattacks against Charles Taylor’s National Patriotic Front of Liberia rebels between 1993 and 96.
But appearing before the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Liberia in 2009 Boley, like all other Liberian ex-rebel leaders, denied any wrongdoing. Many ordinary Liberians say the Bolry’s fate should sound a warning bell to other former warlords still evading justice that one day; they meet their end in whatever form or shape.
“George Boley’s [deportation] is a major step in addressing the serious human rights abuses he perpetrated in Liberia in the 1990s,” said one of the bystanders, who attended the arrival of Dr. Boley at the headquarters of Bureau of Immigration and Naturalization on Broad Street.
Boley, who has been in U.S. federal custody since 2010, is the first former Liberian warlord to be deported under the Child Soldiers Accountability Act, a four-year-old law that allows for the deportation of people linked to the recruitment and use of child soldiers.
“The United States has always welcomed refugees and those fleeing oppression, and at the same time accept human rights violators and war criminals in their country; but with the deportation of Mr. Boley today for his role in our civil conflict is a warning shout for those who may want to create problems for us here and think that they will run to America for protection,” said, Wendell Miller, a student of the University of Liberia.
A State Department report on Human Rights Practices in Liberia documented reports that Boley, as former leader of the Liberian Peace Council, authorized the executions of seven of his soldiers in 1995, according to ICE. The agency said witnesses also testified before the Liberian Truth Commission investigating war crimes that the LPC burned alive dozens of captives in 1994.
Boley first served as Education Minister in the military regime of the late Samuel Doe in the 1980s. Later, as leader of the anti-Charles Taylor rebel group, Liberian Peace Council (LPC), he served as member of the defunct transitional collective presidency, Council of State in 1996. U.S. Immigration and Customs officials accused Boley of leading a rebel faction responsible for human rights abuses, during the Liberian civil war, which ended in 2003.
An immigration judge last month ordered Boley removed under the Child Soldiers Accountability Act of 2008, which added the recruitment and use of child soldiers as grounds for deportation.
Boley's wife and children, who still reside in the United States, have reportedly denied the allegations, arguing that none of the charges against their husband and father were corroborated by credible evidence.
George Boley Jr, claims the government’s effort of deporting his father is rooted in his lawsuit against federal agents. The lawsuit charges those agents with “reckless” and “malicious” violations of his civil rights.
In an interview with The News, he said his father came to America to attend college and, while there raised seven children with his wife, Kathryn. He also said his father was a former administrator with the Rochester public school system.
At the time of his arrest in 2010, federal authorities compared his case to the high-profile investigation of Chuckie Taylor, who is currently serving a 97-year imprisonment after he was convicted in connection with beatings, torture and executions in Liberia during his father’s rule.
Chuckie’s case is believed to be the first prosecution under a federal law that allows U.S. courts to hear cases involving torture in other nations, if the accused is living in the U.S. or is a U.S. citizen.
Monday, 02 April 2012 01:00 E. J. Nathaniel Daygbor
Fate and time have a way of dealing with every man no matter his past or current roles so it has been with former Liberian rebel leader Dr. George Boley, who has been held at a federal detention facility outside Buffalo since 2010, under a U.S. ‘Child Soldiers Accountability Act’. Boley has been finally deported to Liberia after spending two years in federal custody.
He arrived at the Roberts International Airport on Friday onboard a Delta Airlines flight and was immediately handed over to officers of the Bureau of Immigration and Naturalization (BIN).
Boley had been living in upstate New York near Rochester until his arrest two years ago and subsequent deportation. He was brought to Monrovia for a brief appearance at the BIN Headquarters on Broad Street, Monrovia and subsequently handed over to family members.
The 62-year-old leader of the defunct Liberia Peace Council is reported to have presided over authorizing executions, massacres and rapes during counterattacks against Charles Taylor’s National Patriotic Front of Liberia rebels between 1993 and 96.
But appearing before the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Liberia in 2009 Boley, like all other Liberian ex-rebel leaders, denied any wrongdoing. Many ordinary Liberians say the Bolry’s fate should sound a warning bell to other former warlords still evading justice that one day; they meet their end in whatever form or shape.
“George Boley’s [deportation] is a major step in addressing the serious human rights abuses he perpetrated in Liberia in the 1990s,” said one of the bystanders, who attended the arrival of Dr. Boley at the headquarters of Bureau of Immigration and Naturalization on Broad Street.
Boley, who has been in U.S. federal custody since 2010, is the first former Liberian warlord to be deported under the Child Soldiers Accountability Act, a four-year-old law that allows for the deportation of people linked to the recruitment and use of child soldiers.
“The United States has always welcomed refugees and those fleeing oppression, and at the same time accept human rights violators and war criminals in their country; but with the deportation of Mr. Boley today for his role in our civil conflict is a warning shout for those who may want to create problems for us here and think that they will run to America for protection,” said, Wendell Miller, a student of the University of Liberia.
A State Department report on Human Rights Practices in Liberia documented reports that Boley, as former leader of the Liberian Peace Council, authorized the executions of seven of his soldiers in 1995, according to ICE. The agency said witnesses also testified before the Liberian Truth Commission investigating war crimes that the LPC burned alive dozens of captives in 1994.
Boley first served as Education Minister in the military regime of the late Samuel Doe in the 1980s. Later, as leader of the anti-Charles Taylor rebel group, Liberian Peace Council (LPC), he served as member of the defunct transitional collective presidency, Council of State in 1996. U.S. Immigration and Customs officials accused Boley of leading a rebel faction responsible for human rights abuses, during the Liberian civil war, which ended in 2003.
An immigration judge last month ordered Boley removed under the Child Soldiers Accountability Act of 2008, which added the recruitment and use of child soldiers as grounds for deportation.
Boley's wife and children, who still reside in the United States, have reportedly denied the allegations, arguing that none of the charges against their husband and father were corroborated by credible evidence.
George Boley Jr, claims the government’s effort of deporting his father is rooted in his lawsuit against federal agents. The lawsuit charges those agents with “reckless” and “malicious” violations of his civil rights.
In an interview with The News, he said his father came to America to attend college and, while there raised seven children with his wife, Kathryn. He also said his father was a former administrator with the Rochester public school system.
At the time of his arrest in 2010, federal authorities compared his case to the high-profile investigation of Chuckie Taylor, who is currently serving a 97-year imprisonment after he was convicted in connection with beatings, torture and executions in Liberia during his father’s rule.
Chuckie’s case is believed to be the first prosecution under a federal law that allows U.S. courts to hear cases involving torture in other nations, if the accused is living in the U.S. or is a U.S. citizen.
Yes, I’m the Charles Ghankay Taylor of Liberia
Tuesday, 08 May
By Paul Yeenie Harry
The New Dawn (Liberia)
After re-working on “Is This the Charles Ghankay Taylor of Liberia?” and publishing it last Wednesday, I went home and lay on my bed prone. Soon, I was arrested; neither by officers of the Criminal Investigation Division (CID) of Liberia nor by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) of the United States, but by that natural, invisible arresting officer we call sleep.
After my arrest, I found myself in a dreamy world. It looked like the court setting in The Hague. I saw Taylor reading my article. Then he paused the reading, laid the New Dawn newspaper on the desk before him and started a monologic presentation – his response to my article.
Yes, I am the Charles Ghankay Taylor of Liberia. I went to college in the United States. I have a master’s degree in economics. You could call me a pro-democracy advocate. Remember I was once the President of the Union of Liberia Associations in America (ULAA). I am the Charles Ghankay Taylor of Liberia.
If you will recall, I returned to Liberia in the 1970’s, and when the 1980 coup occurred, I found myself as Director General of the General Services Agency (GSA). You remember? I am the Charles Ghankay Taylor of Liberia.
Following some allegation from the Samuel Doe government that I stole about US$1m under the pretext that I was purchasing some machines/equipment from some non-existent Earth Removing Equipment Company in the US. Doe and his government started some extradition litigation against me. In the process, I was imprisoned at a correction center in Massachusetts, Boston, USA. I am the Charles Ghankay Taylor of Liberia.
I was in my little cell in Boston when some arrangement – arrangement made by powerful and well-connected individuals and institutions – was put in place for me to be released for some scheme they wanted me to execute for them. This is what such individuals and institutions have done all the time, causing setbacks, suffering and death for scores of people – sometimes a whole nation.
Of course, they will tell you that I broke jail. Do you believe that? Anyway, what I wish to point out is that I am the same Charles Ghankay Taylor of Liberia.
[Taylor was gesticulating as he spoke, causing the eyeglasses on his face to drop to the edge of his nose, almost falling from there. He paused, repositioned his glasses and stared at the New Dawn newspaper before continuing his monologic presentation.]
They sent me to Africa with the sole purpose of deposing the Doe government, thereby destabilizing the country in the process. Yes, I am the Charles Ghankay Taylor of Liberia.
To consummate the process, I passed through a few countries, including Ghana and Sierra Leone. I also temporarily settled in, or befriended the military and the political leaders of, some countries, including Libya, Burkina Faso and the Ivory Coast. Yes, I am the Ghankay Taylor of Liberia.
I am the one under whose leadership the NPFL war was launched in Liberia, by way of the Liberian border town called Butuo. It was on December 24, 1989. Remember? Yes, I am the Charles Ghankay Taylor of Liberia.
Believe me. Launching that war was a very difficult undertaking. Two things helped me. Generally speaking, the Liberian people were tired of Doe and his government. Second, I had the support of many powerful individuals and institutions, individuals and institutions that had interest in what I was doing or had interest in something they had seen in Liberia. I even got military and political advice, trained fighters, arms and ammunition and some other logistical support from either those individuals or their countries. That’s why there were Ivoirians, Burkinbes and other nationals fighting for the NPFL during the war. Let me restate. I am the Charles Ghankay Taylor of Liberia.
Look, when I agreed to head the NPFL, when I bravely accepted to lead that difficult venture of overthrowing President Doe and his government by way of arms, I did it because I, too, had some interest in the process. Yes, I am the Charles Ghankay of Liberia.
Now, hear this. There were some other Liberians who had political interest in the undertaking – they wanted to be this and be that in any government formed after the overthrow of Doe, with some presenting and positioning themselves as the president-in-waiting, but they were scared to lead the most difficult aspect – the military part. They wanted me to risk my life and my future, while they sat in their cozy homes in the United States and other places, and just come after everything and be given authority. Like the late Gaddafi, I call them cockroaches. They thought they had seen a fool to use. I knew them well. I knew their games and tricks and how they had played them over the years. I was prepared for them and their games. I said to myself, “Do these people think I am stupid?” I, too, was interested in becoming president in the process. Yes, I am the Charles Ghankay Taylor of Liberia.
[Taylor paused for a few seconds, looked at the audience and looked at the newspaper article. He was furious, and the furiousness was not hidden. But it also seemed he was not using his anger to scribe the elimination of real and perceived enemies, but to tell a true story.]
I waged the rebel war against Doe and his government, determined to depose him and end his ten-year despotic rule. Yes, I am the one who said “The only good Doe is a dead Doe.” Yes, I am the Charles Ghankay Taylor of Liberia.
I controlled the largest and strongest rebel group in Liberia. I had the most strategized rebel operation in Liberia. I had the most popular rebel group in Liberia. Yes, I am the Charles Ghankay Taylor of Liberia.
I am the Charles Ghankay Taylor who vehemently opposed the intervention of the military men and women of the Economic Community of West African Monitoring Group (ECOMOG), militarily attacking them on the high sea, even before their landing on the soil of Liberia. I fought them for years. Yes, I am the Charles Ghankay Taylor of Liberia.
When the news about the formation of an interim government was heard in 1990, especially considering the games and tricks of the Liberian politicians who wanted me to fight in the jungle of Liberia while they discuss and divide political positions, I declared that there would be no interim government that I, Charles Gahankay Taylor, would not be the head of. Yes, I am the Charles Ghankay Taylor of Liberia.
[Taylor paused again, blew his nose in the white handkerchief in his left hand and glanced at the new Dawn newspaper article, “Is This the Charles Ghankay Taylor of Liberia?”]
To be continued…
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)