Liberia may get lucky
By Matthew Riemer
YellowTimes.org Columnist (United States)
(YellowTimes.org) – In one of the BBC News World Service regular features entitled "Have your say," where readers from around the world e-mail in their thoughts on a given subject, a recent topic was U.S. intervention in Liberia. Typically, from amongst a collection of dozens of short, written responses arguing for a specific solution, several fundamental arguments emerge. Well-represented in this particular thread was an observation/argument that is always heard whenever the United States is urged to intervene somewhere in the world: The U.S. can't win -- whenever Washington does intervene, critics cry foul, but when they don't, they are begged to do so.
The following posts from the BBC's "Have your say" epitomize such sentiments:
"I feel so terrible for the Liberian people, a nation many Americans feel close ties to. But I fear if we send troops, it will be just a matter of time before the anti-America lobby will add Liberia to the list of so-called atrocities we are accused of."
Jeremy, US
"The anti-Americans will use it as an excuse to stir up worldwide hatred. There is no way we can intervene in an ugly situation like this without getting our hands dirty."
Susan, USA
"Funny how everyone likes to take pot shots at America and call us bullies and tyrants when we do intervene, but when we don't, we are begged to do so and told we have a duty to help. We can't win."
Gretchen, USA
"It is so typical that the world should cry for the U.S. to get involved in another third world disaster. And in the same breath we hear the president of the United States belittled and the U.S. chastised when the U.S. does get involved. Where is the E.U.? China? Russia? The holier-than-thou Scandinavians?"
LR Voss, Switzerland
"Funny how we always get yelled at for foreign intervention, and yet, the U.S. is expected to 'naturally' lead a peacekeeping operation in Liberia."
Chris Kozlowski, Virginia, US
Comments like these are to be expected from those who espouse "American exceptionalism" and base their arguments upon and employ logic reflective of a highly self- and class-centered view combined with a distorted take on history.
One of the more basic flaws in these arguments is the implicit homogenization of all world conflicts. The situation in Liberia as well as most of sub-Saharan Africa couldn't be more dissimilar than the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. If we choose to include some South American conflicts in the analysis -- Colombia, Venezuela -- we see another set of unique conflicts emerging, with neither ties to African turmoil nor Mideast tension.
No one -- at least those who don't wish to be seen as overly dogmatic and want to be listened to -- has ever argued as an absolute rule that foreign powers should never or always intervene in international conflicts, because to do so implies that the circumstances of all conflicts are identical. Moreover, inherent diversity of global conflicts is well known: Sometimes foreign powers support the entrenched government; sometimes they support the guerrilla/rebel forces. Sometimes they act aloofly through sanctions, funding, and arming; sometimes they act directly through training or a military presence. Sometimes the country in question is of militarily strategic importance; sometimes it's not. Sometimes the country in question has strong economic ties to the United States, Japan, or Western Europe; sometimes it does not. Sometimes conflicts are fueled by ethnicity, sometimes by religion, sometimes by nationality, but almost always they are some complex blend of all three.
Because of this, it is not inconsistent or illogical for, say, France to oppose bitterly U.S. military action in Iraq but to ask Washington to bring stability to Liberia. Just as it is not hypocritical for the Bush administration to go to war in Iraq but to ignore a live war taking place in Western Africa. In fact, on the Bush administration's part, it's typically consistent not to intervene in Liberia. The region as a whole is not terribly strategic for the United States and offers little immediate threat to U.S. interests locally or globally.
Though now, perhaps to coincide with President Bush's first trip to Africa, any U.S. decision to intervene may be more of a propaganda campaign, the 2004 elections in mind as much as the suffering of the Liberian people. After all, Liberia was founded by freed slaves from the United States and its capital is named after James Monroe -- what perfect rhetorical fodder for the super-patriotism that permeates the Bush administration's propaganda.
However, the risk in this Rovian move would be the over-extension of U.S. forces at a time of great uncertainty: the situation in Iraq continues to deteriorate as casualties are incurred on a daily basis (since May 1st, 58 U.S. servicemen have been killed and about 75 injured including 19 on July 3rd alone); Afghanistan remains an unsuccessful operation for the U.S., as neither stability nor a viable, centralized government is remotely a reality.
The United States will make its decision about whether or not to intervene in Liberia and to what degree by considering its own interests, just as it did in Afghanistan and Iraq; the human rights or democratic potential of Liberia, and more broadly, West Africa, are essentially moot concerns. And, perhaps, there is nothing wrong with this inherently cynical and self-centered approach to politics, though it is how it works and should be recognized as such.
Why would Iraq and Liberia be compared, anyway? Iraq has almost eight times the population of Liberia. The U.S. has an intimate history of involvement with modern day Iraq, from the CIA's buoying the Ba'athists to power to Donald Rumsfeld visiting with Saddam Hussein while the Iraqi regime was actively using chemical weapons, from the first Gulf War to the brutal sanctions regime kept in place single handedly by a desperate U.S. This is a level of familiarity and influence not shared with Liberia, even when taking into account the symbolic connection Liberia has to the United States.
Liberia is not like Iraq, just as Iraq is not like Nazi Germany, and the same criteria cannot be used to judge rightly the prospect of intervention there. Those who like to imply that all conflicts are the same and whine when supposed "mixed signals" come from countries like France or institutions like the United Nations should drop the dogmatism a notch or two so as to be able to see a bit more clearly.
The question should be asked: What would the reaction of the world be if the U.S. intervened in a country where there was nothing to be gained, not even a propaganda victory, nothing? There would probably be widespread shock and incredulousness. This is the real issue the aforementioned BBC commentators completely miss. The more the U.S. has at stake in a given country (strategically, economically), the less of a reason there is for believing that such an intervention is altruistically motivated. Conversely, the less opportunity there is for strategic gain, the more altruistic a given intervention must be seen as being.
Rwanda, Democratic Republic of Congo, and Indonesia are all perfect examples of situations where atrocities far greater than anything in Iraq were taking place and nothing was done. It is these conflicts for which critics most often criticize the lack of U.S. intervention. Now, in a rare situation, Liberia may well get lucky if the interests of the civilian population turn out to be tethered tightly to those of the Bush administration's agenda.
[Matthew Riemer has written for years about a myriad of topics, such as: philosophy, religion, psychology, culture, and politics. He studied Russian language and culture for five years and traveled in the former Soviet Union in 1990. In the midst of a larger autobiographical/cultural work, Matthew is the Director of Operations at YellowTimes.org. He lives in the United States.]
Matthew Riemer encourages your comments:
mriemer@YellowTimes.org
Source
Blogroll
