These, the fleeing refugees, must be at the centre of sustaible  peace

THE NEW DEAL MOVEMENT OF LIBERIA

THE NEW DEAL MOVEMENT REPLIES TO THE ISSUE OF VIOLENCE TO ACHIEVE POLITICAL POWER IN LIBERIA 

If Liberia is to recovered(sic) from the ugly past and build a sustained democratic state, it is equally the responsibility of journalists to ensure accuracy and professionalism in reporting events to the Liberian populace and the world at large. Unfortunately, the reports of two Liberian journalists on the recent Presidential Forum organized by the Association of Liberian Journalists in the Americas (ALJA) at the University of Maryland on May 15, 2003 flatly borders on inaccuracy, distortion, and misinformation. In their recently published articles on the internet, two Liberian journalists, Sidiki Trawally and Tom Kamara, intentionally distorted accounts and falsely accused the New DEAL Movement’s Presidential Hopeful Dr. George Klay Kieh, Jr. of advocating violence. As is clearly seen below, the falsehood of the two journalists is laid bare as indicated by responses provided by George Kieh to context of the questions posed by the moderated, Counselor Kwame Clement, one of Liberia’s renowned journalists. 

Counselor Kwame Clement: Dr. Kieh, should violence ever be used? 

Kieh: Let me preface my response by asking everyone to listen very keenly. This is because I do not want anyone leaving here with the word that I am a candidate, who is advocating violence. I believe that violence can be used if an authoritarian regime closes all of the political, legal and constitutional means for making change in a society, including the use of repression. Let me also draw a distinction between what I call “revolutionary violence” and “predatory violence.” Revolutionary violence is waged for, and on behalf of a suppressed people for the purpose of correcting the wrongs of a society. The target of such violence must be the authoritarian regime and not the population. Predatory violence is one that uses the legitimate grievances of a suppressed people as a pretext for seizing state power, with the ultimate objective of using state power for self-enrichment. The suppressed people are the targets of predatory violence. 

Clement: How about the 1989 civil war in Liberia? 

Kieh: The war was an example of the use of predatory violence. 

Clement: How about the 1998 civil war? 

Kieh: This was another example of the use of predatory violence. 

Clement: How about the 1980 coup? 

Kieh: The 1980 coup was an example of the use of both revolutionary and predatory violence. Revolutionary violence was used to institute regime change, but predatory violence was used by the new regime after the coup. That is, the post-coup environment was worse than the status quo ante. 
 

GENERAL COMMENTS ON THE REPORTING

The caption of Sidiki Trawally’s story entitled, “To Bring About Change, Violence is Necessary, Says Kieh” is misleading, false, and unprofessionally reported for several reasons: 
 

1. Trawally’s story fails to provide the context in which the question was asked.
2. It fails to provide George Kieh’s full response.
3. It fails to mention that the question on violence was a general question that was not Liberia-specific.
    
4. It fails to mention that the question on violence was one of several questions posed by Moderator Clement and the audience during the nearly four-hour-long forum. So, why is Mr. Trawally only interested in reporting on just one question and distorting Kieh’s response?
5. It fails to mention that both Dr. Thompson and Rev. Zoe when pressed by Moderator Clement for the specifics of their positions on violence, both advocated positions that were not fundamentally different from that of George Kieh’s. In short, both candidates supported Kieh’s pedagogic position.

Overall, Mr. Trawally carefully took Kieh’s response out of context and partially reported the response so as to convey the impression that Kieh is advocating violence. But the fact of the matter, as evidenced by the audio and video recordings is that Kieh made it clear that he is opposed to violence; but, clearly laid out the context in which the use of violence might be necessary. Kieh also made it clear that he did not want it to be construed that he was a candidate advocating violence; hence, he requested that the audience carefully listen to his response to the question. It is worth noting that Mr. Trawally worked for ULIMO-K, a ruthless and predatory warring faction (headed by Alhaji Kromah) which killed innocent civilians during the last civil war in Liberia. To date, Trawally remains connected to Alhaji Kromah and probably the war crimes he committed. Hence, Mr. Trawally clearly has a political motive for distorting Kieh’s response to the question on violence. Moreover, it is an irony that someone like Trawally who worked for a warring faction during the first Liberian Civil War and is a beneficially of predatory violence would falsely paint a democratic advocate like George Kieh, who has played a consistent role in the struggle for democratization and social justice in Liberia. In short, Kieh’s record is an open book: He has never been a member of nor supported any warlordist militia during any of the two Liberian Civil Wars. In fact, he opposed all of the warlordist militias during the two civil wars; hence, to try to paint him as an advocate of violence is laughable. 

Tom Kamara: It is interesting that Tom Kamara would write a story using Mr. Trawally’s story without trying to validate the claims made. The ABC of Journalism requires that journalists check and validate their sources, especially when they want to write a story based on secondary sources. The fact of the matter is that Tom Kamara did not attend the forum; so, to use an inaccurate story as the basis for writing his story is the height of “yellow journalism” and overall journalistic irresponsibility. If Tom Kamara were interested in facts and the truth about the New DEAL Movement and it Presidential Hopeful’s response to the question on violence at the forum, he could have contacted the New DEAL Movement’s Presidential Hopeful Kieh or the Association of Liberian Journalists in the Americas (ALJA) for clarification. But, Tom Kamara did not! This is because Tom Kamara is interested in the continuation of his campaign of falsehood against the New DEAL Movement. This is because Tom Kamara has a deep-seated hatred for the New DEAL Movement for three major reasons: 
 

1. Tom Kamara is a firm believer that only the members of the traditional political class in Liberia have the right to lead the country. Any group or individual outside of this class, who competes for political leadership in Liberia, is guilty of political heresy. Thus, Tom Kamara is unhappy with the New DEAL Movement because the party is not a client of one of the so-called “traditional and brand name politicians.”
    
2. Tom is envious because the New DEAL Movement is doing something that he and the members of his generation could not do for Liberia.
3. Tom is angry because the New DEAL Movement did not support Mrs. Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, his political icon, for the interim headship during the Accra Peace Conference last year.

Against this background, Tom has waged a consistent campaign of distortion and vilification against the New DEAL Movement: 
 

1. He (Tom Kamara) falsely claimed that the New DEAL Movement formed an alliance with the Liberian Action Party, warlords and what he descried as “ethnic Krahns” to defeat his political icon.
    
2. He falsely claimed that the New DEAL Movement was in alliance with Gyude Bryant.
3. In his utopian and pink journalistic thinking, Tom Kamara falsely claimed that the New DEAL Movement, the Liberian Action party and the True Whig Party were destined to form an electoral alliance for the 2005 elections.
    
4. He falsely claimed that the Ford Foundation gave the New DEAL Movement $500,000.00 to do work on civic education in Liberia. This charge clearly reflected Tom’s ignorance of the Ford Foundations’s grant making: The Ford Foundation does not give grants to political parties. The New DEAL Movement has never received a penny from the Ford Foundation!

We are quite aware that Tom Kamara, Sidiki Trawally and others dislike the New DEAL Movement for partisan, personal and other reasons. But, we believe that in the interest of our dear country, please challenge the New DEAL Movement on the facts! We have a “Blueprint for Development and Democracy in Liberia,” that is a public document; and we have issued countless statements on several issues covering various aspects of life in Liberia. So, we are fully prepared to debate and dialogue with individuals and groups about our vision for Liberia. We respect press freedom and freedom of speech. However, we will not sit by idly and allow people masquerading as “journalists” to distort and tell outright lies about the New DEAL Movement and its leaders. We will continue to defend the integrity of the party, and will do so forcefully and decisively. 

Issued by the Public Affairs Bureau of the New DEAL Movement of Liberia on

May 20, 2004. 

Signed: 

Daniel Doegan, Jr.

Daniel Doegan, Jr.

Public Affairs Bureau

The DEAL Movement of Liberia

E-mail:  

 ________________________
Note from Tom Kamara: The clarification is healthy, but it only validates the story. Dr. George Klay Kieh did not deny advocating violence to change a government that he believes is repressive. The fundamental problem with this paradigm is that anyone can decide at any time which regime is repressive and therefore define and adopt his “revolutionary violence” to alter it, just as Samuel Doe and Charles Taylor spoke for the rest of us with ghastly results. Kieh says the 1980 coup is a mixture of “revolutionary” and predatory” violence. Interesting. It remains to be seen what was (is)  revolutionary about the coup. Did it alter society for the better? No! Did it depart from repressiveness, its reason for coming into being? No! Did it address the needs of the people it claimed to “redeem”? No!

It is better for the New Deal to concentrate on winning the presidency than giving lessons on journalism. I commented on the story, something distinct from writing the story. I said the story was “attributed” to the speaker and produced a portion of it to clearly show it is not my work. The reporter has no responsibility to reproduce verbatim a speech of a politician. That is why clever politicians select their words and topics carefully.  The reporter can decide which portion of a speech is newsworthy, and the fact that Dr. Kieh, who teaches Political Science in the US, considered one of the leading knights of democracy, can justify the use of violence for political change is news, nothing else. Honesty can be rewarding. Let the New Deal make a deal with honesty and admit their president-to-be is guilty of a gaffe. On envy, not yet. The New Deal has not won the elections to deserve envy. But again dwelling into personalities and leaving the issues is a job for anyone, even the street kid. It is regrettable that Liberians, even those presumably enlightened, have come to peace with the mundane belief that one cannot criticise someone unless you hate the person, or that one cannot praise a person except he/she is your friend. Here is the fear of such people coming to power, because every comment and disagreement on their prescriptions for the rest of society, including the panacea of “revolutionary violence”, will be considered a crime punishable by Decree Number One under the Revolutionary Code of Ethics for the People.  

___________________________