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

God Bless Bryant's Regime Till October 05

By Tom Kamara

3 June 04

Reports from Monrovia say the three rebel factions—Charles Taylor’s militia, ethnic-Krahn led- Movement for Democracy in Liberia MODEl and splintered Liberians United for Reconciliation and Democracy LURD---are plotting to dump Charles Gyude Bryant as interim leader. The report is unconfirmed, because it is hard to pinpoint the logic in Charles Taylor’s gang opposing Bryant, or MODEL’ dumping him. With LURD, it is understandable, because all the controversies have been between the rebel gang and Bryant since they did not endorse him. But the fact is that Bryant was “elected” not only by rebels, but by like-minded political parties and civil organisations, if at all they fit the description. The rebels therefore have no veto power over him. He is there to until October 2005. There is no provision in the Ghana agreement that garnts the rebels right to change a national leader they oppose once they endorsed him. Any change of leadership would require another conference, which is an unaffordable luxury at this time when the main objective--disarmament--is on underway.

If the dump Bryant campaign were true, it would be amongst the worst error Liberians would make, which is to conclude that Bryant is their problem. Unlike Charles Taylor who in all respect epitomised the malaise, Bryant is only the symptom, but not the problem.

Over emphasis on the individual as the problem led to the same conclusion about William Tolbert, arguably the most resourceful president Liberia has had in recent years. Samuel Doe the “people’s man”, emerged, and if truth matters, many would have preferred Tolbert to emerge from his grave after experiencing what Doe and his gang had to offer. Then Charles Taylor the Evil emerged to replace Samuel Doe. Many now would confess that between Doe and Taylor, two evils,  the choice would be obvious. At least Doe did not hire child soldiers, loot others'diamonds and direct national destruction in the manner Charles Taylor and co. did. .

Simple solutions are always attractive to simple minds. During the period of interim regimes in theb 90s, many, including the now presidential aspirant Varney Sherman then speaking at the Monrovia City Hall, decreed that Dr. Amos Claudius Sawyer was the problem. Sawyer left the scene for successive interims, including that of the so-called Big Three—Charles Taylor, Alhaji Kromah and George Boley. But their gift to Liberia was that they burnt down Monrovia and sent hundreds of thousands into refugee camps across the world. It has come to pass, again if truth, and not emotions or ethnicity, matters, that the Sawyer period, despite its many shortcomings, and as a loathed regime by those who matter within the international community, was the best in transitional Liberia. If Sawyer had the same backing that Bryant now enjoys unconditionally, Liberia’s woes would have ended, and many more would have lived, and many institutions preserved. But those who own the world declared they could not back the regime because they were neutral and because it was not elected. Fortunately, after witnessing the slaughter of tens of thousands, the same logic was not applied to Bryant. He was welcome in The White House and at the UN.

Thus the fanfare to see Bryant as the cause supreme and not the solution of the malaise should be viewed with caution. True, the man is inept, for how could he really believe that he can determine the next president in such a mess, in the ocean of power-hungry rebels and greedy politicians emerging every hour to announce their life-time ambition of being president? Bryant should know that once president, your best friend is no longer your friend. (Sawyer was told that his enemies were activists with whom he worked over the decades. They were no allies, only enemies to be watched carefully. Charles Taylor butchered those  who fought for him before he took the presidency. They were enemies. Samuel Doe slaughtered those that crowned him president. They were traitors not in the cause of the people. In Zambia, Chiluba's vice president, now president, put him on trial for stealin.) If Bryant  knew the power of the Liberian presidency (power including whose wife the president wants and must have), he would not be selling his soul to make Varney Sherman President. There is no loyalty in Liberian politics, and in politics for that matter. Many of those who cheered Samuel Doe in the commission of atrocities to preserve his rule later joined Charles Taylor. Once at the top with array of new friends and advisors, old friends, including the ones the who made the presidency, become the main enemies for they are feared. If Bryant were wise, he would play the perfect referee and earn the respect of the Liberian people and the world in general. He would live by that wrong description thrown on him—neutral—and leave an admirable record. But there are men and women around him telling him he has the power to handpick a successor, all because they are advancing their interests to remain at the helm. When Bryant leaves, he may not see any of those now cheering him on to scheme and helping them remain in power. But by proving that he is not after all neutral as he was propelled to be, he is on the path of destroying himself while those he seeks to please will be the ones laughing the last laugh and seeking new masters and political frontiers.

The demand to dump Bryant is barren and infested with opportunism. And the problem is that there is no resourceful alternative to Bryant within the current political set-up. Let one imagine for a second Bryant’s replacement. The Speaker of the Interim Assembly George Dweh, the accused human rights violator who allegedly dragged his boss, along with his pregnant wife out of his house and were never seen? He has already announced the failure of disarmament as a precondition for his political longetivity. Dweh, afraid of the success now underway in the disarming of fighters, has already decided that Charles Taylor is not the problem but politicians questioning his horrendous background.  Or one of the rebel commanders? Or  one of the leaders of the opportunistic and one-man political parties without elections? The truth, if at all it matters, is that the rebel gangs are against Bryant not on the basis of principles, but for leaving them out of the dividing the spoils of war but this is their problem since they selected him. Many of the rebel appointees are rushing back to the US every week to bank their looted money collected from returning Liberians and other sources. Arguably none in the regime cam match Bryant in terms of moral standing. Yes, the man is naïve, but he is the best now until October 2005. By changing regimes every three months, the rebels want to prolong the process and thereby fatten their US accounts.  This would permit them to hang-on to governance far longer that their signatures allowed. 

Bryant regime will survive until October 2005 when it leaves, by Allah’s grace. Amen!

________________________