|
|
|
||
|
A Rejoinder TO Tom Kamara From Harry Greaves 4 June 04 I read Tom
Kamara's article, As much as I detested Mr. Taylor and all that he stood for, life has taught me that guilt by association is a very dangerous premise upon which to base public policy. I have always been strongly opposed to lumping people together on the basis of a priori criteria such as family relationship, tribe, religion, and service in a particular political administration. Many people, including some of those whom he would deal with today were he to return to Monrovia, have worked in the same government jobs from the Tubman administration to the Bryant administration. Was the same individual acceptable when he worked for Tolbert but should all of a sudden be labeled a scoundrel simply because he worked for Taylor? Are we to throw everyone out because they worked in a particular administration, be it Tolbert’s, Doe’s or Taylor’s? Unlike Mr. Kamara, I make a distinction between those who did bad things during the Taylor administration, and those who tried to do the best they could under difficult circumstances. The transitional
government was created to absorb all parties and factions to the
conflict, including people who may even later be indicted for war
crimes. The underlying premise of the transitional government was that
judgment on the role of individuals in the Liberian drama would be
reserved for a later date. I did not and could not have rigged the "selection process." I campaigned actively for Chairman Bryant in the run up to the elections. But when my peers indicated that they wanted me to chair the elections commission, I made a personal decision not to vote in those elections, even though I was entitled to do so. And that decision almost cost my candidate, Mr. Bryant, the election. As you may recall, he came in 3rd on the first ballot, equal with Dr. Moniba and Dr. Tipoteh, and had to go to a runoff, which he won handsomely. Had I voted, Mr. Bryant would have won 3rd place on the first ballot. (Incidentally, I was the only person on the elections commission entitled to vote who chose not vote. I think that fact weighed heavily in the decision of the mediator, General Abdulsalami Abubakar, to dismiss Dr. Moniba’s claim that I was biased. As regards the fairness of the process itself, I will not blow my own trumpet. Ask those who participated. Suffice it to say that, after the election, I was being referred to in the corridors of the conference hall as the next chairman of the elections commission in Liberia by participants and observers alike. The whole election process has been documented. If Mr. Kamara wants a copy of the report that my commission submitted to Gen. Abubakar, I would be happy to oblige. Alternatively, he can approach ECOWAS. I turned over all of the original documentation (rules, procedures, voter rolls, ballots, etc.) to them. They are now a matter of public record. He can research the documents, educate himself as to the facts and draw any conclusion he wishes. Finally, Mr.
Kamara said that money changed hands. True. But of one thing I am sure:
it is that if money could have bought the chairmanship in Accra, Gyude
Bryant would not have come close to winning. He insisted on not going
around the pool, refused to hold press conferences, wine and dine the
multitude, or pay for the conduct of bogus surveys of voter intentions
or indulge in many of the other forms of electoral manipulation that
were rife in Accra. His campaign was pure retail politics: focusing on
those, and only those, who were entitled to vote; and dealing with them
one on one. It is one of the supreme ironies of history that Chairman Bryant was one of the few who objected, and vociferously so, to the idea of selection-by-warring-parties when that selection procedure was sprung on us (the civilian side of the house, that is) by the convening authorities at the eleventh hour. Others who thought it would favor them warmly embraced it. We simply went back to the drawing board after it was clear that we would be overruled and devised a strategy to use the procedure to the advantage of our candidate. And we succeeded. A careful reading of the Accra peace agreement will reveal that the issue of justice for crimes committed by Taylor or anyone else during the civil war is not part of the mandate of the transitional government. There was heated debate on this point and the warring parties made it crystal clear that, should any provision be included in the CPA on war crimes, they would not sign the agreement and the war would continue. We did not want to be held responsible by the Liberian people for prolonging the war, so we acquiesced. If Chairman Bryant were to go out and start seeking a new mandate to constitute a war crimes tribunal, Mr. Kamara would probably be the first one to cry "foul." This transitional government is a government of compromise, not an elected government with a mandate from the people. It was formed as a way to stop the killing, and to work with the international community to disarm the combatants, repatriate refugees and organize free and fair elections. On paper the transitional government may seem unworkable. Where in the world has anyone heard of a head of state presiding over a cabinet, 90 percent of which are not of his choosing? Yet that is what the CPA saddled Chairman Bryant with, and he is doing one heck of a job making the unworkable work. He has an uncommon amount of patience, a lot more than many of us lesser mortals have. Before closing, I want to deal with some of the other gratuitous accusations and comments contained in Mr. Kamara’s diatribe. The former governor of the Central Bank of Liberia has not been arrested and will not be deprived of his freedom unless an audit proves that he has committed a crime. At this writing, the EU has issued a tender for international auditing firms to conduct a thorough audit of the Central Bank and five other revenue generating government entities. If all goes according to plan, the audits will commence at the end of this month and results should be in before the end of September. The Bryant administration will reserve judgment until the results of those audits are forthcoming. As a journalist, Mr. Kamara of all people should be happy that the Bryant administration is not embarking on a witch-hunt and dispensing kangaroo justice. Or perhaps he is only interested in due process when it comes to his friends. This transitional government intends to offer due process to everyone---friend and foe alike. I am simply amazed at how sloppy Mr. Kamara is at checking his facts, given his background and training. My hinting at seeking the presidency, as he puts it, is a figment of his furtive imagination. My party will select a candidate for the October 2005 and it will not be me. I am not in the race. Furthermore, Mr. Emmanuel Shaw has never been an adviser to Chairman Bryant. The last time I checked he was in private life. And Mr. Kamara cannot even spell my name correctly or that of Chairman Bryant’s chief of staff, Professor Willie Belleh. On the matter of the GSM licenses, the reason Chairman Bryant’s special committee called for a halt to the rollout of additional mobile operators was not to stifle competition, as Mr. Kamara alleges. In his inaugural address, Chairman Bryant sent out a clarion call for the removal of monopolies and this administration intends to do exactly that. Accordingly, last November the monopoly on the importation of rice was abolished by the Chairman, and the monopoly on the importation of petroleum products has been relaxed. (Although the monopoly could not be completely abolished at the time because of unforeseen legal restrictions, steps are being taken to move towards creating a more competitive environment.) The point is we want to approach the removal of monopolies in an orderly, logical and transparent manner. At the last count, the Ministry of Post & Telecommunications had issued 13 GSM licenses, no less, in a country with a population of a mere 3 million people. By contrast, Nigeria, with 120 living, eating and breathing souls, has 3 GSM operators. Moreover, it is not clear that the granting of those licenses by the ministry was conducted with any coherent strategy in mind. Reports are that in some instances the same frequencies were assigned to more than one licensee. And there are questions about pricing. Again, in Nigeria licenses were auctioned for hundreds of millions of dollars. Some of our neighbors auctioned theirs for tens of millions of dollars. Preliminary evidence is that ours went for a song, sold for amounts in low five digits. And, of course, it has to be determined whether or not the proceeds from these sales ever reached the national treasury. We are seeking technical assistance from the World Bank to help us to sort out this sorry mess. As regards the
peace conference held in Burkina Faso in July 2002, I cannot for the
life of me fathom how Mr. Kamara came to the conclusion that Chairman
Bryant was “…a de facto member of Taylor’s ‘peace’ delegation.” As a
member of the working group of the Liberian Leadership Forum, organizer
of the conference, I have intimate knowledge of what transpired. Mr.
Taylor’s National Patriotic Party was invited to attend, as were
representatives of the other 17 registered political parties, civil
society organizations, LURD and some eminent citizens. Chairman Bryant
attended as head of the LAP delegation. LURD took some risks and showed
up even though Burkina Faso could arguably have been considered by them
as hostile territory, given Mr. Taylor’s camaraderie with the Burkinabe
president. The NPP failed to show up (even though they had earlier
indicated their willingness to attend). At the closing of the
conference, President Blaise Compaore reported to us President Taylor’s
response to the special emissary he had sent to implore Mr. Taylor to
avail himself of this opportunity to start a dialogue for peace with his
opponents. Mr. Taylor has sent word to him that he (Taylor) “had all the
arms and ammunition he needed and God was on his side. Therefore, he had
no need to talk with us.” ________________________________ Note from Tom Kamara: I plead guilty on the count of misspelling of Mr. Greaves' and Mr. Belleh's names. Apologies! But what I note here is that Mr. Bryant needs to relocate the hired Washington PR bureau to Monrovia to earn their money. If the EU has issued a tender to audit the National Bank and “other revenue generating government entities” as Mr. Greaves notes, (hopefully including the Maritime Fund and Lone Star), why keep this in the closet? The huge problem in Liberia is accountability, and if such a move is made, isn't this a PR bonanza for the regime? I said Mr. Bryant was a "de facto member" of the Taylor team in Burkina Faso and my assertion is based on reports from credible sources at the conference. The rebels at the conference threatened to walk out when they discovered that Bryant and some members of the Taylor gang had gone to consult the Executive Mansion on war reports. Then there is the question of the monopoly granted Lone Star, one of Charles Taylor’s personal economic babies. If the rice monopoly is abolished, why not the monopoly on telecommunications? Taylor and company supervised the destruction of the nation’s telecommunications system only to establish their own and siphon money from the state. I see no excuse in the special attention given to the monopoly on mobile phones. It is criminal to sustain a system run by the very people who ensured the destruction of the economy. On the charge of frustration, it is not new. Charles Taylor’s propagandists used it so often that in the end, the word now suits them. My interest is holding people by what they say, and I am happy that Mr Greaves is honest enough not to deny his BBC statement. His justification is also revealing. He said he is "sorry" for me for insisting that men and women who orchestrated and implemented the national horrors should be avoided. But soroow is for those who refuse, for personal political and therefore economic reasons, to distinguish between good and evil. It is like the very men who emerged after Hitler telling Germans not all Hitler’s men were bad, and proceeding to justify their collaboration with the Nazis. To the contrary, Nazi collaborators were not allowed to sustain their economic and political interests after the fall of their evil regime. They were punished for their collaboration, not rewarded. Liberians should demand the same for Taylor’s men because his regime was no different from that of the Nazis. In fact, it was worst. While the Nazis were insane nationalists, Taylor and his gang were the opposite. The comparison with the William Tubman and Tolbert regimes is, to me, unjustified. Perhaps with the Doe regime, but then it is the same people under Doe who were the crowd under Taylor. The clarification on how Mr. Greaves became elections commissioner in Ghana is also interesting for its revelation in the weaknesses amongst Liberian politicians. It is like asking Donald Rumsfeld to chair the election of George W. Bush. Mr. Greaves said he campaigned for Mr. Bryant. This alone should have disqualified him from taking charge of the selection process. Finally, for now, I did not propose the arrest of the former Governor of the national bank. Mr. Bryant had announced in the US the setting-up of a team to investigate the Governor. That did not happen. The man left the post, a lucrative one, without explanation. On picking on Mr. Bryant, I can only say I never mentioned his name anywhere in my article until he became chairman. The country’s fate is in his hands. He must be placed under the microscope endlessly to ensure that the years of theft and terror experienced under Samuel Doe and Charles Taylor do not return. But then again Taylor and others said the same of me. So I am now used to this charge. But I thank Mr Greaves, unlike his compatriot Bernard Jabber, who accused me of being angry because I was not called upon to travel to Ghana for the conference. The fact is that I was offered tickets and per diem. I refused, because I did not see any role there for me. Then I was informed by one rebel executive who told me my name was being circulated for so-called Minister of Information. He expected jubilation, but I told him if he had no respect for me, he should not call me. .After experiences during the Sawyer years when I came close to politics, I prefer to be a journalist, and not a politician. _____________________________ |
|||
