|
Charles Taylor and Nigeria’s Leadership in ECOWAS By John Iyobhebhe
The Charles Taylor question has finally been answered. He will face trial at the UN Special Court at the request of the Liberian government. The question had to be settled one way or the other and the world is keen to see him answer to the charges against him, and rightly so.
There are however a number of lessons for African leaders. The first is that the most brutal and genocidal ones now know that the world is no longer going turn a blind eye to gross atrocities and violations of human rights. The old global view that whatever happens to Africans in terms of genocide and human rights abuses is of no concern to the rest of the world has been set aside. This was clearly illustrated in Rwanda and now Sierra Leone. In the future, leaders who perpetrate such genocidal abuses know that someday they may have to answer for their behaviour. Leaving office is no longer enough for the worst cases, as indicated by the Taylor.
The Nigerian policy was consistent until the very end. If the newly elected Liberian government requested Taylor’s repatriation or if Taylor breached his terms with Nigeria, he would be sent to back. The end game came for Taylor when his country’s new President, Sirleaf-Johnson, called for his repatriation a few weeks ago.
As for Nigeria, there are a number of serious diplomatic lessons to be learnt in terms of how we conduct our foreign policy. First, President Obasanjo must be given credit for his statesmanship in bringing the genocidal civil war in Liberia to an end. If the President of Nigeria had not agreed, under US, EU, Ecowas and AU persuasion to grant Taylor asylum three years ago, the war in Liberia and maybe Sierra Leone would still be raging today.
Those of us who supported the President when Taylor was granted refuge did so because we believed the President was doing the right thing for Liberia. Tens of thousands of lives were saved by getting Taylor out of Liberia. And furthermore, there was a long held desire among Africans to see an end to the pointless killing in Liberia. What we were opposed to was pressure from the United States that Obasanjo handed Taylor over irrespective of the views of the Nigerian and Liberian governments or Ecowas leaders. That we felt was wrong. We believed granting such a request would undermine Nigeria’s prestige and leverage in our own backyard. It became a case of ‘the Good Samaritan’ being accused of harbouring a fugitive. That, we thought, was unfair on Nigeria.
In any event, Taylor is now in the hands of the UN Tribunal in Sierra Leone. He must now answer to the charges against him. If found guilty under a free and fair trial which conforms to international standards, he will surely face the music. I have never said he should not face trial for his alleged crimes, as I was recently accused by an unnamed person. Our concern was how President Obasanjo was being portrayed for granting Taylor refuge. Nigeria’s interest, not Taylor’s, was always our primary concern
It is clear that there has been a change of policy on the pre election and post election position of President Sirleaf-Johnson of Liberia on Taylor. That is no business of ours. The government of Liberia is entitled to determine its policy in the economic and diplomatic interest of Liberia. If all that stood in the way of billions of dollars of reconstruction aid from the US and EU was Taylor, the Liberian government had few options but to ask the Nigerian government to hand over Taylor. In all reality neither Ecowas nor the AU can give the volume of aid needed to rebuild Liberia. That is a fact. If we want to be less cynical, it could be that the overriding desire of the Liberian government was justice and closure on the Taylor years. Sirleaf-Johnson, in my view, should first have sought the opinion and advice of President Obasanjo before putting Nigeria in an embarrassing position over Taylor. Nigeria may not have billions of dollars to dole out in reconstruction aid, but it must never be forgotten that Nigerian blood was spilt in bringing the war in Liberia to an end- Nigeria is a principal stakeholder in Liberia. The manner in which the change of policy by the Liberian government was handled, without due and proper consultation with Nigeria and Ecowas leaders, did not go down too well in Abuja. Whatever the reason for the request, it is all academic now. We hope lessons have been learnt.
As for the future, the Nigerian government would have to be more cautious in acting as peace brokers. Whether we like it or not, Nigeria’s ability to act in the future in a ‘Liberia type situation’ has been weakened. Not that anyone is advocating it, but if, for example, Obasanjo offers Mugabe asylum in Nigeria in return for him stepping down, how do we think the dictator in Harare would react?
The AU, Ecowas and collaborative foreign partners must avoid the embarrassment that became of the Taylor issue in the future. Clear positions must be taken from the outset on whether we should be granting asylum to indicted ex-leaders and if so, under what conditions. Whatever the psychological impact on our position in ecowas and the AU, Nigeria cannot resort to an isolationist position in war torn countries in our own backyard. We have a moral and historic duty to come to the aid of fellow Africans in crisis.
The human rights implications of a Taylor trial are positive. It gives a certain measure of reassurance to the poor African people that the worst of their leaders will not always get away with atrocities and gross violations of basic human rights. It is bound to be a good thing. And we hope present and future leaders hell bent of bringing suffering and misery on their people and neighbouring countries will stop and think about the personal consequences for themselves.
Personally, I think if Taylor is guilty as charged, he should serve his sentence. Our point all along was that we did not want President Obasanjo’s reputation and Nigeria’s leverage in Ecowas and the AU damaged by the Taylor question.
John Iyobhebhe writes a personal article from London.
|