U.N. approves force for Liberia
Some of the latest news and opinion about Liberia:
Surf's up: A little on Liberia
By Kurt Blumenau / News Business Columnist
Sunday, August 3, 2003
The UN votes to go in but France, Germany and Mexico abstain.
U.N. approves force for Liberia
By Sridhar Krishnaswami
Battles Rage as Liberia's Taylor Prepares to Go
Sun August 03, 2003 07:13 AM ET
By David Clarke
Mark Steyn says it will take 30 years to fix what?s wrong in Liberia.
The white man's burden
There is a case for intervening in Liberia, says Mark Steyn, but it is not one being urged by American liberals.
Surf's up: A little on Liberia
By Kurt Blumenau / News Business Columnist
Sunday, August 3, 2003
Quote:
By the time you read this, American troops could be marching into another country, trying to rescue its people from a ruthless despot.
This time, the setting is Africa; the country is Liberia; and the dictator is Charles Taylor, a Bentley College-educated badman who had his henchmen film the torture and killing of the president unfortunate enough to precede him.
Besides that unsavory tidbit, we've never known that much about Liberia. We set out to change that last week, and thought the links we found might educate others as well...
By the time you read this, American troops could be marching into another country, trying to rescue its people from a ruthless despot.
This time, the setting is Africa; the country is Liberia; and the dictator is Charles Taylor, a Bentley College-educated badman who had his henchmen film the torture and killing of the president unfortunate enough to precede him.
Besides that unsavory tidbit, we've never known that much about Liberia. We set out to change that last week, and thought the links we found might educate others as well...
The UN votes to go in but France, Germany and Mexico abstain.
U.N. approves force for Liberia
By Sridhar Krishnaswami
Quote:
Washington Aug. 2. The United Nations Security Council has approved a multinational force for Liberia with a viewing to bringing order to a country that has seen major unrest in the last several years. The multinational force will be for a two month period after which United Nations peacekeepers will take over. The Secretary-General, Kofi Annan, has expressed confidence that the October 1 deadline can be met.
The multinational force has been given the mandate to not only prepare for the delivery of humanitarian assistance but also for the process of disarming and demobilising the fighters. Founded by freed American slaves in the 19th century, Liberia has been at civil war since 1989.
The United States which sponsored the resolution wanted a unanimous vote in the Council but it passed by a 12-0 margin with France, Germany and Mexico abstaining on account of a provision that will exempt American peacekeepers from being hauled before the International Criminal Court...
Washington Aug. 2. The United Nations Security Council has approved a multinational force for Liberia with a viewing to bringing order to a country that has seen major unrest in the last several years. The multinational force will be for a two month period after which United Nations peacekeepers will take over. The Secretary-General, Kofi Annan, has expressed confidence that the October 1 deadline can be met.
The multinational force has been given the mandate to not only prepare for the delivery of humanitarian assistance but also for the process of disarming and demobilising the fighters. Founded by freed American slaves in the 19th century, Liberia has been at civil war since 1989.
The United States which sponsored the resolution wanted a unanimous vote in the Council but it passed by a 12-0 margin with France, Germany and Mexico abstaining on account of a provision that will exempt American peacekeepers from being hauled before the International Criminal Court...
Battles Rage as Liberia's Taylor Prepares to Go
Sun August 03, 2003 07:13 AM ET
By David Clarke
Quote:
MONROVIA (Reuters) - President Charles Taylor's forces were battling rebels on several fronts on Sunday, a day after their leader promised to step down and just hours before African peacekeeping troops were due to deploy...
... As Saturday's battle raged, Taylor announced he would step down on August 11 - the first time he has set a definite date to hand over control of a country crippled by 14 years of almost non-stop war.
Under pressure from the United States to quit and hemmed in by rebels, Taylor chose the sixth anniversary of his inauguration as Liberia's president to say he would resign.
But no date was set for Taylor's departure from the country, something President Bush has said needs to happen...
MONROVIA (Reuters) - President Charles Taylor's forces were battling rebels on several fronts on Sunday, a day after their leader promised to step down and just hours before African peacekeeping troops were due to deploy...
... As Saturday's battle raged, Taylor announced he would step down on August 11 - the first time he has set a definite date to hand over control of a country crippled by 14 years of almost non-stop war.
Under pressure from the United States to quit and hemmed in by rebels, Taylor chose the sixth anniversary of his inauguration as Liberia's president to say he would resign.
But no date was set for Taylor's departure from the country, something President Bush has said needs to happen...
Mark Steyn says it will take 30 years to fix what?s wrong in Liberia.
The white man's burden
There is a case for intervening in Liberia, says Mark Steyn, but it is not one being urged by American liberals.
Quote:
What happened to Liberia? Only three years ago, things were going swimmingly, at least according to President Charles Taylor's Ministry of Information: 'We say "well done" to Mr President, and advise him to always keep the communication highway free and clear of any hindrance, so that a people-to-leader and leader-to-people approach can be adopted and maintained, so that everyone will at least have the opportunity to have the ears of the Chief Executive, instead of a select few.'
By contrast, in 1990 only a select few got the opportunity to have the ears of the then Chief Executive, Samuel Doe. He'd fallen into the hands of Prince Johnson, one of Charles Taylor's allies in the battle to unseat him. Johnson had President Doe stripped to his underpants and then barked into the camera, 'That man won't talk! Bring me his ear!' The cameraman did a jerky about-face in time to catch Johnson's guys holding down the President and slicing off his left ear.
'Now the other ear,' ordered Johnson. 'The right ear.' So the boys removed the right one. Then they made the President eat them. But the lads kept the best bits for themselves. They removed His Excellency's genitals and then fought over them, in the belief that the 'powers' and 'manhood' of the person whose parts you're eating are transferred to the eater.
Times change, and it's now President Taylor's lunchbox on the menu. He's currently trying to avoid becoming just another ear-today-gone-tomorrow Liberian head of state. His former ally, Prince Johnson, has since fallen out with Taylor, relocated to Lagos, been ordained by the Christ Deliverance Ministry, and had a tearful reconciliation with Samuel Doe's widow at the Synagogue Church of All Nations. He now regrets the whole ear-slicing thing, and the good news is he's ready to come back and serve his country...
What happened to Liberia? Only three years ago, things were going swimmingly, at least according to President Charles Taylor's Ministry of Information: 'We say "well done" to Mr President, and advise him to always keep the communication highway free and clear of any hindrance, so that a people-to-leader and leader-to-people approach can be adopted and maintained, so that everyone will at least have the opportunity to have the ears of the Chief Executive, instead of a select few.'
By contrast, in 1990 only a select few got the opportunity to have the ears of the then Chief Executive, Samuel Doe. He'd fallen into the hands of Prince Johnson, one of Charles Taylor's allies in the battle to unseat him. Johnson had President Doe stripped to his underpants and then barked into the camera, 'That man won't talk! Bring me his ear!' The cameraman did a jerky about-face in time to catch Johnson's guys holding down the President and slicing off his left ear.
'Now the other ear,' ordered Johnson. 'The right ear.' So the boys removed the right one. Then they made the President eat them. But the lads kept the best bits for themselves. They removed His Excellency's genitals and then fought over them, in the belief that the 'powers' and 'manhood' of the person whose parts you're eating are transferred to the eater.
Times change, and it's now President Taylor's lunchbox on the menu. He's currently trying to avoid becoming just another ear-today-gone-tomorrow Liberian head of state. His former ally, Prince Johnson, has since fallen out with Taylor, relocated to Lagos, been ordained by the Christ Deliverance Ministry, and had a tearful reconciliation with Samuel Doe's widow at the Synagogue Church of All Nations. He now regrets the whole ear-slicing thing, and the good news is he's ready to come back and serve his country...
Comments
Originally posted by Scott
Yea I know they found an excuse to go against it.
Don't you mean that the U.S. had to fabricate a reason to go along with it?
Originally posted by bunge
Don't you mean that the U.S. had to fabricate a reason to go along with it?
Not too long ago you were in support of a Liberian intervention and believed Bush to be too. Changed your mind?
Originally posted by Scott
No Liberian Peace Keepers for Oil!
It seems Iraq wasn't enough. At least it's the UN this time and not just the US.
Originally posted by zaphod_beeblebrox
Changed your mind?
Not at all. My position then and what I've posted here are completely compatible.
Originally posted by bunge
Not at all. My position then and what I've posted here are completely compatible.
No it isn't. If a Liberian intervention is the right thing to do, why would we need to fabricate a reason to go in?
Originally posted by jimmac
It seems Iraq wasn't enough. At least it's the UN this time and not just the US.
The UN didn't approve "serious consequences" for Saddam? And by "just US" you mean US and all the other countries with US?