U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

26–015PDF 2006

THE IMPACT OF LIBERIA’S ELECTION ON WEST

AFRICA

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON AFRICA, GLOBAL HUMAN 

RIGHTS AND INTERNATIONAL OPERATIONS

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

FEBRUARY 8, 2006

Serial No. 109–146

Printed for the use of the Committee on International Relations

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.house.gov/international—relations 

(II)

COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS 

HENRY J. HYDE, Illinois, Chairman 

JAMES A. LEACH, Iowa 

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey, 

Vice Chairman 

DAN BURTON, Indiana 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

EDWARD R. ROYCE, California 

PETER T. KING, New York 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

THOMAS G. TANCREDO, Colorado 

RON PAUL, Texas 

DARRELL ISSA, California 

JEFF FLAKE, Arizona 

JO ANN DAVIS, Virginia 

MARK GREEN, Wisconsin 

JERRY WELLER, Illinois 

MIKE PENCE, Indiana 

THADDEUS G. MCCOTTER, Michigan 

KATHERINE HARRIS, Florida 

JOE WILSON, South Carolina 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

J. GRESHAM BARRETT, South Carolina 

CONNIE MACK, Florida 

JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska 

MICHAEL MCCAUL, Texas 

TED POE, Texas 

TOM LANTOS, California 

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California 

GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York 

ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American 

Samoa 

DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey 

SHERROD BROWN, Ohio 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

ROBERT WEXLER, Florida 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts 

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York 

BARBARA LEE, California 

JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York 

EARL BLUMENAUER, Oregon 

SHELLEY BERKLEY, Nevada 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

ADAM B. SCHIFF, California 

DIANE E. WATSON, California 

ADAM SMITH, Washington 

BETTY MCCOLLUM, Minnesota 

BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky 

DENNIS A. CARDOZA, California 

VACANT 

THOMAS E. MOONEY, SR., Staff Director/General Counsel 

ROBERT R. KING, Democratic Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON AFRICA, GLOBAL HUMAN RIGHTS AND INTERNATIONAL

OPERATIONS

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey, Chairman 

THOMAS G. TANCREDO, Colorado 

JEFF FLAKE, Arizona 

MARK GREEN, Wisconsin 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska 

EDWARD R. ROYCE, California, 

Vice Chairman 

DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey 

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York 

BARBARA LEE, California 

DIANE E. WATSON, California 

BETTY MCCOLLUM, Minnesota 

EARL BLUMENAUER, Oregon 

MARY M. NOONAN, Subcommittee Staff Director 

GREG SIMPKINS, Subcommittee Professional Staff Member 

NOELLE LUSANE, Democratic Professional Staff Member 

SHERI A. RICKERT, Subcommittee Professional Staff Member and Counsel 

LINDSEY M. PLUMLEY, Staff Associate 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page

WITNESSES 

Jendayi E. Frazer, Ph.D., Assistant Secretary, Bureau of African Affairs, 

U.S. Department of State .................................................................................... 15

Mr. Lloyd Pierson, Assistant Administrator for Africa, U.S. Agency for International Development .......................................................................................... 25

J. Peter Pham, Ph.D., Director, William R. Nelson Institute for International 

and Public Affairs, James Madison University ................................................. 54

Ms. Vivian Lowery Derryck, Senior Vice President, Academy for Educational 

Development ......................................................................................................... 63

Mr. David M. Crane, Former Chief Prosecutor, Special Court for Sierra 

Leone ..................................................................................................................... 73

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING 

The Honorable Christopher H. Smith, a Representative in Congress from 

the State of New Jersey, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Africa, Global 

Human Rights and International Operations: Prepared statement ................ 3

The Honorable Donald M. Payne, a Representative in Congress from the 

State of New Jersey: Prepared statement .......................................................... 8

The Honorable Diane E. Watson, a Representative in Congress from the 

State of California: Prepared statement ............................................................ 14

Jendayi E. Frazer, Ph.D.: Prepared statement ..................................................... 19

Mr. Lloyd Pierson: Prepared statement ................................................................. 26

J. Peter Pham, Ph.D.: Prepared statement ........................................................... 58

Ms. Vivian Lowery Derryck: Prepared statement ................................................. 67

Mr. David M. Crane: Prepared statement ............................................................. 77

(1)

THE IMPACT OF LIBERIA’S ELECTION ON 

WEST AFRICA 

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 8, 2006

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON AFRICA, GLOBAL HUMAN RIGHTS

AND INTERNATIONAL OPERATIONS, COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS, Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 11:05 p.m. in room 

2200, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Christopher H. Smith 

(Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding. 

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. The hearing will come to order. Good 

morning, everybody. 

On January 16th, as we all know, Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf was 

sworn in as the first elected female President in the history of independent Africa. Mrs. Sirleaf had run against Charles Taylor in 

1997, but lost, at least partly due to the impression that Taylor 

would return to war if he failed to win the election. Following the 

election, Mrs. Sirleaf spent a great deal of time outside of Liberia, 

and many observers felt her gender and her supposed lack of common touch would prevent her from being elected President. 

In 2005, former international soccer star George Weah captured 

the imagination of many inside and outside of Liberia, who felt 

that his connection with Liberia’s youth made him an almost inevitable winner, despite his lack of education and political experience. 

However, in the run-off election between the two, Mrs. Sirleaf 

employed modern campaign techniques, including polling, message 

development and targeted campaigning to achieve a stunning victory. Her connection with the female voters may have not only 

made the difference in her election, but also may pave the way for 

other female candidates throughout Africa. 

Now that she is leading this West African nation, the question 

is: What can she do to turn it around from the chaos and poverty 

into which it has fallen? From its independence in 1847 until 1980, 

Liberia was ruled by the descendants of former slaves from the 

United States. They managed to turn this nation into an economic 

engine, using the country’s wealth of natural resources. Abundant 

sources of water and fertile soil supported rubber, palm oil and 

tropical fruit plantations, as well as some of the richest timber supplies in Africa. Liberia’s mountains contain some of the highest 

quality iron ore in the world, and there were significant deposits 

of diamonds and gold. 

Unfortunately, the so-called Americo-Liberians denied the descendants of the indigenous people their benefit from Liberia’s natVerDate Mar 21 2002 17:01 May 01, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\AGI\020806\26015.000 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL
2

ural wealth and their fair share of political power. The 1989 coup 

by then-Sergeant Samuel Doe led to the ascendancy of indigenous 

ethnic groups, but it also led to a poisonous political atmosphere 

and rampant official corruption. 

In late 1989, Charles Taylor, a former member of the Doe Government and an escapee from a prison in America, began an insurgency that eventually toppled the Doe Government in 1990. Several 

years of factional fighting devastated the capital of Monrovia, as 

well as much of the country. Following a rather shaky cease-fire, 

a 1997 election brought Charles Taylor to power. By that time, 

more than 150,000 of his countrymen had died in the fighting, and 

more than half of the population had been displaced. 

The Taylor regime was a disaster for Liberia. Taylor and his 

Government looted the treasury and Liberia’s natural resources. 

Political opponents were jailed, or in the case of Dam Dokie and 

his family members, they were killed. However, Taylor was also a 

catastrophe for its West African neighbors. Rebels who had been 

supported by Taylor have destabilized Sierre Leone, Guinea and 

Cote d’Ivoire. 

Taylor’s crimes against his own people stimulated an insurgency 

that eventually led to his negotiated exile in Nigeria. His crimes 

against the region led first to United Nations sanctions in 2001 for 

his support of the Revolutionary United Front rebels in Sierra 

Leone and subsequently to an indictment for war crimes by the UN 

War Crimes Tribunal in Sierra Leone in 2003. 

The issue of Taylor’s extradition to the Sierra Leone Special 

Court remains high on the agenda of the United States Government. Nevertheless, there are internal issues facing the new Government in Liberia that also are pressing, and that is the main 

focus of our hearing today. 

During the Taylor regime, and apparently also during the transitional government headed by Gyude Bryant, corruption became a 

way of life in Liberia. Illegal logging and mining and just plain 

theft of government resources were commonplace. In fact, the transitional government officials reportedly took furniture, computers 

and even rugs and light fixtures when they left office just a couple 

of weeks ago. 

In one of her first acts as President, Mrs. Sirleaf fired the entire 

staff of the Ministry of Finance for corruption and told the officials 

to stay in the country pending an audit. The ministry and the Central Bank significantly differ as to the amount of money on hand 

for government operations. 

Those funds are desperately needed to repair Liberia’s roads, 

water systems and power supply—all of which suffer from years of 

warfare and neglect. The Sirleaf Government will have to examine 

all contracts to determine if they are in the best interest of the nation and rationally exploit Liberia’s resources. 

Too many of the population of 3 million remain displaced, and 85 

percent of Liberia’s people are unemployed and 80 percent live 

below the poverty line. About 70 percent of the population survives 

on agriculture, which remains disrupted due to the lingering impact of the war. 

If Liberia is to recover from its long nightmare, the United 

States will have to take the lead among the international commuVerDate Mar 21 2002 17:01 May 01, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\AGI\020806\26015.000 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL
3

nity to assist in its restoration. That will require focus and consistency in America’s engagement, and we are here today to determine 

what that focus should be. 

Liberians feel a kinship to America that Americans do not always share with Liberia. Nevertheless, our country’s relationship 

with Liberia is quite real and very important to the welfare of its 

neighbors. The Bush Administration and the Congress must take 

these facts into account in developing policies and programs to respond to Liberia’s new, post-election realities. 

Let me just say, before turning to my good friend and colleague, 

Mr. Payne, the Ranking Member, we will be hearing in panel II 

from David Crane, and he is, in my opinion, one of the real heroes 

in the effort to bring justice—and because of that justice, reconciliation—to that troubled part of the world. And as the special prosecutor, he was often at great risk to his own life, and yet he persisted with a tremendous amount of competence, and we will introduce him later when he makes his presentation. 

But I want to say how much this Subcommittee, and really the 

Congress, respects the contributions to justice that he has made. 

I would like to yield to Mr. Payne. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Smith of New Jersey follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, A REPRESENTA- TIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY AND CHAIRMAN, SUB- COMMITTEE ON AFRICA, GLOBAL HUMAN RIGHTS AND INTERNATIONAL OPERATIONS

On January 16th, Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf was sworn in as the first elected female 

president in the history of independent Africa. Mrs. Sirleaf had run against Charles 

Taylor in 1997, but lost, at least partly due to the impression that Taylor would return to war if he failed to win the election. Following the election, Mrs. Sirleaf spent 

a great deal of time outside Liberia, and many observers felt her gender and her 

supposed lack of common touch would prevent her from ever being elected president. 

In 2005, former international soccer star George Weah captured the imagination 

of many inside and outside Liberia, who felt that his connection with Liberia’s youth 

made him an almost inevitable winner, despite his lack of education and political 

experience. However, in the run-off election between the two, Mrs. Sirleaf employed 

modern campaign techniques, including polling, message development and targeted 

campaigning to achieve a stunning victory. Her connection with women voters may 

have made not only the difference in her election, but also may pave the way for 

other female candidates throughout Africa. 

Now that she is leading this West African nation, the question is: what can she 

do to turn it around from the chaos and poverty into which it had fallen? From its 

independence in 1847 until 1980, Liberia was ruled by the descendants of former 

slaves from the United States. They managed to turn this nation into an economic 

engine, using the country’s wealth of natural resources. Abundant sources of water 

and fertile soil supported rubber, palm oil and tropical fruit plantations, as well as 

some of the richest timber supplies in Africa. Liberia’s mountains contained some 

of the highest quality iron ore in the world, and there were significant deposits of 

diamonds and gold. 

Unfortunately, the so-called Americo-Liberians denied the descendants of the indigenous people their benefit from Liberia’s natural wealth and their fair share of 

political power. The 1980 coup by then-Sergeant Samuel Doe led to the ascendancy 

of indigenous ethnic groups, but it also led to a poisonous political atmosphere and 

rampant official corruption. In late 1989, Charles Taylor, a former member of the 

Doe government and an escapee from a prison in America, began an insurgency that 

eventually toppled the Doe government in 1990. Several years of factional fighting 

devastated the capital city of Monrovia, as well as much of the country. Following 

a rather shaky cease-fire, a 1997 election brought Charles Taylor to power. By that 

time, more than 150,000 of his countrymen had died in the fighting, and more than 

half the population had been displaced. 

The Taylor regime was a disaster for Liberia. Taylor and his government looted 

the treasury and Liberia’s natural resources. Political opponents were jailed, or in 

4

the case of Sam Dokie and his family members, they were killed. However, Taylor 

also was a catastrophe for its West African neighbors. Rebels who had been supported by Taylor have destabilized Sierra Leone, Guinea and Cote d’Ivoire. 

Taylor’s crimes against his own people stimulated an insurgency that eventually 

led to his negotiated exile in Nigeria. His crimes against the region led first to 

United Nations sanctions in 2001 for his support of the Revolutionary United Front 

rebels in Sierra Leone and subsequently to an indictment for war crimes by the UNsponsored war crimes tribunal in Sierra Leone in 2003. 

The issue of Taylor’s extradition to the Sierra Leone Special Court remains high 

on the agenda of the U.S. government. Nevertheless, there are internal issues facing 

the new government in Liberia that also are pressing, and that is the main focus 

of our hearing today. 

During the Taylor regime, and apparently also during the transitional government headed by Gyude Bryant, corruption became a way of life in Liberia. Illegal 

logging and mining and just plain theft of government resources were commonplace. 

In fact, the transitional government officials reportedly took furniture, computers 

and even rugs and light fixtures when they left office just a couple of weeks ago. 

In one of her first acts as president, Mrs. Sirleaf fired the entire staff of the Ministry of Finance for corruption and told the officials to stay in the country pending 

an audit. The ministry and the Central Bank significantly differ as to the amount 

of money on hand for government operations. 

Those funds are desperately needed to repair Liberia’s roads, water systems and 

power supply—all of which suffered from years of warfare and neglect. The Sirleaf 

government will have to examine all contracts to determine if they are in the best 

interest of the nation and rationally exploit Liberia’s resources. Too many of the 

population of three million remain displaced, and 85% of Liberia’s people are unemployed and 80% live below the poverty line. About 70% of the population survives 

on agriculture, which remains disrupted due to the lingering impact of the war. 

If Liberia is to recover from its long nightmare, the United States will have to 

take the lead among the international community to assist in that restoration. That 

will require focus and consistency in America’s engagement, and we are here today 

to determine if that focus and consistency will be forthcoming. 

Liberians feel a kinship to America that Americans do not share with Liberia. 

Nevertheless, our country’s relationship with Liberia is quite real and very important for the welfare of its neighbors. The Bush Administration and Congress must 

take these facts into account in developing policies and programs to respond to Liberia’s new, post-election realities.

Mr. PAYNE. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for 

calling this very important hearing on the most timely subject of 

Liberia. 

Liberia, as many of us know, is a country where African-Americans have had longstanding relations when back in 1822 free men 

and women went back to Liberia, went to Liberia under a program 

of, actually, some church groups to have a back-to-Africa movement. And as we know, I believe in 1848, it became an independent 

country and patterned many of its laws on United States laws. The 

color of its flag is red, white and blue, and had an extremely close 

relationship with our Government throughout the years. 

As a young person, the first indigenous African persons I had the 

opportunity to meet were from Liberia. Those, as a young boy, met 

Howard students that visited Newark, New Jersey, and had an opportunity to—for the first time have a chance to meet actually ancestors from Africa. So I have had a long-time interest in Liberia. 

Back in 1991, when the situation began, when Doe was under 

siege, I had the opportunity to meet with then-National Security 

Advisor Brent Scowcroft in the White House because we were urging the United States to move into Liberia at that time. We felt 

that the Marines were in the bay, and that if they had moved in 

it could have prevented the growth of Taylor and the removal of 

Doe, and that the country may have been saved from the terrible 

problems that it had since that time. 

5

But you may recall that it was at the time of the first Persian 

Gulf situation, and Brent Scowcroft said that we do not want to be 

involved in two areas at the same time. Almost similarly the same 

thing happened when the Iraqi situation occurred, and Liberia too 

came about. 

So I have had a long-time interest even to the standpoint of following some Jerseyites in Essex County who back in 1822 left my 

home county of Essex County to go to Liberia, and we have been 

able to trace the names of some of the original people who went 

back at that first trip. 

So the whole question of Liberia—and in my district there are 

many Liberian-Americans. We have Leslie Coe who is in the audience, former schoolboard member in the township of Union, who 

convened a meeting of Liberians in my district when I returned 

from the first election. As you know, they had a run-off election, 

but I had the privilege to be an observer at the election, the first 

election, and Lloyd Pierson and I shared one of the only houses 

standing, I guess. We were roommates, different rooms. [Laughter.] 

But we are friendly, but not that close. [Laughter.] 

But there are not too many places at that time that we had, and 

of course, Ms. Vivian Derryck was also there, and Ms. Frazer—this 

is a kind of little reunion we have here, and so we have much interest in what is going on. And as a matter of fact, just yesterday—

I do not have the opportunity like you, Ms. Frazer, to see the President of the United States often, but I did happen to bump into him 

yesterday in Atlanta at the funeral of Mrs. King, which was quite 

a moving experience, but did have a moment to get a word in, and 

it was about Liberia, and said that we were looking forward to continued support for Liberia, and he agreed, at least he nodded his 

head. I will take it as an agreement that we should do more for 

Liberia. 

But I think that the impact of Liberia’s election on West Africa 

is very important, and I look forward to hearing both from you, Dr. 

Frazer, and Mr. Pierson. We had a good trip. I think the only one 

missing is Senator Chafee, who was along with us, and has a very 

strong interest in Liberia. 

As I was mentioning, Leslie Coe had convened a meeting of 

many, many Liberians. When I came back, I brought the newspapers, brought the election materials, and there is a tremendous 

amount of interest of Liberians in New Jersey and throughout the 

United States. 

I am excited about the optimism about Liberia’s future, the transition period, which began in 2003 when ECOWAS, then the UN, 

stepped in to stop the bloodshed and more than 14 years of civil 

conflict as we know. We saw the tragedy of Sergeant Doe coming 

in, taking over militarily, murdering the first family, and many of 

the officers of the Government of Liberia. 

The New York Life Magazine had on its cover a picture of the 

President and some of his Cabinet people on the beach tied to a 

stake where they were murdered, and so that picture remained for 

many, many years, and actually when Doe was challenged, many 

felt that things could not get worse, and that to have a person who 

took over with a blood-letting murder of government officials, that 

6

things could not get any worse, but of course, we had the emergence of Charles Taylor, and things in fact did get worse. 

President Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf’s victory is not only historical because she is Africa’s first woman to be elected President, but also 

because these elections, which were unblemished March 1st contested election in Liberia in a long time, after the first election 

since the brutal dictator Charles Taylor when he won it in 1997. 

And I have to say that the turnout was unbelievable. 

I think, Lloyd, when we looked around, people stood in long lines, 

took them a long time to get to the polling places, took them a long 

time to vote, and it took a long time to get back to their villages, 

and turnout probably exceeding 80–85 percent on the first election. 

I did not have the opportunity to go back to the run-off, but it was 

tremendous, and we thought it was unblemished. 

I commend the National Elections Commission and the UN mission in Liberia for all of their work and ensuring that the elections 

were able to take place and in an environment that was conducive 

to free and fair elections, and I have to commend the IRI and the 

NDI and IFIS for the outstanding job that they did in preparing 

the people of Liberia for this election. It was outstanding, and the 

Carter Center. 

President Johnson-Sirleaf has received widespread support from 

the international community. Among those who attended her inauguration in January was the First Lady, Laura Bush, and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. Johnson-Sirleaf walked home 

after the ceremony and was accompanied by cheers and cries of the 

thousands of Liberians who lined the streets along her way. 

She faces many challenges ahead, but the country has an opportunity for lasting peace while it takes its steps forward toward democracy. 

As the Chairman mentioned, Liberia is rich in natural resources, 

one of the two remaining untouched forests in the world, rubber 

trees, rich arable land, minerals, and possibly petroleum sources, 

which hold possibilities for economic growth in the future. 

However, the road ahead is long and uphill. Sustained international support, particularly from the United States, is critical to 

Liberia’s progress. President Johnson-Sirleaf finds herself strapped 

with a hefty responsibility to bring Liberia from a post-war transition into a bludgeoning democracy. Some of the challenges she will 

face include providing public electricity in Monrovia. 

We had the opportunity, when I met with her when she was 

here, to talk about Stanley Engineering from Muscatine, Iowa, 

which was the actual company to build the first energy plant in Liberia. I do know, 50–60 years ago, 70 years ago, and still had all 

the original blueprints, and we made contact with Congressman 

Leach, who is from that area, and Stanley Engineering has actually 

visited Monrovia, and we are hoping, Ms. Frazer, that perhaps 

there could be some interest in the State Department and our Government in seeing whether Stanley Engineering, who originally 

started the project, could be re-engaged because, as we know, there 

is no energy in Liberia, and that would be fantastic, and they certainly would have a jump start since they built the original plant. 

So I would like to discuss that with you further. 

7

She has avowed to attempt to get something started in the first 

6 months, trying to show that there can be improvement and that 

democracy works, and the physical infrastructure, as we saw, all 

of us who were there recently, that there is a tremendous need for 

that, for education, for healthcare, for transportation. 

So to conclude, the repatriation of refugees is another one of the 

many issues the President will have to address along with job creation and education and training of former combatants, primarily 

former child soldiers. 

I made a suggestion to President Bush in a meeting we had in 

2003, that we should start a program similar to the old depressionera programs of the CCC (Conservation Corps), where we could 

take people out of the city, especially young combatants, and put 

them out in the environment and work on the environment and get 

them away from the urban ills, and so the WPA where you created 

work. 

He asked, that meeting, then-National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice whether we had funds available to start a project, a 

small project before we got the real funding, and lo and behold we 

were able to start some program similar to that, and so we are very 

pleased at the interest and the White House was there, and hopefully we can have it continued. 

President Johnson-Sirleaf will also face challenges to Liberia’s 

stability within the subregion for nearly a decade, and have conflict 

in Liberia generated a range of efforts that undermine the national 

security, political stability, and economic prosperity of its neighbors 

and brought about negative repercussions in the wider subregion. 

Among the most serious of such efforts were the spread of small 

arms, increased mercenary activity, deployment of diverse, often 

state-assisted rebel groups along regional borders, a rise in human 

rights abuses, and the creation of refugees and internally-displaced 

populations. Instability in the region could pose serious problems, 

and we need to make sure that Liberia is stable. 

Within Liberia, I also have concerns about the Security Council 

decision recently to decrease the UN force in Liberia as of March. 

I think it is a mistake. I do not think the country is stable enough 

to reduce the UN forces at this time. This decision was taken 

against the advice of Secretary-General Kofi Anan. Without a national army, the President needs a sustained international presence, and I hope we can perhaps get the United States, who will 

be in charge of the Security Counsel, perhaps we can get us reengaged in an interest in keeping peacekeepers still in Liberia. It 

would be a shame to move out prematurely and waste all of the 

investment that we have put in. 

Additionally, I was disturbed by reports that the multinational 

rubber manufacturing company, Firestone, has been using extensive child labor, exposing its workers to dangerous pesticides and 

fertilizers, forcing its employees to work in inhumane conditions, 

and that should be a concern to all of us. 

An alien torts claim act suit was filed in the United States on 

behalf of the Liberia Firestone employees. Firestone has operated 

a rubber plant in Liberia since the 1920s, and in February 2005, 

Liberia’s transitional government extended their land concessions 

for 36 years. If Firestone is going to do business in Liberia for 

8

years to come, they have a responsibility to provide quality working 

conditions and fair pay for their employees. But it appears that the 

opposite is happening. It is time for Firestone and many other multinational corporations to take responsibility for their actions, and 

to make some substantial changes in their behavior. 

Certainly, Mr. Chairman, I look forward to the testimony, and I 

really apologize for taking—I took a page from you, I went a little 

bit long. You can see that I have a very strong interest. And I 

would just like to also mention—I know that Mr. Crane is here, I 

am going to have to run out at 5 minutes to 1 o’clock, and I will 

be back a few more minutes after that, but I do believe that we 

need to deal with former President Taylor, and we need to have 

that whole question resolved. 

However, I think that we need to stabilize Liberia and give the 

President an opportunity to start her process moving forward without having the tremendous distraction of focusing solely on Taylor, 

and other things will certainly fall by the wayside. I think we need 

to keep the Taylor issue very much in front of us. However, I would 

hope that we do not get distracted and do give the total support 

she needs to try to move that country on the road to recovery. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Payne follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE DONALD M. PAYNE, A REPRESENTATIVE

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY

I commend Chairman Smith for calling this extremely important hearing on ‘‘The 

Impact of Liberia’s Election on West Africa’’. I welcome Assistant Secretary Frazer 

and Lloyd Pierson back to the committee. It’s good to see you both and I greatly 

enjoyed traveling with you and Senator Chafee to observe the elections on October 

11th. 

I am excited and optimistic about Liberia’s future. The transition period—which 

began in 2003 when ECOWAS and then the UN stepped in to stop the bloodshed 

after more than 14 years of civil conflict—has given way to a new democracy thanks 

to the peaceful and transparent elections in October and the runoff in November of 

last year. 

President Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf’s victory is not only historic because she is Africa’s first woman to be elected president, but also because these elections which were 

unblemished, marked the first contested elections in Liberia in a long time and the 

first elections since the brutal dictator Charles Taylor won in 1997. 

I commend the National Elections Commission and the UN Mission in Liberia for 

all their work in ensuring the elections were able to take place in an environment 

that was conducive to a free and fair process. 

President Johnson-Sirleaf has received widespread support from the international 

community. Among those who attended her inauguration in January were First 

Lady Laura Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. Johnson-Sirleaf walked 

home after the ceremony and was accompanied by the cheers and cries of the thousands of Liberians who lined the street along her way. She faces many challenges 

ahead but the country has an opportunity for lasting peace while it takes steps towards democracy. 

Liberia is rich in natural resources—one of the two remaining untouched forests 

in the world, rubber, rich, arable land, mineral and possible petroleum resources—

which hold possibilities for economic growth in the future. However, the road ahead 

is long and uphill. Sustained international support, particularly form the US is critical to Liberia’s progress. 

President Johnson-Sirleaf finds herself strapped with a hefty responsibility—to 

bring Liberia from a post-war transition into a burgeoning democracy. 

Some of the challenges she will face include: providing public electricity in Monrovia, which she has vowed to attempt to do within her first six months of being 

elected, rapid improvements in social services and the reconstruction of physical infrastructure, particularly for education, healthcare, and transportation. 

9

The repatriation of refugees is another one of the many issues the president will 

have to address along with job creation and education and training of former combatants, particularly former child soldiers. 

I made a suggestion to President Bush in a meeting in 2003 that we should help 

implement a program similar to the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) to give 

former child soldiers education in conservation while at the same time protecting 

Liberia’s forests. 

President Johnson-Sirleaf will also face challenges to Liberia’s stability within the 

sub-region. For nearly a decade and a half conflict in Liberia generated a range of 

effects that undermined the national security, political stability, and economic prosperity of its neighbors, and brought about negative repercussions in the wider subregion. 

Among the most serious of such effects were: the spread of small arms, increased 

mercenary activity, deployment of diverse, often state-assisted rebel groups along regional borders, a rise in human rights abuses and the creation of aggrieved refugee 

and internally displaced populations. 

Instability in sub-regional neighbors Cote d’Ivoire and Guinea could pose serious 

challenges and will take the sustained engagement of the U.S. to help contain those 

situations. 

Within Liberia I also have concerns about the Security Council decision recently 

to decrease the UN force (the UN Mission in Liberia) as of March. This decision was 

taken against the advisement of Secretary-General Annan. Without a national 

army, the president needs a sustained international presence in these times. 

Additionally, I was disturbed by reports that the multinational rubber manufacturing company, Firestone, has been using extensive child labor, exposing its workers to dangerous pesticides and fertilizers, and forcing its employees to work in inhuman conditions should greatly concern us all. An Alien Tort Claims Act suit was 

filed in the U.S. on the behalf of Liberian Firestone employees 

Firestone has operated a rubber plantation in Liberia since the 1920s, and, in 

February 2005, Liberia’s transitional government extended their land concession for 

thirty-six years. If Firestone is going to do business in Liberia for years to come, 

they have a responsibility to provide quality working conditions and fair pay for 

their employees, but it appears that the opposite is happening. 

It is time for Firestone and many other multinational corporations to take responsibility for their actions and make some substantial changes in their behavior. 

I look forward to the testimonies and thank the Chairman again for calling this 

important hearing.

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Thank you very much, Mr. Payne. 

Vice Chairman Royce. 

Mr. ROYCE. Thank you, Chairman Smith. I appreciate the opportunity here to say a few words, and welcome Dr. Frazer, and welcome Mr. Pierson. And I thank Chairman Smith for convening this 

hearing. 

As we will hear today, Congress and the Administration have 

shown a commitment to Liberia. Over $1 billion has been devoted 

to the rebuilding of that country over the last several years, and 

of course, in 2003, the President dispatched U.S. Marines to Monrovia. I not only supported those efforts, Don Payne and I had a 

meeting with the President, requested and pressed for these very 

actions, and we were glad the Marines were dispatched, and we are 

certainly heartened by Liberia’s recent elections, which resulted in 

Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf becoming President of the country. 

As the Administration will testify, I think this election is something that Americans should feel proud of. Needless to say, Liberia 

still faces tremendous challenges. I do feel that the new Liberian 

Government’s road ahead will be far less treacherous and the futures of not only Liberia but the rest of West Africa would be far 

more secure if the warlord who brought so much destruction to the 

region was forced to face justice before the Special Court for Sierre 

Leone. 

10

That court indicted Charles Taylor on 17 counts of war crimes, 

and crimes against humanity for his destruction of Sierre Leone. 

Many West Africans understand, I think, the importance of ending 

Taylor’s cushy exile in Nigeria. The campaign against impunity is 

a coalition of over 300 African and international society groups, 

and they recently wrote President Johnson-Sirleaf asking her to 

take urgent action to ensure that Nigeria properly surrenders Taylor to the court. 

This group stated, and I will just quote:

‘‘The campaign against impunity looks to you as Liberia’s 

President to demonstrate your commitment to fighting impunity and to manifest the leadership necessary to ensure that 

justice is done. We believe the victims of the crimes committed 

in Sierra Leone, including murder, rape and other sexual violence, mutilation and widespread use of child soldier, deserve 

nothing less.’’

I think they are right, and Mr. Chairman, I am going to ask 

unanimous request that this letter be placed in the record. 

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Without objection. 

[The information referred to follows:]

PROMPT ACTION TO ENSURE TAYLOR’S SURRENDER NEEDED

CIVIL SOCIETY COALITION LETTER TO NEW LIBERIAN PRESIDENT JOHNSON-SIRLEAF

January 26, 2006

H.E. Mrs. Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf 

President of the Republic of Liberia 

Executive Mansion 

Monrovia, Liberia

Dear President Johnson-Sirleaf, 

We are writing on behalf of the Campaign Against Impunity, a coalition made up 

of some three hundred African and international civil society groups, to urge you 

to take concrete steps to ensure Nigeria promptly surrenders former Liberian President Charles Taylor to the Special Court for Sierra Leone. The Campaign Against 

Impunity believes your urgent action on this issue would not only help consolidate 

political stability in Liberia, but would also send a strong message about the importance of establishing the rule of law in West Africa. 

We welcomed news reports last week that you would ask Nigerian President 

Obasanjo to surrender Charles Taylor following consultation with regional leaders. 

The Special Court has a mandate to prosecute those bearing the greatest responsibility for serious violations of international humanitarian law and Sierra Leonean 

law committed during Sierra Leone’s armed conflict, while ensuring a fair trial for 

all those who stand before it. Charles Taylor has been indicted on seventeen counts 

of war crimes and crimes against humanity for his alleged role in atrocities committed during the Sierra Leone armed conflict. 

While a request from you for Taylor’s surrender to the Special Court should not 

be needed given his outstanding indictment, it could prove determinative. As you 

know, President Obasanjo has thus far refused to surrender Charles Taylor to the 

Special Court. However, President Obasanjo has indicated that he would consider 

surrendering Taylor upon a request from a duly-elected Liberian government. 

The Special Court will only operate for a limited time. It is already advanced in 

its operations and will confront increasing international pressure to complete its 

mandate. As such, this valuable window of opportunity for bringing justice to countless victims of atrocities in Sierra Leone and for helping to set a precedent for the 

fight against impunity is rapidly closing. Of course, Charles Taylor’s trial by the 

Special Court would not preclude trials for the many war crimes for which he has 

been implicated in Liberia. The Campaign Against Impunity also urges you to ensure that Liberian authorities will promptly investigate all accusations of crimes in 

the country with a view to bringing those responsible to justice. 

11

The Campaign Against Impunity looks to you, as Liberia’s president, to demonstrate your commitment to fighting impunity and to manifest the leadership necessary to ensure that justice is done. We believe the victims of the crimes committed 

in Sierra Leone—including murder, rape and other sexual violence, mutilation and 

widespread use of child soldiers—deserve nothing less. 

We appreciate your consideration of this letter. 

Sincerely,

Ezekial Pajibo 

Executive Director 

Centre for Democratic Empowerment 

(Liberia)

Aloysius Toe 

Founder and Director 

Foundation for Human Rights and Democracy 

(Liberia)

Atty. Alfred Brownell 

President 

Environmental Lawyers Association of Liberia 

(Liberia)

Shina Loremkin 

Director of Programmes 

Committee for the Defence of Human Rights 

(Nigeria)

Sulaiman Jabati 

Executive Secretary 

Coalition for Justice and Accountability 

(Sierra Leone)

Kolawole Olaniyan 

Director, Africa Programme 

Amnesty International

Richard Dicker 

Director, International Justice Program 

Human Rights Watch

Brima A. Sheriff 

Acting Section Director 

Amnesty International-Sierra Leone

Mr. ROYCE. This group wrote Liberia’s President because President Obasanjo of Nigeria, who is—Nigeria, of course, is harboring 

Taylor under the agreement—has indicated over the last several 

years that he would surrender Taylor to the court upon receiving 

a request from a duly-elected Liberian Government. 

Well, thankfully, Liberia now has that government. Justice demands that Taylor face the court. I will remind my colleagues here 

of a hearing that we had with the African Subcommittee several 

years ago when I was Chairman in which Sierra Leonean boys and 

girls with amputated hands and amputated arms spoke to us. They 

were victims of Taylor. 

The Special Court, which is backed by the United Nations and 

United States-financed, is, frankly, challenging the culture of impunity that plagues West Africa, and helping to establish critical 

standards of accountability. It needs to succeed and it needs to 

have Charles Taylor face justice. 

There is also a practical reason to send Taylor to the court. Until 

he is tried, he continues to plot in seaside Calibar, Nigeria. Taylor 

says he will return to Liberia, and I would say that his track record 

suggests that he would do that if he is not stopped. 

To subject Liberians and West Africans to another Taylor nightmare would be unconscionable. The United Nations Security CounVerDate Mar 21 2002 17:01 May 01, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 F:\WORK\AGI\020806\26015.000 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL
12

cil understands Taylor’s potential for destruction. Last November, 

in passing a resolution giving the United States peacekeepers in 

Liberia a mandate to arrest him, the UN identified Taylor as a 

threat to the peace of Liberia. The Liberian people, many who want 

Taylor to face justice, need to hear this. 

In December, a bipartisan group of 13 House and Senate Members wrote Secretary of State Rice regarding Taylor, noting:

‘‘Should Mr. Taylor continue to evade justice, the international 

community may show reluctance to continue with its strong 

support for the reconstruction of Liberia and Sierra Leone.’’

I am going to amplify and fine-tune this concern. This friend of 

Liberia has very little interest in providing more money to rebuild 

Liberia until its President brings Taylor, a known force for destruction, one step closer to justice by calling on Nigeria’s President to 

send him to the Special Court. 

The Special Court’s indictment of Charles Taylor is nearly 3 

years old. Time is running out on its mandate, which I can assure 

you Taylor understands. Many are looking to President JohnsonSirleaf for an active leadership in forging an era of accountability 

that would distinguish her for all time. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Thank you, Vice Chairman Royce. 

Ambassador Watson. 

Ms. WATSON. I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for scheduling 

this hearing at such a critical time in Liberia’s history. I also want 

to thank my colleague, Mr. Payne, who has been such a leader on 

the issue, and of course, my California colleague, Ed Royce, whom 

I have been so proud to work with on bringing Charles Taylor to 

justice and supporting Liberia’s future. 

Now, I am interested in today’s hearing about what the plans are 

of the United States Government and what plans are being made 

to sustain the necessary long-term commitment to democracy and 

development in Liberia. Experience has taught us the hard lesson 

that we need a comprehensive plan both for how we intend to help 

Liberians rebuild their country as well as a plan for how we will 

sustain United States and international commitment to this effort. 

No one who has watched the events of the last 6 months in Liberia can fail to be inspired by the transition which is underway. 

Through their historic election process, Liberians engaged in a lively but peaceful debate about the future of their own country. 

Several times during the process Liberians encountered political 

disputes that threatened to derail the process. Yet these results 

were ultimately solved peacefully and legally and it can be argued 

that the fragile institutions of Liberian democracy were strengthened as a result. 

In the end, Liberians chose a remarkable lady, Ellen JohnsonSirleaf, to be their President. President Johnson-Sirleaf, the first 

woman elected President of an African nation, has a wealth of expertise in finance, in governance, and is a very wise, wise woman. 

And to anyone who doubted her nickname, ‘‘The Iron Lady,’’ she 

has proved her mettle early by taking immediate, strong actions to 

fight corruption and restore a measure of the public’s trust. 

13

But no matter how talented and dedicated the President might 

be, her nation and people face immense challenges. They will need 

the help of the United States and other countries of Africa and Europe to support them as they seek to rebuild their nation and their 

society. Among the many challenges it faces, the Liberian Government must root out the systematic corruption that threatens to rut 

the foundation of this new democracy, and saps the energy from 

free enterprise. 

The GEMAP program, while controversial, offers the opportunity 

to institutionalize transparency and accountability. We must provide the support to ensure this program is a success. The Liberian 

Government must also be able to provide security for its people. 

This will require above all the successful reintegration of tens of 

thousands of former child soldiers in their community and society 

as young citizens. 

Americans have a stake in Liberia’s success because it is our national security interests to have strong, effective, democratic partners around the globe, and particularly in West Africa. Liberia is 

now at crossroads where it can become the type of partner we need 

and want in order to keep our country safe. We must embrace this 

opportunity or we will be dealing with the consequences of that 

failure for another generation. 

There is one more issue which I cannot let go unmentioned, and 

that is the issue of Charles Taylor. My colleagues have already spoken of that issue. The Special Court for Sierra Leone has indicted 

Taylor on 17 counts of war crimes, including unlawful killings, abductions, forced labor, physical and sexual violence, use of children 

as soldiers, and looting and burning of civilian structures. 

While today’s war criminals such as Slobodan Milosevic and Saddam Hussein are behind bars, Charles Taylor lives in freedom on 

a Nigerian estate, and he remains a major source of instability in 

the area of West Africa. We have a duty to make sure that Taylor 

is immediately transferred to the jurisdiction of the Special Court 

in Sierra Leone. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the role you are playing at the 

time, and I look forward to hearing from our witnesses as to how 

the United States is working to plan and sustain the necessary 

long-term commitment to Liberian democracy and development. 

In closing, I have many friends whose families many, many decades ago went back to Liberia, and therefore many of the Liberians 

have the same names as we do here in this country, and they 

stayed, and they re-found their roots, but several of them returned, 

and their children and grandchildren, great-grandchildren were 

born here in America, so we do have some natural ties to that area, 

and we are deeply interested and committed to democracy succeeding in that land. 

Thank you very much. 

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Thank you very much, Ambassador. 

Let me now go to our first panel, but I would like to acknowledge 

and welcome the Liberian Ambassador, Charles Minor, who is with 

us this afternoon. If he could just wave and be acknowledged. 

Thank you for being here and joining us today. 

Let me first begin by introducing Dr. Jendayi Frazer who is the 

Assistant Secretary for the Bureau of African Affairs. Prior to beVerDate Mar 21 2002 17:01 May 01, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 F:\WORK\AGI\020806\26015.000 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL
14

coming Assistant Secretary, Dr. Frazer served as the U.S. Ambassador to South Africa. Ambassador Frazer also served as Special 

Assistant to the President and Senior Director for African Affairs 

at the National Security Council. As a Council of Foreign Relations 

International Affairs Fellow, she served as a political-military planner with the Joint Chiefs of Staff in the Department of Defense, 

and as Director for African Affairs at the National Security Council. 

We will then hear from Lloyd Pierson who serves as the USAID 

Assistant Administrator for Africa and as the Government Representative on the Board of Directors of the African Development 

Foundation. Prior to joining USAID, he was Chief of Staff/Chief of 

Operations for the Peace Corps. Shortly after the inauguration of 

President Bush, Lloyd was named a member of the transition team 

at the Peace Corps, and then in September 2001, he was named 

Acting Deputy Director. Prior to returning to the Peace Corps in 

2001, Mr. Pierson was the Director of the African Division for the 

International Republic Institute, or IRI. 

Dr. Frazer, please. 

Ms. WATSON. Can I submit my testimony for the record? 

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Your full statement will be made a 

part of the record. Without objection, so ordered. 

Ms. WATSON. Okay. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Watson follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE DIANE E. WATSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Thank you, Mr. Chairman for scheduling this hearing at such a critical time in 

Liberia’s history. I also want to thank Mr. Payne, who has been such a leader on 

this issue, and of course my California colleague Mr. Royce, whom I have been so 

proud to work with on bringing Charles Taylor to justice and supporting Liberia’s 

future. 

I am interested in hearing today about what plans the United States government 

is making to sustain the necessary long-term commitment to democracy and development in Liberia. Experience has taught us the hard lesson that we need a comprehensive plan both for how we intend to help Liberians rebuild their country as 

well as a plan for how we will sustain the U.S. and international commitment to 

this effort. 

No one who has watched the events of the last six months in Liberia can fail to 

be inspired by the transition which is underway there. Through their historic election process, Liberians engaged in a lively but peaceful debate about the future of 

their country. Several times during the process, Liberians encountered political disputes that threatened to derail the process. Yet these results were ultimately solved 

peacefully and legally, and it can be argued that the fragile institutions of Liberian 

democracy were strengthened as a result. 

In the end, Liberians chose a remarkable lady, Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf, to be their 

President. President Johnson- Sirleaf, the first woman elected President of an African nation, has a wealth of expertise in finance and governance. And to anyone who 

doubted her nickname—the ‘‘Iron Lady’’—she has proved her mettle early, by taking 

immediate, strong actions to fight corruption and restore a measure of public trust. 

But no matter how talented and dedicated President Johnson-Sirleaf is, her nation and people face immense challenges. They will need the help of the United 

States to support them as they seek to rebuild their nation and society. 

Among the many challenges it faces, the Liberian government must root out the 

systemic corruption that threatens to rot the foundations of this new democracy and 

saps the energy from free enterprise. The GEMAP program, while controversial, offers the opportunity to institutionalize transparency and accountability. We must 

provide the support to ensure this program is successful. The Liberian government 

must also be able to provide security for its people. This will require, above all, the 

successful reintegration of tens of thousands of former child soldiers into their communities and society. 

15

Americans have a stake in Liberia’s success because it is in our national security 

interest to have strong, effective, democratic partners around the globe, and particularly in West Africa. Liberia is now at a crossroads where it can become the type 

of partner we need and want in order to keep our country safe. We must embrace 

this opportunity or we will be dealing with the consequences of that failure for another generation. 

There is one more issue which cannot go unmentioned—Charles Taylor. The Special Court for Sierra Leone has indicted Taylor on seventeen counts of war crimes, 

including ‘‘unlawful killings, abductions, forced labour, physical and sexual violence, 

use of child soldiers, looting and burning of civilian structures.’’

While today war criminals such as Slobodan Milosevic and Saddam Hussein are 

behind bars, Charles Taylor lives in freedom on a Nigerian estate. And he remains 

a major source of instability for West Africa. We have a duty to make sure that Taylor is immediately transferred to the jurisdiction of the Special Court in Sierra 

Leone. 

Thank you Mr. Chairman, for the time, and I look forward to hearing from our 

witnesses as to how the United States Government is working to plan and sustain 

the necessary long-term commitment to Liberian democracy and development.

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Dr. Frazer, please proceed. 

STATEMENT OF JENDAYI E. FRAZER, Ph.D., ASSISTANT SECRETARY, BUREAU OF AFRICAN AFFAIRS, U.S. DEPARTMENT 

OF STATE 

Ms. FRAZER. Thank you and the Members for the opportunity to 

testify about the positive domestic and regional implications of Liberia’s recent Presidential election. 

With your permission, Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit my 

written testimony for the record. 

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Is there objection? No objection. It 

will be made part of the record. 

Ms. FRAZER. Thank you. 

President Bush and Secretary Rice have made Africa a policy priority, and I am proud to appear before you as a member of their 

team. It was my privilege to join First Lady Laura Bush and Secretary Rice at the recent swearing-in of President Ellen JohnsonSirleaf, and I believe this high-level United States delegation conveyed our interests in renewing our close relationship with the people of Liberia. 

After 14 years of civil war, Liberia is reconciling under the leadership of a new government. The United States has played an active and important role in helping Liberia make this transition. 

Our engagement is driven not only by our sense of connection to 

Liberia, which was founded in 1847 by freed American slaves and 

free African-Americans, but also by our foreign policy objectives. 

The President has set a goal for us to make the world safer, 

freer, and better. American involvement with Liberia is part of that 

mission, and Liberia’s transition has been a boon to its people as 

well as its neighbors. 

Our success up to today is thanks to the Congress, the President, 

Executive Branch agencies, many non-governmental organizations, 

the diaspora, and other friends of Liberia working in partnership 

with Liberians. Americans and Liberians have offered their efforts 

and expertise for the good of Liberia. Our investment is now paying 

dividends for Liberia’s 3.3 million people. 

Liberia is a good news story about Americans supporting African 

efforts to better Africa. As Secretary Rice recently noted:

16

‘‘Transformational diplomacy is rooted in partnership, not paternalism. In doing things with other people, not for them, we 

seek to use America’s diplomatic power to help foreign citizens 

to better their own lives and to build their own nations, and 

to transform their own futures.’’

The defense, diplomacy, and development efforts that the U.S. 

Government has undertaken are helping Liberia move from a state 

of war toward being a state of peace. The American people deserve 

to feel proud of their Government and its actions. 

Today, my goal is to elaborate on three key reasons why the 2005 

Liberian Presidential election is a win not only for the people of Liberia, but also for the people of this country. 

The first reason is that regional stability is improved with a 

democratic and secure Liberia. The second reason is that the region’s trend toward democratization is reenforced by Liberia’s election. And lastly, an economically prosperous Liberia will have positive repercussions, enhancing trade and development throughout 

West Africa. Economic growth will reenforce the simultaneous political transformation, establishing a welcome cycle of progress toward whole, stable-elected rule and prosperity. 

On regional stability, one of the central elements of President 

Bush’s Africa policy has been the emphasis on supporting the capacity of African countries and regional organizations to mediate 

conflicts and carry out peacekeeping operations, to reduce the 

amount of external help that is needed. We all know that Liberia’s 

internal conflict produced untold death and destruction, shattered 

the nation’s infrastructure, and exported trouble to nearby states 

such as Sierra Leone and Guinea. 

Indeed, we worked with the regional countries—Ghana, Nigeria, 

Senegal and others—to try to end this destruction. We understand 

that Liberia’s former President Charles Taylor bears much of the 

responsibility for Liberia’s suffering, and the U.S. Government has 

consistently maintained that Taylor must be brought to justice before the Special Court. This will significantly help close a tragic 

chapter in Liberia’s history and help all of West Africa overcome 

patterns of impunity, illicit trade and civil conflict. 

Liberia’s condition is clearly of concern beyond its own borders. 

If Liberia is internally secure, all of West Africa will benefit. It becomes easier for the region to address the ongoing unrest in Cote 

d’Ivoire, as well as fragile situations in Guinea and Sierra Leone. 

A stable Liberia is a force for regional stability. 

With few interludes, Liberia’s civil war raged for 14 years, but 

in the spring and summer of 2003, President Bush supported the 

economic community of West African States in putting together a 

comprehensive agreement toward a lasting peace. When chaos 

broke out in the streets of the capital, President Bush sent U.S. 

Marines into Liberia to protect the innocent and create a sense of 

order amid the chaos. Only Nigerian soldiers arrived earlier than 

our Marines. 

The American action was historic and represented the first time 

American boots had touched African soil for stability operations in 

nearly a decade. 

Following that deployment, the United States has stayed the 

course in Liberia with further logistical assistance to the ECOWAS 

17

mission in Liberia, ECOMIL, and to UNMIL and providing extensive humanitarian assistance. 

National reconstruction is now underway, and the United States 

has also taken a lead as a major contributor. The U.S. Congress 

has generously appropriated over $880 million in the last 2 fiscal 

years to help with Liberia’s reconstruction efforts, which will enhance regional stability. More than $520 million of that money has 

supported the UN mission in Liberia, UNMIL. 

For Fiscal Year 2006, we have allocated more than $270 million 

for continued support of the nation’s reconstruction and peacekeeping efforts. 

Liberia continues to benefit from various U.S. Government funding, including economic support funds, development assistance, migration and refugee assistance, P.L. 480 Title II Food Aid, and 

Child Survival and health funds. The United States has the largest 

diplomatic mission in Liberia, and the United States is supporting 

security reform including a new Liberian national police academy. 

Between 2004 and 2005, the United States contributed $60 million to support the training and equipping of a civilian-led Liberian 

military force. Recruiting of the new army began on January 18, 

and the goal is to have a new army of 2,000 soldiers ready by 2008. 

A stable Liberia is clearly good for regional security in West Africa given that Liberia’s conflicts have spilled over its borders into 

Sierra Leone, Guinea and Cote d’Ivoire. So the efforts that the 

United States is taking to both strengthen and support the 

ECOWAS mission, the UN mission, as well as to reform Liberia’s 

security sector, is a key component of our effort toward regional 

stability as a whole. 

On the democracy front, within Liberia itself the return of a stable democratic order offers space for civil society to develop and 

grow. It allows the Government of Liberia to extend its authority 

throughout the country, providing security and essential services. 

It allows Liberians to channel their energies into economic development and to channel their differences into democratic competition 

rather than civil war. 

The United States has been a key partner in strengthening Liberia’s democracy. Last fall we supported the Liberian legislative and 

Presidential elections with $10 million. Liberian voters chose a new 

legislature and elected Africa’s first woman President, and polling 

that was free and fair. And as Congressman Payne said, we had 

the honor of going there to monitor the first round of that election, 

and I can attest with Lloyd that it was indeed free and fair. 

We know that democracy is the way forward, but we also know 

that this election was only the beginning of a longer journey. In Liberia, our goal is to support local efforts to stand up a freely-elected 

government, a dynamic economy, and the health, educational and 

other services that are essential to the well-being of any nation. 

The U.S. Government has proactively engaged the international 

community and advocated on behalf of Liberia’s democracy. In February 2004, this country co-hosted an international conference on 

Liberia’s reconstruction. Donors pledged more than $522 million in 

assistance. The United States contributed $200 million toward the 

critical humanitarian needs of refugees and displaced persons, comVerDate Mar 21 2002 17:01 May 01, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 F:\WORK\AGI\020806\26015.000 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL
18

munity revitalization, and independent media, policing social service, and other sectors critical to the promotion of democracy. 

The United States has also funded a program in support of law 

and justice that will send a resident legal advisor and a five-person 

team of technical experts to Liberia. This team will help improve 

the Liberian criminal justice system. We will help launch a Truth 

and Reconciliation Commission while also supporting an access to 

justice program to increase the confidence of Liberians to resolve 

disputes efficiently, fairly, and effectively through the justice sector. 

Additionally, we will work to establish legal services, advice centers, and a national referral network; integrate alternative dispute 

mechanisms; and provide incentives to attract public defenders. 

And the point here, Your Honor, is that our efforts toward the promotion of democracy will heavily focus on building an institutional 

basis of that democracy by supporting reform and transformation 

of the justice system. 

On the economic prosperity front, we believe that direct aid is 

helpful, but is by no means a panacea. As Secretary Rice recently 

remarked, ‘‘America’s foreign assistance must promote responsible 

sovereignty, not permanent dependence.’’ It is with those words in 

mind that we move to try to promote economic prosperity and security in Liberia. 

Liberia has potential to be a regional economic force. It has valuable natural resources which could be exported abroad. This would 

create many local jobs and generate revenue to finance the nation’s 

budget. Liberia has these abundant natural resources, including 

timber, rubber, iron ore and diamonds, that could support exportoriented job creation. 

We believe that by enacting key reforms, especially in the timber 

and diamond sectors, Liberia’s Government can spur much needed 

economic growth. In addition, the Administration hopes to add Liberia to the list of nations eligible for the Generalized System of 

Preferences and the African Growth and Opportunity Act. In the 

long run, a strong national economy is the best bulwark against 

ebbs and flows and foreign aid. It is also the most persuasive reason for displaced Liberians to consider returning home. 

We believe that many Liberians would choose to head back to 

their safer, freer homes if they will have the jobs that will allow 

them to contribute to the prosperity and stability of their country. 

In closing, I would like to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for calling 

this hearing. I believe that Liberia is a success story that should 

be celebrated. United States’ involvement was instrumental in 

helping to guide Liberia through a period of turmoil and setting the 

nation on a freer, more prosperous course. 

The results of last fall’s election process affirmed the notion of 

inclusion as well as democracy. Regional stability is improving. Democracy is taking root, and economic renewal is underway. Liberia 

is an example of President Bush’s foreign policy taking root and 

blossoming on African soil. Liberia is safer, better, and freer, and 

we certainly will continue to support the efforts of the Liberian 

people to see that as a sustainable future. 

So I am very pleased, Mr. Chairman and Members, to take any 

questions that you might have. 

19

[The prepared statement of Ms. Frazer follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JENDAYI E. FRAZER, PH.D., ASSISTANT SECRETARY, BUREAU OF AFRICAN AFFAIRS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE

INTRODUCTION

Good afternoon, and thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to testify about 

the positive domestic and regional implications of Liberia’s recent presidential election. President Bush and Secretary Rice have made Africa a policy priority, and I 

am proud to appear before you as a member of their team. It was my privilege to 

join the First Lady and Secretary Rice at the recent swearing in of President Ellen 

Johnson Sirleaf, and I believe the high level U.S. delegation conveyed our interest 

in renewing our close relationship with the people of Liberia. 

We are living in a period of unique opportunity for Africa. Across the continent, 

civil conflicts are giving way to civil society and free elections. The election and inauguration of Liberia’s new president, Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, is a prime example. 

This is a nation with whom the United States has historically shared a close relationship. This is also a nation whose development and productivity were hobbled for 

14 years by civil war. But now, Liberia has given the African continent its first 

democratically elected woman president. Changes are underway, and there are 

many reasons to be hopeful for the Liberian people and their neighbors. 

While working with our African partners, I am always cognizant of President 

Bush’s directive to make the world ‘‘safer, better, and freer.’’ This phrase encapsulates the President’s foreign policy objectives. President Bush supports policies 

that involve making real changes in the lives of real people, and this Administration’s policies on Liberia are one noteworthy piece of the larger picture being painted by Members of Congress and professional staff at various federal agencies. 

This is a good news story about Americans supporting African efforts to better Africa. As Secretary Rice recently noted, ‘‘Transformational diplomacy is rooted in 

partnership, not paternalism; in doing things with other people, not for them. We 

seek to use America’s diplomatic power to help foreign citizens to better their own 

lives and to build their own nations and to transform their own futures.’’

For a nation whose name literally means ‘land of the free’ and whose founders 

were freed American slaves, self-determination is strategically and symbolically important. The defense, diplomacy, and development efforts that the U.S. government 

has undertaken are helping Liberia move from a state of war toward being a state 

at peace. The American people deserve to feel proud of their government and its actions. 

Today, my goal is to elaborate on the three key reasons why the 2005 Liberian 

presidential election is a win, not only for the 3 million people of Liberia, but also 

for the people of this country. The first is that regional stability is improved with 

a democratic and secure Liberia. The second is that the region’s trend toward democratization is reinforced by Liberia’s election. Lastly, an economically prosperous 

Liberia will have positive repercussions, enhancing trade and development throughout West Africa. Economic growth would reinforce the simultaneous political transformation, establishing a welcome cycle of progress toward hope, stable elected rule, 

and prosperity. 

REGIONAL STABILITY

President Bush’s strategy for national defense is one of global peace and security. 

In practice, this means working bilaterally or multilaterally to address given situations. It means working with regional and sub-regional organizations, such as the 

African Union and Mano River Union. Since 2001, one of the central elements of 

President Bush’s Africa policy has been the emphasis on supporting the capacity of 

African countries and regional organizations to mediate conflicts and carry out 

peacekeeping operations, to reduce the amount of external help that is needed. 

The President understands that regional conflicts have global repercussions. Consider the fact of civilian deaths, refugees and internally displaced persons, arable 

land that lies uncultivated, and stagnant economies that offer parents no way to 

support their children. Liberia’s internal conflict produced untold death and destruction, shattered the nation’s infrastructure, and exported trouble to nearby states, 

such as Sierra Leone and Guinea. 

Liberia’s former president Charles Taylor bears much of the responsibility for Liberia’s suffering. The U.S. Government has consistently maintained that Taylor 

must be brought to justice before the Special Court. This will significantly help to 

bring closure to a tragic chapter in Liberia’s history and help all of West Africa overcome patterns of impunity, illicit trade, and civil conflict. 

20

Liberia’s condition is clearly of concern beyond its own borders. If Liberia is internally secure, all of West Africa will benefit. It becomes easier for the region to address the ongoing unrest in Cote d’Ivoire, as well as fragile situations in Guinea and 

Sierra Leone. A stable Liberia is a force for regional stability. 

With few interludes, Liberia’s civil war raged for 14 years. In the spring and summer of 2003, President Bush supported the Economic Community of West African 

States (ECOWAS) in putting together a comprehensive agreement toward a lasting 

peace. When chaos broke out in the streets of the capital, President Bush sent U.S. 

Marines into Liberia to protect the innocent and create a sense of order amid the 

chaos. Only Nigerian soldiers arrived earlier than our Marines. 

The American action was historic, and represented the first time American boots 

had touched African soil for stability operations in nearly a decade. Following that 

deployment, the United States stayed the course in Liberia with further logistical 

assistance to the ECOWAS Mission in Liberia (ECOMIL) and provided extensive 

humanitarian assistance. On September 19, 2003, the United Nations Security 

Council adopted Resolution 1509, which established a peacekeeping operation in Liberia, known as UNMIL. UNMIL consists of 15,000 troops plus a sizeable contingent of UN police officers and military observers. This force has helped maintain 

calm. 

The Liberians agreed among themselves on a transitional government that paved 

the way for free and fair elections in October 2005. National reconstruction is underway, and the United States has taken the lead as the major contributor. The U.S. 

Congress generously appropriated over $880 million in the last two fiscal years to 

help with reconstruction efforts. More than $520 million of that money has supported UNMIL. For fiscal year 2006, we have allocated more than $270 million for 

continued support of the nation’s reconstruction and peacekeeping efforts. 

Liberia continues to benefit from various U.S. Government funding, including: 

Economic Support Funds, Development Assistance, Migration and Refugee Assistance, P.L. 480 Title II food aid, and Child Survival Health Funds. The United States 

has the largest diplomatic mission in Liberia, and the United States is supporting 

security reforms, including the new Liberian National Police Academy. Between 

2004 and 2005, the United States contributed $60 million to support the training 

and equipping of a civilian-led Liberian military force. Recruiting for the new army 

began on January 18, and the goal is to have a new army of 2,000 soldiers ready 

by 2008. 

Sending American Marines into Monrovia was a bold action with positive results. 

After years of turmoil, Liberians are beginning a long process of reconstruction and 

post-war recovery. Nearly two decades of conflict left the national infrastructure in 

shambles and left people without basic services, such as access to clean water and 

electricity. A generation of children has only known war and destruction. They are 

now looking to a peaceful and democratic nation to meet their hopes for a future 

of dignity and an opportunity to support themselves. 

The tide has turned, and since 2003, Liberians have had the opportunity to restore order, create a responsive government, and welcome refugees home. Liberia’s 

transition from war to peace is a crucial and historic development. As former General and President Dwight Eisenhower noted many years ago, ‘‘We seek peace, 

knowing that peace is the climate of freedom.’’ That remains true. Today, we seek 

peace by sowing seeds of democracy. 

DEMOCRATIZATION

The United States has had a close relationship with Liberia dating back to the 

1820s. In fact, the United States and Liberia have been close allies, particularly 

throughout the Cold War and up until civil war broke out in 1989. As we look to 

the future, there is reason to believe we can renew that close friendship. 

The Liberian people had an opportunity to elect new leadership last fall, and people voted for freedom; they voted to have a voice in their national government. The 

U.S. government policy is to support and encourage democratic rule abroad, and for 

that reason, the United States spent $10 million in support of last October’s election. We believe that freedom is the way forward. Every nation’s government will 

reflect local cultures and values, but only a free government can hope to protect individuals’ liberty and nurture its people’s untapped potential. 

In Liberia, our goal is to support local efforts to stand up a freely elected government, a dynamic economy, and the health, educational, and other services that are 

essential to the well-being of any nation. The peaceful and fair election of Ellen 

Johnson Sirleaf is encouraging. Her win symbolizes a victory for gender inclusiveness. 

21

We have made great progress since 2003 due to the concerted effort of the many 

American public servants who were mobilized to engage on so many levels. Our 

Congress, the Department of Defense, the Department of Treasury, the Marines, 

USAID, and the State Department all helped to effect this transition. At the American Embassy in Monrovia, our diplomats have done an extraordinary service over 

the last two and a half years in helping Liberians move past the era of civil war 

and toward a better future. This is a Liberian solution to a Liberian challenge. 

Americans are participating, but only as partners. 

The United States continues to support Liberian recovery efforts as an important 

element of our security, political, economic, and humanitarian strategy for West Africa. After all, nations with democratically elected governments can resolve internal 

disputes on Election Day, and they are unlikely to destabilize or terrorize their own 

people or adjacent nations. 

Toward this end, we have and will continue to offer monetary and other assistance. The U.S. government has proactively engaged the international community 

and advocated on behalf of Liberia. In February 2004, this country co-hosted an 

international conference on Liberia’s reconstruction. Donors pledged more than $522 

million in assistance. The United States contributed $200 million toward the critical 

humanitarian needs of refugees and displaced persons, community revitalization, 

independent media, policing, social services, and other sectors. 

In fiscal years 2004 and 2005, the United States contributed $520 million to the 

UN Mission in Liberia and $75 million for community reintegration, including work 

and education programs for youths and former combatants. Another $23 million has 

supported the rule of law, including judicial structures and civilian police programs. 

The United States continues to support these indispensable programs. After years 

of civil war, the physical infrastructure needs to be rebuilt from the ground up, but 

in many cases, so does the social network. Almost half of Liberia’s 3.3 million people 

were uprooted during the civil war, and some 190,000 Liberians remain in other 

countries, including Cote d’Ivoire, Ghana, Guinea, and Sierra Leone. Interpersonal 

relationships and reconciliation, as well as coming to terms with the atrocities committed during the civil war, are part of the new government’s agenda. 

The U.S. government has funded a program in support of law and justice that will 

send a resident legal advisor and a five-person team of technical experts to Liberia. 

This team will help improve the Liberian criminal justice system. We will help 

launch a Truth and Reconciliation Commission, while also supporting an access to 

justice program to increase the confidence of Liberians to resolve disputes efficiently, fairly and effectively through the justice sector. Additionally, we will work 

to establish legal advice centers and a national referral network; integrate alternative dispute mechanisms; and provide incentives to attract public defenders. 

President Bush intends to remain engaged with Liberia, while this restored democracy finds its footing. For that reason, the Administration plans to allocate nearly $43 million in fiscal year 2006 Economic Support Funds (ESF) money, including 

some $6 million to be made available immediately for quick-impact projects, including rebuilding schools, court houses, and hospitals. Roads that connect Liberia’s 

major cities also need to be built. All in all, including planned allocations for the 

current fiscal year, the United States’ contribution to Liberia’s reconstruction for fiscal years 2004–2006 will exceed $1 billion. Our financial contributions underscore 

the seriousness of our commitment to Liberia’s future. President Bush, members of 

his Administration, and members of Congress agree—we are all dedicated to helping 

Liberia realize its tremendous promise. 

ECONOMIC PROSPERITY

Direct aid is helpful, but it is by no means a panacea. As Secretary Rice recently 

remarked, ‘‘America’s foreign assistance must promote responsible sovereignty, not 

permanent dependency.’’ It is with those words in mind that we move to the third 

point—the importance of promoting economic prosperity and security. 

Liberia has the potential to be a regional economic force. It has valuable natural 

resources, which could be exported abroad; this would create many local jobs and 

generate revenue to finance the nation’s budget. Before its civil war, Liberia was 

a major exporter of iron ore and natural rubber. The country is rich in diamonds, 

gold and other minerals as well as natural resources such as timber and agriculture 

that are additional sources of potential economic activity. However, much investment will be required to restore these industries and Liberia’s dilapidated infrastructure. 

Spurring widespread economic growth poses both short-term and long-term challenges for the new Liberian government. Since Liberia’s prolonged crisis was in 

large part financed by illegal sales of the nation’s major natural commodities, the 

22

UN passed Resolution 1343 in 2001 to forbid the import of Liberian diamonds by 

any member countries. Another resolution forbidding the import of Liberian timber 

followed in 2003. With timber products under UN sanction, the Liberian government’s main source of income in recent years has been maritime revenue (approximately $13.5 million in 2004) and import taxes (roughly $23 million in 2004). 

The new Liberian government is expected to encourage the UN to lift these sanctions and prod the growth of export-oriented jobs within Liberia. Toward this end, 

Liberia must move quickly and aggressively to address the concerns underlying 

those sanctions. The United States is working with the Liberian government 

through the Liberia Forest Initiative (LFI) to establish transparency and effective 

management in the forest sector and to fortify the government’s oversight of this 

important sector. In a similar fashion, the United States is working with the international community to bring better governance and transparency to Liberia’s diamond export industry. 

In addition to sector-specific work, the U.S. government is involved with macro 

economic policy assistance to the country. The United States is a driving force behind the well regarded Governance and Economic Management Assistance Program 

(GEMAP). GEMAP is intended to reduce corruption, improve revenue collection and 

increase expenditure transparency, thereby channeling Liberia’s revenue-generating 

resources into efficient and effective uses by the Liberian government. The international financial institutions (IFIs) will be tracking Liberia’s progress for improved 

economic management and consistent implementation of the GEMAP program before considering normalizing relations, addressing IFI arrears of $1.4 billion, providing new assistance, and eventual debt relief. Liberia carries a heavy bilateral 

debt burden, as well. Bilateral creditors, owed $783 million year-end 2004, will also 

be looking to the new government’s economic management performance before initiating debt relief. Liberia owes $382 million to the U.S. Government alone. 

This might seem an insurmountable obstacle, but there is good reason to believe 

that with a sufficient track record of performance Ellen Johnson Sirleaf and her 

government will be able reach agreement with the World Bank, the IMF, and others 

for alleviation of her nation’s massive debt burden. The U.S. plans to work closely 

with Liberia and its creditors to help resolve the debt situation. 

The U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Technical Assistance has been heavily 

engaged in Liberia, providing assistance on budget and debt management, banking 

supervision, and tax collection systems. There are currently two resident advisors, 

one in the Bureau of the Budget and one in the Central Bank. The budget engagement has focused on building capacity within the Bureau of Budget, so that the 

Ministry of Finance can better formulate and execute the budget. The banking supervision program has focused on building capacity within the banking supervision 

department to improve its ability to properly regulate and oversee the banking sector. The tax project is a comprehensive plan involving technical assistance, as well 

as hardware and software, in an effort to stem corruption and increase revenue 

flows to the newly elected government. 

The Administration will also look into putting Liberia on the fast track to join the 

African Growth and Opportunity Act. We will encourage economic coordination and 

collaboration with the nations of ECOWAS, as well as with Liberia’s Mano River 

Union partners. Liberia is ready to join the international community, and it is important to welcome them to the global marketplace as well. For the stability of the 

nation, as well as the region, economic development is a wise and necessary policy 

objective. 

CONCLUSION

In closing, I would like to reiterate my appreciation for having the opportunity 

to testify and share my enthusiasm and optimism about the future of Liberia. This 

is a nation that is emerging from the shadows and greeting the hope of a promising 

tomorrow. Ellen Johnson Sirleaf has an enormous task ahead of her as her nation 

attempts to rebuild after 14 years of bloodshed, but I believe that President Sirleaf 

is undoubtedly equal to the task. She will have the cooperation of the Liberian people, as well as the support of President Bush and his Administration. 

This nation’s relationship with Liberia stretches back nearly two centuries, and 

we remain as committed to our Liberian friends as ever. There is great reason for 

the Liberian people to be hopeful that the years ahead will be more peaceful and 

more secure. They have elected a new leader in a free and fair election, and economic recovery is coming. 

The African Union, the United Nations—international and regional organizations 

will do their part, and of course, so will the United States. We have been fully committed to helping Liberia make the transition from war to peace since 2003, and 

23

we won’t quit now. Liberia’s situation and the U.S. response represent the perfect 

confluence of defense, diplomacy, and development. The three are inextricably 

linked and mutually reinforcing. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the 

Committee for the work that you do. We are effecting transformational diplomacy. 

The work that we do in support of the Liberian people is likely to have lasting implications. Freedom is, indeed, the way forward.

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Dr. Frazer, thank you so much for 

your testimony. 

Mr. Pierson. 

Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Chairman, as I indicated to you earlier, I have 

been called to a very urgent 1 o’clock meeting, and I will have to 

leave for a few moments. I just wonder if I could ask the Assistant 

Secretary one question about GEMAP. 

Dr. Frazer, I appreciate your remarks, and I was really unaware 

that you were at the inauguration also. I knew that the other two 

were there, and I am happy you were able to get back. 

Just in general, how has the GEMAP been accepted by the government? I think that prior to the elections all candidates agreed 

that they would agree to—whoever won would agree to it. How do 

you see them accepting it? And how do you feel that this will work? 

And thirdly, is there any discontent, to your knowledge, about Liberians in Liberia feeling that this is overreaching? 

Ms. FRAZER. Yes, thank you very much, Congressman Royce, and 

I would also ask if my colleague has information to add to that. 

We feel that the Governance and Economic Management Assistance Program (GEMAP) has been widely accepted. As you said, it 

was accepted by Gyude Bryant’s Government after some persuasion, and it certainly has been accepted wholeheartedly by President Sirleaf. She, in fact, mentioned GEMAP during her inaugural 

address, and went extensively into the importance of establishing 

systems of management to fight corruption. She also, in her inaugural address, stated that she would make her finances completely 

public and transparent, and challenged the Parliament to do the 

same. 

I think that the sense is that clearly, in order to attract investment that is necessary to reconstruct, that society there needs to 

have much work done to have a management system in place that 

provides for transparency. 

So we have not heard any sense to which there is elements in 

her government that are opposed to GEMAP at this point. 

Very early on in the development of GEMAP there were concerns 

about whether it impinged on Liberia’s sovereignty, but I think 

through consultation, through working together to develop the program, that we have allayed many of those concerns. 

Mr. PAYNE. Okay. Thank you. 

Mr. PIERSON. Thank you. Congressman, let me say also in the 

beginning what a honor it was to be with you. I know of your longstanding commitment to Liberia, and it was very interesting and 

fun to be with you at the election, a very important election. 

The GEMAP is being received very well. As the Assistant Secretary said, the chairman of the transitional government endorsed 

it. President Johnson-Sirleaf has not only endorsed it, but she is 

the Chairman of the GEMAP Economic Steering Development 

Committee. 

24

So while GEMAP, and in many respects is a U.S.-funded activity, 

and USAID specifically is funding financial controllers and concession experts in six different either ministries or authorities, it is a 

multinational body. But President Johnson-Sirleaf is the chairperson of the GEMAP Economic Development Steering Committee, 

so that is a very high-level, obviously, not only endorsement, but 

continuous monitoring of the GEMAP activities. 

For USAID, by the end of this month, this is very important and 

you will hear it as we talk later, both some things that we think 

are working with the government are very important both on the 

short term and the long term is there is a sense of urgency in certain quick impact kind of activities, and a part of it is getting 

GEMAP up and running. 

And by the end of this month we will have the personnel in place 

at six different either authorities or ministries within the Government of Liberia, and those are the National Port Authority, the Liberia Petroleum Refining Company, at Roberts International Airport, and the Forestry Development Authority, and with each of 

those we will have a financial controller with signature responsibility. 

Also, by the end of the month a concessions expert at the Ministry of Lands, Mines and Energy, and then also a budget expert 

at the Bureau of the Budget. 

So it is being very well received, but also it needs to get implemented and get implemented for a variety of reasons very quickly. 

Mr. PAYNE. That is great, and I would hope that it does work 

well, and I think it is a model for other countries, you know, when 

the whole question of debt reduction, when Blair brought up with 

the G–8 that we increase contributions to Africa and also the whole 

question of increased support. 

The question, of course, on the other side came up, well, there 

is corruption and how are we going to make sure that we eliminate 

corruption? And I think that an example of this working here could 

allay the fears of others that corruption is taking a disproportionate amount of funds. I question where that happened since we 

work through NGOs primarily anyway, and I think people have a 

misconception of where the dollars go. They very rarely go to the 

governments as we know. 

But I think that this is something that is good, something that 

we might be able to push for other countries if it can work there. 

In that way some people use the corruption issue because they do 

not want to give in the first place, so that can sort of take away 

a false issue and perhaps have a more transparency. 

But thank you very much. I will return, Mr. Chairman, shortly. 

Mr. PIERSON. Congressman, I might say as a follow-up on that, 

a part of the personnel focus is to have Liberians from the diaspora 

go back and take these positions wherever we can, people who have 

the capability and, obviously, knowledge in Liberia. 

Mr. PAYNE. That is what I was wondering about, what the local 

Liberians were saying, you know, whether they feel that, well, we 

have been here all through the tough times and now we have got 

these folks coming in taking the jobs? 

I see Mr. Cole, one of my constituents, smiling. Are you going 

back to Liberia? 

25

Okay, thank you. 

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Mr. Pierson, please proceed. 

STATEMENT OF MR. LLOYD PIERSON, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR AFRICA, U.S. AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL 

DEVELOPMENT 

Mr. PIERSON. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, thank 

you very much for holding this hearing today. I would like to make 

some brief opening remarks, but have a longer written statement 

that I request be included in the record. 

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Without objection, so ordered. 

Mr. PIERSON. Recent events in Liberia have given great hope for 

peace, democracy, good governance, a good quality of life, and security. While we have a lot of optimism and promise for the future, 

we also know the situation has many challenges. USAID’s work is 

focused on four strategic objectives organized around the goals of, 

first, adverting and resolving conflict; and second, managing crisis 

and promoting stability, recovery, and democratic reform. 

Our objectives in the strategy are: One, to promote local capacity 

to mitigate conflict; two, to increase access to social services provided by local and national institutions; three, to advance inclusive 

governance; and four, to restore livelihoods. 

With the election and inauguration of President Johnson-Sirleaf, 

a new day is dawning. While we want sustained development and 

steady progress, we believe there is an urgency with which we need 

to approach our responsibilities. There needs to be immediate visible change and USAID is undertaking $6 million in quick impact 

projects which will demonstrate peace dividends. 

The USAID is implementing a range of projects in Monrovia and 

in the more remote southeast corner of the country, which borders 

Cote d’Ivoire, where security concerns persist and investment is urgently needed. These projects include renovation of high schools 

and a hospital, rebuilding roads that link remote areas to Monrovia 

and main towns, and completing the Barclayville Bridge which will 

open areas previously accessible only by helicopter. 

We agree with President Johnson-Sirleaf about the importance of 

the first 150 days. Mr. Chairman, USAID had a development strategy that is being implemented and which is continuously updated 

with the new Liberian Government. The strategy involves activities 

on both the short and long term. The great bulk of USAID resources during the transition has gone to reintegration of ex-combatants and other war-effected health and other services for the internally-displaced individual, and preparations for the recent elections. 

Ongoing programming also addresses community redevelopment, 

critical health needs, and education remediation. There are also regional challenges and USAID is very active in addressing them, 

and I will be very happy to answer questions, if you wish, concerning the regional aspects of what USAID is doing in different 

countries. 

I would also like, Mr. Chairman, to just make a personal comment that I did have both the opportunity and honor, I think, to 

be on the United States delegation in October for the elections 

along with the Assistant Secretary, Congressman Payne, and SenVerDate Mar 21 2002 17:01 May 01, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 F:\WORK\AGI\020806\26015.000 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL
26

ator Chafee, and I also was in Liberia in 1997 for those elections. 

And a part of the real significant difference that I think occurred 

is that generally the election processes in Liberia, even in 1997, 

generally were good, but what was so different was that in 1997 

there was intimidation and fear, and there was unhappiness. 

I think all of us can attest that in October when we were there, 

and then for the subsequent elections, that there was a great feeling of freedom. I believe everybody, that every Liberian that we 

came in contact with, would tell us this is the happiest day of our 

life because they felt free and they felt free for the first time. 

We have, as you do, a great commitment to freedom and peace 

and democracy and security and a good quality of life in Liberia. 

And Mr. Chairman, I would be very pleased to answer any questions that you might have. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Pierson follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MR. LLOYD PIERSON, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR

AFRICA, U.S. AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

INTRODUCTION

Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, and Members of the Committee. Thank you for 

the opportunity to be here today to testify on the impact of Liberia’s historic election 

and the work that the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) 

is engaged in to ensure a continuing, successful transition to democracy. 

Along with the Assistant Secretary of State for Africa, who headed the delegation, 

Congressman Donald Payne, Senator Lincoln Chafee, and others, I served as an 

international observer of Liberia’s elections in October 2005. Voter turnout was approximately 75 percent, and citizens lined up for hours to cast their votes. There 

was great excitement over what for many was the first truly free election in their 

lifetime. I had been involved in the elections of 1997 and the hopeful, enthusiastic, 

and joyful spirit of this election was in marked contrast to that previous occasion. 

The election in Liberia was a strong affirmation of the rebuilding process which 

began two years ago under the transition. Today, I want to address how USAID’s 

work in Liberia serves our goals for the broader region. I want to elaborate on 

USAID’s strategy to promote a democratic and prosperous Liberia, both in the next 

few months and over the longer term as the new government begins to tackle Liberia’s many challenges. 

It is particularly inspiring that Liberia—which has suffered for so many years 

from civil conflict and leadership that prioritized personal gain over the national interest—should be the first nation on the African continent to inaugurate a democratically elected female president. 

USAID, along with other agencies of the United States Government, will do everything it can to help bring about peace, democracy, good governance and security in 

Liberia. While we believe in sustained development, we also know that there need 

to be immediate gains. 

THE FIRST ONE-HUNDRED AND FIFTY DAYS

In her inaugural address, President Ellen Sirleaf shared her strategy toward securing and promoting the transition in the first hundred and fifty days of her term 

in office. I quote:

‘‘Our strategy is to achieve quick and visible progress that reaches a significant 

number of our people, to gain momentum, consolidate support, and establish the 

foundation for sustained economic development. This will encompass five major 

pillars: Security, Economic Revitalization, Basic Services, Infrastructure, and 

Good Governance. In implementing the programs, consistent with this strategy, 

we will ensure broad geographic representation and participation, placing emphasis on those areas that have received less in the distribution of economic 

benefits.’’

In support of this approach, in the immediate term, USAID will undertake nearly 

$6 million in quick impact projects which will demonstrate tangible peace dividends 

to the Liberian people and help secure support for the democratic process. Through 

the Liberia Community Infrastructure Project, USAID will implement a range of 

27

projects in Monrovia and in the more remote southeast region of the country, which 

borders Cote d’Ivoire, where security concerns persist and investment is urgently 

needed. These include renovation of high schools and a hospital; rebuilding of roads 

that link remote areas to Monrovia and main towns; and completion of the 

Barclayville Bridge, opening areas previously accessible only by helicopter. 

Beyond the physical impact of rehabilitated infrastructure, this program will yield 

employment, support community development, and generate income. We estimate 

that these projects will total nearly 280,000 person days of employment, and engage 

more than 1,500 individuals in productive labor. Another result of the program will 

be heightened security—directly, through rehabilitated court buildings, but much 

more broadly by strengthening citizen confidence in the government’s ability to deliver services and protect the rights of the individual. The establishment of stronger 

linkages across all regions of Liberia will also directly improve citizen confidence 

and security. The work will be labor-intensive and will involve on-the-job training 

where possible. By rebuilding key roads, the cash economy of the rural areas will 

be reactivated, expanding benefits to the farmers and artisans who will now have 

a viable market for their goods and produce. 

USAID’S DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY

While such activities are needed to demonstrate visible immediate progress, much 

more will be required over the medium and longer term to advance economic development and build democratic institutions. The great bulk of USAID’s resources during the transition has gone to support the reintegration of ex-combatants and other 

war-affected populations, health and other services for the internally displaced, as 

well as preparations for the recent elections. However, ongoing programming also 

addresses community redevelopment, critical health needs and education remediation. Recognizing how critical this juncture is, and in consultation with Congress, 

USAID plans to substantially increase the Development Assistance (DA) and Child 

Survival and Health (CSH) resources to be made available to Liberia in FY 2006. 

In this we are guided by a new strategy focused on addressing the critical challenges to stability in Liberia and ensuring the country is on a sustainable and democratic path to recovery. In its implementation, we will work closely with the government of Liberia as well as with key donors, in particular the World Bank and European Union. 

Our strategy is driven by two root sources of conflict which have jeopardized 

progress in Liberia in the past. The first is the deliberate exclusion of the majority 

of Liberians from political life and economic opportunities. Successful development 

in Liberia will require a participatory democratic political system that represents 

the interests of all Liberians. If the pattern of exclusion is not overcome, the 

marginalized population is likely to continue to foment violence and engage in criminal activities. 

The second potential source of conflict is competition for resources. Lacking mechanisms for oversight and enforcement, Liberia has been vulnerable to leaders seeking to exploit its substantial natural resources and potential revenue sources for 

personal gain. This diversion of resources, through a variety of mechanisms, has resulted in a severe lack of funding for essential public services. This has, in turn, 

fostered disaffection toward government among the public, and sown the seeds for 

growing instability. 

USG assistance must address these core sources of conflict to be successful in stabilizing Liberia. Therefore, USAID’s work is focused on four strategic objectives organized around the goals of first, averting and resolving conflict, and second, managing crises and promoting stability, recovery, and democratic reform. Our objectives are 1) to promote local capacity to mitigate conflict; 2) to increase access to 

social services provided by local and national institutions; 3) to advance inclusive 

governance; and 4) to restore livelihoods. I will briefly describe the activities that 

we expect to pursue under each of these objectives. 

Our first objective is designed to build the capacity of the Liberian government 

and civil society to address sources of conflict. In addition to early warning mechanisms, activities under this objective will focus on restoring the social fabric of Liberian communities while promoting stability and access to services. While USAID’s 

preliminary transition efforts focused on reintegrating displaced people and ex-combatants, programs will now be expanded to ensure benefits reach the broader community and support longer term rehabilitation efforts. Community Development 

Committees (CDCs), which consist of local officials and community members, as well 

as NGOs, churches and other private sector groups, will be engaged in prioritizing 

local delivery of essential services. These activities will be complemented by efforts 

to strengthen governance structures at the national level. In particular, efforts to 

28

fight corruption in the national government through the Governance and Economic 

Management Assistance Program (GEMAP) will increase the revenue available for 

public services and help secure the national government against the corruption and 

competition over resources that have proven so destabilizing in the past. 

Secondly, we will help expand access to health and education services, which are 

critical to restoring a degree of normalcy in society and improving citizens’ quality 

of life. USAID will work to build the capacity of local and national government actors to provide these basic services, thereby enhancing their legitimacy in the eyes 

of the population. 

Our third objective is focused on advancing inclusive governance. This is at the 

heart of our strategy, and seeks to address the great harm inflicted upon society 

by decades of poor and unaccountable governance. USAID will assist Liberia to meet 

this challenge by promoting increased participation in the political process, expanding access to the justice sector, and promoting corruption reforms, particularly 

through GEMAP. USAID will manage the USG’s contribution to the GEMAP, which 

will include the provision of financial advisers in several government ministries and 

agencies, along with preparations for contracting out the management, or arranging 

for the privatization of a number of revenue-generating entities such as the port, 

airport, and forestry authority. 

A special focus of USAID’s work in governance is to help re-exert legitimate control over the management of natural resources, including timber, diamonds, iron ore 

and oil. This will help prevent further exploitation of these resources, cut off financing for potential conflict, and ensure that revenues benefit the majority of Liberians. 

Civil society and the media will be assisted to provide necessary oversight, transparency, and advocacy for reform. Legislative and electoral bodies may receive assistance to enhance their ability to conduct oversight and ensure accountability. 

USAID’s final objective is to restore basic economic activity and livelihoods in 

order to both raise standards of living and engage the population in productive and 

peaceful activities. Our programs will enhance agriculture, food security, and economic growth through increased production and improved access to markets, including financial and technical assistance. In particular, they seek to rehabilitate rubber 

and cocoa farms and to organize and support farmers’ groups and community-based 

organizations to engage in micro-finance and micro-enterprise activities. We hope to 

create an economic environment that will also help attract resources—both financial 

and technical—of the Liberian Diaspora back to the country, for the benefit of its 

resident population. 

Additionally, USAID’s program in Liberia will address the multi-faceted issues of 

HIV/AIDS, urbanization, gender, capacity-building, and youth throughout the entire 

portfolio. Capacity-building of government agencies and the new legislature is necessary to ensure service delivery, budget oversight, and transparency and accountability. Local community and government organizations also require strengthening 

to help meet basic needs and to support peoples’ participation in making decisions 

and holding the government accountable. Our attention to youth, a large segment 

of the population, is particularly important. Many youth took part in the armed conflict, and most missed out on any education or semblance of a normal childhood. Integrating them into the community, through accelerated learning programs, vocational training, and employment programs is critical to the progress of the country. 

REGIONAL STABILITY

While substantial progress has been achieved, fragile conditions in neighboring 

countries continue to threaten progress toward peace and stability. Conflict in Sierra Leone, on Liberia’s western flank, only recently subsided and requires continued vigilance. Cote d’Ivoire continues to simmer on Liberia’s eastern border, and instability threatens to the north in Guinea. Continued instability fosters a number 

of related issues, including criminal activities, environmental degradation, the 

spread of disease, increased numbers of refugees and displaced persons, societal 

fragmentation, poverty and conflict over resources, and a general deterioration in 

living conditions for the region’s inhabitants. To help respond to these challenges, 

USAID is focusing its programming in Liberia’s immediate neighborhood on creating 

conditions that mitigate instability and conflict. 

With a stable and democratic Liberia, our goals throughout the region become 

more attainable, whether consolidating Sierra Leone’s peace, addressing civil unrest 

in Cote d’Ivoire, or stabilizing the fragile situation in Guinea. If its valuable natural 

resources are managed for the public good, Liberia also has the potential to be a 

substantial economic force in the region and to contribute to prosperity throughout 

the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) countries. 

29

Regional challenges require regional and international engagement for sustained 

progress. President Bush’s policy toward Africa has emphasized supporting the capacity of African countries and regional organizations to mediate conflict and support peacekeeping operations in the region. ECOWAS’ role in the negotiation of Liberia’s peace agreement in 2003 and its deployment of a peacekeeping mission 

served as a dramatic testimony to this regional approach, and USAID is proud to 

have played a role in enhancing ECOWAS’ internal capacity to address conflict, as 

well as to build regional cooperation in the economic and energy sectors. In Liberia, 

international donors, regional actors, Liberian government officials, and NGO representatives meet regularly in Monrovia and have made substantial contributions 

toward progress in the transition. These include the successful negotiations with the 

National Transitional Government of Liberia to establish GEMAP. 

The election of President Sirleaf is a hopeful sign for West Africa. Liberia has 

emerged from brutal dictatorship and civil war and is now pointed toward a democratic and free future, with leadership responsive to the public’s needs. The successful implementation of GEMAP, and adoption of the fundamental principles of good 

governance and responsible financial management by President Sirleaf’s administration, will provide a new model of government for the Liberian people. With the commitment of the new Liberian government, and the ongoing support of the international community, a brighter future for the population of all West Africa is within 

our reach. 

CONCLUSION

Liberia’s recovery is fragile. The country faces enormous challenges: Unemployment remains over 70%; approximately 35% of the population is chronically malnourished, and only 20% are literate. In the great excitement which rightly surrounds the recent election, we must not forget the tremendously difficult job facing 

the newly elected government. President Sirleaf will need our support, and that of 

African regional organizations, the United Nations and international financial institutions, and other donors. For its part, the USG is committed to helping Liberia improve the lives of its people, and complete its transition from war to peace and democracy. 

As you know, Liberia was founded by freed American slaves; the country has always held a strong cultural affinity with the United States. Unfortunately, the past 

fifteen years have been marred by civil war and predatory leadership, which made 

our relations, and an effective assistance program, difficult. We were able to make 

progress in restoring stability over the past two years, but now seek to help build 

a new future for Liberia. With the election of President Sirleaf, we believe our relationship with the new Liberian government will be close and productive. 

We are committed to working in partnership with the new Liberian government 

to ensure that progress is maintained and the will of the people is carried out. 

Our support, and that of the whole international community, has been critical to 

Liberia’s peaceful development. I express my appreciation to the Congress for the 

$200 million supplemental appropriated for critical humanitarian, security, and development needs in the early days of the transition. The USG’s leadership in rebuilding Liberia has been important to ensure participation from other donors. 

Liberia stands at a critical juncture. The election and peaceful inauguration of 

President Sirleaf are tremendous accomplishments. We and others in the international community are excited at the prospect of an eager and willing partner in 

the Liberian government, committed to pursuing security and stability goals, for the 

good of Liberia and the broader region. 

In conclusion, I would like to thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the Committee for your continued interest, and for all the work and support that you have 

dedicated to Liberia and the region. Thank you, as well, for this opportunity to 

share USAID’s planning for Liberia’s future. Liberians have spoken and elected a 

President to lead them on the path of stability and progress. Together we can help 

Liberia move forward and promote progress throughout the region. We must also 

make this effort because it will help ensure the security of America, while promoting 

stability in a potentially resource-rich country and region. 

I welcome your questions on my testimony or any others you might have for me 

at this time.

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Thank you very much, Mr. Pierson. 

Let me just begin on the confidence building, quick impact efforts 

that you have initiated. If you could—you know, part of the concern 

that some of us have is that the Congress and the House in Liberia 

really are made of disparate parties, no single party has a control. 

30

As a matter of fact, Mr. Weah, the CDC Party, has the largest contingent in the House, 16 of the 64 seats in the House. 

And as you look at the list of Taylor associates, for example, or 

intimates, there are large numbers of people who remain in government, some of whom have very high positions: The Speaker of the 

House, Edwin Snowe, formerly Taylor’s son-in-law. They are all in 

strategic positions which if they want to, whether they are still proTaylor or not, could very significantly inhibit the ability of President Johnson-Sirleaf’s agenda. 

We certainly all hope that the people have some patience given 

the agony and turmoil Liberia has been through, but we all know 

that electorates very often grow very impatient very quickly if they 

don’t see tangible results. 

You might want to just elaborate a little bit further on some of 

those quick impact efforts. 

Let me also ask about the issue of child survival and health. You 

indicate that that is one of the areas where we want to significantly boost our efforts. I notice in the CRS report, which has just 

been given to us, their sense of what the numbers are is that in 

2004, the actual amount spent on the CSH, child survival and 

health programs, was $2.82 million, that jumped to $4.47 million 

in 2005, that is an estimate, and that the request drops down to 

$2.9 million. 

I am wondering if something might be missed here in terms of 

this chart. Are we anticipating more? And how will that break out? 

Will child survival, the traditional efforts at immunization, rehydration, growth monitoring, breast feeding and other efforts, is 

that what we are talking about here in terms of child survival and 

health? 

On the debt issue, if I could, my understanding is that as of 

2003, Liberia had $2.568 billion worth of debt, of which $1.4 billion 

is owed to IFIs and $383 million to the U.S. Government. Are we 

contemplating an effort to completely or hopefully largely, but 

hopefully completely wipe out that debt? 

We all know that debt is the crippler of developing nations, and 

what are the plans there? 

Let me also ask on child soldiers. Yesterday I chaired a hearing 

on the Burma situation, and we had political prisoners who have 

suffered torture, and we also had a focus on child soldiers, 70,000 

of whom are still in the Burmese military. 

Greg Simpkins and I were just in Uganda, and obviously, you 

know, asked serious questions and large numbers of questions 

about what is being done to help those child soldiers, particularly 

those who are now free of the Lord’s Resistance Army. And if you 

can elaborate on what the integration effort looks like to the Subcommittee, and what it will cost. Do we have enough money being 

focused on getting those young men out of that mindset that they 

lived in as child soldiers? 

Then finally, I will have more, but finally, the role of the churches. Again, Greg and I were in Uganda, and on child survival, I remember my first trip to El Salvador in 1984, when there was a day 

of tranquility between the FLMA and the Duarte Government. It 

was the churches that made it possible for the immunizations to 

31

take place. Without the churches, immunizations would have been 

a dismal failure in not only El Salvador but elsewhere. 

How are the faith-based efforts going to be ginned up to ensure 

that we get a maximum leverage of our dollars? 

When we were in Uganda, frankly, I do not see how we could 

possibly run an AIDS program, or HIV program without the use of 

the churches. They maximize. We visited one pastor, a priest, part 

of the reach-out program. Seventy percent of the people that are 

administering his program now as volunteers or paid staff are HIV 

positive themselves. They are getting the anti-retro vial so they are 

strong and vibrant, and they are also living proof to everybody that 

there is hope after you test positive. But I was touched by how they 

were able to just get so many, an army of volunteers that otherwise 

would not have been there if faith-base were not part of this effort 

to provide healthcare and other kinds of initiatives. 

So on those opening questions, if you could. 

Mr. PIERSON. First, Mr. Chairman, on the quick impact and some 

elaboration on that, and the democracy issues within Liberia. A 

major part of the strategy that we have—and when I say we, 

USAID, the United States Government, that is also in partnership 

and dialogue with the Liberian Government, it is not just us—that 

a major part of what we feel needs to occur on the short term are 

a variety of quick impact type of projects. We have committed $6 

million to that within the first 150 days, and that is to begin showing the peace dividend, some immediate impact in Liberia of this 

selection and this very significant change that has occurred there. 

Some of the funding, as we will discuss in these different areas 

of questions that you have asked, are interrelated because they 

have an impact on each other. But of the $6 million, for instance, 

that is committed within the first 150 days, the type of activities 

that will occur with that is some rehabilitation of the executive 

mansion for security purposes of the President; rehabilitation of the 

public works building. But we are also focusing not only in Monrovia where people can see these projects, but in rural areas. 

This is where some of what is happening on this quick impact 

also relates to child survival and health and child soldiers because 

we are concentrating very heavily in the rural areas, and a part 

of where we are concentrating is in the southeastern corner of Liberia, and which have been a large number of child soldiers, large 

number of displaced, large number of refugees, and rehabilitation 

is occurring of the Swedru hospital, rehabilitation of the Swedru 

school. Completion should occur very soon of the Barclayville 

Bridge, which gives better access to some of the social services, also 

obviously helps on the commercial. 

So there is a wide variety of projects and just this week in Monrovia there has been meeting with the government to try to make 

sure that we have identified the type of quick impact projects that 

President Johnson-Sirleaf and her government would feel are the 

most important and the most visible. A part of that also, and this is another $6 million that is committed within the first 150 days, relates to GEMAP and getting 

those kind of qualified technical advisors in place so that the very 

visible impact of how these ministries or these different authorities 

are being run. 

32

So a wide variety of projects, but the overall idea is working with 

the Government of Liberia to identify what President JohnsonSirleaf and her government feels would be the most important. 

On child survival, it is a little bit more difficult on the funding 

streams because it divides up into several different operating units 

that we would have or different type of activities. For instance, the 

supplemental that was approved by Congress, the $200 million 

that went for 2004–2005, $25 million of that went for health, different types of health kind of needs. 

So I know the numbers that you mentioned are accurate numbers, but that is not entirely the total picture because there is 

other type of funding, other type of activities that do——

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Could you provide that for the 

record? 

Mr. PIERSON. Certainly. 

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. And exactly how it breaks down so 

we get a good read on it? 

Mr. PIERSON. Certainly, and some, for instance, that I could give 

out of that, there were five clinics that were rebuilt out of that 

monies. It is not just the personnel. It is having the facilities there, 

17 schools refurbished, and part of what is important on the 

schools, and there was also five administrative buildings. 

Part of what is important and does relate to health needs, because you also, with the rebuilding of these, you have better water 

sanitation that is built within the system. So you have water sanitation in the schools where you might not have had before, you 

have got water sanitation in the clinic. But certainly we will be 

happy to provide that for the record. 

The number that we have for child survival specifically in 2006, if you just look at that number, that is $3.164 million, which does 

not address the entire picture, and that $3.164 actually can—is 

even, if you break it down into the different type of activities that 

occur within that, some of that includes HIV/AIDS, other includes 

some of the malaria. 

But on larger numbers where other kind of funding fits in, the 

humanitarian assistance in 2005, that was a level of $37.5 million 

in humanitarian assistance, but 30 percent of that went to health 

and child survival type of needs. 

So I mean, it is a part of our emphasis. The funding streams can 

be very—actually, I mean, I think they are quite—they are larger 

than what you might just see in one category. 

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. If you could, while you are still answering, is there an effort to engage the faith-based community? 

Mr. PIERSON. Oh, absolutely. I talk to our mission directors a lot. 

I mean, this is a great question, sir. I talk to our mission directors 

a lot about what are the most effective things that we do, or that 

the United States does, and one of the activities they repeatedly 

say are that the faith-based organizations are at the grassroots 

level, they are rural areas, and they are very effective. 

Their comments actually have spurred me, we have just committed right at a million dollars for a United States organization 

operating a food resources bank in concert with a number of African countries. We are going to try to do more. We are also putting 

together another conference worldwide on this, but we as an orgaVerDate Mar 21 2002 17:01 May 01, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 F:\WORK\AGI\020806\26015.000 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL
33

nization, as an Africa bureau, we are putting together a faith-based 

conference in September in which we want to explore specifically 

for Africa how we can partnership more. 

It is time and again our mission directors and overseas staff say 

that the faith-based organizations are among the most effective in 

dealing with the issues in Africa. 

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. And you may have begun to answer, 

but on the debt issue, and also if I could, on child soldiers as part 

of your answer, is there any effort to bring the churches into that? 

Because obviously with post-traumatic stress disorder and other 

problems these young men almost invariably will experience—you 

know, they will wake up with nightmares just like torture victims 

as we have found to be the case—having committed such atrocities 

and there seems to be a real niche there for churches to help with 

spiritual counseling as well as part of the emotional counseling. 

Mr. PIERSON. Certainly with the churches a lot of involvement, 

but if I can expand a little bit, not only Liberia but across Africa, 

because we are seeing some demographic changes in Africa that we 

have never seen before, and a lot of that deals with youth and child 

soldiers, but also the projections, you know, all across Africa. 

When you look at a projection of 40 millions AIDs orphans. I 

mean, that is just a staggering number across the continent. 

With child soldiers, what you have got in Liberia, with the 

HIV/AIDS problems with all of the orphans, you have got a large 

number of children who are growing up that have not grown up or 

are not growing up in a traditional type of Africa setting. They are 

not there with their mom and dad and grandparents in a village. 

They are orphans, and for many of them all they have ever known 

is carrying a weapon. 

So across the continent this is a major part of what USAID is 

really focusing on, and so much of that deals also with rural versus 

urban issues, because many of these youth go to urban areas, so 

this is one of those areas that crosses over a number of different 

type of activities. 

In Liberia, we have the Liberia Community Infrastructure 

Project, which essentially is jobs, jobs, jobs, and for these ex-combatants, for these child soldiers, it is vocational training. It is counseling. It is a different kind of reintegration counseling that they 

might need, but it is training in carpentry, electronics, and trying 

to make sure that these youth are not just wandering around, that 

there is a job for them to do, and they are part of the reintegration 

and reconstruction of Liberia. 

So the child soldiers through all of these areas is very central not 

only in Liberia but is central all across Africa. It is a major priority 

of what we are doing. 

Thank you. 

Ms. FRAZER. Yes, just to pick up where Lloyd left on the demobilization and disarmament, that has been led by the UN, concluded 

in 2004. We had about 103,000 former combatants who had gone 

through the program, and now we are working with those youth, 

especially on infrastructure and development programs. 

Within Liberia, we have a program called The Liberia Community Infrastructure Project in which we are training and providing 

job opportunities for many of these former child soldiers. 

34

They were in fact the ones who cleaned up Monrovia, the capital, 

for the inauguration of the new President, and I can say that they 

actually did a fabulous job. For the first time the grass was cut 

around the executive mansion. The transformation from when I 

was there in October to going back in January was fabulous. So we 

are working with them. 

We are going to spend about $41–$42 million dollars in Fiscal 

Year 2006 ESF and it will focus on this LCIP program on education, renovating schools, providing teacher training facilities so 

that you can integrate these child soldiers both in terms of jobs but 

also in terms of education and providing them health services, as 

Lloyd said. 

On the question of the debt, I will go back and ask Treasury the 

specifics of what they are doing, but in general our approach toward Liberia and its economic reform is to fast-track. As I said, we 

are going to work toward getting them in GSP as well as moving 

them toward a goal. 

We would have to deal with the debt in the context of the IMF 

and the World Bank because our debt relief program is with the 

heavily-indebted poor countries, so we need to get Liberia on that 

track of heavily-indebted poor countries to get them to a decision. 

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Is that something you want to do? 

Ms. FRAZER. Yes, definitely. Again, we are committed. Obviously, 

when we move them through the program very quickly, we will 

need OMB also to score their debt for its present value, and we 

would also need Congress to appropriate the money to offset from 

Treasury any cancellation that we would do on a bilateral or a unilateral basis. But most importantly for economic reform it is beneficial to put them in the multilateral context of the IMF. 

We think they will do very well because, as was stated by Congressman Watson, the current President was a former finance minister, and by all accounts she is—one of her first appointments to 

her new ministry is a finance minister who has been at the IMF, 

who was—or the new finance minister has been at the World Bank, 

and has tremendous credibility within the international financial 

institutions, so we would expect to be able to deal with the debt 

issue rather quickly. 

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Let me just ask three quick questions before I yield to my good friend, Ambassador Watson. 

On the issue of extraditing Charles Taylor, what exact sequence 

of events are necessary to effectuate that, especially given the fact 

that some Taylor associates remain in the government? Does that 

pose problems? 

Is it our view that he has violated his terms and conditions of 

exile in terms of fomenting problems in the region? Have we done 

a qualitative analysis on that and said, yes, he has made mistakes, 

he has violated those terms? 

Do you look at Liberia as a potential candidate for PEPFAR? As 

you know, being in PEPFAR does not necessarily mean you have 

a high infection rate. Vietnam certainly is a classic case, and I was 

just in Vietnam for 5 days meeting with religious and political dissidents there. That was picked, and that country does not have a 

major incidence of HIV/AIDS, but it was done to try to prevent it. 

35

Would not Liberia, especially as part of this package, lend itself 

to an effort to obviously mitigate the problem as it exists, but also 

put an effort into prevention and make it a PEPFAR country? 

Then finally, when I met with President Johnson-Sirleaf, and I 

too was deeply impressed with her capabilities as was, I think, everybody who has met with her, and we want her to succeed in the 

greatest of ways, I talked to her about trafficking. 

As you know, I wrote the Trafficking Victim Protection Act of 

2000, 2003 and 2005, and the 2005 act, which was just signed by 

President Bush, there is language there dealing with UN peacekeeping. 

Our Committee has had a few hearings already on the atrocities 

committed by UN peacekeepers, especially in the Congo, exchanging a loaf of bread for rape of a 13-year-old, and there are many 

instances of that, and we talked about that at great length. 

I am wondering how we might be able to help with that large 

contingent obviously to ensure that these peacekeepers do not violate young girls and young women in Liberia. She was very concerned about that herself, so if you could maybe speak to that as 

well. 

As you know, for any mission that is new or reauthorized there 

needs to be a reporting by Dr. Rice to the Congress as to what efforts are being made to ensure transparency, a vetting of those who 

might be deployed or are already deployed, and best practices to 

hold those account, especially, who might commit these crimes. 

Ms. FRAZER. Okay. On the issue of Charles Taylor and the Special Court and whether there is any particular sequence for addressing him, really there is not except that we have a UN Security 

Council resolution that authorizes UNMIL to arrest him, to apprehend him and transfer him to the Sierra Leone Special Court 

should he go back to Liberia. That is the only thing that is an 

international obligation as such. 

The rest of the sequence is really a matter of understanding. It 

is a matter of policy. It is a matter of—it is not—let me put it this 

way: President Obasanjo has said that he will turn him over to Liberia on the request of the new President of Liberia. That is a matter of Nigeria policy. 

The only thing that is a matter of international obligation is the 

Security Council resolution, and so at any point through our dialogue, or diplomacy, we can change the sequencing of events, that 

is just a matter of policy. 

We have said, and Secretary Rice has said, to President 

Obasanjo in her meetings with him as well as to President Johnson-Sirleaf, that we would want to make sure that Charles Taylor 

is turned over to the Sierra Leone court, the sooner the better, and 

that as a matter of policy that is where the United States has been. 

You know, the impunity cannot stand. He has to be held accountable. He must be tried before the Sierra Leone court where he has 

been indicted. 

So the sequence of getting him there, if he tries on his own to 

go back to Liberia, we would expect UNMIL to arrest and apprehend him. Nigeria could transfer him to the Sierra Leone court directly if they should choose to do so as a matter of policy. They can 

transfer him to Liberia if they choose to do so, but I think it is a 

36

mistake, this notion that somehow the new President of Liberia 

must make a request, and that is the order of sequencing. That is 

a matter of Nigerian policy and not as a matter of international obligation. 

But we would expect for Charles Taylor to be turned over to the 

court, and we have always said as a matter of policy that he needs 

to be turned over at the right time and the right time for us was 

a newly-elected Government in Liberia. And so now is the right 

time. 

Do Charles Taylor’s supporters or former supporters represent 

problems for the new government or even for his being handed over 

to the Sierra Leone court? 

To be quite frank, my own assessment is no, and I say that based 

on at every point of this transition, from the establishment of this 

government of former warlords, some of them, because it was a 

government established out of a peace agreement, so LURD, 

MODELL, the Government of Liberia were all there. At that point 

it was very delicate. 

There was concern about Charles Taylor manipulating all the 

way up through both elections, the first round and the second 

round. There was concern that Charles Taylor was somehow going 

to destabilize the election. 

My sense of the Liberian people is they have moved on. They 

were not talking about Charles Taylor. The media was talking 

about Charles Taylor. The Liberian people were talking about their 

freedom and choosing who their next elected President would be. 

There was some discussion about the quality of the candidates. 

There was not any discussion about—that I heard from the public—about what Charles Taylor might or might not do. 

So at every point there has been concern of his ability to effect 

and influence Liberian society, and we have not seen any demonstration of that. I would expect that we can hand him over or 

have him handed over to the Sierra Leone court, especially early 

on when we are at full strength with UNMIL and other forces, to 

maintain the stability in Liberia and that we would see that he in 

fact has very little influence, but obviously we will have to test 

that. But at every point of a test before he has failed to demonstrate influence in Liberia. 

As far as violating conditions of his exile, again as a matter of 

policy, I believe that there were—I do not know how many, but 

there was a list of conditions that President Obasanjo had established. And when we did the vetting, clearly he had violated some 

of those, for instance, trying to communicate with various former 

ministers. There was some transfer of funds, I think, that we had 

seen. 

Now, when I say that we have seen it, this was back in 2004. 

I do not know if we have done a thorough assessment since I left. 

I am sure that there has been but I just have not been involved 

in it when I went off to be Ambassador to South Africa. 

But the point being, whether he has violated conditions of exile 

or not, the Sierra Leone court has indicted him, and he has to be 

turned over. And as I said, it is a matter of Administration policy 

that the sooner the better. 

37

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Did you want to speak to PEPFAR 

and to trafficking? Would that be Mr. Pierson? 

Mr. PIERSON. First on the trafficking in persons, in conflict, in 

post-conflict situations we almost invariably see whether pervasive 

is the word or not, it comes very close of gender-based violence, 

trafficking in persons, and that is a part of the planning in Liberia. 

Much has already occurred, but it goes from the very local 

grassroot level in terms of planning and activities, on up to the national 

For instance, part of the reconstruction, reintegration efforts are 

the development of community development committees at every 

level of local government, and a part of that is the creation in different area of women’s group to address gender-based violence, to 

address issues such as trafficking in persons. 

On up to the national level with the legislature, one of the very 

typical things that organizations such as IRI, NDI do when they 

work with the legislative body overseas and with the executive 

branch is to really try to strengthen the rule of law, and they look 

at a wide range of kind of human rights abuses that occur, and try 

to get into the law much, much stronger statutory language addressing these issues. 

And then, of course, in Liberia is try to build up the court system, try to build up the police system. Then I think you have got 

somewhat of a comprehensive approach, but that is a part of the 

planning. Obviously not there now, but it is a part of the planning 

that is occurring. 

The PEPFAR, venturing off just a little bit, but the new administrator to be nominated or announced of USAID is currently the 

PEPFAR head of that, and we are briefing him later this week, so 

that is something that I can bring up, Mr. Chairman, in terms of 

a formal designation of Liberia. 

But certainly there is funding. There is a commitment for 

HIV/AIDS. The global fund at USAID has committed $7.7 million 

over the next 2 years, and then out of the Africa Bureau funds we 

have got a little over a million dollars that is committed. 

But the process to be a formal PEPFAR country is not one that 

I could decide or that our bureau could decide. 

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. It would seem to be prudent, I would 

think. 

Mr. PIERSON. Yes. 

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. So let us stay in touch on that. 

Ambassador Watson. 

Ms. WATSON. I think, Mr. Chairman—thank you. I think you 

have just about raised all the questions I had in mind. I wanted 

to find out how soon Charles Taylor would be transferred, and I 

think your answer indicated it should be soon, and I am sure that 

the new President will keep that as a focal point. 

The other thing too, and I think Mr. Pierson addressed that, I 

am very interested in the educational program because most of 

these children soldiers were never in school, and if they were, they 

dropped out of school. Very few of the children in Liberia had an 

opportunity for an education, so I would hope that we could assist 

in helping them design a program within the schools to make the 

transition from children who have never had structured training 

38

but psychological counseling, because it is going to take awhile to 

free them up from the use of violence as a means to get over, and 

without attention they will revert back. 

So I would hope that the new health programs within the country and the educational programs will take into account trying to 

rehabilitate, and public safety and justice becomes in focus as well, 

and there is a possibility that these children revert back to negative behavior and end up in their prisons and so on. So I would 

hope that there will be a new era of rehabilitation, and hope that 

we can assist through USAID and any of the other programs, just 

concentrating on the youth, those that were soldiers, those that 

were victims as well. 

So I would appreciate whatever the State Department can do in 

helping the country as they rebuild their infrastructure, they rebuild their programmatic systems will take into account the rehabilitation process. 

Mr. PIERSON. You are absolutely right. There is over an 80 percent illiteracy rate in Liberia and strictly in primary education we 

have committed $18 million over the next 2-year period. That does 

also not address the monies that would come in terms of vocational 

training. The community infrastructure project dealing specifically 

with the youth is very heavily weighted toward vocational training 

so they can be a part of the reconstruction and get jobs, but the 

formal education is also very important, and we are looking into 

that. 

Ms. WATSON. Let me just add this, that, yes, they need skills 

training, vocational, but they need training in how to re-address—

build their social skills. 

Mr. PIERSON. Right. 

Ms. WATSON. And how to transition from the only life they knew 

to a new life of opportunity. So I am looking for whatever rehabilitation programs that can be started up through our USAID efforts. 

I think this is going to be a major part. Then education will supplement that, but we have got to bring these youngsters back in 

where they can live, not as sociopaths. 

Mr. PIERSON. Right. 

Ms. WATSON. But as members in a society and live well, and so 

I think that has to be a focus even beyond giving them skills training and learning and literacy. They must learn how to mesh in successfully with society. So I do hope that rehabilitation becomes a 

top priority under the education system. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Thank you. Chairman Royce. 

Mr. ROYCE. Thank you, Chairman Smith. I wanted just to, Dr. 

Frazer, bring up the one point, and it has to do with the Special 

Court. Congress expressed a very strong interest in Fiscal Year 

2006 for an operations bill, including funding, and Senator Obuma 

and I led a bipartisan effort which included Chairman Smith here, 

and Congresswoman Watson as well, to secure $13 million for the 

court, and this funding them would see the court through the end 

of its mandate. And the funding along with other language in the 

bill also made Congress’ position on Taylor and the court crystal 

clear. 

39

We supported this effort because assistance establishing the rule 

of law is key if the continent is to advance from its conflicts and 

from poverty, and our colleagues on the Appropriations Committee, 

which we sat down and discussed this with, agreed with us. 

However, it has come to my attention that the Administration 

has approached Congress in an attempt to reprogram significant 

amounts in the economic support fund account, and that would significantly alter this $13 million. These discussions are ongoing, and 

I certainly realize that these discussions were probably made outside your area, and that more than the funds for the court are on 

the table for realignment. I know that. 

But I wanted to make you aware of our concern, and again emphasize that Congress continues to have a strong interest in the 

fund for the Special Court, and we continue to watch this very 

closely, and I wondered if you had a response or an observation on 

this front. 

Ms. FRAZER. Yes, thank you very much. 

It is my understanding that Special Prosecutor DeSilva has estimated that he needs about $25 million——

Mr. ROYCE. Right. 

Ms. FRAZER [continuing]. For 2006, and I expect in the next com- ing week or 2 that we would provide about $6 million. This combined with $9 million and $7 million that we have provided already 

would give us about $22 million out of the $25 million. So our 

sense is, you know, as you said, this will continue to go back and 

forth under discussion. 

Mr. ROYCE. Right. 

Ms. FRAZER. We need to narrow down what exactly is the 

amount required. But on the positive side we will be providing, I 

think it is about $5.9 million or so in the coming weeks to the Sierra Leone court so it can continue. 

Mr. ROYCE. Well, here would be my observation on that. The 

court operates purely on a voluntary basis. Other member states, 

13 of them, have pledged $8.8 million. So assuming the court were 

to receive the $13 million that we originally programmed and that 

was signed into law, it would still have a budgetary shortfall of 

$3.2 million based on that math. 

Obviously a significant reduction in the United States appropriation would undermine the court’s ability to complete the three 

trials in process, and in my view would weaken the rule of law in 

Africa. So that is why I bring up this point, that Congress, which 

controls the purse strings, passed a bill emphasizing a specific 

amount to go, in this case to the Special Court in Sierra Leone. The 

bill was signed into law, and so we expect that to happen, so hence 

my concern on that front. 

Another question I was going to ask you about was a troubling 

report that we received about corruption in Liberia’s transitional 

national Government, and I was going to ask you what Liberians 

are doing or what we are doing to hold those who stole funds accountable in this regard. 

Ms. FRAZER. Thank you. I think that the person who is doing the 

most to try to hold them accountable is actually the new President 

who, as you know, fired the political appointees in her Ministry of 

Finance I think to make this point. 

40

We obviously have a couple of instruments at hand that we can 

use on dealing with corruption of the previous—we have a lot of 

individuals who have travel bans right now, the visa ban. 

Mr. ROYCE. Yes. 

Ms. FRAZER. If we have the information on particular individuals 

in that transition government who have stolen, we can ban them 

from coming to the United States through the visa ban. That is one 

way in which we, the United States, can deal with them. 

Obviously, as I said, we are trying to support and build the justice system in Liberia so if they have information they can actually 

try them within their national courts. 

Mr. ROYCE. Yes, and I would think that would be very important 

because more than just firing, the follow-up action in terms of prosecution, that has a real deterrent effect——

Ms. FRAZER. Exactly. 

Mr. ROYCE [continuing]. On the next guy. 

Ms. FRAZER. Absolutely. 

Mr. ROYCE. So my hope would be that we can work in concert 

with the Liberians in standing up those courts and moving forward 

with their prosecutor on those cases. 

Thank you very much again, Dr. Frazer, for all you are doing. 

Ms. FRAZER. Thank you. 

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Let me just conclude with one final 

three set of questions. 

In his testimony that he will give momentarily, David Crane, the 

former Chief Prosecutor for the Special Court for Sierra Leone, offers a roadmap for a successful beginning in Liberia, for Liberia. 

Obviously, the first one is handing over Charles Taylor for a fair 

trial for crimes committed. Second, he talks about tying any financial and political support to good governance in Liberia. 

The third, and I wish you would speak to this especially, encourage the Administration to establish the Truth and Reconciliation 

Commission that was called for in the earlier peace accords in 

2003. What is the status of that? 

Fourth, he makes the point that within the next few years that 

there needs to be another hybrid war crimes tribunal for crimes 

committed by Charles Taylor and his henchmen from 1990 to 2003 

in Liberia, and, as he points out so aptly, that Charles Taylor is 

responsible for destroying not one but two nations. 

What is your sense of a new hybrid court to follow in the Special 

Court for Sierra Leone, and again, the Truth and Reconciliation 

Commission? 

Ms. FRAZER. Yes, thank you very much, and I certainly agree as 

you said, that there has to be accountability. On the final point, we 

have not taken any policy decision about a hybrid court. But my 

own sense of it is if it is to try crimes committed in Liberia, again 

the Liberia national courts should be developed to be able to hold 

accountable any of its citizens. But we would have to look at the 

idea, study it carefully, and then come to some policy decision on 

whether a hybrid court would be necessary outside of the normal 

court system. 

On the question of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, we 

have been working with them. As I said, we are trying to establish 

these legal advice centers. I know that when I was in Liberia in 

41

January I met with the leadership of the Truth and Reconciliation 

Commission. They asked specifically for new funding for that commission. They seem to have a national process up and going. 

We certainly support reconciliation. We support accountability, 

and we would have to look at the funding that we could provide 

for the Truth and Reconciliation, and certainly if Congress has a 

specific interest in us providing significant resources, I would welcome that discussion. But in principle, we certainly do support it, 

and know our Ambassador, Ambassador Booth, is also working 

closely with the leadership. 

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. That is why I am raising it, because 

there is concern and interest here. 

Ms. FRAZER. Yes. 

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. There is a footnote, and I think it 

is a very good one. I have not read the report but I will now, for 

Amnesty International, and former Chief Prosecutor Crane makes 

the point that the local courts are likely to be incapable of prosecuting those people, and I think there is a separation, frankly, 

that a hybrid court or a court that is under an international jurisdiction, and the imprimatur that gives that the whole world is 

watching rather than some local judge who could be intimidated, 

could be threatened with his or her life. It raises into a different 

standard and gives a certain protection, frankly, for the local courts 

who then can deal with other matters of criminality in Liberia. 

So I think the point is very well taken in his testimony, and I 

certainly hope you will take it back. 

Ms. FRAZER. Certainly, I will. We will, and we will consider it 

very seriously, but I just will say again though that what we are 

trying to do is restore Liberia, and eventually the national courts 

have to operate for sustainable accountability, sustainable peace 

and justice in that society, and obviously when we have constraints 

of resources we have to make careful judgments about where that 

investment will go, and I for one am looking to invest today for the 

long-term future. 

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. But if I could, if you do not mind me 

interrupting, one of the genius, I thought, of the Sierra Leone Special Court was that not only does it leave an infrastructure, a physical plant, but it also leaves behind people who now are better 

trained and much more adept at dealing with all the nuances of 

gathering evidence, presenting that evidence if they are prosecutors, and certainly adjudicating that evidence if they are on the 

other side of the table. 

You know, it is almost like they are left now with a very good 

model as opposed to just shipping people off to The Hague, to the 

ICC where, you know, it is then—that consequence, that positive 

consequence is not left behind, so there could be a further enhancing, I think, of their capabilities in Liberia to adjudicate the rule 

of law and to administer the rule of law. 

Ms. FRAZER. Absolutely, and one of the things that we might look 

at as well is to support the African Union in creating its own court 

of justice so that the continent as a whole has that infrastructure 

in place. So yes. 

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Mr. Payne. 

42

Mr. PAYNE. Thank you very much. Sorry that I missed your testimony, Mr. Pierson, but I too think it is important that there be a 

strengthening of the rule of law. I think that we have to send a 

message that dictators wherever they are will be held accountable, 

and that they cannot escape any longer. And so I am a strong supporter of Special Courts. 

As a matter of fact, I support the International Criminal Court 

and the Rome Agreements, and I think that when leaders know 

that they are going to be held accountable, I think they may give 

second thoughts to their behavior, and so I do not want people to 

misconstrue my reluctance on making the first step going against 

Taylor. I think that we have to get Taylor. Taylor has to be brought 

before the court of justice. 

I think that Special Prosecutor Crane has done an outstanding 

job. We have had opportunities to even meet at other meetings, and 

applaud what he has done, and it is courageous, it is right, it is 

the right thing to do, and so there is no softness on Taylor. I believe that he needs to come before a court. 

My whole statement earlier was that I do not want to see a diversion where that is the thrust, and other things start crumbling 

around. We know where he is, and I am sure that we have got surveillance on him, where he is going, what he is doing, listening. If 

he is using a cell phone, believe me, you can listen to cell points. 

I am sure we will listen to any call he makes. We can just transfer 

some of our equipment over there. [Laughter.] 

And so I am not that concerned about what he is saying. Let me 

just ask about the military. Could either one of you bring me up 

to date on just how the vetting is going? 

Mr. ROYCE. Will the gentleman yield? 

Mr. PAYNE. Yes. 

Mr. ROYCE. If he would just stay away from those conversations 

with al-Quada, he would have been okay. 

Mr. PAYNE. That is right. 

Could you let me know how the force is coming? I know that I 

think it is a Jamaican officer in charge of the training. I think the 

police is separate from the armed forces. Could either one of you 

break that down and how it is going, and how much do we have 

to sustain the force? 

Ms. FRAZER. I certainly will. We are spending $60 million for security sector reform, and we have demobilized 14,000 members of 

the old armed forces of Liberia, including their band, and we started the recruitment on January 18. The expectation is we would be 

able to develop a new army of about 2,000 based on Liberia’s own 

resources by 2008. 

Mr. PAYNE. There was some work being done on facilities training. 

Ms. FRAZER. Yes. 

Mr. PAYNE. How is that moving along? 

Ms. FRAZER. We have refurbished the Barclay Training Center so 

it is currently in use for recruiting for the new army, and we have 

secured the camp which I have trouble pronouncing, Schiefflin, I 

think, which will be the army training camp. We have secured that 

camp, and so we are fencing it in, erecting the perimeter, but it 

will be ready for use. 

43

Mr. PAYNE. How is the opposition, you know, George Weah came 

out ahead in the first run and had a lot of young people engaged 

and so forth, how has the opposition, him in particular and other 

opposition parties been accepting the new mandate? 

Ms. FRAZER. Well, one good thing is George Weah and other candidates were at the inauguration, which I think was an important 

symbol of reconciliation and acceptance of the results, and the vote 

of the Liberian people. So we are quite encouraged by that signal. 

Clearly there needs to be quite a lot done to bring his constituents into the political and economic process, to work toward a reconciliation. The new President has reached out to the youth, to try 

to make sure that they feel a part, even if some did not work for 

her, that they feel a part of her new government, the new society 

that she is trying to create. So, so far so good. 

The main candidate has said that he will stay outside of government. There was some discussion about whether he would take up 

a Cabinet position. He said he will stay outside of government and 

act as a loyal opposition. This is extremely important for a transition to competitive elections rather than the type of process of civil 

war winner take all that has been Liberia’s past. 

Mr. PIERSON. And I might mention, Congressman, one of the central themes of all of the activities that we have got is youth in Liberia, not just in Monrovia, but also a lot of concentration in some 

of the more difficult, the areas of unrest, and trying to make sure 

that those youth have education, that they have vocational training, part of the Liberia community infrastructure project where 

they have jobs, and they are just not idle and unemployed. 

Mr. PAYNE. Just finally, almost final, the question of UN peacekeepers, as we know their time is coming to a—I do not know if 

anyone asked the question before. What is our position on that? 

We know that it is costly and I am concerned that if we withdraw without having the 2,000 or the police standing, that we may 

have a gap. We do believe that there is still armed factions out in 

the rural areas. What is the position of the Administration on support of UNMIL, I guess it is? 

Ms. FRAZER. Well, certainly we would continue to support them, 

and when their mandate would run out we would make an assessment of the security environment at that time. We did this with 

UNAMSIL in Sierra Leone. So obviously if we do not feel that the 

environment is secure in consultation with the UN, in consultation 

with the Government of Liberia, we would be prepared to extend 

that mandate as we have done in other peacekeeping missions 

around the world. 

Hopefully though we would have a situation where Liberia is 

standing on its own two feet, but we have a huge investment there, 

and we are certainly not going to put it at risk by prematurely having UNMIL leave. 

Mr. PAYNE. And finally with sanctions, you know, there was a 

concern about moving sanctions, taking sanctions off too quickly. 

What is the position on sanctions, and how much longer do you 

think that timber and diamonds and those kind of things should 

remain on the list? 

Ms. FRAZER. Thank you. Well, certainly, again, we would want 

sanctions to be taken off the list quickly. At the end of December, 

44

the UN Security Council renewed the sanctions on diamonds for 

another year, and on timber for 6 months. 

What we are trying to do is work with Liberia to establish accounting mechanism for the revenue that is coming on from diamonds. We have an initiative, the Liberia Force Initiative, which 

will provide for transparency and effective management. Once we 

have that up and running, and I know this is a priority of President Sirleaf, we would then look at trying to remove those sanctions. But the problem is those resources and the revenue have 

been used to fuel war. They have been used for corruption, and so 

we think it is most important to get the management system in 

place. 

Mr. PAYNE. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very 

much. 

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Mr. Royce, you had something for the 

record? 

Mr. ROYCE. Oh, I would like to put into the record the letter to 

the Foreign Operations Appropriations Conferees that we sent requesting the $13 million, and the report of the Appropriations 

Committee on the $13 million dedicated to Sierra Leone Special 

Court for the record without objection. 

And lastly, I just wanted to indicate too that I had the privilege 

of testifying at Mr. Lloyd Pierson’s confirmation hearing, and working with him on the ground in West Africa on elections, and I 

wanted to acknowledge the good work he is doing as well as Assistant Secretary Frazer, so thank you very much for allowing me to 

do that. 

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Without objection. 

[The information referred to follows:]

October 12, 2005

Senator MITCH MCCONNELL, Chairman, 

Subcommittee on State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs

Senator PATRICK J. LEAHY, Ranking Member, 

Subcommittee on State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs

The Honorable JIM KOLBE, Chairman, 

Subcommittee on Foreign Operations Export Financing, and Related Programs

The Honorable NITA M. LOWEY, Ranking Member, 

Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs

Dear Chairmen McConnell and Kolbe, and Ranking Members Leahy and Lowey: 

As you work to reconcile the differences between the FY06 Foreign Operations Appropriations provisions, we respectfully request that $13 million be included in the 

conference report for the Special Court for Sierra Leone. The Senate passed version 

of the State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs includes this important, bipartisan amendment. 

Through our respective roles in Congress, we have watched and supported the 

Special Court for Sierra Leone as it has worked to further the rule of law in Sierra 

Leone and West Africa. The mandate of the U.S.-backed Court is to prosecute those 

who bear the greatest responsibility for atrocities committed during Sierra Leone’s 

brutal war years. Unlike the tribunals of Rwanda or Yugoslavia, the Special Court 

is located in the country where the war crimes were committed, utilizes both local 

and international judges and personnel in its operations, and has operated at a fraction of the cost of the aforementioned tribunals. 

The Special Court has moved aggressively to issue indictments, detain suspects, 

and adjudicate cases. Of its original 13 indictments, 11 are currently active. Nine 

indictees are in the custody of the Court in Freetown. The Court is scheduled to 

wrap-up operations in 2006, just four years after it was established. However, for 

45

a number of unforeseen reasons, the Court needs an additional year of funding and 

we believe this should be an important priority of U.S. foreign policy in West Africa. 

As you are aware, the Court’s top indictee, former Liberian President Charles 

Taylor, remains out of its reach, being harbored in Nigeria. The Court has indicted 

Taylor on 17 counts of war crimes and crimes against humanity for his role in destroying countless lives in Sierra Leone. His support for the Revolutionary Untied 

Front makes him directly responsible for terrorizing and subjecting civilians to mass 

murder, rape, severe mutilation, and massive forced conscription of children. Moreover, the job of promoting regional peace and security cannot be completed until Mr. 

Taylor appears before the Special Court to answer to the charges against him. Allowing Taylor to continue to interfere in Liberian affairs—with the possible outcome 

that those loyal to him win the upcoming elections—could undermine the entire 

international investment in Liberia’s reconstruction. 

Earlier this year, both houses of Congress passed H. Con. Res. 127, calling on 

Taylor to be transferred to the Special Court. By including these funds in the Foreign Operations Conference report, the Congress can send a powerful message that 

bringing Taylor to justice is a top U.S. priority. Doing so will help further U.S.-Nigeria relations, help bring peace to Liberia, and strengthen the rule of law on the continent. These resources will make it clear that Taylor cannot wait out the life of 

the Court. 

We appreciate that you must evaluate many provisions to address African needs 

and advance U.S. interests in Africa. Assistance establishing the rule of law, we believe, is a key need if the continent is to escape from its conflicts and poverty. The 

Special Court for Sierra Leone has made an important contribution to the rule of 

law in West Africa in a short time. Its work though is not complete and we respectfully ask for these additional funds to be retained in conference. 

We appreciate your considering our request that this innovative effort to hold accountable war criminals receives strong U.S. backing until the job is done. 

Sincerely, 

Senator Barack Obama 

Representative Ed Royce 

Senator Chuck Hagel 

Representative Frank R. Wolf 

Senator Jack Reed 

Representative Diane Watson 

Senator Mike DeWine 

Representative Christopher H. Smith 

Senator Russ Feingold 

Representative Vic Snyder 

Senator Lincoln D. Chafee 

Representative Sue W. Kelly 

Representative Betty McCollum 

46


260150001.eps
47


260150002.eps
48


260150003.eps
49


260150004.eps
50


260150005.eps
51


260150006.eps
52


260150007.eps
53


260150008.eps
54

Mr. PIERSON. Thank you Congressmen, I do not think I would 

have been confirmed without your coming and testifying. 

Mr. ROYCE. We do not have any votes over there, but you did not 

have any problem. With or without me, I do not think you had any 

problem, Lloyd, getting confirmed. Thank you. 

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Mr. Tancredo? 

Okay, thank you so much for your patience and for your excellent 

answers. We look forward to following up on several of those that 

you said you would get back and we will continue this dialogue and 

this partnership. Thank you so much. 

Ms. FRAZER. Thank you. 

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. I would like to now invite to the witness table Dr. J. Peter Pham, who is Director of the William R. 

Nelson Institute for International and Public Affairs, and Assistant 

Professor of Justice Studies at James Madison University, which I 

will note parenthetically is where my daughter got her graduate 

degree in public administration, my oldest daughter. He is also an 

affiliate faculty member of the Department of Political Science and 

associate faculty member of the African Studies Program. During 

the current academic year, he is directing a pilot study in Africa’s 

place in a strategic vision of America’s future energy security. 

Then we will hear from Vivian Lowery Derryck, who is the Senior Vice President and Director of Public-Private Partnerships at 

the Academy for Educational Development. Previously, Ms. 

Derryck served as the Assistant Administrator of Africa at USAID. 

Ms. Derryck has held numerous positions in both government and 

the private sector, including Deputy Assistant Secretary at the U.S. 

Department of State and Executive Vice President of the National 

Council of Negro Women. 

Finally, we will hear from David Crane, who is the distinguished 

Visiting Professor of Law at Syracuse University College of Law in 

the summer of 2005. Prior to that time he served as the Chief Prosecutor of the Special Court for Sierra Leone. Professor Crane was 

the first American judge since Justice Robert Jackson and Telford 

Taylor at Nuremberg, in 1945, to be the Chief Prosecutor of an 

international war crimes tribunal. During his three decades of public service, he has served as Senior Inspector General for the Department of Defense and as the Assistant General Counsel for the 

Defense Intelligence Agency. 

Thank you all for being here, and please, Dr. Pham, if you could 

begin. 

STATEMENT OF J. PETER PHAM, Ph.D., DIRECTOR, WILLIAM R. 

NELSON INSTITUTE FOR INTERNATIONAL AND PUBLIC AFFAIRS, JAMES MADISON UNIVERSITY 

Mr. PHAM. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee, I am 

honored and pleased to be invited to speak before you today on Liberia, and I ask that with your permission my written testimony 

be entered into the record. 

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Without objection, so ordered. 

Mr. PHAM. Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf’s inauguration as the 24th 

President of Liberia is undoubtedly an historically significant event 

for a number of reasons, and the generally smooth transition back 

to constitutional government has fulfilled one of the key objectives 

55

of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement, which ended the country’s 

civil war. 

However, in my opinion, it would be dangerous to overestimate 

the importance of this event in the context of violent conflicts that 

have racked Liberia for nearly three decades, and which have repeatedly ignited regional conflagrations that consumed—and, in 

some parts, continues to plague—its neighbors Sierra Leone, Guinea, and Cote d’Ivoir. 

To paraphrase Robert Frost, there are still many promises to 

keep and miles to go. While the installation of the new government 

completes the electoral process, by my reckoning at least six major 

challenges must be addressed by the new government and the 

international community as part of a comprehensive national and 

regional peacebuilding process. 

Mr. Chairman, with your permission, I will briefly simply list 

each of these challenges, and then proceed to addressing the regional context. 

The six challenges are: One, building a national government. It 

should be noted that the orderly, well-administered, and free and 

fair nature of the Liberian poll is remarkable in the region. However, the electorate, as we have noted earlier, has complicated 

President Johnson-Sirleaf’s task in a number of ways. First, it gave 

no single party a governing mandate; and second, the electoral results also show a worrying but not surprising persistence of regional patterns of voting that need to be closely watched. 

Secondly, constitutional reform. Ironically, Liberia’s democratically-elected President has assumed power under a 1984 Constitution, a ramshackle adaption of the country’s seriously flawed 19thcentury Constitution. Under this charter the President is elected 

for a renewable 6-year term. Now, Johnson-Sirleaf has pledged not 

to seek a second term, but it is still a very centralized regime that 

institutionalizes the winner-take-all system that has been the bane 

of many post-Colonial African states. So the government needs to 

be strongly encouraged to begin a process of constitutional dialogue. 

Thirdly, while I will defer to the esteemed former Prosecutor of 

the Special Court in the matter of Charles Taylor, I would add that 

very little attention has been paid to the need for accountability by 

individuals aside from the former Liberian President. 

As you yourself, Mr. Chairman, noted earlier, several freshly 

elected members of the new government, including some who still 

fall under the UN’s travel ban, have much to answer for. 

Fourthly, legal and judicial reform. It is well and fine to talk 

about the rule of law in the abstract, but Liberia faces a tremendous challenge with law in the concrete. Aside from the constitutional question, there is the very real but unnoticed problem of 

what the law is. 

Liberia’s code of laws was essentially cobbled together in the 

1950s by a group of American academics lead by a Cornell University professor, Milton Konvitz, working on a summer grant from 

the U.S. Government. It was even published in Ithaca. Since then 

it has not been systematically updated. 

The court system is in total disarray. During 2005, only 13 of the 

22 circuit judges were in office, and of that number four were on 

56

sick leave, while another four were nearing retirement. In other 

words, there are only five judges to run the entire formal court system. 

Fifthly, since Mr. Pierson has already addressed GEMAP, I will 

limit myself to the observation that only economic growth will sustain the socio-economic recovery that Liberia desperately needs. 

Sixth, security sector reform. Officially, 103,018 combatants, 11 

percent of them children, participated in disarmament, demobilization, and reintegration during the 2-year transition. Although the 

process was declared concluded in November 2004, the reality is far 

from comprehensive. 

First, there are serious numerical inconsistences. For example, 

while over 100,000 combatants were disarmed, only 27,000 weapons were actually collected. For another, while 103,000 combatants 

participated in the program, only 13,000 were actually reintegrated. 

Secondly, in my considered opinion, that even the number 

100,000 does not encompass all the combatants in Liberia’s civil 

wars as some people did not report for DDR while others had fallen 

out from their combatant units before the 2003 fighting. 

As Assistant Secretary Frazer noted, the United States has undertaken the burden of training a new 2,000-strong national Liberian army. The question, however, remains whether the resources 

being dedicated to the effort are adequate to the task, especially 

when one considers the regional situation, and the timeline of 

2008. 

Mr. Chairman, it is impossible to treat the question of Liberia’s 

prospects in isolation from those of its subregional neighbors. Not 

only have the histories of the peoples of these countries been intertwined for centuries, they remain very much so today. 

The first Liberian civil war made the outbreak of conflict in the 

neighboring states inevitable. Today, the situation of those countries could well undo all the progress in Liberia unless they are 

contained, or the capacity is built up within Liberia to ride out 

what I anticipate will be the next wave of violent upheaval in the 

region. 

On paper, Sierra Leone, where the UN mission wrapped up its 

work on the last day of 2005, is well on the road to recovery. However, many problems that facilitated the spread of violence during 

that country’s civil war persists, including lack of economic opportunities and the monopolization of power and wealth by a ruling 

elite. A closer look below the surface, in fact, reveals that the only 

thing lacking to re-create the conditions of 1991 is a spark from the 

outside. 

To Liberia’s east, for over 3 years now, Cote d’Ivoire has been 

caught up in a seemingly intractable civil conflict between the Government in Abidjan and the rebels who effectively control the north 

of the country. The situation is particularly heated in the country’s 

west along the Liberian border, an ironic reversal from the Liberian civil wars of the 1990s, when there were large movements of 

combatants, civilians exploited natural resources and other economic goods along that same border. 

Adding to the potential combustibility of this area are the geographical, political and ethnic reality. Recall that it was this area 

57

that Charles Taylor supplied his rebels during the first Liberia civil 

war, and that the anti-Taylor MODELL did likewise during the 

second civil war. In recent elections, Grand Giedeh County, which 

borders on Cote d’Ivoire, voted almost exclusively for George Weah. 

However, Mr. Chairman, Guinea is, in my judgment, both the 

most ignored country and potentially the most critical one in the 

subregion as it faces the end of the long tenure of President 

Lansana Conte ́. Despite having the largest standing military in the 

three Mano River countries, Guinea is a prime target for one or another insurgency group, both because of simmering ethnic tensions 

between the ruling Sousou, and the Malinke of its eastern forest 

region, and the Peul of its northwestern Fouta Djalon highlands. 

While the democratic renaissance in Liberia might serve as an 

inspiration for long-dormant civil society in Guinea, it is equally 

possible that mayhem that would ensue should General Conte ́ die 

without a better constitutional foundation than he has laid in the 

last two decades could result in a ‘‘blowback’’ that sweeps up the 

nascent Government in Monrovia. 

Regrettably, Guinea’s head of state’s political strategy has been 

precisely the opposite, consisting mainly of a Machiavellian balance 

between ethnic favoritism and cynical manipulation of competing 

forces. In all likelihood, this delicate balance will come undone 

when President Conte ́ dies or becomes incapacitated, and the country will face first personal competition for power among the members of the military oligarchy and then ethnic tensions. 

The first will involve a contest between the 400-strong Presidential guard, the Berets Rouges, based in Conakry, and two, 800-

strong, Ranger battalions, one trained by United States special 

forces between 2000 and 2003 and based in N’Ze ́re ́kore ́, and one 

trained by the People’s Republic of China in 2003 and based in 

Kankan. The second will pit the Berets Rouges and the Rangers, 

as well as the military high command—almost all of whom are ethnically Sousou and, indeed, from the President’s extended family 

and village—against others who have seen their economic, political, 

and military advancement blocked because of the lack of those ties. 

While broadening the scope of engagement to encompass a subregional approach will necessarily be more expensive than a singlecountry approach, the U.S. and other international actors will find 

the costs of having to return to the subregion to deal with another 

transnational humanitarian crisis will require far greater resources 

than preventive engagement today. 

Mr. Chairman, aside from the longstanding historical, political, 

cultural, and affective ties that bind American and Liberia together, as you noted earlier, the pivotal geopolitical role that the 

West African country currently plays in the region, a region whose 

strategic importance to the United States is rapidly increasing, demands strategic engagement. 

Liberia is in many ways the key to the entire subregion. If Liberia remains stable, the fragile peace in Sierra Leone will be reinforced. The conflict in Cote d’Ivoire will be contained, and the collapse of Guinea will be mitigated. A democratic Liberia, and the Liberian people want it to be such, will be a beacon for the entire 

subregion. A growing Liberian economy will beckon home Liberian 

refugees, some of them fighters in the battles of others, moving 

58

from conflict to conflict, and absorb resources that otherwise would 

collect in a transnational war economy. 

If, on the other hand, Liberia stagnates or, worse, slides back 

into chaos, it will once again serve both as a catalyst and fuel in 

a regional conflagration that will undo a decade’s worth of patient 

efforts by the United States, our British and French allies in Sierra 

Leone and Cote d’Ivoire, respectively, and the international community in general. 

Mr. Chairman, I hope I have been able to sketch out some of the 

challenges and prospects affecting Liberia and the West African 

subregion and the United States in the wake of the recent Liberian 

elections. I look forward to your questions and those of the Committee, and I thank you and Members of the Committee for the opportunity to appear here today. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Pham follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF J. PETER PHAM, PH.D., DIRECTOR, WILLIAM R. NELSON

INSTITUTE FOR INTERNATIONAL AND PUBLIC AFFAIRS, JAMES MADISON UNIVERSITY

Mr. Chairman and Distinguished Members of the Subcommittee: 

I am honored and pleased to be invited to testify before today on the impact of 

Liberia’s recent election on the West African subregion. My testimony is based not 

only on firsthand observations made as an election observer during the first round 

of voting last October, but also on reports from well-placed contacts in Liberia and 

throughout the subregion as well as my own experience, dating back to the 1990s, 

of the subregion and my ongoing academic research. I have written extensively 

about politics in Sub-Saharan Africa, especially in the countries of the Mano River 

Union (Liberia, Sierra Leone, and Guinea), including two books entitled Liberia: 

Portrait of a Failed State and Child Soldiers, Adult Interests: The Global Dimensions of the Sierra Leonean Tragedy. 

Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf’s January 16, 2006, inauguration as the 24th president of 

Liberia, the West African country originally established as a homeland for freed 

slaves and other African-Americans ‘‘repatriated’’ from the United States, coming 

after national elections in October 2005 and a presidential run-off in November in 

which she won 59.4 percent of the vote against soccer superstar George Manneh 

‘‘Oppong’’ Weah, is historically significant for a number of reasons. The election was 

arguably the freest, fairest, and most democratic poll since the nation’s independence in 1847. As the first woman elected head of state in Africa, Johnson-Sirleaf 

represents a remarkable breakthrough in what historically has been a predominantly patriarchal society where women have largely been relegated to the periphery of political life (the new president campaigned explicitly on her gender, and 

many of her supporters sported T-shirts that proclaimed ‘‘All the men have failed 

Liberia; let’s try a woman this time’’). The generally smooth transition back to constitutional government also fulfilled one of the key objectives of the August 2003 

Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA), which ended the country’s second civil war 

in a decade and began post-war transition and peace-building processes in which 

both the United Nations and the United States government were heavily invested. 

While these are by no means insignificant achievements, it would be dangerous 

to overestimate their importance in the context of the violent conflicts which have 

wracked Liberia for nearly three decades and which have repeated ignited regional 

conflagrations that consumed—and, in some parts, continues to plague—its neighbors Sierra Leone, Guinea, and Coˆte d’Ivoire. To paraphrase Robert Frost, there are 

many promises to keep and miles to go before we can sleep. While the installation 

of the new government completes the electoral process, by my reckoning at least six 

key challenges must be addressed by the Liberian government and the international 

community as part of a comprehensive national and regional peacebuilding process. 

Mr. Chairman, with your permission I will briefly outline each of these challenges 

in turn before proceeding to address the regional context and why I believe it is in 

the broader interests of the United States to commit ourselves, in cooperation with 

our international partners, to a sustained engagement to assure the success of the 

reconstruction and peacebuilding process in Liberia. 

59

BUILDING A NATIONAL GOVERNMENT

With some more-or-less minor exceptions—none of which were of the magnitude 

that would have altered the final results—the election process was well-run, especially when one considers the rather daunting infrastructure challenges to the poll. 

The U.S. alone contributed over $10 million to the effort, most of it dispersed 

through civil society organizations involved in democratization efforts, including 

IFES (technical assistance for polling), the International Republican Institute (training for political parties), and the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs (civic education). More than 6,000 Liberians, including some 3,500 from local 

civil society organizations, were accredited to monitor the voting. 

About 1.35 million people registered to vote in April and May 2005. Of these, approximately 1.012 million (74.9 percent) voted in the October elections, and over 

825,716 (61.2 percent) participated in the November run-off. It should be noted that 

while Ms. Johnson-Sirleaf’s win has been termed ‘‘decisive,’’ the final tally actually 

represented an effective endorsement by only 35.4 percent of the registered electorate. While this does not detract from her legitimacy, one should be cautious in 

overstating levels of support. 

On the other hand, it should be noted that the orderly, well-administered, and 

free and fair nature of the poll is truly remarkable when one considers the subregional context: a civil war has delayed polls in Coˆte d’Ivoire; Sierra Leone’s elections are marred by both the corruption of the ruling elites and onerous legal conditions that make it difficult for reformers to dislodge the political class; and Guinea’s 

president, who is not up for reelection until 2010, consistently ‘‘wins’’ over 90 percent of the vote. 

In any event, the electorate has complicated Ms. Johnson-Sirleaf’s task by giving 

no single party a governing mandate. In fact, several parties that lost the presidential race scored well enough in legislative races to be in good positions to wield 

significant influence. Mr. Weah’s Congress for Democratic Change (CDC), for example, won more seats than any other party in the House of Representatives. The fractionalized composition of the legislature, however, can be both positive and negative. 

Decision-making will have to require coalition-building and consensus, which would 

be a welcome departure from Liberia’s tradition of winner-take-all politics. On the 

other hand, there is also the risk of political gridlock and/or lack of clear policy direction as alliances form and shift on an ad hoc basis. 

The election results also show the worrying, but not surprising, persistence of regional patterns of voting that need to be closely watched. For example, the CDC 

took ten of fourteen House seats and both Senate seats in Montserrado Country 

(around the capital), while Grand Gedeh Country gave George Weah 96 percent of 

its vote; similarly, ALCOP, the party of former warlord Alhaji Kromah took two of 

the four House seats and one of the Senate seats in Lofa Country (on the Guinean 

and Sierra Leonean border), while Bong and Grand Cape Mount Counties went 

heavily for the erstwhile party of former Liberian president Charles Taylor, the National Patriotic Party (NPP), which won both Senate seats in Grand Cape Mount 

(next to Sierra Leone). 

President Johnson-Sirleaf will need to rapidly undertake concrete efforts to build 

a ‘‘national unity coalition’’ out of this less-than-optimal political situation if she 

hopes to promote national reconciliation and advance her agenda. 

CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM

Ironically, Liberia’s democratically-elected president, Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf, assumed power under Liberia’s 1984 constitution, a ramshackle adaptation of the 

country’s seriously flawed 19th-century constitution with adjustments to suit the exigencies of then-ruling dictator, Samuel Doe. Under this charter, the president, 

elected for a renewable six-year-term-Ms. Johnson-Sirleaf has pledged not to seek 

a second term-holds broad powers that ensure a very centralized regime. The 

unreformed Liberian constitution provides for precisely the ‘‘winner-take-all’’ system 

that has been the bane of many post-colonial African polities, with competing factions given little incentive to accept anything short of ‘‘total victory’’—and with a 

history of breaking down, with tragic consequences. In this respect, the Liberian 

election, should a dialogue on constitutional reform not ensue, perversely sends the 

wrong signal to the region that ‘‘it’s back to business as usual.’’

Given the multitude of challenges facing post-war Liberia, it would have perhaps 

been preferable for the Comprehensive Peace Agreement to have postponed elections 

while including within the brief of the transitional government and the United Nations Mission in Liberia (UNMIL) the mandate to help Liberians undertake a process of constitutional choice regarding governmental institutions and other structures—to say nothing of the other conditions that a democratic polity presupposes. 

60

But, given that the international community had committed itself to staging a vote 

last year and that Liberia’s politicians and people had come to expect it, the electoral process had to go forward. Now, however, the freshly inaugurated administration should be strongly encouraged to begin that process of constitutional dialogue. 

Carried out successfully, it would be a powerful precedent in the region. 

POST-CONFLICT ACCOUNTABILITY

The July 28, 2005, communique ́ of the heads of state of the Mano River Union 

recommended deferring any decision on the Taylor dossier until after a new Liberian president was in office. President Johnson-Sirleaf’s pronouncements to date 

show that she is clearly sensitive to the potentially destabilizing effects extraditing 

the former Liberian leader for trial, whether it be before the Special Court for Sierra 

Leone, which has indicted him on no less than seventeen counts of war crimes and 

other serious violations of international humanitarian law stemming from the brutal 

Sierra Leonean conflict that he had precipitated as a sideshow to his own fight for 

power in Liberia, or before some other tribunal for offenses committed in Liberia. 

However, while I defer to the esteemed former Prosecutor of the Special Court in 

the matter of Mr. Taylor, I would add that very little attention has been paid to 

the need for accountability by individuals aside from the former Liberian president. 

By making Charles Taylor the almost exclusive object of attention under the heading of ‘‘post-conflict accountability,’’ the international community risks giving the 

impression that he was the only actor in the nightmare that played out across the 

region. While Charles Taylor was—and is—in my judgment one of the principal 

criminals who took advantage of conditions of anarchy and should be brought to justice, he neither caused the ‘‘coming of the anarchy’’ in the first place nor was he 

the only one who arbitraged those conditions to personal profit. 

Several freshly elected members of new government, including some who still fall 

on the United Nation’s travel ban, also have much to answer for, including Senator 

Jewel Howard-Taylor, just-divorced wife of Charles Taylor; Senator Prince Johnson, 

the former warlord who personally tortured President Samuel Doe to death—on candid camera, no less—at the start of the first Liberian civil war; Senator Adolphus 

Dolo, formerly known as ‘‘General Peanut Butter’’; Speaker of the House Edwin 

Snowe, formerly Charles Taylor’s son-in-law, who is suspected of still funneling 

money to deposed leader; and Representative Saah Richard Gbollie, a former police 

chief in the Taylor regime who is accused of overseeing the torture of civil society 

leaders. 

The international community should both insist that the Liberian government develop the mechanisms of accountability and be prepared to assist in that process. 

LEGAL AND JUDICIAL REFORM

It is well and fine to talk about restoring the ‘‘rule of law’’ in the abstract, but 

Liberia faces a tremendous challenge with law in the concrete. Aside from the constitutional question of the executive branch’s historical domination over a weak judiciary, there is the very real—but generally unnoticed—problem of what the law is. 

The Liberian Code of Laws was essentially cobbled together in the 1950s by a group 

of American academics, led by Cornell University professor Joseph Konvitz, working 

on a summer grant—it was even published in Ithaca. Since then it has not been 

systematically updated. 

The court system is in total disarray. According to The Analyst newspaper, during 

2005, only thirteen of twenty-two circuit judges were in office and, of this number, 

four were on sick leave while another four are nearing retirement. In other words, 

there were only five qualified judges to run the entire formal court system of Liberia. In rural areas, the problem is even worse. Justice is supposed to be meted out 

by customary courts composed of chiefs and elders. However, a survey by UNMIL 

found more than half of these magistrates were illiterate, leaving themselves, even 

in the best of circumstances, open to arbitrariness. 

While an unreformed legal sector has the potential of undermining any progress, 

legal and judicial reform have barely been acknowledged in reform measures such 

as the Governance and Economic Management Assistance Plan (GEMAP). 

ECONOMIC GOVERNANCE REFORM

Since other witnesses will address the GEMAP program at length, I will limit myself to the observation that Liberia faces two closely-related challenges in the economic sector. The first is an urgent need to repair the country’s utterly devastated 

infrastructure. It is futile to even talk of an economy when, outside of enclaves occupied by international personnel, there is no electricity, no piped water, no telephone 

lines, no sewage systems, and almost no roads. The second is that economic growth 

61

is the only way to sustain socio-economic recovery in a country where, out of a population of three million, over 700,000—more than half of whom are classified as internally displaced persons (IDPs)—persons depend on food assistance each month. This 

is also key to the security challenge lest disgruntled demobilize combatants drift 

back into violence for want of more pacific occupations. Given Liberia’s demographic 

profile, with over half of the population being under 30 years of age, and the context 

of lack of economic opportunities, the reality is that unemployed youth represent a 

potentially deadly threat to the viability of any security sector undertakings not 

only in Liberia, but across the West African subregion. 

SECURITY SECTOR REFORM

Officially, some 103,018 combatants, 11 percent of them children, participated in 

the disarmament, demobilization, and reintegration (DDR) process during the twoyear transition. Although the process was declared to have been concluded in November 2004, the reality is that it has been far from comprehensive. First, there 

are serious numerical inconsistencies: for example, while over 100,000 combatants 

were ‘‘disarmed,’’ only about 27,000 weapons were actually collected; for another, 

while 103,018 combatants were ‘‘disarmed’’ and demobilized, only 13,872 were actually engaged in the reintegration program. Second, it is my considered opinion that 

even the number 100,000 does not encompass all combatants during Liberia’s civil 

wars as some young fighters did not report for DDR while others had fallen out with 

their combat units before the 2003 fighting, but nonetheless remain marked by their 

earlier conflict experience. 

The United States has undertaken the burden of training a new 2,000-strong national Liberian army, the responsibility being subcontracted to DynCorp and Pacific 

Architects and Engineers, two private firms that will work in coordination with U.S. 

military personnel. According to the State Department, the training package is estimated to cost around $95 million, which will most likely be drawn from a combination of International Disaster and Famine Assistance, Regional Peacekeeping, and 

Foreign Military Assistance funds. 

Aside from the very legitimate political questions regarding the democratic governance of the reformed security services, the question remains whether the resources being dedicated to the effort are adequate for the task, especially when one 

considers the regional situation. 

THE REGIONAL CONTEXT

It is impossible to treat the question of Liberia’s prospects in isolation with those 

of its subregional neighbors. Not only have the histories of the peoples of these 

countries been intertwined since before the colonial era, but they remain very much 

so today. As I alluded at the beginning of my remarks, the first Liberian civil war 

made the outbreak of conflict in the neighboring states well-nigh inevitable. Today, 

the situation in those countries could well undo all the progress in Liberia unless 

they are either contained or the capacity is built up in Liberia to ride out what I 

anticipate will be the next wave of violent upheaval in the region. 

On paper, Sierra Leone, where the U.N. mission wrapped up on the last day of 

2005, is well on the road to recovery. And while last year the country finally ceded 

its decades-long occupancy of the last place on the U.N. Development Programme’s 

Human Development Index (HDI), many of the problems that facilitated the spread 

of violence during its civil war persist, including lack of economic opportunities for 

a burgeoning youth population and the monopolization of power and wealth by a 

corrupt ruling elite which is, in turn, divided among itself over the distribution of 

spoils. A closer look below the surface reveals that the only thing lacking to recreate 

the conditions of 1991 (the year of the outbreak of civil war in Sierra Leone) is a 

spark from the outside—as Charles Taylor was when he sent Foday Sankoh into Sierra Leone at the head of the Revolutionary United Front (RUF). 

For over three years now, Coˆte d’Ivoire has been caught up in a seemingly intractable civil conflict between the government in Abidjan and rebels who effectively 

control the north of the country. The situation is perhaps most heated in the country’s west, along the Liberian border—an ironic reversal from the Liberian civil wars 

of the 1990s and early years of the current decade—where there are large movements of combatants, civilians, exploited natural resources, and other economic 

goods. Adding to the potential combustibility of this area are the geographical, political, and ethnic realities. Recall that it was along this area that Charles Taylor supplied his rebels during the first Liberian civil war; the anti-Taylor Movement for Democracy in Liberia (MODEL) did likewise during the second civil war. In the recent 

elections, Grand Gedeh Country, which borders on Coˆte d’Ivoire voted almost excluVerDate Mar 21 2002 17:01 May 01, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00065 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 F:\WORK\AGI\020806\26015.000 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL
62

sively for the defeated George Weah. Ethnically, there are close ties between the 

peoples on both sides of the international boundary. 

Guinea is, in my judgment, both the most ignored country and, potentially, the 

most critical one in the subregion as it faces the end of the long tenure at the helm 

of President Lansana Conte ́. Despite having the largest standing military among the 

three Mano River countries, Guinea is a prime target for one or another insurgency 

group, both because of simmering ethnic tensions between the ruling Sousou and 

the Malinke ́ of its eastern forest region and the Peul of its northwestern Fouta 

Djallon highlands and because of its own involvement in the Liberian, Sierra 

Leonean, and Ivorian civil wars. The latter imbroglio was in some cases due to ethnic solidarity, for example, the interrelations of the Guinean Malinke ́ with the Liberian Mandingo and Ivorian Dyula leading to support for twin United Liberian Movements for Democracy (ULIMO) during the first Liberian civil war; in other cases, 

it involved direct government sponsorship, as in the backing that General Conte ́’s 

regime gave to the anti-Taylor Liberians United for Reconciliation and Democracy 

(LURD) forces in the second Liberian civil war. 

While the democratic renaissance in Liberia might serve as an inspiration for long 

dormant civil society in Guinea, it is also equally possible that the mayhem that 

would ensue should General Conte ́ die without laying a better foundation than he 

has done in the last two decades would result in a ‘‘blowback’’ that sweeps up the 

nascent government in Monrovia. Regrettably, the Guinean head of state’s political 

strategy has been precisely the opposite, consisting primarily of a Machiavellian balance between ethnic favoritism and cynical manipulation of competing forces. In all 

likelihood, this delicate balance will come undone when President Conte ́ dies or becomes incapacitated and the country will face first personal competition for power 

among members of the military oligarchy and then ethnic tensions. The first will 

involve a contest between 400-strong Presidential Guard (‘‘Beret Rouges’’), based in 

the capital of Conakry, and two 800-strong Ranger battalions, one trained by U.S. 

Special Forces between 2000 and 2002 and based in N’Ze ́re ́kore ́ and one trained by 

China in 2003 and based in Kankan. The second will pit the Beret Rouges and 

Rangers as well as the military high command, almost all of whom are ethnic 

Sousou and indeed from the president’s extended family and village, against others 

who have seen their economic, political, and military advancement blocked because 

they are not Sousou. 

Because of the potential for instability originating in Conakry and reverberating 

throughout the subregion after the eventual demise of General Conte ́, there are 

many, both in the subregion and outside of it, who discerned the hand of Charles 

Taylor in the shots fired at President Conte ́’s motorcade in January 2005. (One 

might add that on the question of Charles Taylor, it would suffice to recall that, 

notwithstanding the efforts of Nigerian President Olusegun Obasanjo to frame the 

question of his extradition as a purely Liberian matter, the former Liberian warlord 

and president’s career since he launched the first Liberian civil war on Christmas 

Eve 1989 has consistently involved the entire subregion, with some states supporting him, while others opposed him, and conflicts ignited in every country bordering Liberia. Consequently, even the question of Mr. Taylor’s fate demands a regional approach.) 

While broadening the scope of engagement to encompass a subregional approach 

will necessarily more expensive than a single-country approach, the U.S. and other 

international actors will find that the costs of having to return to the region to deal 

with another transnational humanitarian crisis will require far greater resources 

than preventive engagement today. 

ADVANCING BROADER U.S. INTERESTS

Aside from the longstanding historical, political, cultural, and affective ties that 

bind the America and Liberia together, the pivotal geopolitical role that the West 

African country currently plays in a region whose strategic importance to the United 

States is rapidly increasing demands strategic engagement. To cite but one datum, 

according to the National Intelligence Council, within the decade the subregion, 

which currently accounts for about one-sixth, will be providing more than one-quarter of North America’s hydrocarbon energy needs, thus surpassing the total volume 

of oil imports from the Middle East. Is it merely altruism or coincidence that the 

People’s Republic of China chose Liberia as the theater for its first-ever foray into 

international peacekeeping? 

Liberia, while small in population and without any hydrocarbon reserves discovered to date, is in many ways the key to the entire subregion. If Liberia remains 

stable, the fragile peace in Sierra Leone will be reinforced, the conflict in Coˆte 

d’Ivoire will be contained, and collapse of Guinea mitigated. A democratic Liberia—

63

and the Liberian people want it to be such—will be a beacon for the entire subregion. A growing Liberian economy will beckon Liberian refugees—some of them 

fighters in the battles of others, moving from conflict to conflict—home and absorb 

resources that would otherwise collect in a transnational war economy. If, on the 

other hand, Liberia stagnates or, worse, slides back into chaos, it will once again 

serve as both catalyst and fuel in a regional conflagration that will undo a decade’s 

worth of patient efforts by the United States, our British and French allies (in Sierra Leone and Coˆte d’Ivoire respectively), and the international community in general. 

Mr. Chairman, permit me to conclude with three modest, but important recommendations. First, the Assistant Secretary and her team should be encouraged 

to continue closely monitoring progress in Liberia, making it the priority that Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice has assured us that it will be. We cannot afford to 

let potential for success dissipate for want of attention. Second, the Liberian government should be encouraged by the Congress to build on the momentum of the election and President Johnson-Sirleaf’s inauguration to tackle the challenges of building a national government, engaging in constitutional, legal, economic, and security 

sector reforms, and demanding accountability from Charles Taylor and other responsible for the crimes committed during the long conflicts. While some of these undertakings are not particularly glamorous, they are critical. Monrovia needs to be convinced both that Washington takes their implementation seriously and will hold its 

partners accountable for their performance (or lack thereof) and that we will sustain 

our commitment. This Congress has provided substantial support for reconstruction 

and peacebuilding in Liberia. Perhaps what is needed is a clear signal of its expectations. Thirdly, and perhaps most important, the situation in the West African subregion is constantly evolving. However, the one factor that remains constant is that 

the underlying dynamics are regional and require as such more than a pastiche of 

ad hoc approaches. I applaud the Subcommittee for the more inclusive theme of this 

oversight hearing. May I be so bold as to suggest that periodical review might help 

focus the attention needed on this increasingly significant geopolitical space? 

Mr. Chairman, I hope that I have been able to sketch out some of the challenges 

and prospects affecting Liberia, the West African subregion, and the United States, 

in the wake of the recent Liberian elections. I look forward to your questions and 

observations. And I renew my thanks to you and the Members of the Subcommittee 

for the opportunity to appear before you today.

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Thank you so very, very much. 

Ms. Derryck? 

STATEMENT OF MS. VIVIAN LOWERY DERRYCK, SENIOR VICE 

PRESIDENT, ACADEMY FOR EDUCATIONAL DEVELOPMENT 

Ms. DERRYCK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman and 

Members of the Subcommittee, I thank you for holding this hearing 

and for highlighting Liberia’s remarkable achievement. It really is 

an affirmation of the potential of democracy in West Africa. 

With your permission, I have submitted written testimony and a 

PowerPoint on the elections for the record. 

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Without objection, they will be made 

part of the record. 

Ms. DERRYCK. In this oral summary, I will focus on four points, 

first, that the elections were really textbook perfect and a model for 

future African elections; second, that the elections were significant 

for West Africa, the continent, and globally; third, that the United 

States needs to support the new President; and, fourth, there are 

specific areas in which we should target our support. 

First, the elections. They were technically flawless, with tamperproof registration, polling officers, indelible ink, transparent ballot 

boxes, a complaint process that was fair and open to everyone, and 

a National Election Commission that was responsive to party complaints. There is inevitably an opportunity for retail voter mischief, 

but I think, in the case of Liberia, the process made it very difficult 

to engage in wholesale cheating. 

64

Liberia, with sufficient financial inputs and human technical expertise, tells us that a war-torn country can have a free, fair, transparent, and peaceful election. We just look at the pictures of Haiti 

in the paper today and realize the importance of the peaceful aspect of the Liberian election. 

Preparing Liberia for elections was really a Herculean feat, with 

the large IDP population, the few passable roads, the 118,000 disgruntled ex-combatants, no electricity, no potable water, and no recent experience with free and fair elections. But Liberians went to 

the polls and, in an orderly fashion, elected a President, a Senate, 

and a House of Representatives. 

Secondly, Liberia demonstrated that a largely illiterate population can make informed voting decisions. The Liberian voters 

split their tickets, electing candidates for the Senate and the House 

from multiple parties. It may have been regionally focused, but it 

still indicates that people are looking at their own self-interest and 

are capable of making these kinds of sophisticated decisions. 

A third lesson learned is that women have achieved a level of organizational skills, technical competencies, and political prowess 

that allows them to compete equally with men. We also see that 

with a new female President there is new attention to issues that 

disproportionately impact women, such as gender-based violence. 

The second point that I would like is the significance of these 

elections for West Africa and beyond. In terms of West Africa, the 

election and the inauguration reinforced the rule of law in an area 

that is sometimes lawless, and Liberians saw the orderly transfer 

of power. These two events, the elections and the inauguration, rekindled Liberians’ belief in the institutions of government and 

began the process of reconciliation. 

Also, Liberia is no longer viewed as a source of regional instability. The country can now become an anchor for stability in the 

three Mano River Union countries and contribute to subregional 

economic growth. 

In terms of the continent, Liberia’s election has begun to change 

the image of Africa. Congressman Payne noted that earlier. The 

image of Africa that flashed around the world of President Sirleaf 

wearing the sash of office and walking home after the inauguration 

went a long way to counter the image of Africa as chaotic and 

hopeless. The key donor presence reinforced their support of orderly change on the continent, and that support was highlighted 

certainly by First Lady Laura Bush and Secretary of State Rice’s 

presence. 

The elections also strengthened regional institutions, particularly 

the African Union and the Economic Commission of West African 

States. From the regional and subregional bodies’ management of 

the departure of Charles Taylor to the AU election observation 

team to the post-election challenge of George Weah to the inauguration, AU and ECOWAS supported the rule of law and reinforced the significance of elections as the established method of 

choosing leaders. 

The strength of the Liberian process provides a model for upcoming elections on the continent. It would be useful to have Liberians 

offer technical assistance to DRC for the mid-May elections. 

65

There is also significance for this election globally because in a 

global context the Liberian case contributes to the growing body of 

election experience in post-conflict countries, such as Iraq and Afghanistan, and the significance for women of the first female President really cannot be overstated. Not only did Liberia elect a 

woman, but women held leadership positions in all aspects of the 

process. 

Women feel empowered. The number of female candidates for 

elected office is increasing, and their candidacies are gaining more 

attention, both from other candidates and from the media. 

The third point is that the United States needs to support the 

new President. Liberia lacks infrastructure, and we have heard of 

the problems and the six challenges that Dr. Pham noted. But we 

also know that the new President must show results and soon. She 

sets the benchmark at 150 days, but she cannot succeed without 

robust resources from the international community. The United 

States should take the lead. 

Liberia’s stability is important to our national security. Instability would encourage al-Qaeda and open the subregion as a 

breeding ground for terrorists. Moreover, the United States imports 

about 20 percent of its oil from West Africa, a flow that could be 

potentially disrupted if the region were compromised. 

Also, we should aid Liberia because it is an opportunity for an 

easy success for us. Americans are welcome in Liberia. There is no 

insurgency there. Development assistance to Liberia is a moral and 

humanitarian concern as well. No African nation has closer ties to 

the United States, with our almost two centuries of shared history. 

There is a major constituency for Liberia across the country. 

Indeed, in 2003, during the last phase of the civil war, a bipartisan, multiracial group of former U.S. Government senior officials, 

civil society, NGOs, and the private sector formed Liberia Watch, 

a coalition that was dedicated to the resolution of the crisis and to 

significant United States involvement. That coalition demonstrated 

that a broad constituency for Africa exists across this country. 

In addition, more than 10 percent of Americans have ethnic ties 

to Africa, as Congressman Payne and Congresswoman Watson indicated, and many gauge their support of United States foreign policy on the treatment that Africa receives. They expect us to support 

Liberia, and, importantly, if we do not step up to the plate, other 

donors’ contributions will fall. 

There are specific areas in which we should target our support. 

President Sirleaf has set forth a four-part reconstruction and recovery plan. It focuses on security, governance, the provision of basic 

services, and economic stabilization. 

In terms of security, the United States-based Dyncorps is training the new 2,000-person Liberian Army, and our support for that 

task needs to continue. UNMIL should be reauthorized also to remain at current strength for at least the next 12 months. 

In terms of governance and rule of law, the President has mounted a major anticorruption campaign, again, referenced earlier. She 

has also stated that civil service reform and a reduction in the size 

of government will be priorities. The United States can help by topping off civil service salaries and thereby reducing the incentive for 

66

corruption. We have some experience of salary support from donors 

in Afghanistan which might serve as a model. 

In terms of basic services and infrastructure, community development programs are mobilizing communities to develop their own 

priorities and engage in the rebuilding process, a program that the 

organization for which I work, the Academy for Educational Development, and Mercy Corps are involved in. Communities are building schools and clinics, and they are working on infrastructure. 

This program could really be mobilized to restore electricity to 

Monrovia. It is a top priority for President Sirleaf. The United 

States has experience in restoring electricity, certainly in Iraq, and 

Liberia could benefit from the lessons learned in that country. 

Liberia must make a major investment in primary education. 

The government needs to address unemployed and undereducated 

youth literally immediately. 

One intriguing idea is training in the maritime trades. Liberia 

has a maritime training school that could be restarted, it could 

offer valuable skills and get young people off the streets. It is interesting that Liberia is the flag of convenience for 4,600 vessels, and 

not one of those vessels has a Liberian working on it. 

Liberia also badly needs a national strategy for HIV/AIDS. We 

have talked about that, but the prevalency rate has skyrocketed 

from 5.9 percent in 2003 to 12 percent today. So I would certainly 

also agree that Liberia should be added to PEPFAR and be given 

help in preparing for its application to the Global Fund because the 

human resources in Liberia are limited, and the application to the 

Global Fund is complicated. 

In terms of economic revitalization, GEMAP is a start, but beyond GEMAP the new team needs to have a multipronged approach. Liberia needs serious debt relief. Liberia has about $4 billion in total debt, with IMF arrears of $800 million. The debt-toGDP ratio is 900 percent. Ambassador Frazer talked about the fast 

track, but current efforts will take about 3 years to get Liberia to 

the HIPC completion point, and that is if everything goes perfectly, 

and we may not have that long. The country needs debt relief that 

is similar to the relief that was granted to Poland and to Iraq. 

Finally, in terms of assistance priorities, I have six recommendations for U.S. support. First, $200 million for development assistance to rebuild Liberia. Liberia can absorb $200 million in United 

States assistance for community development, strengthening democratic institutions, economic reform, and support of GEMAP and, of 

course, education, HIV/AIDS, infrastructure development, employment generation, civil service reform, agricultural and revitalization. 

The country urgently needs the funds this year, and as I understand our budgetary system, supplementals are for emergency 

funding. This is an emergency. Fiscal Year 2007 online budgetary 

funding is really too late for a country that has only an $80 million 

annual budget, some of which has been stolen. 

Secondly, we should continue support for GEMAP, as has been 

stated earlier. 

Third, continued support of funding for Dyncorps for reestablishing the military. 

67

Fourth, continued support for UNMIL, and to make sure that no 

battalions are diverted to deal with the conflict in Cote d’Ivoire. 

Fifth, provide debt relief. 

Sixth, lift restrictions of the Brooke Amendment. Liberia does not 

have access to some possible United States funding because of arrears on debt payments. The United States should lift these sanctions from Liberia as soon as possible, as we have done for Pakistan and for other countries with extenuating circumstances or who 

are strong allies in the war on terror. Liberia meets both of those 

criteria. 

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, the issues in West Africa are really 

bigger than Liberia or any one country, but Liberia, aching for recovery, can be in the vanguard. With 3 million persons, abundant 

natural resources, a new President with economic expertise and political competence, Liberia can be a model of a failed state transformed into a thriving democracy. It will take human and financial 

resources, but I cannot think of a better long-term investment with 

a guaranteed ROI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Derryck follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MS. VIVIAN LOWERY DERRYCK, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, ACADEMY FOR EDUCATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Chairman and ranking Minority Member, thank you for holding this hearing 

and highlighting Liberia’s remarkable achievement, an affirmation of democracy in 

West Africa. Liberia’s technically flawless elections teach several lessons and have 

major ramifications for the sub-region and globally. In this testimony, I will elaborate on the lessons learned, describe the process, discuss the regional, continental 

and global significance, outline challenges facing the new president and suggest 

ways in which the US can aid her. 

LESSONS LEARNED

First, Liberia teaches us that with sufficient financial inputs and human technical 

expertise, a war-torn country can have free, fair and transparent elections. Preparing Liberia for elections was a Herculean feat. With a large IDP population, few 

passable roads, 100,000 disgruntled excombatants, no electricity or potable water, 

and no recent experience with free and fair elections, Liberians went to the polls, 

and in orderly fashion elected a president, Senate and House of Representatives. 

This extraordinary achievement was possible largely due to the United Nations Mission in Liberia (UNMIL), donor support and the determination of the Liberian people. The US contributed $10 million to support the elections, assistance dollars well 

spent. 

Second, Liberia demonstrated that a largely illiterate population can make informed voting decisions. Liberian voters split their tickets, electing candidates for 

the Senate and the House of Representatives from eight different parties. Listening 

to voters as they spoke of their reasons for supporting certain candidates, it was 

clear that they calculated their individual self-interest and the probability of peace 

in making their choices. This was possible because of the robust civic education 

campaign organized by UNMIL and the donors, involving a broad swath of Liberian 

civil society and implemented by US democracy—strengthening NGOs who, in turn, 

involved international observers and domestic election monitors. 

A third lesson learned is that women have achieved a level of organizational skills 

and technical competencies that allow them to compete equally with men. There is 

universal acknowledgement that women are an underutilized resource in sustainable development efforts, and that African sustainable development is advanced by 

integrating women into the political and economic mainstream. President Ellen 

Johnson Sirleaf’s election in part is testament to the organizational skills and political prowess of women. Unity Party (UP) women traveled throughout the country, 

urging women to support their candidate. Market women organized for her. Women’s organizations organized rallies and support for her. Continental women’s organizations urged their members in Liberia to vote for her. In all cases, President 

Sirleaf was supported not because she was a woman, but because she was a qualified woman with a comprehensive, plausible plan to move the country forward. 

68

THE ELECTORAL PROCESS

Liberians participated in a textbook electoral process that re-established electoral 

democracy in their country. Donors and Liberians collaborated to establish electoral 

institutions, develop a process and educate voters. Guided by the Comprehensive 

Peace Agreement, Liberians, with the support of UNMIL, developed an electoral 

process that made wholesale fraud virtually impossible. 

Key actors in the process included the National Election Commission (NEC), the 

Supreme Court, UNMIL, the donors, political parties and Liberian civil society, including strong women’s groups and anti-corruption NGOs who assumed a watchdog 

function. Over 8,000 domestic observers, extensively trained by working with international NGOs such as the International Foundation for Election Systems (IFES), 

the National Democratic Institute (NDI) and the International Republican Institute 

(IRI), competently and diligently watched the polls. 

The 15,000 troops of UNMIL not only formed a dense security network, but also 

helped shape the electoral process, ensured that ballots were delivered to rural 

areas and transported completed ballots to state-of-the-art tabulation centers for the 

count. 

Key Liberian institutions also were essential to the electoral success. The National Electoral Commission, ably chaired by Frances Morris-Johnson, assumed 

overall responsibility for organizing the elections, ensured civic education for voters 

and training for poll watchers, and oversaw the complaint process. Although the Supreme Court was the ultimate arbiter of legal challenges, citizens’ faith in the competence and impartiality of the NEC was critical in keeping the process on track. 

The NEC oversaw an electoral process that was textbook perfect, totally transparent with no hint of intimidation. Checks and balances abounded. Each polling 

station had five officers: voter registration officers searched through registration 

lists for ID numbers and pictures to find individual registrations as party officials 

hovered behind them; ballot issuers stamped each numbered ballot; voters placed 

their ballots in transparent ballot boxes with double seals whose numbers were read 

out to all assembled at the opening and closing of the polls by the presiding officer. 

A ballot box officer ensured that ballots were placed in the right boxes. As each 

voter exited, his or her index finger was dabbed with indelible ink to ensure that 

he or she couldn’t vote again. 

The whole process was open to domestic and international observers as well as 

party representatives. As added insurance, transparent ballot boxes guaranteed that 

the ballot boxes were visible to all throughout the entire process. While there is inevitably the possibility of retail voter mischief, the carefully crafted process made 

wholesale fraud virtually impossible. 

Not only did the NEC organize textbook elections, it also managed to develop a 

system that was voter friendly and solicitous of the parties’ interests. For instance, 

when the Congress for Democratic Change (CDC) complained that unsavory characters might have bought or tampered with voter registration cards, for the runoff 

the NEC allowed party observers from the CDC and the Unity Party to stand behind the voter registration officer to ensure that the face and number on the card 

matched the designation on the registration roll. 

Kudos to the voters in both sets of elections. On October 11, voters began to line 

up as early as 3:00 am in some areas. At Paynesville Community Academy in the 

volatile Red Light section of Monrovia, uncertainty about polling sites and registration glitches resulted in voters standing for hours in the wrong line, but voters were 

largely patient, appreciating the historical significance of a free, fair, transparent 

multi-party election—the first in Liberia’s 159 year history. 

The elections underscored the vulnerability of illiterate voters. In the October 11 

election, if a voter was illiterate, the presiding officer read aloud the candidates’ 

names and the voter stopped him or her when the officer got to the voter’s preference. Illiterate voters are vulnerable in that there is no way of verifying that the 

presiding officer was casting the vote as the illiterate voter had directed. Nevertheless, an 80 percent illiterate population split their votes largely among six presidential candidates in the first round. 

The voters made informed choices, splitting their tickets and electing representatives of eight parties to the Senate and to the House of Representatives. Voters 

made similarly informed choices in the run-off. Supporters of both candidates had 

rational reasons for supporting their candidates. Twenty-year-old Alex, a Weah partisan, explained his support through a CDC chant, ‘‘He know book, he no know 

book, I vote for him,’’ by noting that the educated (‘‘know book’’) officials who had 

governed the country in years past had not helped poor people. He felt that Weah, 

with no political baggage, could do a better job of governing the country. 

69

On the other side, a market woman in New Krutown, a Weah stronghold, volunteered that she had voted for Ellen Johnson Sirleaf. She noted that Weah had promised football schools for the young men. ‘‘But what about my daughter?’’ the woman 

asked. ‘‘Who will educate her? Who will take care of me when I’m old?’’ She knew 

that Ellen Johnson Sirleaf had presented a plan for investing in education, re-building infrastructure, and seeking support from the international community. Other 

Sirleaf supporters argued that men had brought the country to its present devastation, so why not give a qualified woman the opportunity to govern the country. One 

elderly man opined, ‘‘It’s time to ‘give chance’ to the Old Ma.’’

REGIONAL, CONTINENTAL AND GLOBAL SIGNIFICANCE

Mr. Chairman, the hearing title notes the significance of the elections in West Africa. With due respect, I would suggest that the elections have significance not only 

for the sub-region, but for the African continent and globally for women. 

Significance for West Africa: The election and the inauguration reinforced the rule 

of law and Liberians saw the orderly transfer of power. The two events rekindled 

Liberians’ belief in the institutions of government and began the process of reconciliation. 

In terms of regional security, Liberia is no longer a source of regional instability, 

providing child soldiers for Cote d’Ivoire, serving as a drug haven and offering a 

breeding ground for Al Qaeda. The country can now become an anchor for stability 

in the three Mano River Union countries. With rich resources—timber, diamonds, 

rubber, iron ore—Liberia also can contribute to sub-regional economic growth. 

Significance for the Continent: Liberia’s successful elections have begun to change 

the image of Africa. The image flashed around the world of President Sirleaf, wearing the sash of office, walking home after the inauguration went a long way to 

counter the image of Africa as chaotic and hopeless. 

Key donors reinforced their support of orderly change on the continent with their 

presence, highlighted by First Lady Laura Bush and Secretary of State Rice. The 

attendance of the First Lady and Secretary Rice was interpreted as a strong signal 

that US is going to support the rebuilding of Liberia. 

The Liberian elections also strengthened regional institutions, particularly the African Union (AU) and the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS). 

From the regional and sub-regional bodies’ management of the departure of Charles 

Taylor to the AU election observation team to the post-election challenge of George 

Weah to the inauguration, AU and ECOWAS supported the rule of law and re-enforced the significance of elections as the established method of choosing leaders. 

Again, the graphic is the inauguration, as key leaders of the AU and NEPAD such 

as Thabo Mbeki, Olusegun Obasanjo and Abdoulaye Wade, joined by eight other African heads of state, signaled their support of a female president, duly elected. By 

their very presence, they conferred additional legitimacy on the Liberian election as 

the eleven men welcomed the first female into their ranks of 53 African heads-ofstate. 

Liberian success is an antidote to less successful elections such as the most recent 

Ethiopian election. The strength of the Liberian process provides a model for upcoming elections on the continent. It would be useful to have Liberians offer technical 

assistance to DRC as it plans for its landmark election in mid-May. 

Significance Globally: In a global context, the Liberian election demonstrated that 

with adequate financial inputs and human expertise, a war-ravaged country can 

have a free, fair and transparent election and that civic education is hugely important in citizens’ understanding of both the import and the process. The Liberian 

case contributes to the growing body of election experience in post-conflict countries, 

e.g. Iraq and Afghanistan. 

The significance for women of the first female president cannot be overestimated. 

Not only did Liberia elect a woman, but women competently held leadership positions in all aspects of the process. Women held leadership positions in the NEC as 

Chairperson Frances Johnson-Morris’s strong leadership readily demonstrates. 

Women sit as Supreme Court justices and a good percentage of women were election 

officials, sometimes serving as the presiding officer at a polling station. 

By electing a woman, Liberia, the first independent republic in Africa, again made 

history. Women in elected positions, multilateral institutions, the UN system, political aspirants and civil society from across the continent came to the inauguration 

to support the new president and to offer concrete program suggestions for Liberia’s 

reconstruction. Women feel empowered by this successful role model. The number 

of female candidates for elected office is increasing and their candidacies are gaining 

more attention, both from other candidates and the media. The coincidence of Angela Merkel’s assumption of the German chancellorship, Ellen Johnson Sirleaf’s vicVerDate Mar 21 2002 17:01 May 01, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00073 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 F:\WORK\AGI\020806\26015.000 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL
70

tory and the victory of Chilean President-Elect Michelle Bachelet may usher in a 

new era of electoral politics. The elections of the three women increase the number 

of female heads of state and heads of government from nine to twelve, a stunning 

25 percent increase within a two month period, so it is appropriate for the world 

to take notice. 

THE WAY FORWARD

Now the task is to stay the course and help Liberia to rebuild. After generous help 

to Liberia during the transition, the international community must continue and increase its assistance, supporting this new Liberian president of integrity and competence. 

President Sirleaf needs all the help she can get. Devastated Liberia lacks infrastructure, electricity and potable water. The country has an 85 percent unemployment rate, 100,000 former combatants without jobs and without skills, an 80 percent illiteracy rate, major security deficits, Charles Taylor monitoring events in Nigeria and an expectant population that wants to see the democracy dividend now. 

To be credible, the new president must demonstrate some tangible progress fairly 

soon; she has given herself a 150 day benchmark. She cannot succeed without robust resources from the international community. There are several reasons why the 

US should take the lead. 

It is in the national interest of the US to provide re-building assistance. Liberia’s 

stability is important to our national security. Liberia lives in a rough neighborhood, 

with fragility in Sierra Leone and Guinea and ongoing civil war in Cote d’Ivoire. 

As stated earlier, instability in Liberia would encourage Al Qaeda and open the subregion as a breeding ground for terrorists. Moreover, the US imports about twenty 

percent of its oil from West Africa, a flow that could be potentially disrupted if the 

region were compromised. 

Liberia also offers an opportunity to demonstrate a successful transition from a 

failed state to a post-conflict success. Liberia has ricocheted from full-fledged civil 

war, to peace-making, peace-keeping and peace-building. As the country moves to 

post-conflict reconstruction, the international community has the opportunity to 

support a transition that could become a post-conflict model. Most of the ingredients 

are present-free and fair election, a motivated population, new leadership with integrity and the confidence of donors. The missing ingredient is major resources. 

With the attention of many US policy makers drawn to Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan 

and the war on terror, significant aid to Liberia would also demonstrate that the 

continent matters, that the Administration views security and sustainable development in West Africa as an integral component of a comprehensive US-Africa foreign 

policy template. Alternatively, in the case of Liberia, the donor community takes its 

lead from the US, and if our assistance is meager, the community will respond by 

reducing overall commitments. The 2004 donors conference success was fueled by 

the $200 million US contribution. 

Development assistance to Liberia is not only a strategic investment, but a moral 

and humanitarian one as well. No African nation has closer ties to the US, as we 

jointly hold almost two centuries of shared history. Liberia was founded by former 

US slaves, its constitution and basic forms of governance are modeled after our institutions. The special relationship continues today. Americans are warmly welcomed in Liberia and, given our historic ties, Liberia’s story resonates with the 

American people. For many Americans, Liberia represents the African continent. 

More than ten percent of Americans have ethnic ties to Africa and many gauge their 

support of US foreign policy on the treatment that Africa receives. 

Aid to Liberia is highly likely to yield success. We can concretely justify our support to a technically competent leadership with a history of fighting corruption and 

advocating for good government. Importantly, unlike some other countries, our involvement is welcomed. Our support will enable the new government’s success and 

result in a win-win-win for Liberia, the continent and U.S. Africa policy. 

The new president faces daunting challenges. In addition to the catalogue of problems stated above, Liberia has no banking system, no international credit, a devastated education system and a culture of corruption so deeply embedded that the 

transitional government was facing impeachment for corruption. 

To tackle these challenges, President Sirleaf has set forth a four-part reconstruction and recovery plan to be overseen by the Liberian Reconstruction and Development Committee (LDRC). The plan focuses on security, governance, the provision 

of basic services and economic stabilization. Each component is discussed below. 

Security: Security is an urgent concern with 100,000 ex-combatants, imperfect demobilization, instability in Cote d’Ivoire, uncertainty in Guinea, and Charles Taylor 

lurking in Nigeria. The US-based Dyncorps is training the new 2,000 person LibeVerDate Mar 21 2002 17:01 May 01, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00074 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 F:\WORK\AGI\020806\26015.000 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL
71

rian army. Our support for that task must continue. UNMIL currently provides the 

bulk of security and should be re-authorized to remain at current strength for at 

least the next twelve months. 

Governance and Rule of Law: Good governance and rule of law have long been 

priorities of the new president. Indeed, President Sirleaf was the chair of the Governance Committee of the National Transitional Government of Liberia (NTGL), 

though she was constantly frustrated and under-funded in the position. Her governance priorities are fighting corruption, reducing the size of government by consolidating ministries and reducing the size of the civil service, civil service reform, and 

rewriting the constitution. 

President Sirleaf began the anti-corruption crusade in her inaugural address 

when she said that she was disclosing her assets and asked the Speaker of the 

House and other legislators to do likewise. She is requiring that all of her appointees also disclose their assets. Unfortunately, she has no authority to require 

legislators to so disclose. Although she is just beginning her third week in office, 

she has already drafted and signed a code of conduct and she is establishing an 

anti-corruption commission. 

Tackling civil service reform will be a major undertaking. The civil service is 

bloated and a seedbed of corruption. In some ways corruption within the civil service is understandable because anyone who has not been paid in 18 months might 

be tempted to request ‘‘special consideration.’’ The US should consider topping off 

civil service salaries to reduce the incentive for corruption. Donor action in Afghanistan might be a model for responding to the Liberian situation. 

Basic Services and Infrastructure Committee: Basic services in Liberia are essentially non-existent. Several community development programs aim to mobilize communities to develop their own priorities, make decisions and begin to re-build their 

communities with schools, health clinics and agricultural inputs. The Academy for 

Educational Development (AED), the NGO for which I work, is involved in a Community Peace-Building and Development Program, Diompilor, which means ‘‘unity’’ 

in Vai. Funded by USAID, the program empowers communities to establish and act 

upon their own priorities. Often their priorities involve building schools and clinics, 

as well as tackling infrastructure needs, including digging wells and re-grading 

roads. 

These community-based programs could be mobilized in the effort to restore electricity to Monrovia and in road-building projects. President Sirleaf has designated 

restoration of electricity to Monrovia as a top priority. Monrovia’s electrification 

could offer an excellent opportunity for a public-private partnership (PPP) since a 

re-electrification plan has already been developed and there are US companies that 

can provide poles and wire. The US has experience in restoring electricity in Iraq, 

so Liberia could benefit from lessons learned in that experience. 

Similarly, road building lends itself to public-private partnerships. Roads are important for agriculture (farm-to-market roads), employment, security and returning/

resettling people in their homes. UNMIL has four brigades and heavy equipment 

to contribute to the road effort, but no supplies. The new government could initiate 

public works projects with young people, teaching them road-building skills and offering them employment for a year or 18 months in a program akin to the US Civilian Conservation Corps of the Great Depression. Road-building, too, is a good vehicle for developing public-private partnerships. The PPPs could involve citizens, especially young people, private sector construction firms, UNMIL and the GOL. Apparently, no donor is supporting road-building, but the Chinese are exploring the possibility. 

In addition to community mobilization, Liberia must make a major investment in 

primary and secondary education. A country cannot develop with an 80 percent illiteracy rate. Education is one of President Sirleaf’s three priorities of schools, wells 

and youth development. The education system has not functioned since 1990, so the 

government must invest in building schools, teacher training, curriculum development and textbooks. AED was involved in such a program until 1990. We are currently trying to locate materials and teachers who were involved in the program to 

explore the possibility of re-starting the program, building upon tested, Liberia-relevant materials. 

In addition to traditional education, the new government must address the needs 

of unemployed, undereducated youth fairly immediately. Responding to the need for 

rapid start-up, AED has developed a four-part program, Emergency Response to Liberian Youth, that involves community mapping; youth empowerment through literacy, numeracy, conflict resolution, business development skills and micro-enterprise; distance education through radio; and community-building and conflict resolution through photography. 

72

Special programs are needed for ex-combatants to teach them trade skills and the 

soft skills of conflict resolution and civic participation. Vocational training is needed 

for at least half a million young men and women who have had no opportunity to 

learn employable skills. One possibility comes from Liberia’s maritime business, the 

country’s greatest source of revenues at present. Liberia is the flag of convenience 

for more than 4,600 ships, but there are no Liberian sailors, deck hands, engineers, 

etc. aboard any of these ships. The maritime training school could be restarted, offering valuable skills and getting young people off the streets. (In another example 

of rampant corruption, annually a percentage of maritime revenues are allocated for 

maritime training; virtually all of those funds have gone missing.) 

The University of Liberia was also devastated by the war. The new president, Al 

Hassan Konteh, has targeted the law school, teachers college and environmental 

stewardship as priorities. Dr. Konteh is eager to expand relationships with US institutions, thereby not only gaining needed expertise, but also further strengthening 

the long-term American constituency for Liberia. 

When we think of US support for education, we should consider a request to the 

schools and hospitals unit of the Defense Department to rebuild the American 

School. Historically, the American School was intellectually rigorous, and an international meeting place. The existence of such a school would be a big incentive to 

bring back Liberians and encourage American expatriates as well as Liberians to 

apply for some of the key advisor jobs. The presence of such a school would also 

encourage foreign investment—both Liberians and foreigners worry about schools 

for their children. 

In terms of health, Liberia badly needs a national strategy for HIV/AIDS. The 

prevalence rate has skyrocketed from 5.9 percent in 2003 to twelve percent today 

by UNDP estimates. The rate may be as high as 18 percent, the figure quoted by 

former Special Representative of the Secretary-General, Jacques Klein, in late January, 2006. Liberia should be added to PEPFAR and given help in preparing its application to the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria. 

Economic Revitalization: Economic revitalization involves managing the Governance and Economic Management Assistance Plan (GEMAP), reducing debt, increasing revenue generation and generating employment. 

The Liberian economy has been devastated by 15 years of civil war and at least 

25 years of official pillage of the national treasury. The Liberian annual budget is 

$80 million. In addition to civil servants, various other government workers have 

not been paid in several months, including teachers, police and security guards in 

the Executive Mansion. A senior official in the new government told me that more 

than 25 percent of the Liberian Petroleum Refinery Corporation’s revenues were 

missing. Corruption was so rampant under the NTGL that donors developed the 

Governance and Economic Management Assistance Plan (GEMAP) to safeguard 

donor assistance and improve economic governance. 

After major resistance, the transitional government signed off on GEMAP in September, 2005. GEMAP aims to improve financial management and accountability, 

improve procurement practices, develop a process to control corruption and build Liberian capacity. A major feature is co-signing authority with external advisors for 

eight key finance and budget positions, and management contracts for five stateowned enterprises. 

GEMAP is a start, but to really begin economic revitalization, the new team must 

have a multi-pronged approach. Liberia needs serious debt relief. Liberia has about 

$4 billion in total debt, with IMF arrears of $800 million. The debt-to-GDP ratio is 

900 percent. A six-month staff monitoring program with the IMF to establish credibility starts in April, but assuming no hiccups, reaching the HIPC completion point 

will take about three years. In the meantime, Liberia must keep borrowing to repay 

accumulated interest, currently $30,000 a month. The country needs debt relief, 

similar to the relief granted Poland and Iraq. 

The new government must also increase revenue generation and create jobs. One 

way to boost national revenues is to increase revenue from ports and petroleum imports. To stop thefts, the government is initiating pre-shipment inspections at the 

point of departure. One employment strategy under consideration is the launch of 

a major public works program tied to road-building which is described above. Also 

discussed above, public-private partnerships are a useful vehicle in revenue generation and new employment programs, but it is important that all such private sector 

initiatives have a social investment component. 

73

ASSISTANCE PRIORITIES

President Sirleaf’s economic recovery and stabilization plan is rational, comprehensive and long-term. It can be realized with judicious and generous outside 

support. Below are six recommendations for US support to the new government.

1. $200 million for development assistance to rebuild Liberia. It is obvious that 

Liberia teeters on the brink of reconstruction or destabilization. On the one 

hand, this war-ravaged post-conflict country must try to function with an $80 

million national budget, huge debt burden, unpaid civil servants, and no infrastructure. On the other hand it has new, competent leadership and a well 

thought-out plan for moving forward. Resources will make the difference. Liberia can absorb $200 million in US assistance for community development, 

strengthening democratic institutions, economic reform, education, HIV/AIDS 

prevention and treatment, infrastructure development, employment generation, civil service reform and agricultural revitalization. The country urgently 

needs the funds this year. As I understand our budgetary system, 

supplementals are for emergency funding and this is an emergency. FY 07 

on line budgetary funding is too late for a country with an $80 million annual budget, some of which has been stolen.

2. Increased support for GEMAP. In terms of the economy, donor support of 

GEMAP through continued funding of the technical assistance and external 

advisors will demonstrate donor commitment and confidence in the president’s courageous effort to revamp the financial architecture of her country.

3. Continued support for re-establishing a national military. On the security 

front, we applaud US funding for training a new army and urge continued 

funding to complete the job.

4. Continued support for UNMIL. The US should also ensure that UNMIL is 

retained at its present strength and that no battalions are diverted to deal 

with the conflict in neighboring Cote d’Ivoire.

5. Provide debt relief. US support for debt relief, similar to our efforts in Poland 

and Iraq, would weigh mightily in the effort to ease the reconstruction burden.

6. Lift restrictions of the Brooke Amendment. Liberia does not have access to 

some possible US funding because of arrears on debt payment. The US 

should lift these sanctions from Liberia as soon as possible, as we have done 

for Pakistan and other countries with extenuating circumstances or who are 

strong allies in the war on terrorism. Liberia meets both criteria.

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, the issues in West Africa are bigger than Liberia 

or any one country, but Liberia, aching for recovery, can be the vanguard. With 

three million people, abundant natural resources, a new president with economic expertise and political competence, Liberia can be a model of a failed state transformed into a thriving democracy. It will take human and financial resources, but 

I cannot think of a better long-term investment with a guaranteed ROI (return on 

investment). 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Thank you so much, Ms. Derryck. 

Professor Crane. 

STATEMENT OF MR. DAVID M. CRANE, FORMER CHIEF 

PROSECUTOR, SPECIAL COURT FOR SIERRA LEONE 

Mr. CRANE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have prepared a written 

statement, and I ask that my written testimony be entered into the 

record to include the appendix, which is the indictment of Charles 

Taylor, if I might. 

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Without objection, so ordered. 

Mr. CRANE. Thank you, sir. Mr. Chairman and other Distinguished Members of the Subcommittee, good afternoon. I appreciate the opportunity to come before you and to talk about the tenuous future of a struggling democracy, the Republic of Liberia. 

Before I do that, though, I think it is very important, however, 

for the record to recognize the tremendous steadfast and bipartisan 

74

support this Committee has given me personally, professionally, 

and politically during my tenure as the chief prosecutor of the 

world’s first hybrid international war crimes tribunal in West Africa, the Special Court for Sierra Leone. For 3 years, we all worked 

together to face down impunity in West Africa and to seek justice 

for the murder, rape, maiming, and mutilation of approximately 

500,000 Sierra Leoneans ruined in a civil war over a period of 10 

years of brutal and sadistic fighting on all sides. 

I am here to tell you, Mr. Chairman, that you and your esteemed 

colleagues, who include Chairman Hyde and the Ranking Democratic Member, Mr. Lantos, as well as the bipartisan Human 

Rights Caucus of the House of Representatives, have made a difference in West Africa. From my heart, thank you. 

If I may, Mr. Chairman, I would also like to recognize the incredibly important role nongovernmental organizations played and continue to play in supporting the work of the Special Court. We could 

not have accomplished what we have done thus far without their 

counsel, perspectives, advice, and political support. 

Additionally, the group of interested states who have provided 

the much-needed financial support necessary to run a modern-day, 

international war crimes tribunal is very much appreciated as well. 

Of those states, the United States, under the leadership of a bipartisan Congress, has been our biggest supporter, and I might digress 

here, if I might, Mr. Chairman, and underscore my personal concern about what Mr. Royce discussed earlier, and that was $13 million for the court. 

It is simple math. They need $13 million to meet their $25 million goal, or they will not be able to continue to finish the work 

that we have all done together there. 

I also want to recognize for the record, if I might, the quiet and 

steady support of my wife, Judith Ponder Crane, who is here today, 

a public servant in her own right, who represents the wonderful 

families who allowed us to do our important work in West Africa. 

As you know, an assignment to the Special Court is an unaccompanied host. Without her and the other families, the Special Court 

would not be the success it is today. 

I also want to recognize here today Dr. Alan White, my chief of 

investigations, who literally put his life on the line to represent the 

people of Sierra Leone. So for the record, Dr. Alan White clearly 

is my personal hero in the work that we did together for 3 years 

there. 

We can change the course of history, Mr. Chairman. We have a 

chance to do this in West Africa. I believe the Special Court for Sierra Leone placed the international community on the correct path, 

a path of truth and justice. The opportunity presented to us today 

is to show the people of West Africa, all of Africa, in large measure, 

that they matter, that we care, and that they are not alone. 

During my many town hall meetings throughout Sierra Leone 

where I stood before my clients and listened to them tell me about 

the horrors that took place in their town, village, district or province, I told them three things: That the law is fair; no one is above 

the law; and that the rule of law is more powerful than the rule 

of the gun. 

75

I am going to move through my testimony, though I do want to 

highlight that Charles Taylor has been a catalyst of most of the 

human tragedy and political instability in the region, backed by his 

compatriots, Colonel Muammar Qaddafi of Libya and President 

Blase ́ Camporie of Burkina Faso, among other criminal elements. 

That relationship with these two heads of state and the resultant 

political instability still remains. 

Overlay Taylor’s continued meddling in the affairs of the region, 

to include the attempted assassination of President Conte ́ of Guinea in 2005, attest to his determination to do what he promised as 

he was escorted up the steps of that Nigerian airliner in August 

2003, with various Presidents of several African countries, that he 

would be back. He meant it then, and he means it to this day: He 

will be back. 

Charles Taylor knows the Western world, to include the United 

States, better than we do ourselves. He is relatively young, 

wealthy, influential, and has a supportive base, military and politically, within Liberia and the Mano River region. Taylor knows that 

the West, particularly this country, will never send its sons and 

daughters to West Africa to stabilize a faltering Liberia. Currently, 

the United Nations has a large peacekeeping force there under the 

able leadership of Alan Doss, one of the United Nation’s best career 

diplomats, yet they are not going to be there forever, as we all 

know. 

I posit that 5 years from now when the international community 

is challenged by other crises, Taylor, in Calabar, under the protection of Nigeria, will make his move. We will wake up one morning 

and watch on CNN as Taylor rides triumphantly down the main 

street in Monrovia to the executive mansion, daring all of us to 

come and get him. Unless he is handed over to the Special Court 

for Sierra Leone, this scenario is not out of the realm of possibility. 

More importantly, and I underscore more importantly, the people 

of West Africa know it all too well, that Taylor is a street fighter, 

a thug, and a survivor. 

How do we assure Liberia’s future? Ultimately, what we do about 

Taylor in the next several weeks will determine the fate of Liberia 

and the new administration of its President, Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf. 

Charles Taylor hangs like a dark and ominous cloud over this ravaged country where he personally, for his own criminal gain, destroyed, as he did in Sierra Leone. 

There will be no prospect for peace in Liberia or the Mano River 

region as long as he remains outside the custody of the international tribunal in Freetown. In my opinion, nothing constructive 

can be developed in the long term in Liberia unless Charles Taylor 

is accounted for and turned over to the Special Court. It is that 

simple. Again, he will be back. 

Here is my suggested roadmap for a successful beginning for Liberia. 

First, hand Charles Taylor over to the Special Court for Sierra 

Leone for a fair trial. This takes him out of the local and regional 

dynamic that is West Africa. The new President can move forward, 

confident that Charles Taylor is not lurking in the shadows undermining her initial efforts to develop a legitimate and accountable 

Government in Monrovia. This has to happen first and now, or the 

76

rest of my suggestions and recommendations and the one you are 

considering for Liberia’s future will be a waste of time, money, and 

effort. 

Second, tie any financial and political support to good governance 

in Liberia. I appreciate, Mr. Chairman, your summing up of my 

recommendations earlier, so I will not repeat what you said. Thank 

you. I am impressed with early attempts to restore respect for the 

government by the new President. This has to be continued, and 

earmarking any aid to specific programs that enhance good governance is a must. 

Third, encourage the new administration in Liberia to establish 

the Truth and Reconciliation Commission called for in the earlier 

peace accords of 2003. The victims of any atrocity need to be able 

to tell their story officially. It is an important part of reconciliation 

for a country in transition from war to peace. It worked in Sierra 

Leone, and it can in Liberia. Recall that what took place in Liberia 

over a period of 10 years under the iron fist of Charles Taylor 

caused the murder, rape, maiming, and mutilation of around 

600,000 Liberians. The victims, their families, and towns need to 

tell the world what happened there. A truth commission can assist 

in this and to allow them to begin to put the horror behind them. 

Fourth, within the next few years or so, another hybrid war 

crimes tribunal needs to be established to account for the war 

crimes and crimes against humanity committed by Charles Taylor 

and his henchmen from 1990 to 2003 in Liberia. As most of these 

atrocities took place outside the jurisdiction of the International 

Criminal Court, an alternative model must be used. That model is 

the hybrid concept that proved to be so successful next door in Sierra Leone. 

The domestic court system in Liberia is incapable of accomplishing this task, try as they might. Liberia, working together 

with the international community and under the auspices of the 

United Nations, can account for what Charles did to his own countrymen. Note that these are separate conflicts with consequent war 

crimes and crimes against humanity. Charles Taylor has destroyed 

two nations, not just one. He must be prosecuted for any crimes he 

is alleged to have committed in Liberia after he is tried for what 

he did in Sierra Leone. Couple both of these conflicts together, and 

Charles Taylor, sitting as a free man in Nigeria, is individually 

criminally responsible for the destruction of 1.2 million human 

beings. 

If one takes these four recommendations—justice, truth, good 

governance, and the rule of law—the future of Liberia as a new democracy may be less cloudy and tenuous. To have a sustainable 

peace in Liberia, you must have truth and justice under the mantle 

of the rule of law and good governance. It is a simple A + B = C 

proposition. Truth plus justice equals a sustainable peace. Certainly, with this equation, Congress could be more assured that 

any funding and political capital expended would not be flushed 

down the drain. 

There are many other challenges ahead for Liberia, some of 

which were highlighted by my esteemed colleagues at this table: 

Corruption, so endemic in all of West Africa; the abuse of natural 

resources; a whole generation lost of children to war as child solVerDate Mar 21 2002 17:01 May 01, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00080 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 F:\WORK\AGI\020806\26015.000 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL
77

1Former founding Chief Prosecutor, Special Court for Sierra Leone 2002–2005. Professor 

Crane indicted then sitting President Charles Taylor for 17 Counts of War Crimes and Crimes 

against Humanity. 2This was most evident in the tremendous bi-partisan effort embodied in House Resolution 

127, May 2005 where the House of Representatives called for Charles Taylor to be handed over 

to the Special Court for Sierra Leone by a vote of 420–1. All the people of West Africa were 

heartened by this call for action. HR 127 followed a similar call for the hand over of Charles 

Taylor by the European Parliament in February of 2005. That resolution passed that body 95–

0. 3 Additionally, the dedicated and professional staff of the House International Relations Committee was very effective in sustaining political and financial backing for the Office of the Prosecutor throughout my tenure in Freetown. Each of them was magnificent. 

diers; and international terrorist moving about the entire region, 

among many, many other concerns. These are very real challenges 

which require the United States to monitor for years to come how 

the Liberian Government manages its legal, political, and financial 

assets. 

Accountability is the key. Make that government accountable to 

its people and its international backers. I respectfully ask this 

Committee to tie any future monetary aid to accountability and 

good governance. This approach will allow proper expenditure of 

U.S. taxpayers’ hard-earned money. 

In conclusion, I would ask this Committee to continue to forcefully urge the Bush Administration and the new President in Liberia to demand that Nigeria hand over war crimes indictee Charles 

Taylor to the Special Court to answer for his crimes. Nothing else 

that follows can happen with any assurance of success without it. 

In this period of time when we celebrate and recognize the principles laid down at Nuremberg 60 years ago, we must resolve, as 

human beings who care about humanity and the rule of law, that 

there cannot be an African exception to those principles. 

I was going to read a portion of my opening statement against 

the Revolutionary United Front in July 2004. It is a matter of 

record, and, frankly, I do not think I would be able to get through 

it. 

So thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity to address you 

and your esteemed colleagues today. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Crane follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MR. DAVID M. CRANE,1 FORMER CHIEF PROSECUTOR, 

SPECIAL COURT FOR SIERRA LEONE

‘‘I’LL BE BACK’’—CHARLES TAYLOR AND THE FUTURE OF LIBERIA

INTRODUCTION

Mr. Chairman and other distinguished members of this sub-committee, good afternoon. I appreciate the opportunity to come before you and talk about the tenuous 

future of a struggling democracy, the Republic of Liberia. 

Before I do that, however, I want to recognize the tremendous, steadfast, and bipartisan support this committee has given me professionally, politically, and personally during my tenure as the founding Chief Prosecutor of the world’s first hybrid 

international war crimes tribunal in West Africa, the Special Court for Sierra 

Leone. For three years we all worked together to face down impunity in West Africa 

and to seek justice for the murder, rape, maiming, and mutilation of approximately 

500,000 Sierra Leoneans ruined in a type of civil war over a period of ten years of 

brutal and sadistic fighting on all sides.2 I am here to tell you, Mr. Chairman, that 

you and your esteemed colleagues, to include Chairman Hyde and the ranking 

democratic member, Mr. Lantos, as well as the bi-partisan Human Rights Caucus 

of the House of Representatives, have made a difference in West Africa.3 From my 

heart, thank you all. 

78

4 Under the guidance of the UN sponsored Management Committee (consisting of the UN secretariat, the United States, Canada, Great Britain, Sierra Leone, Nigeria, and the Netherlands) 

there are around 31 nations who contribute money, goods, and services to the Special Court for 

Sierra Leone. 5The United States Congress needs to ensure that the Special Court for Sierra Leone remains 

properly funded throughout its remaining months. This tribunal is a model for efficiency and 

effectiveness, costing the international community only an average of $25 million per year, compared to the $125–130 million each of the current ad hoc tribunals cost per year. It is contemplated that the Special Court will be done with its work in West Africa in 2007, just 5 years 

from its beginning. 6Of the 70 persons in the Office of the Prosecutor who worked there in Freetown, a vast majority stayed with me for over three years, all having left their families behind. Their dedication 

to the rule of law was a daily inspiration for me. 7The Office of the Prosecutor Town Hall Program became the cornerstone of the now world 

famous Special Court Outreach Program, led by a Sierra Leonean, Binta Manserey and a team 

of outreach officers in each district of Sierra Leone. In the first 4 months of my tenure in Sierra 

Leone, I literally walked the entire countryside listening to the people of Sierra Leone by the 

tens of thousands. In the remaining years, I traveled frequently up-country to report back to 

them the progress of their tribunal and to listen to their concerns, questions, and issues. After 

all this was their tribunal and they were going to have to live with the result. 8Part of our overall strategic plan, preparation for Operation Justice began in October of 

2002, just three months after our arrival. The plan was executed on 10 March 2003 with the 

tremendous support of the Sierra Leonean Police, the UN Peacekeeping force in Sierra Leone, 

the United Kingdom, as well as the United States. The Sierra Leonean Police made all of the 

arrests, assisted by investigators from the Office of the Prosecutor of the Special Court. After 

the arrests, the 6 indictees were whisked away to a temporary detention facility on Bonthe Island, put together by the Office of the Registrar in UN and US provided MI–8 helicopters. The 

HMS Iron Duke, from the British Navy, arrived to provide stability should additional forces 

prove to be needed. They were not. The tactical surprise was absolute and no one was killed 

or injured. As I told the press and the people of West Africa that afternoon at a press conference, on 10 March, the people of Sierra Leone will wake up tomorrow to a new Sierra Leone. 

It was a special moment for them. 9 According to my prosecutorial strategy, all of the leadership, those who bore the greatest responsibility for what took place in Sierra Leone, were grouped into two, and then three joint 

trials representing all of the major fighting factions in the civil war. 

If I may, Mr. Chairman, I would also like to recognize the incredibly important 

role non-governmental organizations played and continue to play in supporting the 

work of the Special Court. We could not have accomplished what we have thus far 

without their counsel, perspectives, advice, and political support. Additionally, the 

group of interested states who have provided the much needed financial support 

necessary to run a modern day international war crimes tribunal is very much appreciated as well.4 Of those states, the United States, under the leadership of a bipartisan Congress, has been our biggest supporter.5

I also want to recognize, for the record, if I might, the quiet and steady support 

of my wife, Judith Ponder Crane, a public servant, who represents the wonderful 

families who allowed us to do our important work in West Africa. As you know an 

assignment to the Special Court is an unaccompanied post. Without her, and the 

other families, the Special Court would not be the success it is today.6

WE CAN CHANGE THE COURSE OF HISTORY! 

We have a chance to change the course of history for the better in West Africa. 

I believe the Special Court for Sierra Leone placed the international community on 

the correct path, a path of truth and justice. The opportunity presented to us today 

is to show the people of West Africa, all of Africa in large measure, that they matter, that we care, and that they are not alone. During my many town hall meetings 

throughout Sierra Leone, where I stood before my client and listened to them tell 

me about the horrors that took place in their town, village, district or province; I 

told them three things: that the law is fair, no one is above the law, and that the 

rule of law is more powerful than the rule of the gun.7

When I arrested 6 of the 13 individuals I indicted, in a textbook 55 minute arrest 

operation throughout Sierra Leone in Operation Justice, March 2003, to include the 

Minister of Interior at his desk, there was dancing in the streets.8 The people of 

Sierra Leone began to believe that no one was above the law. 

When we opened the three joint criminal trials against the leadership of the Civil 

Defense Force, the Revolutionary United Front, and the Armed Forces Revolutionary Council, over a period of time, the people of West Africa saw that the law 

was fair.9 And when I unsealed that 17 count indictment against President Charles 

Taylor for the atrocities he committed on the people of West Africa; stripping the 

most powerful warlord in Africa of that power with the simple stroke of a pen; the 

people of this embattled region of the world realized that the rule of law was more 

79

10The indictment signed in a moving ceremony on 3 March 2003, in my office in Freetown, 

Sierra Leone, is attached as an appendix. I told the assembled trial counsel and investigators 

that ‘‘the ghosts of a hundred thousand Sierra Leoneans are in this room right now.’’ The 

unsealing of the indictment against Charles Taylor on the day he arrived in Accra, Ghana for 

the peace talks in June of 2003 was a calculated move on my part to publicly strip, in front 

of the world, this warlord of his power by my signature on the indictment. It was never intended 

to force his transfer that day to the tribunal, though we would have accepted him and were 

ready to arraign him on the charges within the indictment immediately. My intent was to humble and humiliate him before his peers, the leaders of Africa and to serve notice to Taylor and 

others that the days of impunity in Africa were over. Taylor is the first African head of state 

ever to be indicted for war crimes and crimes against humanity and only the second in history. 

His indictment paved the way for the eventual election of Ellen Johnson Sirleaf as the first fairly elected President of Liberia, and also the first African woman ever to be elected a head of 

state. It must be noted that the United States was given a copy of the Taylor indictment two 

months before I unsealed it in June of 2003. It was personally given to Walter Kansteiner, then 

the Assistant Secretary of State for Africa at a breakfast meeting in April of 2003 with the US 

Ambassador, Peter Chavez at his home in Freetown. Another copy was given to Pierre Prosper, 

the Ambassador at Large for War Crimes Issues as well. All parties were warned 24 hours in 

advance of the unsealing while Taylor was in Accra. The government of Ghana was served with 

the indictment and the warrant of arrest the morning of the unsealing of Taylor’s indictment. 11 According to close sources who acted as lead witnesses during our investigation of Taylor 

and those involved in the joint criminal enterprise that destroyed two countries and threatened 

a third, the Ivory Coast; Taylor, Fodoy Sankoh, Campore, and Qadhafi, apparently sat down and 

developed a secret plan to undermine the current governments within West Africa and then replace them with surrogates, such as Taylor, who were beholden to Qadhafi. This plan remains 

in place to this day. I chose not to indict Qadhaffi and Campore only because of evidentiary 

issues and the practical reality of indicting two more heads of state within West Africa which 

would have politically undermined the work of the tribunal. However, I did choose to name 

Qadhaffi within the Taylor indictment as a key member of the joint criminal enterprise. Within 

the American criminal system Qadhaffi would have been what we call an un-indicted co-conspirator. He remains a threat to West Africa. 12This support is found mainly in Lofa County, Taylor’s home county and where he started 

his reign of terror back in 1989–90. As of the summer of 2005, our sources reported that there 

was a battalion size element standing by to do his bidding. 13 Alan Doss was the Deputy Special Representative of the Secretary General (DSRSG) in Sierra Leone through most of my tenure as Chief Prosecutor, 2002–2005. His quiet support was 

instrumental in the success of Operation Justice. I never briefed his boss, the SRSG, Oluyemi 

Adeniji (currently the Foreign Minister of Nigeria) on any of my operations related to the investigations as I did not trust him. He did not like the presence of the Special Court in Sierra 

Leone. Just a month before Operation Justice, Adeniji tried to quietly sneak two of the targeted 

indictees out of Sierra Leone. I sent a message through Alan Doss to Adeniji that I would prosecute him for obstruction of justice if he did so. It did not happen. Adeniji was never told about 

Operation Justice until it was over. As Foreign Minister, Adeniji remains a serious stumbling 

block in the handover of Taylor to the tribunal. 14President Olusegun Obasanjo of Nigeria was induced by the United States, the United 

Kingdom, with the concurrence of the United Nations Secretary General, Kofi Annan, to take 

Taylor out of Liberia and place him in Calabar. Initially, I supported this, even calling for his 

Continued

powerful than the rule of the gun.10 For the first time in his life, Charles Taylor 

ran into an immovable object—the victims of this tragedy, who shouted never again 

and no more. Humbled and beaten, he fled to a type of political limbo in Calabar, 

Nigeria. 

Charles Taylor has been the catalyst of most of the human tragedy and political 

instability of the region, backed by his compatriots, Col. Muammar Abu Minyar alQADHAFI of Libya and President Blase ́ Camporie of Burkina Faso, among other 

criminal elements.11 That relationship with these two heads of state and the resultant political instability still remains. Overlay Taylor’s continued meddling in the affairs of the region, to include the attempted assassination of President Conte of 

Guinea in 2005, attest to his determination to do what he promised as he was escorted up the steps of that Nigerian airliner, in August of 2003, with various presidents of several African countries, that he would be back. He meant it then and he 

means it to this day. He will be back. 

Charles Taylor knows the western world, to include the United States, better than 

we do ourselves. He is relatively young, wealthy, influential, and has a supportive 

base militarily and politically within Liberia and the Mano River Region.12 Taylor 

knows that the west, particularly this country, will never send its sons and daughters to West Africa to stabilize a faltering Liberia. Currently, the United Nations 

has a large peacekeeping force there, under the able leadership of Alan Doss, one 

of the United Nation’s best career diplomats; yet they are not going to be there forever.13 I posit that five years from now, when the international community is challenged by other crises, Taylor, in Calabar, under the protection of Nigeria, will make 

his move.14 We will wake up one morning and watch on CNN as Taylor rides triumVerDate Mar 21 2002 17:01 May 01, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00083 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 F:\WORK\AGI\020806\26015.000 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL
80

removal from Liberia, now that he was indicted. It was important that the peace process move 

forward and Liberia stabilize. But it has now been over two years, peace is at hand with a new 

government (contemplated by the Accra Peace Accord), and it is now time for this handover by 

the Nigerian government. I only hope the President of Nigeria has the moral courage to do so, 

something lacking in many African leaders today. 15The Mano River region consists of Guinea, Liberia, and Sierra Leone. The Mano River 

Union was formed initially in 1973. Due to conflict and internal strife it was largely defunct 

until being reactivated at a summit May of 2004. Each of these countries is so tied together 

culturally, politically, and economically, where one falters or fails, the others do as well. In all 

of West Africa, this grouping of three nations is the Achilles heal of West Africa. The supposed 

goal is to foster economic opportunity. 16Legally there is no impediment for the handover. The Appellate Chamber of the Special 

Court for Sierra Leone, in a landmark ruling of Prosecutor v. Taylor, May 2004, ruled that 

Charles Taylor has no head of state immunity that absolves him of his war crimes and crimes 

against humanity thus paving the way for his handover. The next legal step is his handover 

and arraignment on the charges, followed by pretrial motions and then trial. 17There are two aspects to West Africa, the West Africa we see and the West Africa that is. 

We must deal with the West Africa that is in order to ensure a better future for Liberia. 18The hundreds of millions of dollars the international community, to include the United 

States, has invested in Liberia’s future could be siphoned off to line the pockets of greedy Liberian politicians. This apparently was the case in the transitional government led by Gyude Bryant. 19This Congress has already sent letters to the Bush administration essentially stating that 

any future aid to Liberia should be tied to a hand over of Charles Taylor to the Special Court 

for Sierra Leone. This Committee has been instrumental in this effort. 20President Sirleaf just this past week (2 February 2006) sent a strong signal that she will 

not stand for corruption by firing numerous individuals within the Finance Ministry. However, 

she will have a huge challenge in the guise of the Liberian legislature as there are numerous 

Taylor supporters within that body. 21 Article XIII, Comprehensive Peace Agreement in Accra, Ghana 18 August 2003. 22During my sit downs with the people of Sierra Leone they stood up and described crimes 

that are beyond description in any language. They knew that the very persons that actually 

committed the atrocities would not be prosecuted before the tribunal as those who bore the 

greatest responsibility, yet they wanted some type of official record of what happened to their 

phantly down the main street in Monrovia to the executive mansion, daring all of 

us to come get him. Unless he is handed over to the Special Court for Sierra Leone, 

this scenario is not out of the realm of possibility. More importantly, the people of 

West Africa know it all to well, that Taylor is a street fighter, a thug, and a survivor. 

The fact is, as we consider changing history, together, we can stop this from happening today, right now. We’ve got Taylor; it is just a matter of turning him over 

to the Special Court for Sierra Leone for a fair trial. 

HOW DO WE DO ASSURE LIBERIA’S FUTURE?

Ultimately, what we do about Charles Taylor in the next several weeks will determine the fate of Liberia and the new administration of its President Ellen Johnson 

Sirleaf. Charles Taylor hangs like a dark and ominous cloud over this ravaged country which he personally, for his own criminal gain, destroyed, as he did Sierra 

Leone. There will be no prospect for peace in Liberia or the Mano River region15, 

as long as he remains outside the custody of the international tribunal in Freetown. 

In my opinion, nothing constructive can be developed in the long term in Liberia, 

unless Charles Taylor is accounted for and turned over to the Special Court. It is 

that simple. Again, he will be back. 

Here is my suggested roadmap for a successful beginning for Liberia: 

First: Hand Charles Taylor over the Special Court for Sierra Leone for a fair 

trial.16 This takes him out of the local and regional dynamic that is West Africa.17

The new president can move forward confident that Charles Taylor is not lurking 

in the shadows undermining her initial efforts to develop a legitimate and accountable government in Monrovia. This has to happen first, and now, or the rest of my 

suggestions and recommendations, and the ones you are considering for Liberia’s future, will be a waste of time, money, and effort.18

Second: Tie any financial and political support to good governance in Liberia.19

I am impressed with early attempts to restore respect for the government by the 

new president. This has to be continued and earmarking any aid to specific programs that enhance good governance is a must.20

Third: Encourage the new administration in Liberia to establish the Truth and 

Reconciliation Commission called for in the earlier peace accords of 2003.21 The victims of any atrocity need to be able to tell their story, officially. It is an important 

part of reconciliation for a country in transition from war to peace. It worked in Sierra Leone and it can in Liberia.22 Recall, that what took place in Liberia over a 

81

family member(s). A truth commission can do that. I encouraged them to go before the truth 

and reconciliation commission to tell their story. They did by the thousands. 23This number is approximate as the true number can never be known due to lack of accounting or a proper census. This figure could be off as much as 25% either way, yet the numbers 

are still massive and tragic. 24 As stated in a report on Liberia in 2005 by Amnesty International at page 10, : May 2005, 

local observers were concerned at the slow progress in addressing the lack of qualified personnel 

and that recruitment, vetting and training of judicial personnel was not taking place. On the 

28 June the transitional government commissioned eleven circuit court judges and six specialized 

court judges. The judges will serve in criminal and specialized courts in Montserrado County and 

in circuit and specialized courts in eight other counties. Prior to the commissioning of these 

judges there had only been 11 circuit court judges in the country yet there had been 21 posts 

to fill. At least 7 of them had been of retirement age or in poor health. Funding has been promised by the US Department of State, although it is unclear when it will be available. 25For three years the Office of the Prosecutor carefully developed an information asset system 

throughout the region providing essential evidence, criminal information, and intelligence. Several of these assets are placed very close to the various actors in the joint criminal enterprise. 

Over time they have proven to be 75–80% accurate, and in some cases completely so. These 

sources helped us uncover evidence that Charles Taylor harbored Al Queda terrorists, and 

Hamas, in Monrovia for years, to include, we allege, several of the terrorists who brought down 

the US embassies in Tanzania and Kenya to include, apparently, Abdullah Ahmed Abdullah

and Sheikh Ahmed Salim Swedan. One well placed source has Charles Taylor dealing with an 

operative in Burkina Faso as late as 6 April of 2005 named Fazul Abdullah Mohammed. All 

of this information has been passed to appropriate governments and law enforcement agencies. 26 Believe me, the trick to getting a West African leader’s attention is cash, plain and simple. 

period of ten years under the iron fist of Charles Taylor caused the murder, rape, 

maiming, and mutilation of around 600,000 Liberians.23 The victims, their families, 

and towns need to tell the world what happened there. A truth commission can assist in this and to allow them to begin to put the horror behind them. 

Fourth: Within the next few years or so, another hybrid war crimes tribunal needs 

to be established to account for the war crimes and crimes against humanity committed by Charles Taylor and his henchmen from 1990–2003 in Liberia. As most 

of these atrocities took place outside the jurisdiction of the International Criminal 

Court, an alternate model must be used. That model is the hybrid concept that 

proved to be so successful next door in Sierra Leone. The domestic court system in 

Liberia is incapable of accomplishing this task.24 Liberia, working together with the 

international community and under the auspices of the United Nations, can account 

for what Charles Taylor did to his own countryman. Note that these are separate 

conflicts with consequent war crimes and crimes against humanity. Charles Taylor 

has destroyed two nations, not just one! He must be prosecuted for any crimes he 

is alleged to have committed in Liberia, after he is tried for what he did in Sierra 

Leone. Couple both of these conflicts together and Charles Taylor, sitting as a free 

man in Nigeria, is individually criminally responsible for the destruction of 1.2 million human beings. 

If one then takes these four recommendations, justice, truth, good governance, 

and the rule of law, the future of Liberia as a new democracy may be less cloudy 

and tenuous. To have a sustainable peace in Liberia you must have truth and justice, under the mantle of the rule of law and good governance. It is a simple A plus 

B equals C proposition—truth plus justice equals a sustainable peace. Certainly 

with this equation, Congress could be more assured that any funding and political 

capital expended would not be flushed down the drain. 

There are many other challenges ahead for Liberia: Corruption, so endemic in all 

of West Africa; the abuse of natural resources; a whole lost generation of children 

to war as child soldiers; and international terrorists moving about the entire region, 

among many other concerns.25 These very real challenges will require the United 

States to monitor, for years to come, how the Liberian government manages its 

legal, political, and financial assets. 

Accountability is the key. Make that government accountable to its people and 

its international backers.26 I respectfully ask this Committee to tie any future monetary aid to accountability and good governance. This approach will allow proper expenditures of US taxpayer’s hard earned money. 

CONCLUSION—TURN CHARLES TAYLOR OVER TO THE SPECIAL COURT OR THERE WILL BE

NO REAL FUTURE FOR LIBERIA

In conclusion, I would ask this committee to continue to forcefully urge the Bush 

administration, and the new president in Liberia, to demand that Nigeria hand over 

war crimes indictee Charles Taylor to the Special Court to answer for his crimes. 

Nothing else that follows can happen with any assurance of success without it. In 

this period of time when we celebrate and recognize the principles laid down at NurVerDate Mar 21 2002 17:01 May 01, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00085 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 F:\WORK\AGI\020806\26015.000 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL
82

27The Opening Statement of David M. Crane, Chief Prosecutor against Issa Hassan Sesay, 

Morris Kallon, Augustine Gbao, in an Amended Consolidated Indictment, Case no. SCSL–2004–

15–PT, 5 July 2004; Freetown, Sierra Leone.

emberg 60 years ago, we must resolve as human beings who care about humanity 

and the rule of law, that there cannot be an African exception to those principles. 

If I may, Mr. Chairman, I would like to close my remarks with an excerpt from 

my opening statement in the joint criminal trial against the leadership of the Revolutionary United Front in July of 2004. As I read this to the Committee, Charles 

Taylor, we allege, is individually criminally responsible for what took 

place, as described below, at Penduma...

In 1999, another witness in Koidu will testify that when RUF and AFRC 

rebels drove the Kamajors from the town they began to burn the houses of Koidu. 

The witness and his family fled to a nearby village. The RUF rebels followed 

them in a number of trucks filled with young women. The rebel commander took 

the 16 year old sister of the witness. He declared loudly that he was going to 

take her as his wife. The witness tried to protect his younger sister, but was told 

he would be killed. The rebels left with around ten girls from the town, the 

youngest being 12. His younger sister was kept by the rebels for four long years. 

The witness will further testify that upon hearing that ECOMOG troops had 

taken Koidu town the family decided to return, walking for four days. When they 

reached Penduma village it was overrun with armed RUF rebels. Twenty civilians who attempted to flee were shot dead. The rest of the survivors where 

grouped together and told to wait for the commander. Upon arrival the commander addressed the frightened civilians saying to them, ‘‘so you are the supporters of Tejan Kabbah.’’ They were separated into three groups the witness will 

declare: first, pregnant women, suckling mothers and children; second, men and 

boys; and third females—teenagers to grandmothers. Twenty-five men and 

women were picked out at random from the last two groups. The commander 

gave the order, ‘‘Una take them. Make una burn dem.’’ These civilians were 

placed in a house which was set on fire by the rebels. All of them were burned 

alive while the others were forced to listen to their agonized screams. 

The commander then pointed at the group of females. There were around twenty. The wife of the witness was one of them. The women were raped in front of 

everyone. The witness will testify that he and his children were forced to watch 

while his wife and their mother was raped by eight different RUF rebels before 

she was stabbed to death with a bayonet by the last RUF rapist. Why does he 

recall there being eight rapists, he will be asked, because the witness had to 

count out loud the number as they tore into his wife. Two other women were likewise gang raped and then murdered. Note, while this is taking place, twentyfive human beings are roasting to death in a burning house, their cries adding 

to this true living hell on earth. 

Fifteen of the men were marched away by rebels armed with knives. Two who 

attempted to run were shot. The remaining had their throats cut. 

Incredibly, the witness and eight others remained. Each of them was called 

forward and had a hand cut off. When the witness attempted to retrieve his severed hand he was struck in the back with a bayonet. The commander of the 

rebels told the witness to go to Tejan Kabbah.27

Thank you for this chance to provide my humble perspectives and I look forward 

to your questions and continued efforts in bringing Charles Taylor to justice, accounting for the destruction of over a million West Africans, and building a new democracy in that part of the world. 

83


26015b0001.eps
84


26015b0002.eps
85


26015b0003.eps
86


26015b0004.eps
87


26015b0005.eps
88


26015b0006.eps
89


26015b0007.eps
90


26015b0008.eps
91


26015b0009.eps
92


26015b0010.eps
93


26015b0011.eps
94


26015b0012.eps
95

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Mr. Crane, thank you for your extraordinary work as Chief Prosecutor, and as my good friend and 

colleague, Mr. Payne, pointed out, the feeling for you and the admiration for the job you did and the risks you took are greatly appreciated by Members on both sides of the aisle. 

The people of Sierra Leone and Liberia, I think, are that much 

better protected, and accountability is that much further moved 

forward, particularly in a legal sense, because of what you have 

done, and hopefully that does help some people, providing the second and third and fourth steps are taken, to provide for an atmosphere within which peace and reconciliation can go forward. 

I would note for the record as well that on several occasions you 

did keep this Subcommittee, the Congress, and the ROI Committee, 

in a larger sense, apprised, and you answered questions about 

what was going on there, how U.S. taxpayer money was being 

spent, and I think it was spent very prudently. 

So I want to again thank you from all of us for the extraordinary 

job you did, and I want to thank all of our witnesses. You really 

do give us additional insights as to how we should proceed from 

here. That is why we are having this hearing. 

Dr. Pham, you mentioned about the weapons, and I would hope 

that maybe you could elaborate on that. We know from places like 

Northern Ireland and really every place where there has been a destabilized situation that unless weapons are put out of use and, as 

they call it there, decommissioned, but obviously it has got different terms in other places. 

Maybe if you could give us a sense of how many weapons you 

think still are at large. Your point that only lacking a spark from 

the outside, I think, was a very ominous statement, not unlike the 

one when you repeated Charles Taylor’s statement, ‘‘I will be back.’’ 

The situation, while it has drastically improved, there is certainly 

not an area that is safe and secure. 

You also mentioned, and perhaps all of you might want to speak 

to this, in the back and forth with Secretary Frazer earlier, I got 

a sense, in asking her about Mr. Crane’s roadmap, particularly the 

point about a new, hybrid, war crimes tribunal that would be Liberia-specific and would cover crimes committed by Taylor and his 

henchmen from 1990 to 2003, and I would point out that, Dr. 

Pham, I think you made a very good point about how, in addition 

to the Liberian President, Charles Taylor, we need to be looking 

at—you went through a whole long list of people who are now serving in the Parliament or the Congress, I should say, that have 

checkered pasts at best. We do not want to lose that focus, I do not 

think, and certainly a new, hybrid court would be tasked with looking at that. 

But I got the sense from Dr. Frazer that the court system in Liberia could handle this. I know that is a burden that could very 

quickly become, you know, a burden that is just far too much for 

them to handle. You mentioned that the court system is in total 

disarray. Five judges, I think, was the number you gave. So it 

seems to me that that makes the imperative for a hybrid court that 

much more pressing, and you might want to speak to that as well, 

and then all of you, of course. 

96

Mr. PHAM. Thank you. On the question of the weapons, we do 

not know the exact number. We can, at best, estimate. The problem 

is weapons and people in this subregion are very fluid. We know, 

for example, that Charles Taylor, in the second Liberian civil war, 

took into his service people who were combatants moving out of the 

Sierra Leonean theater, and we now have evidence that some of 

these same people who were combatants in the Liberian theater 

have now moved on to Cote D’Ivoire. So it is constant back and 

forth with fighters and their weapons. 

For example, just to cite one datum, in a flight from the former 

Yugoslavia in 2002 we know that delivered to Charles Taylor were 

about 800 RPGs. We have recovered approximately 400 of them, so 

there are 400 RPGs out there somewhere. The United Nations has 

done a decent job gathering some of this data. A lot more could be 

devoted just to collecting data. We just know that we have more 

combatants turning themselves in than weapons, and that is obviously not——

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. For the record, by ‘‘former Yugoslavia,’’ do you mean Serbia? 

Mr. PHAM. Yes. 

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Okay. 

Mr. PHAM. Yes. So there is definitely a problem. 

I would also suggest that besides the question of counting the 

number of weapons, we really need to get a good index on the number of combatants. The number that is used generally is this 

118,000. The UN—specifically UNMIL—had planned for 38,000; 

118,000 showed up, which was a good thing. My research and my 

own field work suggest that the number is far greater. 

There are simply people who did not show up or simply deserted 

their units before the conclusion of hostilities, some of whom were 

children and equally traumatized, but they are not included in this 

census. My educated guess would be probably a number closer to 

a quarter of a million would be a more realistic number to plan 

around. 

With respect to the hybrid court, I think Professor Crane’s comments are quite appropriate. Liberia does not have this capacity, 

and what the Special Court of Sierra Leone has done has been a 

tremendous gift to the Sierra Leonean people in leaving a capacity 

behind, and I think something similar needs to take place, both for 

juridical reasons and jurisdiction, for the war crimes committed in 

Liberia, as well as part of a capacity-building process. There needs 

to be that accountability within Liberia, and I think a hybrid court 

would be an excellent idea and certainly one that the United 

States, for a number of reasons, should take the leadership role in. 

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Finally, do you have a sense of when 

this should be initiated? Right now? 

Mr. PHAM. I think that a process needs to be begun now; otherwise, these political figures who I list in my written testimony will 

slowly create legitimacies for themselves by their role in government. They need to be put on notice that what they did just a year 

or 2 ago has not been forgotten, that we will not accept them as 

legitimate interlocutors in a process, and that needs to be done because especially, as I mentioned the subregion, the subregion is 

right now waiting for the spark, and not just Taylor, but anything 

97

else could happen. Lansana Conte ́ in Guinea could go tomorrow. 

With all due respect to our intelligence services, they have been 

predicting his departure from this vale of tears for several years. 

He has not graced us with that yet, but that could happen at any 

time, so the rule of law needs to established, the sooner, the better. 

Ms. DERRYCK. In terms of the hybrid court, I agree that, at this 

point, all of the institutions in Liberia are fragile, and the court 

really does not have the capacity to adequately deal with this. 

Mr. CRANE. I would just simply underscore, Mr. Chairman—obviously, I have made the point in my paper—it is very similar to 

what took place in Sierra Leone. There is a willingness, but just 

practical, legal, political, and security reasons why they cannot do 

it, and so that is why President Kabbah wrote that extraordinary 

letter back in 2000 asking Secretary-General Kofi Anan for help because he said, we just cannot do it, and, hence, the beginning of 

the world’s first hybrid war crimes tribunal. 

The Sierra Leonean court system still struggles today, even after 

almost 31⁄2 years of some type of stability and peace. It is going to 

take 10, 15, 20 years, in my opinion, just for the Sierra Leonean 

court system to be able to have the capacity to deal with the normal domestic civil law situation. 

But I do want to underscore to this Committee, respect for the 

law is paramount in West Africa. There just is not any at this 

point. We are starting it in our small efforts in Sierra Leone, but 

it has to catch fire across the entire region, or, again, democracy 

is just going to be an idea, and we would like to see it more structurally put in place with the rule of law as the cornerstone. 

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Let me just ask one final question. 

Is it your sense that the regional African leaders are supportive of 

Charles Taylor being held to account and being brought to justice? 

And, secondly, President Johnson-Sirleaf, how at risk is she as she 

is starting out on economic recovery, rebuilding a country that has 

been absolutely torn asunder? How at risk is she if Taylor is returned to the court, and she is obviously the one who has made the 

strong request that that happen? 

Mr. CRANE. I have personally sat down with approximately 70 

percent of the regional leaders in West Africa. Privately, they will 

look you right in the eye, and they will tell me, and they did tell 

me, that Charles Taylor needs to be handed over to the Special 

Court. He is an embarrassment to them. He is a sea anchor to economic development and legitimacy. I think there is a real recognition that democracy is the way ahead. However, with Charles Taylor out there, it is a problem for them. However, they are not willing to embarrass the President of Nigeria, who is the regional leader, and so they have chosen other than three of them to publicly 

not state that. 

I do want to note for the record that the Presidents of Cote 

d’Ivoire, Guinea, and I believe it was Gambia that have said that 

Charles Taylor needs to be handed over. Strike that. It was the 

President of Sierra Leone that finally came forward and stated 

that. It was not the President of Gambia. 

Is President Johnson-Sirleaf at risk? She is at risk now politically. It is a dangerous region personally, but she is at risk politically right now. If Charles Taylor is handed over and placed in an 

98

appropriate international detention facility, whatever support 

Charles Taylor has will eventually dry up because there is no more 

Charles Taylor. 

Charles Taylor will receive his fair trial, but I do want to tell you 

that we have a very strong case against him, and before I signed 

that indictment, I insisted that the charges be beyond a reasonable 

doubt because we could not make the mistake with any of these individuals to include Charles Taylor. He will get his fair trial, but 

the point is that his supporters will suddenly realize that he is not 

coming back, and they will look to other ways to ensure their own 

future. 

So I think it will be more secure for this new, innovative President that he is being fairly tried before a court of law than sitting 

in some type of political arrangement in Calabar, sir. 

Ms. DERRYCK. Let me just address the second part of your question, Mr. Chairman: Is President Johnson-Sirleaf at risk? I think 

that she is, for a lot of reasons. One, she does not have an army 

that is established yet. She certainly does not have security, even 

at the mansion. The security forces have not been paid. She is at 

risk because she has decided to tackle corruption and poverty. 

Corruption, of course, is going right into the legislature and to 

former senior officials and to the transitional government. Some of 

those persons are still walking around. Remember, there was almost an indictment of the national transitional Government of Liberia. So she is definitely at risk. 

I think she has to deal with these other priorities of corruption 

and stabilizing the government and finding the resources. I mean, 

you can’t run a country on $80 million a year. And so I don’t think 

that the institutions are strong enough for her to take at this particular moment what is a huge risk. And it might be destabilizing 

because the institutions are not strong enough and she doesn’t 

have the security forces necessarily to back her up. 

Mr. PHAM. If I may begin with the second point, Mr. Chairman, 

I think I agree that President Johnson-Sirleaf is at risk. Part of the 

risk is the security risk. We need to assess the reasons why the 

number 2,000, for example, was arrived at as the future military 

of Liberia. From what I understand, part of it was budgetary considerations. That is well and fine, but we also have to look at the 

security situation of the subregion, and so there is the security 

question for her. 

But in many respects, she holds the key to her own security. 

Charles Taylor is the biggest security risk. Once he is secured, 

many of the risks go away or are greatly diminished, not only for 

Liberia, but for the subregion. And many of the leaders in the subregion, as Mr. Crane assured us, while they will not come out publicly, they will endorse it and they place a great premium on the 

principle of national sovereignty. They prefer that the decision be 

made by the elected Liberian head of state. In fact, the communique of the Mano River Presidents last July says the decision 

should rest with and be revisited by the newly-elected Liberian 

President. 

So she is at risk because of Taylor, but she holds the key to her 

own deliverance because they will respect that decision as the sovereign decision of a sovereign state. 

99

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Thank you, Dr. Pham. Mr. Payne? 

Mr. PAYNE. Thank you very much. We talked about the need for 

a stronger court system, and you talked about the higher court, but 

what is your opinion about just basically starting with a local municipal court-type system? 

I mean, I think it is very important to have sort of a Supreme 

Court and a Federal court system, but I think the whole lack of a 

basic legal court system is certainly an impediment for people 

maybe investing if they feel that there is no way to protect their 

investment through the court system. 

Do you feel it is something that is a big weakness and that we 

as a country do not involve ourselves very much in trying to 

strengthen—I mean, I guess we can’t do everything. We have got 

to feed people, we have got to try to create jobs, we have got to fix 

roads, we have got to get energy up. But we have a weakness in 

creating a judicial system, and do you have any suggestions on 

that? And perhaps the prosecutor or Ms. Derryck, too. 

I mean, on the basic, do you feel it would be better to try to come 

up with some barristers to see what the qualifications are and 

what the minimum amount of qualifications and attempt to put in 

a local system and then try to build up? Or I hear you mention 

these 35 judges, which about five are working. How do you, with 

limited funds——

Mr. PHAM. Congressman, I think you raise a very good point. In 

many respects, we have to work it from both ends. Traditionally Liberia has also relied for dispute resolution mechanisms at a very 

local level, traditional leaders who are appointed. 

One of the unfortunate aspects of the Liberian Constitution is everyone down to the last minor subofficial of a village is a Presidential appointee who serves at the pleasure of the President, so 

it is a very centralized system. 

President Johnson-Sirleaf needs—granted, it is lower on the list 

of priorities—but she needs nonetheless to begin a constitutional 

dialogue to devolve power to the local areas where people can take 

control of their own affairs. That is part of it. 

I am a big advocate in my academic writings on supporting traditional African customary laws and practices insofar as they conform to universally accepted norms. The problem in Liberia is that 

after more than a generation of conflict, there has been a separation, a rupture in that continuum so that many of the young people 

today, unfortunately, have lost contact with their rich heritage, and 

so customary law now doesn’t carry the weight it did a generation 

or two ago. That is very unfortunate, but what can one do? 

But we do need some efforts to reinvigorate those very basic dispute resolution mechanisms, the civil law structures. Today, if you 

go to Liberia and attempt to get justice on a contract dispute, you 

and your lawyers will run around with photocopies, mimeographs. 

The last edition of the Liberian civil code is a 1950s printing at 

Cornell University Press. I think it would be a great contribution 

if someone simply helped Liberia just bring it up to date so someone could go and actually look at Liberian law instead of owning, 

like I do, binders of mimeographs. That is not a very efficient way 

to conduct a legal system. 

100

Even the nuts and the bolts of the process are going to require 

a number of years, which is why the hybrid court is a good idea 

to at least help with the process of the rule of law at the highest 

levels. But the whole structure needs great assistance and attention from the U.S., from the international community, and from 

NGOs. 

Ms. DERRYCK. Thank you for the question, Congressman Payne. 

When you think about reestablishing a judicial system, you have 

to think about the support of civil society. We are talking about a 

country that has an 80 percent illiteracy rate with no recent history of dealing with institutions of democratic governance and judicial decisionmaking. 

The law school in Liberia is not functioning, although someone 

is going on a Fulbright, I think, in a couple of months. There are 

very few qualified lawyers, so I am wondering who will be the persons that are going to really man or person this system. 

And so if we go back to the time that this is going to take, I 

think that judicial reform is certainly one of President JohnsonSirleaf’s priorities, but it is going to take an enormous amount of 

outside assistance, both technical assistance in terms of professionals, and a good deal of financial resources as well. 

Mr. CRANE. Thank you, Mr. Payne. I do want to score for the 

record also that your personal and professional support to my office 

throughout the 31⁄2 years was significant and deeply appreciated by 

both myself and 70 brave individuals who are and still remain 

there, and again, thank you very much. 

You bring up a very important point. I certainly agree with my 

colleagues that building a domestic and a municipal court system 

is imperative, but maybe a little bit farther down the list of a list 

that is so important for getting Liberia moving toward democracy. 

I do want to highlight, though, that we need to take the international crimes out of the Liberian court system so that they can 

build their own domestic court system. It is far too much for them 

and is far too much of a burden to take on Charles Taylor, his 

henchmen, for what they did for 13 years in Liberia. So again, we 

have the model. We can use that. 

I would like to underscore the cultural aspect of this. One of the 

things that we did in our strategic plan is to build cultural solutions to some of our prosecutorial strategy to ensure that we respected thousands of years of culture in that part of the world. 

And I think it is very, very important as an international community that we ask ourselves, and I am going to be doing some 

writing on this now that I am somewhat of an academic, and that 

is, is the justice we seek the justice they want? And so when we 

are beginning to develop hybrid systems in the future, we have to 

ask ourselves that question to ensure that we inject that type of 

approach to that. 

The Chairman himself has also alluded to legacy programs which 

we started in Sierra Leone. I think it is very, very important. Ultimate question, who is going to train this nascent group of dedicated lawyers? We do need to have a capability of training, at the 

fundamental level, African lawyers, many of which who worked 

with me in west Africa, from all over west Africa. 

101

I was very, very impressed with their capability. They just don’t 

have the books. They don’t have the structure by which to learn 

their craft or to hone their craft, so we need something like a global 

justice institute, something that we are going to be putting together under the auspices of a couple of universities, to include 

Syracuse University, where we are going to look at these type of 

issues and build a plan for consideration by this Committee and 

others to efficiently and effectively build from the bottom up a 

structure by which Liberia can move forward and a way that 

doesn’t draw down from their own tenuous economic situation, but 

use it as a facilitator for international aid that can be used in a 

way that is consistent. 

Mr. PAYNE. Thank you very much. Yes, I am well aware that the 

system in Liberia cannot handle an indictment of Taylor. I hope no 

one thought I was alluding to the fact if you don’t have a local municipal court, you know, there is no way in the world you are going 

to deal with an international war criminal. 

I think that you bring up a good point, Dr. Pham, about the local 

indigenous courts. I know in Rwanda, with the 120,000 people that 

were imprisoned, finally it was decided that they would attempt to 

do the kechacha law where it, I mean, involves a lot of 15, 20 people that become the judge and the jury, but they have been able, 

you know, to really reduce the number by maybe 20 percent anyway. 

I mean, there are still many, many there clogged up in the prison 

system, but bringing in that local, traditional system where someone has to actually point to the fact that I actually did see you do 

that. Unless this group can do that, then that person is put into 

another category and then finally released. So that may be the way 

to go, but there has to be some semblance of a system of justice, 

as you have indicated. 

I think the many mistakes that we have made in the past could 

have prevented Taylor’s and other problems. You know, during 

1981 after Doe and his murderous killing of the first family and 

the Cabinet, the United States Government gave Liberia more in 

foreign assistance in 10 years after Doe murdered the President—

and you should indict him, too—we gave them more money than 

they have gotten in the whole history of Liberia. 

You know, I think it is great that we have become just all of a 

sudden, but, you know, we get just all of a sudden and we gave a 

guy 10 years’ more money to reward him for killing the President 

and the Vice President. Mind-boggling. 

And in 1985 when they had an election that was totally illegal, 

Chester Crocker certified it was fair and free, and everyone knew 

that Doe and them stole the total election. So we get a point in 

time, we get a time freeze on the past and wonder why did things 

get so bad when all we have to do is review the U.S. policy to these 

countries and we can find out how they have gotten to be so out 

of line. It is absolutely unconscionable that that was our policy at 

that time. 

Well, you know, the big issue was the Cold War and therefore 

they got the money because they were against the Russians or Soviet Union or the U.S.S.R. You know, I hope we don’t get that way 

now with the War on Terror where you take a government, it 

102

doesn’t matter what they do, but as long as they are on our side, 

we are going to say it is all right and look the other way, and that 

is a slippery slope that I already see starting to develop with the 

dismantling of USAID. 

It is all going under State Department. State Department has 

priorities on the War on Terror; therefore, you get the money according to where you stand, whether it is on AIDS, whether it is 

on the Millenium Challenge, whether it is on the rest. There will 

be no more USAID. It is just dismantled. It is in the State Department somewhere, just the same way the U.S. Information Service 

years ago was an agency and all the rest, but anyway. 

You mentioned Guinea and President Conte ́. What would you 

suggest we do, any of you, since the Mano region is so important? 

There hasn’t been a real meeting of them; just one meeting when 

the Reverend Jesse Jackson made them all come together about 4, 

5, or 6 years ago and they had a meeting. 

What do you suggest we start to do in Guinea since, you know, 

we can see the potential? And Conte ́’s been on life support it seems 

like for the last 4 or 5 years. I mean, I don’t even know if he is 

alive, but we know something is going to happen, and do you think 

that our policy ought to become a little more engaging or try to see 

what we can do or get the UN or get someone in the regional area, 

ECOWAS or something, to start intervening? 

Mr. PHAM. Thank you, Mr. Payne. One of the privileges of being 

an academic is I get to be very frank, and I agree with you. Unfortunately, in Guinea, one of the things we do is repeat many of our 

mistakes. 

Our strategy was for a number of years, well, he is our SOB, so 

we will plan for his demise by arming a Special Forces ranger battalion that will seize control. The problem was then we got diverted 

into another conflict, and so he wanted another battalion, so he 

hired the Chinese to give him one, so now there are two battalions 

that will fight it out. So the strategy didn’t quite pan out. 

But the problem is we don’t have a strategy for Guinea. Civil society is essentially dormant in Guinea, and with some little bit of 

assistance, we need to start helping them grow themselves. We 

don’t have that strategy right now. It is sort of forgotten. That 

needs to be pushed. The solution ultimately has to come from within Guinea, but some resources would go a long way toward that. 

We also need to take a look at the balance of forces in the area. 

You know, we have transferred arms to Guinea in the past. Some 

of those arms then replaced arms which went into the Liberian 

conflict. We need to reassess that. 

We had relationships, fortunately, because of that training period. Now I think the Department of Defense should be encouraged 

to use the relationships they do have to emphasize the United 

States will not look very favorably upon any of these gentlemen engaging in a power grab in a few years. And so we have to start 

building a strategy and a dialogue on that. We haven’t done so. 

Fortunately or unfortunately, General Conte ́ is still with us, so 

we do have a little bit of time, but the window is very narrow, and 

we need to move in that direction. 

Ms. DERRYCK. The Mano River Union figured fairly prominently 

in the election and the inauguration. The Mano River Union has 

103

a women’s component. They sent observers to both rounds, to both 

the first election and the run-off. And about 200 Guinean women 

drove to Liberia for the inauguration. 

And in one meeting—the Mano River Women’s Union meets two 

times a year—it was suggested and President Sirleaf agreed to 

boost the number of meetings. So I think that her presence with 

the other two heads of state is going to change the equation and 

she is going to put some attention to that. 

Mr. PAYNE. Let me ask, and I was getting ready to ask you a 

question about women, and you kind of threw that in, which is 

fine, kind of leading to the question. Do you feel that in Liberia, 

there is an opportunity to use women? I know in other countries, 

women, you know, have been the engine of small business, microeconomies. Do you think that there might be a special move to organize women? Or will women, in your opinion, just be motivated 

to become more of a significant factor in Liberia? 

Ms. DERRYCK. I think that women definitely will continue to be 

a significant factor in Liberia. Women were very active even in the 

1997 election. They organized. They made sure that at least the 

Unity Party had a platform, a solid platform. 

And in the, what, 8 years that have passed, they have just become better organized and so you see there is an association of 

women lawyers, there are civil society groups, there are associations of women businesspersons. 

All of them I think understand very, very well the importance of 

participating in the rehabilitation of the country. In terms of politics and the political process, women are essential to some of the 

key institutions: The National Election Commission, there are Supreme Court Justices that are women, the new minister of finance 

is a woman. All of these women are qualified. 

And it doesn’t have anything to do with, you know, gender preference, but by the fact that they are qualified, it has a multiplier 

effect. And you hear now young women, particularly expatriate Liberian women in the United States, young women here in the 

United States talking about the fact that they want to go back and 

participate in the economic and political revival of the country. 

Mr. PAYNE. Let me just ask you, Mr. Crane, is there still funding 

for your Special Court, for it to remain active, or is it dormant, or 

how does that work? 

Mr. CRANE. As you well know, we have gotten tremendous contributions, both fiscally as far as goods and services as well from 

all over the world, 31 countries, United States clearly one of the 

leaders in providing funding. 

As I stated, the Special Court really can account for all of its 

money, to include U.S. taxpayers’ money. We have come in at 

largely around $25 million a year versus $125–$130 million a year 

for our sister tribunals in Rwanda and Yugoslavia doing the very 

same type of mission. Now we are not trying to criticize, it is just 

a fact. 

We had a plan, we had a budget, we worked the budget, and at 

any one given time, as we did over the past 31⁄2 years, we showed 

this Committee where we were at any one time. Bottom line is simple math. We need about another $26 million 

to finish the work, and there is a shortfall of certain monies. And 

104

if the U.S. gives that $13 million versus what I heard mentioned 

today, clearly outside of the intent of the Congress, it would not be 

able to complete its work. So again, it has been coming in on the average of about $25 mil- lion. It needs $26 million to finish its work in 2006. And we have 

had various pledges. This Congress clearly stated $13 million. I remember meeting with several of you on both sides of the building 

talking about that this past summer, one of the last official acts 

that I did before I left my office, that the bottom line is we needed 

$13 million. 

And I would strongly urge that, you know, we are at 25 miles 

in a 26-mile race and we have worked all of this together. We do 

have this small shining light in west Africa that is just about done. 

We can’t all of a sudden decide to pull back the important funding 

before we let it just do its work, not only just the current trials, 

but then also Charles Taylor. I do want to underscore that that $26 million factors in a prosecution of Charles Taylor this year, so it is not all of a sudden we 

are going to be coming back to you saying, ‘‘Oh, by the way, we actually in our plans stated that this is what we would need.’’ So you 

are not going to see a massive amount of money needed for this 

particular fiscal year, but we do honestly say that the $13 million 

will get us pretty much across the finish line. 

Mr. PAYNE. Well, I certainly support the trying to find the funds 

to do that, and I think it is very essential and important, and even 

not only for a year but as long as it takes. 

You know, I often mention that, you know, they just deported 

someone last year to go back to Germany to stand trial for atrocities in the 1930s and the 1940s, and so my feeling is that you 

know where Taylor is and we know where he can’t go. We know 

that villa and that house that he is in and that cell phone he is 

on, and we need to keep him in focus. 

However, as I indicated before, and I will conclude, when you 

mentioned, Dr. Pham, why the number of troops and police is simply they took the amount of money that we were willing to put up 

and they divided that in and that came up with the number. It had 

nothing to do with the real threat assessment. It is just what we 

are willing to spend. And 2,000 troops and 3- or 4,000 police, whatever the number is, is not adequate. It is really a formula to fail. 

But the reason it is the number is because that is all we are willing to put up and that is that. And I think that Ellen’s life is definitely in danger just because it is a pretty tough—you know, they 

call her the Iron Lady, but she is in a pretty tough neighborhood. 

And no one could be more courageous than Dr. John Garang, and 

we tried to talk to him about having better security, having his 

own plane traveling. We tried to get our Government to train some 

people to protect him, and, you know, I went to his funeral 3 or 

4 months ago. 

And so I have this position that we have to get Taylor, but we 

also have to let the President evaluate these, as Ms. Derryck said, 

these fragile institutions, almost nonexistent, and I think it is 

noble that we take a person who has wreaked so much havoc on 

the section of a continent. Certainly needs to be prosecuted, convicted, and whatever the penalty, let that be the penalty, because 

105

I hate to prejudge, but it is clear that he is guilty, and so he should 

get his just due. 

However, I would hate to see the several 3 or 4 million people 

of Liberia once again, that we have won over a major goal and that 

we are unable to do all of these other things that have to be done 

in order for that country to survive, and I hope that President 

Sirleaf-Johnson is having some palace guard, so to speak, that can 

be loyal for her own protection, I mean, period. 

It is vehicles that they have to travel in, planes that they have 

to take, these are all very, very serious considerations. We told Dr. 

Garang, get your own plane that you keep protected. The plane 

was the plane from another country that he was on. And so, like 

I said, this is a very, very serious thing. 

And I think we have to at least put a floor and some stability 

in that country to get a traffic light working or maybe just a street 

light. Forget the traffic light. You can’t drive fast anyway because 

the streets are all messed up, so you don’t have to worry about 

speed. 

But if we could do first things first, keep Charles under surveillance, and then perhaps a year or so from now or whatever, whenever the government can at least get a Cabinet, at least get some 

firmness, then I think that—and I don’t even know the process, 

whether she will have to present it to the legislature and they will 

have to vote, whether she has the executive authority to say turn 

him over, there is a lot—and once that debate begins, too, that is 

where my reluctance is to have her firmed up at least for 6 months, 

a year or something, to get something straight, because once the 

debate goes, it is going to be the overriding debate. 

Now I agree that the quicker you get rid of Taylor the better. 

However, I also believe that you are going to have to be able to 

have some kind of government to function so that you just don’t get 

totally, you know, totally derailed, and I don’t think anyone here 

feels any more strongly about Taylor. I know Ms. Derryck was deposed even before he got to Liberia. However, I do think that we 

have to really consider all things and we also have responsibility 

to the President, who is sitting out there almost alone. 

Ms. DERRYCK. May I just add one final thought about Charles 

Taylor and Liberia? As I said, I was there for both the first election 

and the run-off and the inauguration, and met with lots and lots 

of people, and no one seemed to take Charles Taylor as a priority, 

even other candidates when we would ask about him. He wasn’t 

the priority. 

The priority was first winning the election, but secondly then reconciling and moving the country forward. The concern was about, 

what are we going to do about the financial straits in which we 

find ourselves? And I think particularly for women, who are thinking more about the future and about economic development and 

about schools for their children, the resolution of Taylor was something that would be in the distant future. 

Mr. CRANE. If I could just make a real quick comment here, that 

although I don’t disagree with the new President, who I am very 

encouraged about her attitude and her perspectives, the removal, 

immediate removal of Charles Taylor will take that entire thought 

process out. 

106

This is an international situation, not a domestic situation. It 

has gotten balled up in the Liberian domestic situation because, as 

a matter of policy, President Obasanjo of Nigeria made it that. But 

these are international obligations under an international arrest 

warrant and an international indictment. 

The fact that she simply agrees with the fact that the international community stated under international law that he has to 

be turned over is not going to have an impact on Liberia as far as 

its ability to move forward as a new democracy. 

I am very, very concerned that this individual who we know for 

a fact has meddled, continues to meddle, and will want to continue 

to meddle, he is a streetfighter, sir, and he will survive until he 

is finally put into some type of appropriate detention. 

So the future of Liberia is Charles Taylor, and if we do not in 

fact do something about him by just handing him over under an 

international arrest warrant, then I am very, very concerned personally for what I see as the potential for success in that part of 

the world. 

Mr. PAYNE. You know, if I thought that it was that simple, I 

would, too, say let us do it tomorrow. There is no way in the world 

you can divorce Charles Taylor, who is the former President of Liberia. I mean, it is not like he was president of the OAU or something, I mean, and his crimes went outside of the country of Liberia. As you know, it was in with RUF and Sierra Leone and dabbled around in Guinea, et cetera. 

But he is the former President of Liberia, and there is no way 

you can divorce the fact that that is going to have a direct impact 

on that President, that country, the discussion. 

And the reason that I have taken the position—and it is certainly contrary to practically everyone. You get everyone saying, 

‘‘Get Taylor now, that is the number one thing, and Payne, what 

is wrong with you? We thought you were a good Africanist, you 

know. What is this soft-on-Taylor thing?’’

It is just that I have talked to Liberian-Americans, and as Ms. 

Derryck said, we have had meetings of hundreds of them, leaders 

from all over the East, and their whole reluctance is, let us get a 

little footing going, and they all hate Taylor because they are out 

of the country because of Taylor, many of them. 

You know, they are refugees. They are still trying to get status 

changes, trying to prevent from being deported back, you know, 

change the protected status, and my offices, they line up outside, 

inside to try to get that, so I honestly, I know how traumatic it is 

for Liberian-Americans or people who have come here out of political refuge. 

But almost to the person, they are saying we have got to get Taylor. However, can we get our country’s water running, can we get 

the lights on, can we get a policeman downtown? And not only outside the country, but even in Liberia, when I have asked these 

questions about that, it is, it is something we have got to deal with 

maybe next year, you know. 

And it is a natural thing to try to put off something that is very 

difficult, you know. Women go to the doctor when they don’t feel 

well, but men stay away. You know, they don’t want to hear the 

bad news, so they just die in their sleep, you know. But, you know, 

107

it is something that we have got to come to grips with. There is 

no question about it. But it is going to be more than just, he is 

some international criminal, and even though he is going to this 

other country, it has got to start in Liberia. 

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. May my friend yield? 

Mr. PAYNE. Go ahead. Yes, sir. 

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Just one of the concerns I have and 

perhaps you might want to comment on it, is that he may be planning his next move as he sits in Nigeria. And that is why I asked 

Secretary Frazer, you know, what do we have in terms of whether 

or not he has violated the terms and conditions of his ouster and 

his asylum in Nigeria? And as you and a lot of us have said, you 

know, what do we know that he is conveying by cell phone or any 

other means of communication? 

And as you said, Mr. Crane, you know, if he seeks to make a reappearance, will that be a spark that leads to—I mean, my sense 

is that we had the same kind of problem with Milosevic. So long 

as Milosevic sat in Serbia and not in The Hague in the dock, the 

ability to reignite the agony of the former Yugoslavia remained. 

And in terms of order of magnitude, Charles Taylor has committed 

even more gross atrocities than Slobodan Milosevic committed, and 

he committed horrific crimes against humanity. 

And I think part of what we should seek to do is find some way 

that, you know, the conveyance, the extraditing of this alleged war 

criminal or crimes against humanity, Charles Taylor, can be effectuated with the least amount of visibility on the part of the newlyelected President, Johnson-Sirleaf, because even though we are 

providing as a government some protection for her, it is still not 

enough. But I think there needs to be this cry, and this is where 

the other African leaders can be so helpful, by being more visible 

rather than less, because they weren’t just elected with an absolutely divided Congress, Senate, and House, as you pointed out so 

well, Dr. Pham. So, you know, that is what I think ought to be our 

goal. 

But the longer he is allowed to remain in exile, I think the more 

he is able to mount a comeback, because, you know, these maniacal 

individuals don’t lose their illusions of grandeur and of regaining 

power and then reimposing all of the hate and the cruelty that they 

did formerly. 

Mr. CRANE. If I may make just a very small point, Mr. Chairman. The Special Court for Sierra Leone can finish its work in less 

than 5 years. It is important that we do that because the Presidential elections in Sierra Leone are going to be taking place in 

2007, and we would like to be done with our work or pretty much 

done with our work so that the court and international justice does 

not become a campaign issue in Sierra Leone, so that I take Mr. 

Payne’s points well. 

I don’t disagree with many of the points that he said. However, 

the Special Court needs to finish its work and get out of Sierra 

Leone so that the democratic process in Sierra Leone can move forward. 

So if we wait a year, respectfully, we will run smack dab into it, 

and then we will start politically unraveling and we will have a situation like we had in Rwanda where we had a nonsupported sitVerDate Mar 21 2002 17:01 May 01, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00111 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 F:\WORK\AGI\020806\26015.000 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL
108

ting government toward the international tribunal and we all saw 

what kind of challenges that began to develop. 

What we really don’t want to see is what we believe to be a fairly 

successful model being thrown out of Sierra Leone because of a 

new President or it becomes a campaign liability for the sitting 

President. So again, as you well say, it is not black and white, particularly in the Mano River Region, and so these things have ripple 

effects. So I would just point that out respectfully. 

Mr. PAYNE. Yes. Just the final part is that, you know, the whole 

Liberian situation is so different than all the rest because the 

United States, you know, was directly involved in the agreement, 

so to speak. In other words, President Bush said we will not send 

any U.S. soldiers in until Taylor leaves. 

No one was saying send thee here, so to speak, so the question 

was well, who can you get to take him? And no one wanted him 

and it had to go and really pressure a country to take him, and so 

another debate that comes up is, well, what did they say and when 

did they say it? 

I mean, I had, you know, Ambassador Gita up there even though 

we had an Ambassador, but he was doing the negotiations. It is 

really unclear. I have asked several times, well, what was the 

agreement? Well, the agreement seems to change. Well, Obasanjo 

thought that the agreement was this. I didn’t want to take him, 

but I will take him, but then a legitimate government has got to 

ask for him. 

What is the legitimate government? Is that the President just 

saying he should be sent to Sierra Leone? Do you have to go 

through a democratic process and then you get into a debate about, 

you know? 

So see, the unfortunate part is these secret—you know, and then 

they went and scooped him and threw him in a plane, which I 

agreed to get him out of the country, because I thought that if it 

was a shootout, as we had the discussion when you sent the indictment to him over there in the middle of Ena Noor, I said what in 

the world is this guy Crane doing? My God, you should have heard 

me. 

I said whoa, I mean, it is great to indict a guy, but we don’t want 

him to go back and get in a corner of Liberia and say well, they 

are going to get me and I am going to just fight to the death, to 

the end, and have, you know, a whole bunch of people, as you know 

is possible, to end up fighting to the death of these groups, the 

lured and the rest, that were going at each other. So I thought 

well, it is great to get him out. 

That is what I suggested we do with Doe back in 1991, take him 

out somewhere, and that would have ended the conflict, and so I 

didn’t disagree with him getting out. I mean, they didn’t ask me 

anyway, but, you know, that was a Presidential negotiation from 

the State Department. 

So the thing is very complicated. It is he said, she said, what is 

the agreement, how do we get out of it, who calls the shots? And 

it is certainly something that I do believe that it is going to come 

to a positive resolution, just don’t know how. I think it is going to 

be sooner than later. I just think that we have got to at least let 

her get her foot on the ground, so to speak. 

109

Yes? 

Ms. DERRYCK. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Payne, it seems to me that we 

all have the same goal here, that everybody agrees that we want 

to get Charles Taylor brought to justice in Sierra Leone. Maybe it 

is a question of sequencing, but from the perspective of a sustainable development professional, we need to give this new government robust resources and let them have a success. 

The President has talked about 150 days. Give her that and give 

her enough resources so that she can go to her constituency, to the 

population, and demonstrate something tangible. Then, with that 

under her belt, then she is in a much stronger position to begin the 

dialogue that will lead ultimately to Taylor’s removal to Sierra 

Leone. 

Mr. PAYNE. I couldn’t agree with you more. Give her some successes. Have her win the confidence of the people even if it is shortterm, 3 months, 6 months, and then she could have the authority 

to then be able to make a bold step. I think that that would be 

something that could work. 

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Assuming the honeymoon lasts. 

Mr. PAYNE. Yes. Right. 

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. I mean, that is what we all hope. 

Thank you so much for your extraordinary work and giving us 

the benefit of your expert insights, which we will now take and use 

in terms of our business of the Subcommittee, so thank you so very 

much. The hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 3:45 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

Æ