Newsgroup: it.politica.internazionale
Titolo: Contro l'intervento in Liberia

Interessante:
http://www.spiked-online.com/Printable/00000006DE93.htm
Unfree Liberia
by Brendan O'Neill
What is behind the latest upsurge in Liberia's 14-year civil war?
On 18 July, the rebel group Liberians United for Reconciliation and
Democracy (LURD) escalated its offensive against the capital Monrovia,
the last stronghold of its enemy President Charles Taylor. On 28 July,
the Movement for Democracy in Liberia (MODEL) seized Buchanan,
Liberia's second city. According to reports, the violence has left
hundreds dead and thousands displaced.
Many are demanding an American or UN-led intervention to 'enforce
peace'. President Bush has sent three ships to Liberian waters, with
2,300 marines on board. Yet some commentators denounce Bush for 'not
doing enough', claiming that the naval manoeuvres are just 'a symbolic
shift in US policy' (1). For the UK Guardian, 'Liberia is a sad
reminder of the urgent need for the UN to overhaul its peacekeeping
operations' (2).
All those calling for outside intervention overlook one important
thing: it was American meddling that upped the ante over the past two
weeks, encouraging the rebel assault on Monrovia. By demanding that
President Taylor step down - and by making progress 'conditional' on
Taylor stepping down (3) - the USA emboldened the rebel assault on
Liberian government forces. If events in Liberia are a 'sad reminder'
of anything, it is that internationalising local conflicts makes
things worse.
There has been conflict in Liberia for 14 years, since Taylor's
National Patriotic Front of Liberia launched a campaign against then
President Samuel Doe in 1989. Following Taylor's victory in the 1997
elections, the rebel group LURD, backed by neighbouring Guinea, has
built up anti-Taylor forces, managing to seize much of northern
Liberia. Outside intervention has played no small part in Liberia's
tensions. In particular, US backing for Taylor's forces initially, and
later, according to some reports, for LURD, has served to sustain
tensions (4).
In June this year there were talks in Ghana over how to resolve
Liberia's conflict, leading to a fragile ceasefire. Yet now violence
in Liberia is at its worst in years. For all the reports of Liberia's
'drug-crazed' gunmen (and children) who just want to wreak havoc (5),
two events encouraged the rebel upsurge and the bloody storming of
Monrovia: the United Nations' indictment of Taylor as a war criminal
in June, and President Bush's demand that Taylor 'must leave' in July.
On 4 June, the UN-backed war crimes court in Sierra Leone indicted
Taylor for 'war crimes'. Taylor was accused of backing Sierra Leone's
rebel forces during the conflict there in the late 1990s. Whatever the
truth of Taylor's role in Sierra Leone, the court's timing in branding
him a criminal was questioned by some commentators. One report claimed
that the court decision was 'ill-timed', coming when Taylor was
negotiating with his Liberian rebel opponents, and 'likely to prolong
bloodshed in Liberia' (6). Indeed, after the UN-backed indictment,
anti-Taylor rebels launched a renewed assault on Liberian government
forces.
On 2 July 2003, President Bush announced that, 'one thing has to
happen: Mr Taylor needs to leave the country' (7). Bush claimed that
progress in Liberia was 'conditional' on Taylor leaving. The UN-backed
indictment of Taylor, followed by Bush's demands, made clear the
international community's ruling on Liberia's tensions. This boosted
the rebel forces, leading to an increase in their attacks on
government forces. Days after Bush's statement, the rebels launched
their bitter assault on Monrovia.
The Liberia tragedy illustrates the broader destabilising impact of
'humanitarian intervention' on world affairs. It is striking that, in
contrast to the African liberation movements of old, the Liberian
rebels and their supporters are demanding American or UN-led
intervention to resolve their conflict. For rebel leaders, the assault
on Monrovia and other Liberian cities is not only about attacking
Taylor's power, but also about encouraging outside interest and a
Western-imposed settlement.
Who was it that encouraged the Bush administration to turn its
attention towards Liberia? Largely, American and European liberals. In
response to the Iraq war, liberals attacked America by accusing it of
being 'selective' in its choice of humanitarian interventions. Liberal
commentator Arianna Huffington asked why the Iraq-obsessed Bush
overlooked Liberia, in 'Africa's heart of darkness, riven by
mutilation and rape?. Here is true evil' (8). Another journalist
described Liberia as another of Africa's tragedies, alongside AIDS and
civil war, which 'the North hasn't cared much about' (9). Liberia,
once a symbol of freedom after being founded by freed American slaves
in 1847, is now held up as an indicator of the perils of independence.
Now, as Bush makes moves over Liberia, some on the American right have
asked why he is launching a 'Clinton-style' liberal intervention in
Africa. Bush's creeping Liberian venture shows that American leaders
(and European ones, too) are increasingly drawn to the international
arena in their quest for some kind of moral authority at home. For all
Bush's Republican credentials and pre-office promises of not going
abroad, he too is executing 'humanitarian interventions'.
For Bush's anti-war critics, the problem with America's interventions
is that they are too selective. Instead, we apparently need more of
them, in the right kind of places - especially in the barbaric 'heart
of darkness' that is Africa. This shows that anti-war critics fully
support the West's right to intervene abroad - and completely
underestimate its consequences. As America turns towards Liberia, and
Monrovia burns, the liberals have got what they asked for.

 Monrovia burns, the liberals have got what they asked for.
Non sono d'accordo.
Mi sono un poco informato sulla faccenda (Kapuscinski, 'Ebano', più un
articolo de 'Il Secolo XIX').
La Liberia vede fin dall'inizio il dominio dei discendenti degi schiavi
tornati dall'America e ormai assimilati ai bianchi sulle popolazioni locali.
I primi esercitano sui secondi un vero e proprio apartheid. L'intera
economia si basa sul legname prima e sui diamanti poi. I legami co gli USA
rimagono forti, e l'economia lcale -sepre in mano a poche famiglie di
possidenti- si rimpolpa con le bandiere ombra ai tempi della chiusura di
Suez.
Doe ammazza il predecessore -che non aveva pagato le truppe di cui Doe era
sergente- ma non si rivela migliore di lui. La nuora della sua vittima è la
figlia del padre padrone Houphuet-Boigny, capintesta della Costa D'Avorio.
Costui arma Taylor, ambizioso ex-sessantottino ante litteram, che oltrepassa
il confine con un centinaio di armati e solleva le tribu' locali contro Doe.
Lo fara' morire dissanguato al porto della capitale Monrovia dopo avergli
tagliato naso e orecchie, e venderà la videocassetta dell'esecuzione al
mercato.
Timorosi di un simile caporione, Sierra Leone e Guinea pensano bene di
mandar truppe a spodestare il golpista Taylor. Ci riescono, ma Taylor in
cambio alimenta in Sierra Leone la guerriglia del RUF, che sgombra di civili
le zone interessanti-quelle coi diamanti- tagliando le mani ai bambini.
L'intervento inglese salva il governo locale e le mani dei bambini rimasti
interi, e così il capo del RUF è appena morto nella capitale dela Sierra
Leone in attesa di processo per i suoi crimini.
La situazione si complica quando Gbagbo succede, dopo elezioni almeno in
apparenza regolari, al defunto Houphuet-Boigny in Costa d'Avorio. Il nuovo
presidente non è entusiasta del protetto del suo predecessore, e si ritrova
una guerriglia in casa alimentata da aylor. Solo le truppe francesi lo
salvano, ma il paese rimane diviso in due.
Come contraccolpo del suo interventismo ll'estero, Taylor si ritrova contro
due movimenti di guerriglia. Uno guidato dagli alleati di Gbagbo, che oggi è
in pace finchè regge la tregua i Costa d'Avorio. E l'altro guidato dagli
amici della Guinea, il LURD appunto, che ogginon si vuol fare sfuggire la
vittoria come successe inizialmente alo stesso Taylor.
Fino ad oggi l'unica cosa che ha fermato davvero le stragi è stato
l'intervento delle ex-potenze coloniali: Inghilterra in Sierra Leone e
Francia in Costa d'Avorio. La pochezza delle forze africane fa sì che basti
un intervento limitato di poche centinaia di militari di truppe scelte:
Legione Straniera, gurkha. (OT: E' legittimo il sospetto che la missione dei
parà italiani in Somalia avrebbe sortito assai miglior esito se non ci
fossero state le esigenze pubblicitarie del governo USA coi suoi marines,
intervenuti in una realtà con cui non avevano avuto nessun contatto)
La forza di interposizione interafricana ha raramente sortito il suo
effetto -evidente il fallimento in Liberia- proprio perchè alcuni dei
governi coinvolti sono essi stessi parte in causa dei conflitti, al dui là
della corretezza del comportamento dei singoli militari.
Credo che ci siano stati molti errori, soprattutto nei tempi e nei ritardi
dell'intervento. Del resto, la situazione in Congo e i Ruanda è stata ancora
più allucinante.
Ma la Liberia è storicamente nata con gli USA, tocca agli USA intervenire.
Prima Bush manda qualche plotone di marines, meglio è per tutti.

 ha scritto nel messaggio
Poco sotto, Un amico di sinistra, si domandava perché non intervenivano gli
Usa.
Ecco il perché
Ciao
Ad'I