Good News From Africa: Take 2

by hilzoy

I think I might have been too hasty a few days ago, when I wrote that it was good news that Nigeria had decided to turn Charles Taylor over to a human rights tribunal in Sierra Leone.

This is one of those issues, like not negotiating for hostages, in which it's impossible not to be torn between one's views about the individual case and one's views about the right general policy to have. On the one hand, you'd have to have a heart of stone not to rejoice when any hostage is freed. On the other, if a hostage is freed because the hostage-takers managed to get what they wanted, that encourages people to take more hostages, and who could possibly want that? And this is not a question of caring more for general rules than for flesh-and-blood human beings: any hostages who are taken in the future will be just as real as those whose release is negotiated, and they are just as likely to have friends and family who suffer enormously when they are taken, and who are desperate for their release.

Similarly here. Who could possibly not want to see justice for the man whose " crimes include the incitement of wars in four West African countries; the enslavement, rape or dismemberment of thousands of children; and collaboration with al Qaeda"? Or, to make the point another way, who is responsible for things like this:

(© Sebastian Bolesch/DFA/Still Pictures)?

Or this?

(Note: these pictures are from the civil war in Sierra Leone, which Taylor is accused of having incited, and in which a lot of children were conscripted as soldiers, and a lot of people were mutilated by Taylor's side. I said 'things like this' because I don't know that he is responsible for the kids in these specific pictures.)

But*...

what ended the Liberian civil war was the fact that Taylor agreed to go into exile in Nigeria. It's not at all clear that he would have agreed to do so had he known that he would be turned over to the human rights tribunal a few years later. And while it's great that someone who is responsible for tens of thousands of deaths, enormous amounts of suffering, massive human rights violations, and the destabilization of an entire region will actually be tried for his crimes, I'm not at all sure that it's a good idea to set this sort of precedent. Far better, I think, to have an odious and malevolent ex-dictator live out his days in exile than to have a horrendous and immensely destabilizing civil war continue.

There are, however, a few complicating factors. First, the idea that dictators can face justice, rather than being able to arrange a comfortable life in exile, sets a precedent of its own. From the BBC:

"His impending transfer to the court also has implications for the worldwide move to hold heads of state accountable for crimes committed during their time in power.

In the past, African leaders, even if they got forced out of office as result of their own excesses, could usually rely on their fellow presidents to protect them and offer them comfortable homes in exile. A successful prosecution of Charles Taylor would signal that that era may be coming to an end."

On the whole, I'm inclined to think that this doesn't outweigh the problems with breaking a promise to let someone live in exile in one's country. It's just too useful to have that promise available, as a means of ending some future analog of the Liberian civil war. I was thrilled when Taylor agreed to go into exile, and I think I should have remembered that more clearly.

A different complicating factor is that, according to most of the accounts I've read, Taylor was thought to be fomenting trouble in Liberia from exile. It's one thing to allow dictators to withdraw from their countries in exchange for peace; it's altogether different to let them go into exile and continue to undermine the stability of the country they left behind. I'm not sure how to factor this in, especially since it does not seem to have been part of anyone's rationale for asking that he be turned over to the human rights tribunal.

So, basically, I am now quite torn about the initial decision to extradite him. Again, this has nothing whatsoever to do with sympathy for Charles Taylor. If his case were unique, and set no precedents at all, I'd be completely unconflicted. I'm thinking of future civil wars, which may now be harder to end.

I'm also somewhat troubled by this:

"Ms. Johnson Sirleaf said in an interview with The New York Times before her inauguration in January that Mr. Taylor's fate was a relatively low priority, given the myriad problems facing Liberia and the fragility of the peace there.

But under intense political pressure on a visit to the United States earlier this month, including a threat by Congress to withhold aid to Liberia if she did not act, she asked Nigeria to hand Mr. Taylor over.

Kayode Fayemi, a Nigerian political analyst who has worked with Ms. Johnson Sirleaf to secure peace in Liberia, said the United States might have made matters worse for Liberia by pushing the country to deal with Mr. Taylor before it was ready.

"She was actually literally harassed to do what she did," Mr. Fayemi said. "This is now going to make the situation much more complicated and so much worse.""

***

However, given that Nigeria did decide to extradite Charles Taylor, I have no ambivalence whatsoever about this:

" A day after his evident escape, Nigerian police arrested the former Liberian warlord and president Charles G. Taylor today as he tried to cross into Cameroon, according to Nigerian officials.

Mr. Taylor was later deported to Liberia, where government officials have said they plan to send him immediately to Sierra Leone to face a 17-count indictment on war crimes for his role in the bloody, decade-long civil war here.

"Mr. Charles Taylor, the former president of Liberia, was arrested this morning at the Nigeria-Cameroon border," Haz Iwendi, a spokesman for the National Police, said in a telephone interview. "He was arrested in company of a driver and a woman and they have been taken into custody.""

According to CNN, the Nigerian government has also arrested all the security guards who were responsible for guarding Taylor when he escaped. However, the NYT reports that he was captured "in a Land Rover with diplomatic plates", which, if true, would be one more reason to be suspicious about how he escaped in the first place.

As far as I'm concerned, he cannot be out of Liberia and into UN custody too soon.

[*NOTE: I have modified this post to eliminate an unfortunate and inadvertent double entendre.]

Comments

[hilzoy]

Further note, about the second picture: I found it here. I looked (fairly hard, actually) for some clue as to who took it, so that I could credit that person, without success.

[Steve]

I don't think this sets a precedent beyond the specific country at issue. After all, just because country X breaks its word, that really doesn't tell a hypothetical dictator whether he can trust country Y.

[Gary Farber]

"I have no ambivalence whatsoever about this:"

Broken link there.

"...which, if true, would be one more reason to be suspicious about how he escaped in the first place."

On the one hand, he's supposed to have had billions of dollars at his disposal (how much in liquid assets, I have no idea; rather obviously, he's not carrying it all around in cash); on the other hand, one would think that if Obasanjo had been serious about not wanting him to escape in the first place, he could have made sure he wouldn't.

My cynical suspicion is that Obasanjo was initially willing to let Taylor go, but the pressure in the face of the actual "escape" was more than he anticipated. But I could be entirely wrong, of course; it's just a guess.

[double-plus-ungood]

On the other hand...

Um, Hilzoy, that particular phrase may be interpreted in a way that you may not wish, given its positioning just below that second photograph.

[hilzoy]

Gary: thanks; fixed.

dpu: ugh. Double plus thanks for pointing out that utterly unintended possible interpretation. Will update immediately.

[rilkefan]

I'd say just silently correct the post (or append "Slightly edited to remove double entendre, timestamp"). This way makes it more not less likely people will notice the original unfortunate phrasing.

[double-plus-ungood]

I'd say just silently correct the post ...

Seconded, and please delete my post about it, and this one too. It should distract from your message.

[double-plus-ungood]

Damnit. SHOULDN'T distract from your post...

[hilzoy]

EH, I hate deleting comments. Why not try this instead:

Hey, everyone: do you think it was good or bad that Charles Taylor was turned over to the war crimes tribunal in Sierra Leone?

Am I right to be having second thoughts?

Please weigh in!

[rilkefan]

Well, my only thought on hearing about Taylor was to worry how this would affect Johnson Sirleaf, who I gather from the recent New Yorker article is a good person, faces extraordinary challenges, and has links to Taylor.

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

I vote that it is bad because we want to encourage situations where you can get rid of dictators without requiring a multi-year bloody revolution. See also Pinochet.

The major mitigating factor would be if he wasn't really retired. If he was still causing problems in the country it might not be a bad precedent--the Napolean problem needs to be avoided too.

[hilzoy]

Sebastian: I think he was still causing problems. That was one source of my ambivalence. Still, just as I have a hard time actually feeling bad when hostages are released after negotiations that I do not believe people should engage in, I have a hard time feeling bad about this one. If anyone deserves to find justice, he'd be high on the list.

[Anderson]

Don't "retired dictators" have a funny way of coming out of retirement?

[Randy Paul]

Hilzoy,

You're acknowledging a deterrent effect here It's just as possible that if the deal for his asylum deters him for remaining in power, perhaps abrogating that deal and making Taylor face justice will make another dictator wannabee have second thoughts about taking power and/or abusing the human rights of his citizens. I think that's a better deterrent than possibly sending the message to dictator wannabees that one can rule brutally with impunity provided one makes a deal to step down when the time is right.

FWIW, part of Taylor's asylum deal was to not meddle in Liberia's affairs. If anything Obasanjo was lax in enforcing that.

Sebastian is wrong about Pinochet, by the way. He made no deal to leave with impunity. He decreed an amnesty for himself, created the position of senator for life for himself (a position which no longer exists) and imposed these policies upon his nation with the full force of his military behind his threat. In other words, whatever deal Pinochet made was under duress. No contract made under duress is binding. he also left office kicking and screaming. When he lost the plebsicite, he wanted to send the troops out on the street. The commanders of the air force, navy and carabineros all said no.

Finally, as I wrote here dictators, by their very nature seldom leave office voluntarily. They are all too often pushed in varying degrees of force. I cite a few examples in that post.

[hilzoy]

Randy: I didn't know that part of the deal was that he not meddle in Liberia. That changes things significantly, I think, and I hope they emphasize that.

Your post is good. The value of actually punishing the dictators, along of course with the thought of Taylor in particular facing the music, is what accounts for the ambivalence of this post. I would very much like for it to turn out that seeking justice is the best course on all counts, and I hope you're right.

I mean: I agree with you about both the psychology of dictators and the record. On the other hand, some part of me thinks: they may well have to have their fingernails pried off the carcasses of their countries, but might there not be some bit of their determination to hold on that would be altered by the possibility of exile?

I don't know; nor do I know, really, whether that would be outweighed by the aid bringing them to justice would provide to the (immensely important, I think) task of making repressive and brutal dictatorship routinely punishable. I do know that I was too quick in my first post; I don't know whether I wouldn't end up coming, more slowly, around to the same position.

[Randy Paul]

Thanks, Hilzoy. Bear in mind that justice for the crimes of those like Taylor is still in its infancy. I think it has to be gven a chance.

[Dutchmarbel]

I understand the ambivalence, Hilzoy, and am sort of torn too. But I like the idea of accountability so in the end I'll probabely sway that way. Also for the reasons Randy Paul mentions.

Maybe we should compromise and find an "Elba" for all of the retired dictators. Gold if needs be, but still a cage.

[Randy Paul]

Dutchmarbel,

IIRC, Atlantic Monthly had an article recommending that they all go to Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean(this was before it became so heavily used for military purposes).

[Tom Scudder]

"Take all your overgrown infants away
And give them a home
A little place of their own
The Jeffrey Memorial
Home for Incurable
Tyrants and Kings..."

[rilkefan]

Good news for Nigerian football fans.

[Slartibartfast]

Diego Garcia has been heavily used for military purposes for at least the last couple (three or more, actually) of decades, so the article is either dated or highly uninformed.

[Slartibartfast]

Which is not to say that quite a few former dictators couldn't be housed there. Preferably in close proximity, and with sharp cutlery.

[Randy Paul]

Slartibartfast,

The article was highly speculative and a buit fanciful as I recall.

Also, Diego Garcia is part of an archipelago of 52 islands, so maybe the article (which I read some 20 years ago) referenced the possibility of locating them on some of the other islands.

[Jon H]

"Which is not to say that quite a few former dictators couldn't be housed there. "

I seem to have read speculation that Khalid Sheik Mohammad (sp?) is being held there.

[tay]

Oh my gosh this is soo horrible, i wonder why anyone hasn't done anything about this yet and why the african government is allowing this to go on without an inch of a word. This has to be stopped...