| Office of Research | Issue Focus | Foreign Media Reaction |
|
Commentary from ... Europe East Asia/Pacific South Asia Africa Western Hemisphere |
| Africa: Sierra Leone Poses 'Seminal Event' For UN Peacekeeping |
As the week-long crisis in Sierra Leone threatens to push it once again into civil war, and similar scenarios unfold in the Democratic Republic of Congo and in the Horn of Africa, editorialists around the world mused about what can be done for, and about, Africa. Many determined that "just as Somalia is etched in the collective memory of U.S. policymakers, Sierra Leone is likely to prove a seminal event for the UN." Africa's crises, many concluded, have "become an urgent test of UN resolve, and of Africa's ability to put its own house in order." Among the recommendations, analysts called on the UN to avoid formal agreements with "self-appointed rebel leaders;" to use more caution in intervening when peace as a goal is not fully embraced, and, when it does intervene, to do so forcefully; to address the perception that it uses "a double standard" in protecting African lives and those of Europeans; and to develop a better fit between Western and African intervention in the continent's crises. African leaders were advised to "to bring about a political dispensation in Africa compatible with development." These were regional themes:
AFRICA: Papers in Nigeria and Zambia issued strong appeals to the international community to hold Revolutionary United Front (RUF) rebel leader Sankoh "accountable" and to adopt "a more realistic approach...in dealing with the political economy of the crisis." There was some condemnation of "rich Western countries which won't send troops to defend peace in Sierra Leone, but buy rebel-mined diamonds." South African and Burkinabe editorials touted "the effectiveness" of African forces--the Nigerian-led ECOMOG force and the apartheid regime's Executive Outcomes force--in keeping the RUF at bay prior to the dispatch UN peacekeepers.
EUROPE: Dailies in major capitals deemed that "African solutions for African problems" are not working in the war-torn continent, but only a few concluded that a rapid deployment force to deal with the crisis in Sierra Leone is the answer. In Britain and Germany, there was discussion of the need for clearer, longer-term mandates to impose order and create institutions. British and Italian writers urged the U.S. to make a greater financial investment in the UN "if it wants to preserve its own prestige in the world as a friendly power of the black continent."
EAST ASIA: Writers in China, Japan, South Korea and Vietnam faulted the failure of the major powers to send peacekeepers to Sierra Leone and bemoaned the absence of an unassailable African mediator to resolve the crisis.
SOUTH ASIA: Indian and Bangladeshi pundits judged that "the credibility of the UN has taken another hit" and that the organization must learn from its mistakes--"the bottom line" an Indian pundit wrote, "is that the world body must not rush in when there is no "peace to 'keep.'"
WESTERN HEMISPHERE: In Canada and Argentina, dailies expressed a preference for "muscular regional powers" to shoulder the peacekeeping load.
EDITOR: Gail Hamer Burke
EDITOR'S NOTE: This survey is based on 37 reports from 27 countries, May 8-12. Editorial excerpts are grouped by region; editorials from each country are listed from the most recent date.
BURKINA FASO: "Mouthing Off"
Independent daily Le Pays held (5/11): "In light of the events taking place in Sierra Leone, the necessity to once and for all let Africa take care of its own affairs must be a reality instead of a simple slogan, and serve as a fund for political trade with the supposed friends of the continent. Isn't it sad that it is in adversity that one recognizes one's real friends? There is a show that certain Western countries give us, [countries] who officially indulge in a real worship of the relationships between Africa and the West, but are ready to clear out as soon as the African boat starts taking on water. So, while Sierra Leoneans risk reliving a second mutilation, France put its army based in Dakar on alert, an American warship cruises around Freetown, and British helicopters scan for the smallest sign to take out their subjects. One more time the UN speaks in the name of an international community that is nothing but a fiction. Africa must stop dreaming and come back to earth. ECOMOG, an army of African inspiration, has in all cases shown its effectiveness and its usefulness faced with Blue Helmets, the 'hybrid' army of nowhere and of all nationalities. "
CAMEROON: "UN Peacekeepers Are Down In The Dumps"
Yaounde-based, opposition, French-language, thrice-weekly Mutations (5/10) carried this editorial by foreign news analyst Stephane Tchakam: "The United States has sent helicopters to evacuate Americans.... It is clearly out of question that Washington sends GI's to (Sierra Leone) no matter how much worse the situation becomes. U.S. foreign policy is still traumatized by the death of 18 soldiers killed in Somalia during 'Operation Restore Hope' in 1992. While (Sierra Leoneans) are expecting the worst, diplomacy is trying to find solutions, just as was the case at the beginning of the conflict nine years ago. (On May 9), an ECOWAS summit was scheduled in Abuja, Nigeria. At the same time, UN Secretary General Kofi Annan had an appointment with American Secretary of State Madeleine Albright. Though all West African heads of state have been invited by their counterpart Olusegun Obasanjo, (the presence of) Charles Taylor from Liberia is particularly called for. He has very close relations with Foday Sankoh and it is hoped that he will convince the latter to respect the Lome peace agreements signed in July 1999."
"Sierra Leone: Killing The Peacemaker"
Yaounde-based bilingual, government-controlled Cameroon Tribune (5/9) carried this editorial by Nkendem Forbinake: "How, by whatever stretch of the imagination, is it to be understood that for all the concessions the rebels in Sierra Leone have had, not least of which was Foday Sankoh's appointment to the office of vice president, they still could come back striking again and perpetrating the blood-letting in Sierra Leone?... What can be more dastardly, more cowardly than visiting harm upon the very neutral party volunteering to broker and maintain peace between antagonists locked, regrettably, in years of fratricidal belligerence?... Fortunately, the United Nations is not unaware that attacks against its troops and personnel are often calculated to frustrate their mission and force a pull-out. To give in to such ploys would be to surrender to the forces of evil."
NIGERIA: "Bring Instigators To Book"
Lagos independent daily Comet (5/12) ran an editorial saying: "The crisis in Sierra Leone seems to have come full circle, almost taking all principal actors back to the very beginning of the disagreements and hostilities.... The Sierra Leonean crisis has lasted for almost a decade
and has become an embarrassment and shame to the whole world. The known instigators of the current conflict should be brought to book and a more realistic approach adopted in dealing with the political economy of the crisis."
"Punish Supporters Of The Rebels"
The Lagos-based, 60 percent federal government-owned Daily Times (5/12), editorialized: "We recall that but for the military and logistical support of Presidents Charles Taylor of Liberia and Blaise Campaore of Burkina Faso, the RUF's ability to wage war and engage in other human rights violations would have been curtailed a long time ago. Should there be sufficient evidence to suggest that both countries have not ended their support for Foday Sankoh and his band of marauders, the two nations should be isolated by other West African states. In addition, the United Nations Security Council should, as a matter of urgency, impose sanctions on them to force their compliance with existing UN resolutions on Sierra Leone."
"Call Sankoh To Order"
The Lagos-based, independent Daily Champion ran this editorial (5/10), "We plead with Sankoh to call his fighters to order and cooperate fully with the peace process. But if he remains recalcitrant much further, the UN should consider changing its mandate from peace keeping to peace enforcement. For, at all cost, we must prevent another monstrous Savimbi from rearing his ugly face in Africa. Sankoh must be stopped from subjecting the peace-loving, long-suffering people of Sierra Leone to anguish any further."
RWANDA: "UN Team Cruising Region For DROC Peace"
Independent weekly Rwanda Newsline held (5/8-14): "A team of UN Security Council ambassadors led by U.S. Ambassador to the UN Richard Holbrooke is in the region for the second time in less than six months to discuss the UN peacekeeping mission in the war-ravaged Democratic Republic of Congo. But the visit was so much undermined by another Uganda-Rwanda clash in Kisangani over the weekend [May 5.]... President Laurent Kabila's government, numerous rebel and ethnic-based militias and five armies are fighting in a contest for power, territory and riches. Some observers believe that growing cracks in another African peace deal in Sierra Leone provide evidence of the hurdles facing Congo negotiators like Holbrooke. Sierra Leone's war is generally regarded as much less complicated than the Congo conflagration, where the proposed UN force would nevertheless be less than half the size of Sierra Leone's 11,100-strong UN contingent."
SOUTH AFRICA: "Pressure Should Be Exerted On Western Countries"
The liberal, independent Star editorialized (5/12), "What a miserable start to what President Mbeki and his Renaissance brigade have claimed as an African century. Place a map of Africa in front of you and all four corners are in crisis, the latest emanating from the west in Sierra Leone.... The conflict has sparked fears of a return to full-scale fighting, especially since the disappearance of Sankoh on Monday. His one-time allies...have made it know they want him dead. One almost wishes them success because he has spurned the hand of reconciliation and continues to be the poison that is killing Sierra Leone.... Pressure should be exerted on rich Western countries which won't send troops to defend peace in Sierra Leone, but buy
rebel-mined diamonds, thus fuelling the conflict as similar purchases from Angola and the DROC do."
"The West's Moral Antennae"
Independent Business Day's Washington correspondent Simon Barber opined (5/12): "In 1995 it took a force of 300 fielded by Executive Outcomes for a reported $1.7 million a month plus some mining concessions, just two months to suppress the RUF, driving it away from the capital.... Sankoh was obliged to sue for peace... But Executive Outcomes, though cheered by ordinary Sierra Leoneans as a liberator, had to leave in January 1997.... Following Executive Outcomes departure, Sierra Leone returned to the inferno... Would it really have been so awful to let Executive Outcomes take its pay from mining concessions? That way, at least, Sierra Leone's mineral wealth might have saved tens of thousands, mostly women and children, from death, amputation, rape, AIDS infection and sexual enslavement. But no. The delicate Western powers...could not abide the thought of apartheid's superbly trained killers putting the skills to redeeming work. So finely attuned are moral antennae in the rich countries: Better that a Sierra Leonian infant should be carved, living, into little pieces by Sankoh's reptiles than that she, her parents and her country be saved by SA pros--mostly black--who learned their trade in the wrong war."
ZAMBIA: "Just The Kind Of Reaction Sankoh Expects"
The government-owned Times of Zambia opined (5/10): "The more than 500 UN peacekeepers now languishing in uncertain circumstances, have not committed any crime to attract the wrath of RUF. They were invited by the world body to ensure normalcy returned to Sierra Leone. The conduct in Sierra Leone shows the world the futility of discussing peace with rebels.... Sankoh, although given regal treatment by the international community did nothing to compel his renegades to lay down their arms. Similarly, the panic, as exhibited by the British government, to embark on evacuations of its nationals from Freetown at the earliest indication of hostilities, we fear, is playing in the hands of the rebels. It is just the kind of reaction that Sankoh and his cronies expect. To hold the world to ransom. And this is the kind of reaction that will complicate search for peace in Sierra Leone. And is the reaction that has prolonged the war in Angola. For many years, Savimbi had played the superpowers against each other exploiting Western phobia for communism. Now when the reality has dawned on Washington and London and aid to Savimbi cut off, he has turned his murderous guns onto the defenceless villagers on the Zambian side."
"Sankoh Must Be Held Accountable"
The government-owned Zambia Daily Mail opined (5/9): "It is unfortunate that Zambians are among the captured peacekeepers in Sierra Leone along with some from Kenya and India, among many others. The rebel action is a serious violation of the United Nations regulations on the treatment of peacekeepers. It also vindicates the United Nations' refusal to send troops to areas where belligerents are reluctant to respect and observe cease-fire regulations. Ultimately rebel leader Foday Sankoh should be held accountable for this senseless move by his subordinates."
ZIMBABWE: "The Choice Is Ours--Peace Or Bloodshed"
The independent Daily News held (5/10): "Sierra Leone may soon turn into another Somalia--a ramshackle republic with no recognizable government in place; a lawless, squalid backwater from which the UN pulled out in despair and shame. The UN force, which replaced the tough Nigerian-led ECOMOG force which brought a semblance of peace to that troubled country, has
recently been humiliated by the rebel forces of Foday Sankoh who kidnapped 500 of their troops, all Africans. It is this same UN which is to supervise the implementation of last year's peace agreement in the DROC. That vast country's complex problems dwarf those of little
Sierra Leone. The UN, in spite of the U. S. Ambassador Richard Holbrooke's optimism after meeting President Mugabe in Harare last week, could face another debacle in the DROC. Africa cannot pin all its hopes on the UN force, which will be underfunded and as ill-equipped as the soldiers captured by Sankoh's men in Sierra Leone. The way forward is more dialogue among the warring parties It is this lack of dialogue which led Sierra Leone and the DROC down the abyss of civil war."
"Show Of Force Is Not The UN's Brief"
An editorial in the government-controlled Chronicle asked (5/9): "Is the UN an arbiter or antagonist in the war in Sierra Leone? The question is asked in view of weekend clashes between UN peacekeeping forces in the country, and rebels royal to Foday Sankoh, the leader of the Revolutionary United Front.... The UN mission in Sierra Leone, concerned for the welfare of its peacekeepers and annoyed at Sankoh's equivocal approach to the reconciliation process, appears to have conditioned itself to fight back--and, in the process, has compromised its etiquette as a non-aligned arbiter. The point being that once peacekeepers become engaged on any side of an armed conflict, their partiality is exposed and, very often, their involvement only broadens the scope of the war. The American-led intervention in Somalia in 1992 is a case in point. What Sierra Leone now needs are people who can keep the peace. Any armed enforcement would exceed the existing UNAMSIL mandate, whose extension the UN secretary general should have sought if he thought the terms of engagement were inadequate for Sierra Leone's prickly politics. Moreover, unless it is certain of overpowering cease-fire violators, UNAMSIL's armed offensive could turn out to be a risky pursuit with the potential to backfire, discredit the world body, and discourage future peacekeeping operations in conflict areas."
BRITAIN: "Hopeless Africa"
The independent weekly Economist had this lead editorial (5/12): "The UN must be given enough troops, with enough equipment, training and sophisticated leadership, to quell the rebels in Sierra Lone. Realistically, that means that some of them must be first-world soldiers, drawn at least initially from the British force already there, with a mandate to fight. And once any fighting is finished, the UN must stay on in Sierra Leone, as it is staying on in the Balkans, to wage peace. In short, it must win. It must do so, first, for the people of Sierra Leone; second, for the people of Africa; and, third, for the people of any country similarly threatened in the future, which is another way of saying for its own credibility.... If the UN, whose recent history is littered with meaningless vows of protection in 'safe' areas, is forced by the parsimony or fears of its first-world members to cut and run in Sierra Leone, warlords everywhere will take it as a licence to act at will. In Africa especially, nothing would do more to justify despair."
"Out Of Africa"
The conservative weekly Spectator judged in an editorial (5/12): "The dispatch of British paratroops to Sierra Leone for the purpose of evacuating British and other nationals was sensible and prudent. Their use for any other purpose, such as strengthening the UN 'peacekeeping' forces there, would be foolhardy. The fact is that only the exertion of real military force would restore order--temporarily, at that--to Sierra Leone. Moreover, even if
military action succeeded, the problem of what to do with Sierra Leone once peace was restored would remain. Recolonize it? With whom? Administer it forever? The problem for those who would do good for Africa is that limited government and the rule of law are not easily inculcated, and certainly not by a temporary invasion of paratroops. It is the responsibility of Africans, not of Europeans and Americans, to bring about a political dispensation in Africa compatible with development, and constant external interference will only delay its achievement."
"Threats Of War As Tensions Grow Across Africa"
The independent Financial Times had this (5/11): "Africa faces the prospect of widening conflict as tensions deepen across the continent. Efforts to defuse a series of crises, from Sierra Leone in the west to the Horn of Africa in the east, appear to be breaking down. A UNSC mission headed by Richard Holbrooke, which visited seven African states in as many days, ended yesterday empty-handed. Attempts to revive peace moves in Congo and defuse tensions between Uganda and Rwanda collapsed.... Existing wars in Angola and Sudan, growing concern about developments in Zimbabwe, which has 11,000 troops in Congo, and the impact of two decades of economic decline have place sub-Saharan Africa under increasing strain."
"World Can't Turn Its Back On African Problems"
The lead editorial in the centrist Express judged (5/11): "African solutions for African problems is a phrase that has been tripping all too easily off the tongues of Western leaders in recent years. Countries running their own show sounds great but the policy has led to more suffering, not less.... It is not Britain's duty to go it alone and step in as a peace enforcer where the international community has failed. This is a world problem and the UN must be given the clout to maintain stability. That means sending in a properly trained and equipped multinational rapid reaction force."
"We Must Play No Cruel Charade"
London's conservative tabloid Evening Standard had this lead editorial (5/10): "The West has consistently failed to reconcile its efforts to stem bloodshed in Africa with the realities on the ground. Mediators hope to provide a shield behind which peaceful institutions can be revived. Yet in such societies as Sierra Leone today, political leadership and social infrastructure scarcely exist. The only credible basis upon which foreign forces can enter such a country is not as peacekeepers for a few weeks or months, but with a mandate to remain indefinitely, to impose order and create institutions. The world is not remotely ready to propose or support any such draconian approach in the Balkans, never mind in Africa. It would be denounced by worldwide liberal opinion as neo-colonialist. Yet it is futile to deploy foreign intervention forces to check bloodshed for a few days or weeks unless they possess a convincing political mandate. In the absence of a strategy, British troops are being used only as sticking plaster to salve Western consciences, staging a cruel charade that something useful is being done. The Foreign Office should be stopped before Britain is irretrievably committed."
"Sierra Leone And the End Of Engagement"
The independent Financial Times noted (5/10): "UN support for intervention in Africa is dwindling as its involvement fails once more. Just as Somalia is etched in the collective memory of U.S. policymakers, Sierra Leone is likely to prove a seminal event for the UN. Not since its failure to intervene in the 1994 genocide in Rwanda has the weakness of the world body been so harshly exposed....
"Western governments argue that there should be African solutions to African problems, under a UN mandate. The reality is that African armies are not up to it."
FRANCE: "UN Once Again The Scapegoat"
Afsane Bassir Poor commented in left-of-center Le Monde (5/10): "U.S. Ambassador Holbrooke seems to be the only one among Western officials to be seriously thinking of a way to deal with the crisis in Sierra Leone.... Richard Holbrooke, who is leading a Security Council mission in the region, has suggested that the Nigerian troops return to Sierra Leone."
"UN Fiasco"
Right-of-center Les Echos' editorial averred (5/10): "Rarely has the UN experienced such a humiliating fiasco as in Sierra Leone.... The UN has proven to be incapable of taking over from the Nigerian forces...and the UN diplomats proved from the start to be in the wrong. Having forgotten the horrors perpetrated by the rebels, and urged by Washington and London, the UN signed a compromise with Foday Sankoh...and sent under-equipped troops from Third World nations too happy to collect UN salaries. Now, the Nigerian troops will be called back, and they will have to face much better armed rebels.... Still, it is useless to accuse the UN, which is the reflection of the states it represents."
GERMANY: "Achieving Power With Murder"
Michael Bitala noted in an editorial in centrist Sueddeutsche Zeitung of Munich (5/12): "Not only the UN is failing in Sierra Leone right now. The West, which fought the Kosovo war for democracy and human rights, demonstrates clearly that these values mean little in Africa, when the life of its own soldiers is in danger. And the concept of the peace treaty of July 1999, which set up the government participation by war criminals like Sankoh to ensure peace, turns out to have been a naive political fantasy in the face of the current fights in Sierra Leone. The small West African country will suffer the same fate as neighboring Liberia. There, too, a band of murderers, which called themselves rebels, fought a war against the civilian population. Today, the leader of this group, James Taylor, is president. His confidant, Revolutionary United Front chief Sankoh, is about to make a similar career. One does not have to be cynical to predict that U.S. Secretary of State Albright will be one of the first to congratulate him as president. She has done this once before. Last October, she came and congratulated Sankoh on becoming vice president."
"Chaos Reigns In Africa"
Right-of-center Fuldaer Zeitung averred (5/12): "Civil war in Congo, farm occupations in Zimbabwe, and now the flaring up of fights in Sierra Leone. Chaos reigns in numerous African states. So far, all efforts by the West to end the post-colonial conflicts and provide the population with moderate affluence have failed. Poverty has to be reduced, and the illegal trading of weapons, diamonds, and other natural treasures must be stopped. The West can help with advice in this process. But Africans will have to find their own way."
"Neglected Peace"
Michael Birnbaum pointed out in an editorial in centrist Sueddeutsche Zeitung of Munich (5/11): "The different UN missions to the crisis continent failed for very different reasons. However, all scenarios have two things in common: Since the end of East-West conflict, African conflicts have lacked the guiding influence of 'godfathers' like the United States or Russia. Because of this lack, dictators or rebels can no longer be bound to a 'godfather' during peace negotiations.
"This instrument of political and military control has fallen away. African conflicts now feed on their own complexities. This is the reason why the UN has repeatedly taken sides in the conflicts or at least acted in a way that favored one side: in Angola against rebel leader Jonas Savimbi, in Somalia against military leader Mohammed Farah Aideed, in Sierra Leone first against and now in favor of ex-rebel leader Foday Sankoh. UN Ambassador Holbrooke and his colleagues from the Security Council are currently trying out the only possible path out of this trap: He wants to postpone the already approved UN mission to Congo until all participants not only talk about peace, but embrace that goal fully and take concrete steps in that direction. Otherwise, more UN troops would again be deployed carelessly in this large country."
"Another UN Disaster"
Hildegard Stausberg averred in right-of-center Die Welt of Hamburg (5/11): "Once again the world has to learn the painful lesson that the troops of UN General Secretary Annan are unable to resolve conflicts. The fact that Annan is now welcoming the mission by British special forces and asking Washington for additional participation reveals the full extent of the dilemma: Alone, and mostly without help from the old colonial powers, the UN cannot steer its course, especially in Africa. Meanwhile, the tactical maneuvers by the neighboring countries in West Africa show the full extent of their complicity: They want to send as a mediator to Sierra Leone Liberian President Charles Taylor, the man who is partly responsible for the chaos taking place there. Unfortunately, humane conditions of life are further out of reach than ever before in many parts of Africa, despite the fact that a different and more positive scenario keeps being invoked at international conferences."
"Political Dilettantism: Signing Treaties With Desperadoes And War Criminals"
Right-of-center Mannheimer Morgen (5/11) noted in an editorial: "Somalia, Rwanda, Burundi, Angola, and...Sierra Leone represent a chain of catastrophic UN losses in the organization's half-hearted attempt to bring African states to their feet. Such a goal, however, cannot be reached by signing treaties with self-appointed rebel leaders, desperadoes, and war criminals, who are being rewarded for their misdeeds by these very treaties. Part of the political dilettantism is the Security Council's unwillingness to give the peace troops the kind of power they would need to reach their goals. The Western states, this much is certain, will not get their fingers burned on the continent. So should Africa be left to the Africans? This cannot be the solution, even though the UN has done much to make this the status quo."
ITALY: "Holbrooke: 'Ethiopia And Eritrea On The Verge Of Collapse"
Massimo Alberizzi commented in centrist, top-circulation Corriere della Sera (5/12): "A new cry of alarm came from the United Nations: The war between Ethiopia and Eritrea is about to explode again, with consequences that may be devastating. This is, in short, the opinion of Richard Holbrooke, the chief of the UN Security Council delegation that has visited seven African countries over the last few days. 'When we left, Congo was our main concern...but now the priority is the Horn of Africa, where the most stupid war of the African continent is being fought. It is unacceptable that the two poorest nations of the world...are massing troops at their borders,' said Holbrooke.... The international community seems to be angry with the leaders of Ethiopia and Eritrea.... Peace is within reach in the wake of their acceptance of the plan of the Organization for African Unity. But it got stuck on what is described as 'matters of principle'."
"Africa's First World War"
In leading business daily Il Sole-24 Ore (5/11), Alberto Negri referred to Africa as "the lost continent" and analyzed the causes of the conflicts that are spreading from Congo to the Great
Lakes region: "'We are on the verge of another large and useless war,' warns Richard Holbrooke, U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, who is engaged in a diplomatic sweep (he met with four African presidents in two days) while in Congo, UN peacekeepers risk a worse fate than in Sierra Leone. From the Horn of Africa to the Gold Coast, from Sudan to southern Africa through the Great Lakes, the Black Continent is tormented by conflicts and revolts, with the addition of famine and drought.... What is happening? Under the eyes of the man who was the indefatigable negotiator of the Dayton accords for the Balkans, and outside the control of superpowers and the United Nations, the implosion of a continent is taking place under the Sahara line. Over the last few years, Central Africa has turned into a huge battlefield, into the theater of a conflict that has already been named 'first African world war'.... The end of the Cold War has been the main reason for Africa's explosion. With 'ideological wars' forgotten, some of the leaders of former guerrilla groups have not laid down their weapons.... Today's African wars, with old and new leaders, are mainly provoked by the struggle for power and riches conducted according to one's level of force, with abuse as a constant element.... This is the Africa that has been left to the Africans: for now it seems that nobody is capable or willing to help it. And even a re-colonization of the Black Continent 'under the humanitarian flag'...seems a risky or impossible endeavor to the eyes of the Western world."
"Washington Fears Collapse Of The African Continent"
According to a front-page commentary in provocative, classical liberal Il Foglio (5/10): "According to the CIA, the situation in Africa is getting worse every day and risks becoming unmanageable. The Clinton Administration is very worried.... Indeed, Clinton's trip to the African continent produced few results. The crisis underway in Sierra Leone is the most evident signal of an Africa left to its own destiny.... Ambassador Holbrooke...put Africa at the top of his agenda. Two weeks ago, he went to the Congo with a UN delegation.... Africa has 54 votes at the UN, and these are often very useful to America. A few months before the presidential elections, the black community is asking the United States to do something in Africa.... Non-violent groups denounce the dirty trafficking of arms and precious stones involving Western nations and corrupted elites in power. The cocktail is an explosive one. In both American and European public opinion, the African issue might weld itself with the anti-globalization arguments. The drama of the 300 UN peacekeeping soldiers confined in Sierra Leone made the White House and the State Department realize that it is necessary to act rapidly, before the tragedy gets worse.... America spends $70 million a year to pay the expenses of UN soldiers in Africa. But it should invest much more if it wants to preserve its own prestige in the world as a friendly power of the black continent."
AUSTRIA: "African Solutions To African Problems Seems Light Years Away"
Commentator Thomas Vieregge asserted in conservative Die Presse (5/11): "The judgment of leading statesman varies between euphoria and depression.... Nothing has been left of the much-praised 'African Renaissance,' which was postulated by Bill Clinton together with Thabo Mbeki from South Africa three years ago. Sierra Leone's rebel leader Foday Sankoh did not end up before a war crimes tribunal...but in the vice-president's seat.... The often-postulated African solution for the homemade problems seems to be light ears away. It is even questionable whether increased Western financial support for structural reforms and political support would be able to sanitize the African disease. For the time being, it would help Africa to take to heart a word by Nelson Mandela, the only luminous figure of African politics: Put an end to tyranny!"
BELGIUM: "Paternalism"
Foreign editor Axel Buyse maintained in independent, Catholic De Standaard (5/12): "Black Africa 'has dropped out.' We must have the courage to recognize that reality. The traditional explanations--colonialism and European imperialism--no longer suffice to explain the unrelenting downfall of the subcontinent. That does not mean that the Europeans are not at all guilty. But, it means that it is high time to confront the African leaders with the consequences of their acts and to stop pointing whiningly to the West.... Nothing is easier than blaming the British for the blunders that were committed at the time of the decolonialization of Zimbabwe 20 years ago--or indicting the Belgians for what went wrong at the time of the hasty independence of Congo. That may be interesting from a historical point of view, but it is only partially relevant for the suicidal policy of the current rulers.... Does that mean that Europe must stand idle while Africa is dying not only from AIDS but also in armed violence? No.... African war is fought with weapons from Eastern Europe. Better late than never, Europe should cut off those routes of supply, and every effort should be made to end the illegal trade of diamonds and so many other sinister practices that feed this violence. It is imperative that Europe tackles underdevelopment in a really coordinated manner. However, ascribing everything that is going wrong to Europe's 'historical responsibility' does not help the Africans one step further."
DENMARK: "Africa Should Resolve Conflict; West Should Fight Illegal Mineral Exports"
Center-right Berlingske Tidende editorialized (5/10): "The troops in Sierra Leone are poorly trained and poorly equipped. The responsibility for this situation lies with the major powers. Frankly, it is a scandal we have to once again witness the failure UN troops to protect the civilian population. At the present time the U.S. and Britain are being condemned for failing to make the necessary troop deployments, but this is unfair criticism. In the final analysis, it is the countries of Africa who should resolve the conflict. Sierra Leone's neighbors ought to form a combined intervention force. This kind of initiative has been tried in the past and has failed, but it ought to be tried again. We [the West] should offer our support by, among other things, increasing our effort to fight the illegal export of diamonds and gold--activities that fuel conflicts in the region. When peace returns, we should make generous offers of aid."
THE NETHERLANDS: "UN Does Not Learn From The Past"
Centrist Algemeen Dagblad opined (5/9), "The hostage-taking of 500 UN soldiers in Sierra Leone once again proves that we should not sign agreements with criminals. The Revolutionary United Front covers a gang of criminals wanting to get control over the rich diamond fields. There is very little idealism involved.... Democratically-elected President Kabbah saw no other option but to sign an agreement with the rebels, making their leader Sankoh vice president.... But Sankoh's mercenaries continue to terrorize the country. The arrived UN peace force has a very limited mandate.... The criminals cannot be bothered to observe any agreement. This new bitter experience might be a good reason for the UN to review conditions for peace missions."
NORWAY: "The UN's Inadequacy In Sierra Leone"
Foreign affairs writer Elisabeth Ransdborg declared in conservative, newspaper-of-record Aftenposten (5/12): "A breakdown in the UN operation in Sierra Leone is not just a tragedy for the country's five million inhabitants. It also questions the international society's ability, and will, to secure peace in other places on the African continent.... The Security Council, under the United States' UN Ambassador's Richard Holbrooke's lead, has ended a tour in Africa with very little result, except the recognition that it will be even more difficult to collect support for the UN forces which are planned to be placed in Congo.... 'Africa for Africans' has for a long time been
the motto for African leaders--a motto that the Western countries also made theirs when Africa no longer was ideologically interesting after the Cold War... A breakdown in the UN operation in Sierra Leone will be another reminder that the Western policy on Africa is insufficient, and that Africa's problems can not be solved at an arm's length's distance".
RUSSIA: "Another Fiasco For The Blue Helmets"
Leonid Gankin commented in reformist business-oriented Kommersant (5/11): "Even the UN leadership has admitted that (last year's) peace treaty was a mistake. Then, as today, the world's leading nations refused to send troops to Africa to do away with the bandits who committed outrages over the peaceful population. So the UN had to use soldiers from developing countries. They were poorly equipped and hardly trained. It could not have ended otherwise. The peace mission has virtually failed, dealing a heavy blow to the UN's authority and extending the chain of the blue helmets' fiascos after Somalia, Rwanda and Angola."
"U.S., Britain Can Only Go So Far"
Viktor Sokolov pointed out on page one of centrist Nezavisimaya Gazeta (5/10): "The incident involving hostages in Sierra Leone may grow into a major international crisis. It is also another test for the UN to show how effective it can be in localizing a conflict in one of Africa's poorest countries. The United States, Britain and France have refused to send a rapid deployment force to Sierra Leone, as requested by UN Secretary General Annan, thereby setting a limit to what NATO's leading nations can do in their peacemaking efforts in Africa."
SPAIN: "Failure In Africa"
Barcelona's centrist La Vanguardia observed (5/9): "The crisis in Sierra Leone brings into question once again the authority of the most important international organization, as it highlights the double standard of Western countries, especially the United States, when it comes to intervention in Africa. The UN and the United States failed with the humanitarian operation in Somalia of 1992. Afterwards, tragedy broke out in Rwanda and Western countries decided to look the other way. The peacekeeping operation in Angola was another failure.... It is not the UN that is the guilty party, rather, it is the member states that won't take the necessary measures."
TURKEY: "Sierra Leone"
Haluk Ulman contended in economic, political Dunya (5/12): "It is disheartening to see that Sierra Leone does not receive any notable international attention, despite the fact this region is as, if not more, troubled as the Balkans.... The civil war in Sierra Leone once again proves the inadequacy of the United Nation's peacekeeping force... In addition, both the United States and U.K. are greatly responsible for the deteriorating situation in Sierra Leone. The United States and U.K. acted very wrongly when they supported rebellion leader Foday Sankoh, because they based their support on the false hope that he could help end the civil war.... Encouraged by both countries' support, Sankoh is now continuing an armed struggle--worse than before and in clear defiance of the UN. The Sierra Leone case represents a clear example of the failure of America's policy to control chaos in Africa via the United Nations."
JAPAN: "Difficulty Of Peacekeeping Operations In Africa"
Top-circulation, moderate Yomiuri's New York correspondent Terada observed (5/11), "As the week-long crisis is threatening to push Sierra Leone once again into civil war, officials at the United Nations are painfully aware-- again--of the difficulty of peacekeeping operations in Africa. In fact, the UN has become increasingly pessimistic about the UNASMIL's peacekeeping operation in Sierra Leone. This is because: (1) Major powers, including the United States, are less eager to send peacekeepers to Sierra Leone; (2) there is no African mediator to help resolve the crisis; and (3) there are conflicts of interest over control of the vital diamond mining area in the impoverished country. There are also limitations to the peacekeeping operation of lightly-armed troops. If UNASMIL's peacekeeping operation fails, there will be calls urging heavier armament and more compelling power protection for the peacekeepers."
CHINA: "Worrisome Situation In Sierra Leone"
Liang Xianwang noted in official, Communist Party People's Daily (Renmin Ribao, 5/11): "The act of the Revolutionary United Front of holding UN peacekeepers as hostages has violated international law and poisoned the atmosphere in Sierra Leone. Such violence must be stopped immediately. The situation indicates that only elimination of poverty and injustice could put an end to violence in Sierra Leone. In this sense, the old world political and economic systems are facing crises and challenges."
SOUTH KOREA: "Useless UN Peacekeepers"
Reporter Won Jae-yun wrote in the conservative Segye Ilbo (5/11): "What is happening in Sierra Leone is all about the incompetence of the UN's peacekeepers, reminding us of how urgent the need to reinforce them is. The core of the problem is the peacekeepers have not been properly trained and their equipment is inadequate. The UN is planning to dispatch additional troops, but it remains to be seen whether that would do any good. The U.S. is still not considering sending ground troops."
VIETNAM: "The Civil War In Sierra Leone: A Challenge To The UN? "
Minh Uyen wrote in Sai Gon Giai Phong (5/11), mouthpiece of Ho Chi Minh City's Communist Party: "The RUF is holding about 300 UN troops hostages, and until now it has apparently shown no respect to the Lome peace agreement signed with the Sierra Leone government in July 1999.... We cannot deny the efforts the UN has made. However, while the fighting in some places has become quite strained and the peace process in the Middle East and South Lebanon are still at an impasse, should the UN peacekeepers still scattered in Kosovo, Bosnia, Lebanon, etc., reconsider their policies and efforts in order to bring peace and reform to the economies of all member countries? "
INDIA: "UN Again Takes The Stick"
The centrist Hindu featured this analysis (5/10) by Sridhar Krishnaswami: "Stung by the sudden developments in Sierra Leone, especially by the rapidly gaining perception that the UN peacekeepers are...losing the fight on the 'peacekeeping' front, officials at the UN are slowly beginning to acknowledge that lapses and mis-steps in Sierra Leone may have contributed to the current mess. What has been really troublesome for the world body is its first announcement that the rebel forces under Foday Sankoh of the Revolutionary United Front were advancing on Freetown. It later had to retract the statement. The UN is also being taken
to task by independent analysts and critics for having gone into Sierra Leone without properly assessing the stakes involved. The bottom line in this UN operation is that it has brought about the same charges as before--that the world body rushed in peacekeepers without a peace to 'keep.' The credibility of the UN has taken yet another hit. And the larger question is if the world body, given its track record, is hesitant to up the ante by challenging the rebels.... UN officials maintain that the reasons for the downward spiral in Sierra Leone has to be laid at the doors of Sankoh and his rebel troops. The other side of the argument has been that the UN has not given even minimal security protection."
BANGLADESH: "On To Sierra Leone"
The independent, English-language Daily Star had this editorial (5/11): "The UN has requested that Bangladesh send troops to the strife-torn West African state of Sierra Leone, and Bangladesh has decided to respond to the request of the world body. Sierra Leone already has a dozen Bangladeshi military observers, and it is a great relief that none of them has been taken hostage by the rebels. Nonetheless, our concern for those in hostile hands knows no bounds. The UN request reflects the confidence and faith the world body has in the capability of Bangladeshi troops. We can pride ourselves on the achievements of our troops under exceptionally difficult circumstances in Bosnia, Somalia, Kosovo, and many other places."
CANADA: "Testing The UN's Will"
In the view of the liberal Toronto Star (5/11): "Chaotic as things are in Sierra Leone, they will get worse if the UN succumbs to paralysis at the first challenge by rebel gunmen.... This is no time for a hand-wringing debate about the country's feeble government, the flawed Lome peace pact, the inadequacy of the UN force or the longer-term need to create a UN rapid reaction force to smother brushfire conflicts. This particular brushfire needs smothering, fast.... The UN must face down the rebels, at this critical early point in the organization's biggest peacekeeping mission, or lose all credibility in Africa. And Sankoh should be held personally accountable if his rebels don't free UN hostages and put down their guns. The political pieces can be picked up after the rebels are stopped in their tracks."
"Restoring UN Credibility"
The conservative National Post (5/10) wrote: "Until recently, thanks to the UN's aura of credibility, attacking or ignoring peacekeepers was virtually unheard of. But a series of disasters have convinced local antagonists that the UN is a straw man.... Worryingly, there is no reason to believe the UN has learned from its mistakes, despite a plethora of after-action reports promising reforms.... The solution to restoring credibility is not... to give UN peacekeepers a 'rapid response capacity.'... A more realistic option is to shift the focus of intervention away from international efforts and toward regional efforts. On many occasions, the soothing of regional tensions has been best left to local powers that have vested interests in maintaining peace and stability.... Credibility, once lost, is difficult to regain. The UN ought to make a start by overhauling its Peacekeeping Operations department and allow muscular regional powers to shoulder more of the load."
"Sierra Leone's Cruel Test"
The liberal Toronto Star's editorial maintained (5/7): "Sierra Leone has become an urgent test of United Nations resolve, and of Africa's ability to put its own house in order. Bringing peace to the small country of 5 million after a vicious civil war that killed 75,000 and destroyed the state
was never going to be easy. But it won't come about at all, unless Africa's political leaders demand that order be restored following attacks on UN peacekeepers, and the rest of the world backs them up with financial and military support.... If the UN falters, its other African efforts including a bid to stabilize Congo, will be undermined.... Unless the UN is prepared to face down [Foday] Sankoh--even if that means casualties--it may as well go home.... The Security Council must not let itself be scared off by a thug who controls a few thousand gunmen. That would flash a green light to murder and mayhem throughout the continent."
ARGENTINA: "Thinking Anew"
Guillermo Ortiz, business-financial El Cronista's international analyst, opined (5/9): "Africa is only a minor pawn in the global checkerboard but its future not only depends on eventual adjustment programs and the arrival of elites with a new sense of nationalism, it also needs to rearrange the influence of the former colonial powers.... Africa is calling for a doctrine which will put an end to a cycle of unfeasible states. In spite of its underground riches, Africa is, to the Western world, a source of problems (epidemics, AIDS), which needs to be co-administered rather than disputed. One option could be the design of large geopolitical blocs (western, eastern, southern and northern Africa); and a new definition in the criteria for intervention, vis-a-vis the inefficacy of the regional peace model and of UN-led operations. We must reconsider '21st Century Africa' in its entirety."
##
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
