[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 13]
[Senate]
[Pages 17277-17279]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                                LIBERIA

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise to comment on the urgent crisis 
in Liberia, and on my conviction that the United States has a role to 
play in its

[[Page 17278]]

resolution. I also rise to call for the kind of information and clarity 
that we need if we are to take effective action.
  In recent days the newspapers have reminded Americans of the special 
relationship that exists between America and the west African Republic 
of Liberia, a country founded by freed slaves from the United States in 
1820. But it is important to note the more recent historical links 
between our countries as well.
  During the cold war, eager for reliable client states in Africa, the 
United States supported Samuel Doe when he seized control of Liberia in 
a 1980 coup, and kept supporting him even when he stole the 1985 
elections. In fact, in the first five years of the Doe regime, the 
United States contributed nearly $500 million in economic and military 
aid--effectively bolstering the government's staying power. The Doe 
regime was an extraordinarily brutal one that not only disenfranchised 
many Liberians, it also effectively erased the boundaries between 
legitimate and illegitimate political action. When the cold war was 
over and Charles Taylor's band of rebels--some of them children--
clashed with government forces and other ethnic militias in the 
streets, the resulting conflict was so frighteningly gruesome that for 
many it was almost impossible to understand.
  And the United States, no longer concerned about Communist influences 
in Monrovia, simply evacuated American citizens and then watched the 
country tear itself apart from the sidelines. In the end, Taylor 
essentially held the country hostage to his desire for power, and war-
weary Liberians elected him President in the hopes of avoiding 
conflict. Taylor's desire for power and wealth turned out to extend 
beyond his own borders, however, and he became a primary patron of the 
brutal Revolutionary United Front, or RUF, force in Sierra Leone, which 
provided his regime with riches from Sierra Leone's diamond mines in 
exchange for military support and protection.
  On November 2, 2001 the Washington Post ran a front-page article 
about alleged connections between al-Qaida's financing and the illicit 
sale of diamonds mined by Liberian-backed rebels in Sierra Leone--
rebels who, you may recall, are best known for cutting off the limbs of 
civilians, including children, to make a political statement. Reports 
have also linked illicit diamond sales to Hezbollah. Additional 
articles focused on notorious arms dealer Victor Bout, whose deliveries 
to the region may have been paid for in diamonds. Law enforcement 
officials have suggested that Bout has been involved in arming 
international terrorists and the forces that harbor them worldwide. 
These reports have been the subject of controversy, and the connections 
and relationships involved are murky at best, but the issue that they 
expose--the vulnerability of weak states to exploitation by 
international criminals--is not in doubt.
  Meanwhile, Taylor's criminal enterprise has proved the rule that 
order, when imposed through injustice and repression, tends to crumble, 
and the forces currently challenging the regime for power--the LURD and 
MODEL--appear to be have learned their abusive tactics from their 
enemies. Criminality rules, chaos threatens, and the civilians of 
Liberia--the people with a real interest in building a stable future, 
the people who simply want a chance to send their children to school, 
are once again likely to be caught in the crossfire.
  It is time for the international community to stand up and say, ``no 
more'' to this cycle of chaos in west Africa. No more deals with thugs, 
no standing by as observers to cycles of slaughter, no more watching 
the predictable fomenting of instability across borders, no more 
standing by as organized crime expands its reach from the very seat of 
government, no more opportunities for terrorists. Enough--because more 
of the same threatens our interests and denies our basic humanity.
  The United States should take a leadership role in responding to the 
Liberian crisis. And that means that we need to clarify the costs and 
commitments entailed in a response now, so that we can take informed 
and responsible action.
  Recently the distinguished chair and ranking member of the Armed 
Services Committee indicated that they believe Congress should vote on 
any commitment of substantial forces in the region. I believe that they 
are right, and that United States troops must always be deployed in a 
manner consistent with the War Powers Act of 1973. But I also know that 
watching and waiting is not an option that will serve United States 
interests.
  In Liberia, we can and should act in concert with the international 
community. In 2000, the British made a courageous decision and helped 
to bolster peacekeeping efforts in Sierra Leone, bringing an end to a 
violent spectacle that had outraged the world without provoking an 
effective response for years.
  The French deployed to Cote d'Ivoire when it fell victim to the 
forces of disorder, are trying to reverse the trend toward violence and 
chaos that recently gripped that once-stable place. African states have 
mobilized as well, and they continue to work feverishly to resist the 
spread of misery, deprivation, and violence that has spread throughout 
this region. For historical reasons, most in the international 
community looks to the United States for commitment and leadership in 
stabilizing Liberia, which is the country that is at the heart of this 
regional decline in West Africa. In fact, unlike the situation we 
recently faced in Iraq, virtually the entire international community is 
urging the United States to act: from our closest allies in Britain to 
the Secretary General of the United Nations. And most importantly, west 
Africans themselves are asking for our help. Liberians are frantically 
waving U.S. flags, hoping to get our attention, praying we will come to 
their aid. This is a not a situation that involves antagonizing allies 
in the fight against terrorism--instead, it calls for cooperating with 
the diverse actors around the world who are already committed to 
fighting for stability in the region.
  And make no mistake, the United States is already among those actors. 
This is not some new issue that just emerged over the last month, and 
we are not at the precipice of deciding whether or not to get involved. 
Let us take just one example:
  As of January 1 of this year, the United States had spent over $515 
million on the peacekeeping mission in Sierra Leone and on Operation 
Focus Relief, which was devised to support that mission. Hundreds of 
millions more have been appropriated and requested for this purpose in 
2003 and 2004. From the point of view of the United States taxpayer, we 
are already in quite deep.
  There is no denying that Sierra Leone's long-term stability depends 
upon resolving the problem in Liberia. Over the July 4 recess, I sent a 
member of my staff to Sierra Leone, and to the region in the east that 
borders Liberia and which was formerly a RUF stronghold, to assess the 
situation. And I can tell you, from her report, that senior military 
experts in the region have recently underscored this point.
  The question before us now is whether or not we will protect our 
investment and our interests by addressing the foremost underlying 
cause of instability in the region; and that is, the criminal 
enterprise currently governing Liberia, and the violent and abusive 
movements that have sprung up in resistance to it.
  I have been to Liberia, and I have been to Cote d'Ivoire, and I have 
been to Sierra Leone. I have served on the Senate Foreign Relations 
Committee's Subcommittee on African Affairs since I came to the Senate 
in 1993. For over 7 years now I have served as either the chairman or 
ranking member of the subcommittee. In this role, and in Africa, I have 
met with amputees, refugees, widows and orphans. I have spoken with 
west African heads of state and west African civil society leaders 
about Liberia's influence on the region. I have no doubt in my mind 
that the humanitarian catastrophe and the dangerous instability in the 
region will not be resolved until Liberia is stabilized--and that means 
more than replacing one thug with another.
  During my chairmanship of the subcommittee last year, we held a 
series of

[[Page 17279]]

hearings focusing on the very real security threats that are posed by 
weak or failed states in Africa, including criminal networks like those 
in Somalia or west Africa which can provide a safe haven for terrorist 
activities. After the horror of September 11, 2001, consensus built 
across the political spectrum, acknowledging that the United States was 
shortsighted when we disengaged from Afghanistan and Pakistan once we 
no longer had cold war-related interests in those countries. So what 
happened? What happened was that America left a vacuum in its wake, and 
some of the forces that moved to fill that vacuum came to threaten our 
security in ways we could not have imagined.
  The very same thing is true in sub-Saharan Africa. Manifestations of 
lawlessness such as piracy, illicit air transport networks, and 
trafficking in arms, drugs, gems and people simply beckon to those who 
would operate in the shadows, beyond the reach of the law.
  It only takes one look at the war-ravaged state of Congo today, or 
the porous borders of west Africa, to see opportunities for those who 
would do us harm. In 1998, al-Qaida seized that opportunity, 
perpetrating attacks on the American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania 
that killed 223 people--Kenyans, Tanzanians, and Americans--and wounded 
thousands more. And unless we take action to make African societies 
less vulnerable to this kind of lawlessness rather than continuing our 
post-cold-war pattern of neglect, we may well reap the terrible 
consequences here at home.
  But a word of caution and a clarification are in order here. It is 
difficult to verify links between west African chaos and international 
terrorism, in part because illicit diamonds are such effective money-
laundering instruments. And I am not saying that al-Qaida is in league 
with Charles Taylor or the LURD or MODEL, and therefore we should go 
marching into Monrovia for that reason. I have not seen any information 
that would lead me to believe that to be true, and, frankly, I am not 
interested in harnessing the power and the emotion bound up in the 
fight against terrorism to every other policy issue for the sake of 
political convenience. My goal here is to protect the American people 
and to ensure that our international action is responsible.
  And I am not saying that the United States military should stand 
poised to intervene throughout the continent wherever disorder reigns. 
Of course not. But just as Australia, backed up by the international 
community, responded to crisis in East Timor; just as Britain, backed 
up by the international community, responded to crisis in Sierra Leone; 
so too, sometimes, it falls to the United States to take a leadership 
role.
  Unlike the issue of Iraq that came before us last year, I am not 
talking about starting a war with anyone in the face of widespread 
international opposition. Instead, I am talking about working with the 
international community to help stabilize a country that has fallen 
into the hands of undisciplined bands of thugs. For unilateral action 
in the face of massive global opposition, I set the bar very high. For 
action in concert with others that will be widely welcomed, I still set 
a high bar. It must be in our interest. And there are questions that 
must be answered to my satisfaction before any intervention can meet 
with my approval. And I remain very, very concerned about our 
overextension militarily around the world. I am neither a promilitary 
intervention Senator nor an antimilitary intervention Senator. 
Attaching ourselves to such labels is a mistake. I simply try to look 
at each situation and exercise my judgement. After years of studying 
this situation, my judgement tells me that the United States has a 
meaningful role to play here in Liberia.
  And let us not forget that we are also talking about a human tragedy 
unfolding before our eyes. Tens of thousands are already displaced; 
hundreds died in fighting in Monrovia a few days ago. The quality of 
life of civilians in Liberia contends for the title of worst in the 
world. At some point, this has to matter. Common decency suggests that 
the international community should act to stop the downward spiral.
  It is time to say: no more. After visiting the region, I called 
Charles Taylor a war criminal here on the Senate floor in 2001, saying 
publicly what many had said privately for a long time. The Special 
Court for Sierra Leone unsealed an indictment to this effect just last 
month. Like many of my colleagues, I strongly support the court. West 
Africa must break the cycle of violence and impunity, and all of us in 
the international community have a role to play in that effort. And I 
support President Bush, who is right to call on Charles Taylor to step 
down, just as the Special Court for Sierra Leone was right to indict 
him. But, let us be clear. Taylor should have no veto over 
internationally backed U.S. action. His days of dictating the destiny 
of the west African people are over.
  U.S. action may involve sending American troops. But before making 
that decision, we need answers to several critical questions.
  I have not seen the scenarios or projections for any kind of action 
or intervention that have surely been worked up by the administration. 
I should see them. We should all see them. And we should see them 
sooner rather than later. And we need answers to the questions: Will 
United States participation and leadership overstretch our resources? 
What are the costs? What commitments are we making? What is our exit 
strategy? And, what are our plans for the coordination of long-term 
stabilization efforts?
  Of course the answers should inform any decision about what we should 
and should not do. No one should understand my remarks today as some 
sort of ``anything goes'' endorsement of any and all proposals that may 
emerge. But I do believe that we must do something, and that we need to 
confront these questions quickly. As I have noted, American inaction 
and indifference is not an option. We are already deeply involved. The 
success of any action we take cannot be guaranteed, but we know that 
the costs of inaction are very high and very dangerous.
  I urge the administration to begin undertaking consultations urgently 
so that we can move forward with an informed, effective, and timely 
response.

                          ____________________