Statement of U.S. Senator Russ Feingold on the Situation in Liberia From the Senate Floor July 9, 2003 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 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 U.S. 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 U.S. 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 it was almost impossible to understand. And the U.S., 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 Qaeda'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 U.S. 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 U.S. 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, 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 in the region. For historical reasons, most in the international community look to the U.S. for commitment and leadership in stabilizing Liberia, the country at the heart of the regional decline. In fact, unlike the situation we recently faced in Iraq, virtually the entire international community is urging the U.S. to act, from our closest allies in Britain to the Secretary General of the U.N. 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 U.S. 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 1st 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 this year and in 2004. From the point of view of the United States taxpayer, Mr. President, 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 was formerly a RUF stronghold, to assess the situation, and I can tell you that from her report, 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, the criminal enterprise currently governing Liberia, and the violent and abusive movements that have sprung up in resistence to it. Mr. President, 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, and for over seven years now I have served as either the Chairman or Ranking Member of the Subcommittee. 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 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 U.S. was short-sighted when we disengaged from Afghanistan and Pakistan once we no longer had Cold War-related interests in those countries. What happend is, 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 same is true in sub-Saharan Africa. Manifestations of lawlessness such as piracy, illicit air transport networks, and trafficking in arms, drugs, gems and people 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 Qaeda 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, Mr. President. 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 Qaeda is in league with Charles Taylor or the LURD or MODEL, and therefore we should go marching into Monrovia. I have not seen any information that would lead me to believe that to be true, and 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. What I am saying is we have real interests at stake. And I am not saying that the U.S. military should stand poised to intervene throughout the continent wherever disorder reigns. 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 U.S. to take a leadership role. Mr. President, 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 concerned about over-extension militarily around the world. I am neither a pro-military intervention Senator nor an anti-military 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 U.S. 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 just 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. Mr. President, U.S. action may involve sending American troops. 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. We all should. And sooner rather than later. Will U.S. 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 with regard to Liberia. 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.

# # #