The UN secretary general has called for a peacekeeping force in Liberia.
We interviewed one of the country's ministers, and British ambassador to the UN, Sir Jeremy Greenstock, who's currently on a mission to West Africa, and has held talks on the crisis.
JEREMY PAXMAN:
We are joined from the Ivory
Coast by Jeremy Greenstock,
Britain's ambassador to the
UN until recently and there
for the UN investigating this
whole question of whether
there should be an American
mission sent to Liberia? Do
you think the Americans
should lead a force there?
JEREMY GREENSTOCK:
That is up to the United
States, we are not, of
course, suggesting what
they should do. The west
African nations, whom we
have just been talking to
in Nigeria and Ghana and in
the Ivory Coast, are very
keen they should get some
outside help beyond Africa.
They can put up between
three and 4,000 troops
themselves, but they would
like some help from outside
and clearly this is a
question which the United
States is considering that
is fair enough.
PAXMAN:
Would that force then be
put together under UN auspices
or what?
GREENSTOCK:
It would be put together
with UN Security Council
authority. But not under
the normal peacekeeping
arrangements of the UN
secretariat. It would be up
to a coalition, it looks
like a coalition as you
have suggested led by West
Africa with outside help and
support and maybe a core group
of non-African forces. It would
be a coalition and not a normal
UN peacekeeping operation.
PAXMAN:
How urgently does it need
to be put together?
GREENSTOCK:
Well, I think we can all see
that the people of Liberia are
having an extremely distressing
time. So, from the humanitarian
point of view, the sooner the
better. But it's also unwise in
the experience of the United
Nations or of coalition
forces to go in without a
political agreement to observe
and help to implement. That
political agreement is not yet
there. We don't know if President
Taylor will leave the Government.
PAXMAN:
What do you think should happen
to Charles Taylor?
GREENSTOCK:
Of course, we think he should
give himself up to the Sierra
Leone court. He has been indicted.
That is the safest place for him
to go. We don't want to see any
impunity for those who have been
accused of gross humanitarian
abuses. But, the leaders of
West Africa are trying to make
their own political decisions,
we are taking the lead from
them. We are hoping to persuade
them that the people of Liberia
can be given a lot of
consideration while impunity
is not allowed to any of those
indicted.
PAXMAN:
Sir Jeremy, thank you. Joining
us from Washington is Dr Susan
Rice of the Brookings
Institution. What is likely
to be the American response?
Dr SUSAN RICE:
I think the that the Government
is between a rock and a hard
place, with the president
scheduled to leave for Africa
next Monday, with the calls
from the United Nations
Secretary-General and despite
Ambassador Jeremy Greenstock's
diplomatic language, and from
West Africa for the United
States to intervene. I think
the pressure is mounting. I
don't think it's likely that
the United States will choose
to do nothing. The pressure on
President Bush is too great
for that. So the question is
a matter of degree. I think
there are three possible options.
The first would be to simply
say to the west Africans, we
will fly you in and provide
logistical support and funding.
That is the approach that the
United States took in the 1990s.
It will be deemed insufficient
in this instance. The second
option would be for the United
States to do something very
similar to what the British did
in Sierra Leone, to provide
sort of a command element for
a west African force, command
control, communications,
intelligence support. Perhaps
with a US military force
offshore, visible from the
horizon to threaten force
into provide a quick reaction
capability. I think that may
be the most likely option. The
third option would be for the
United States to do as the west
Africans have requested, and
provide 2,000 soldiers or boots
on the ground to join with their
3,000 and engage in peacekeeping
or possibly even peace enforcement.
PAXMAN:
One senses a certain reticence in
Washington. Is there in the way
that for example the British in
the case of Sierra Leone, France
in the sense of various colonies,
is there a sense of residual
responsibility there?
RICE:
I think perhaps among policy
makers, but that is a small
group. Most of the American
people have no idea what Liberia
is or where it is or why it
should matter to the United
States. While, in fact, we have
security interests this in that
sub-region and, of course, long-
standing humanitarian and
historical reasons, if the
president makes a decision to
involve the US militarily, he
will have to explain it very
carefully to the American people
who will be scratching their
heads.
PAXMAN:
That's why it's taking so long,
is it?
RICE:
I think that may be part of
what is going on. I think also
you have a battle between the
administration and between
the state department on the
one hand, that is probably
favouring a more
interventionalist and active
American approach and the
defence department which is
traditionally reluctant to
engage in peacekeeping any
where, particularly peace
keeping in Africa and
particularly now when they
are so over-stretched in Iraq
and Afghanistan and elsewhere.
Erm, so there's that battle.
Then, I think there is a
difficult question even if
they were inclined to decide
reluctantly to do something,
what is precisely the right
something? How do we do enough
to satisfy international
pressure and make a constructive
difference? How do we do not
too much so we are not exposed
to tremendous questions and
criticisms domestically?
PAXMAN:
What do you think is the absolute
minimum as far as the position
of Charles Taylor is concerned?
RICE:
Well, I think the US position
has been that he's an indicted
war criminal and he ought to be
held accountable. The president
has called on him to step down
and his ambassador Jeremy
Greenstock said, we would all
like him to see him handed over
to the special court in Sierra
Leone. I don't think that will
happen. The with one of the risks
to the United States is that we
consider our options and that
we will in the event we decide
to do something, signal by
necessity to Charles Taylor we
are coming and we can't get
there before he knows we are
coming which gives him the
opportunity to go underground
and to do as Idi did in Mogadishu
or Bin Laden did in Afghanistan
or Saddam has done in Iraq. With
Taylor, there is a possibility
he is able to reconstitute a
force and stage a comeback.
There is also the problem...
PAXMAN:
Thank you very much, I'm going
to have to interrupt you there,
thank you.
Newsnight can be seen on BBC Two at 2230 BST 2130 GMT, or in Real video, either live or on demand, by clicking on the latest programme button.