Yusuf:
In a similar vein, I am pleased to observe that Sierra leoneans from various walks of life are busy trying hard to achieve the objective of restoring constitutional governace at home. In the process of conducting such affairs, we have to be guided not just by short-term interests but by long-interests and consequences as well. I have participated in CODISAL activities since its inception, and I was supposed to be at the Dayton meeting last weekend. Due to prior commitments and uncertainty about the details of the agenda up to two days before the start of the meeting, I was unable to attend. The comments that follow below are of genuine concern to me as a Sierra leonean who has been involved in trying to deal with the crisis of our nation since May, 1997. As you know, I am a firm believer in constitutional governance, and I consider myself a commited Sierra Leonean who places our national interests over and above all other interests.
There are some serious concerns we have to discuss frankly regarding the report of the Dayton meeting that are long-term in nature. Based on the report, and conversations with Ritchard a couple of days before the meeting, the main goal was to address the Conakry Accords and try to determine how problems involved with its implementation can be handled and retracked in order to ascertain the transition to constitutional rule as agreed by all parties. What I gather from the report, however, (I may be wrong) is that the highlight seemed to have been the conference call with Hinga Norman and the President together with the others mentioned. The gist, and direct statements attributed to the president and Hingo Norman are worrisome. What do I mean by that?
It has to do with the long-term dimemsion of the situation at home. The report clearly demonstrates that the president and Norman, in particular have openly aborted the accords with a statement that points towards removal of the junta by force before April 22, 1998. Please do not misunderstand me, I will dance with joy if the junta relinquishes its hold on our nation today! But the reality is that they, the junta, have been vacillating on the accords, and now, the president himself seems to do what the junta is doing. The entire context is bocoming so muddied that the long-term consequences might be even more catastrophic for our nation.
There is no denial that there has been discontent among the interested parties about the role of Norman in the civilian government given his direct links with the Kamajors. We have read and heard arguments that are predicated on the grounds of the inherent conflict of interest vis a vis his role in government. Now we observe an open collaboration between the president and the so-called CDF in efforts to realise his restoration at any cost, with an outright breaching of the accords, without regard for the consequences of such an action. I think it is somewhat naive to believe that even if the junta is "booted" out before the April 22, 1998 agreed upon date, that all will be well, and that the potential for counter insurgencies muted. There are many long term consequences but I wish to deal with the CDF connection at this stage, and the position of the president.
Please let us not forget that what we are calling the CDF is presumably, an amalgam of ethnic traditional hunting groups (some have argued that they are ethnic defence groups) that have now become an active ethnic-based army. They have a direct stake now not only in ethnic concerns, but in national concerns and interests as well. What precludes "call debt" by these ethnic armies after Mr. Kabba is restored? More importantly, how do we deal with an armed group structured around ethnic interests that have tasted the success (expected) of dislodging a "government," and who might aim their weapons perhaps later, at a constitutionally elected government as well if they perceive threats imagined or real against their respective ethnic groups? These are among the issues that I consider to be long term in nature, and at best the most problematic within the context of the scenario which emerged out of the Dayton meeting. It is ironic that the meeting which was supposed to look into how best to effectuate the Conakry Accords turned out to be a meeting that seemimgly reveals a breach at the highest level of the accords that are to guide us to the restoration of constitutional governance.
Inasmuch as we wish to restore constitutional governace, we have to stay focussed on the primacy of our national interests. We need not adopt strategies of removal that will ensure counter insurgency at the dangerous ethnic dimension, given the fact that the so-called CDF constitute ethnic-based armies. I wonder what the ECOWAS group dealing with the crisis in Sierra leone thinks about this new development, given the fact that ECOWAS negotiated the Conakry Accords. In terms of persistent lobbying, I endorse that fully. But I remain very worried and concerned about the drama that unfolded in Dayton, on the open endorsement of the CDF option, and also about some of the actors that were involved in that meeting. May God bless our nation. Please excuse typos.
Fraternally,
Cecil Blake