Extraditing Taylor: A Security Dilemma

To extradite or not to extradite – that’s the question. Almost 2 years since he was cajoled out of power in Liberia and into asylum in Nigeria, Charles Taylor still looms large over the prospects of a sustainable peace in West Africa. The most recent controversy surrounding Charles Taylor is his extradition to Sierra Leone to face the charge of crimes against humanity. The line in the sand has been drawn. It epitomizes the debate which cuts in the middle of inherent dichotomies between legal and reconciliatory conflict resolution methodologies.

Charles Taylor escaped Liberia through a politically construed Machiavellian deal – a deal which favored the lesser of two evil options as the most tenable option for conflict de-escalation. The deal made nonsense of the atrocities committed by Taylor’s National Patriotic Front of Liberia militia and the NPFL-supported Revolutionary United Front in Sierra Leone.

The Sierra Leone conflict led lasted 8 years, ending in over 50,000 casualties and over 2 million internally and externally displaced individuals. The spiraling conflict collapsed an already fragile economy (plumetting to a growth rate of -8% between 1991-1997) and destroyed the meager infrastructure Sierra Leone had mustered through 30 years of independence.

At stake here present in an individual, is a security dilemma, with far-reaching consequences on future peace agreements in Africa. Opponents to Taylor’s extradition point to the internationally-brokered Comprehensive Peace Agreement in Accra, Ghana on August 18, 2003 as his statute of refuge. This deal guaranteed an exit for Charles Taylor in exchange for the cessation of hostilities between the Liberians United for Reconciliation and Democracy and the Movement for Democracy in Liberia and the Government of Liberia (or whatever was rest of it after 14 years of civil war - 1989-2003).

However, they forget that the deal did not make mention of the atrocities committed by Taylor-supported RUF forces in Sierra Leone. When international leaders speak against Taylor’s extradition, they condone the wanton killing of civilian populations in times of conflict. They promote rebel leaders holding out long enough to make deals which would give them a blank protection from prosecution. They set a nefarious precedent in an international legal framework which fails to explicitly protect civilian populations in times of intra-state conflict.

It is as simple as this: Charles Taylor is not above international humanitarian law. He needs to be held accountable for his actions in Sierra Leone, even if he has been left off the hook in Liberia. While totally aware of the potential resurgence of conflict which may arise from Taylor supporters in the event of his prosecution by the International Criminal Tribunal for Sierra Leone (ICTSL), such violence remains until then, only HYPOTHETICAL.