Sam:
A very interesting take on the peace accords. I must begin my response by stating that since hearing/reading about the statements made by President Kabba and Shirley, I am left totally confused. If their comments are true, we are in a deep hole!! That says a lot for the level of sophistication and political leadership in our nation. Personally, I hope the statements are not true and that our leaders behaved as would have been expected under circumstances of this nature.
Now to your piece. You identified disarmament as the paramount "survival goal for Salone today." While it may be a very critical survival goal, disarmament is not easily verifiable. It is common knowledge that warring factions have a way of stock piling weapons during transition periods such as the one negotiated in Conakry. Furthermore, what is there to prevent re-aramament after a ceremonial phase of supposedly disarming all factions? Weapons are easily accessible. If disarmament becomes a "paramount goal," we will spend so much time and resources to ensure its doubtful success that we will detract from achieveing other very critical goals such as the formation of a broad-based government, inclusive of ALL factions in this disgusting era of madness in the recent history of our nation.
Why do I place such emphasis on the broad-based government? We will be engaging in self-delusion if we believe that elements in the AFRC in particular will oversee the dismantling of their institution -- no matter how battered and abused. I refer to the army. I do not forsee the feasibility of disbanding the army. The implications are many among which are: umemployment problems or joblessness in short; the potential for those disbanded to augment an already parasitic culture of banditry that is taking hold in the nation; the potential for the proliferation of vigilante groups and warlords bent on "protecting" their "own" and their turf politically and economically and so on, and the problems associated with such bodies euphemistically referred to as the Civil Defense Forces (CDF). Even though I appreciate and commend the work of certain elements of such forces, namely the Kamajors, I do not see their usefulness as a continuing entity with "military" mandates at a de facto national scale. If that is the case, why disband the army to set up and support an even more divisive institution such as an amalgam of vigilante groups under the umbrella of the so-called CDF? We know that such forces are
heavily ethnic-based with potential for conflict over power positions, access and ultimate control. I find the call for disbanding the army and giving quiet support to vigilante groups quite disturbing and a blueprint for disaster in the future.
As we prioritise the goals, let us focus on those which promote SOCIAL COHESION. The ECOMOG forces or ECOWAS CAN NOT help us in achieving social cohesion. They can help in working on the more technical goals such as disarmament. We have a very damaged nation as it stands today, and with the sanctions the situation may become more aggravated by April 1998. The challenge in my humble view is to get all sectors and interests in our nation involved in governance for the next three years at least, through the formation of an all inclusive broad-based government. No rush to "party elections." We need to address issues that have prompted disruptiveness and treasonable actions. We need to address the troubling issue of the education of our youths of our nation. The rational use of our resources, human and physical, to ensure sustainable development across all sectors begs for our attention and concrete action. No one "party" can work on rebuilding our nation given the extent of the damage to the social fabric of our country. If we are sincere about a broad-based government, there can be no exclusionary clauses. I will stop at this point. Thanks for excellent insights.
Fraternally,
Cecil Blake