ON BUSH VISIT TO LIBERIA

President George W. Bush of the United States is today visiting Liberia to conclude a five-nation tour of the continent of Africa, which began with a first stop in Benin. Liberia has the distinction of being the last stop for Mr. Bush, where he is expected to deliver a speech that could guide the course of US foreign policy toward Africa for the rest of his term and maybe beyond, as well as hold a roundtable at the University of Liberia, among other activities.

President Bush is the first American President to visit Africa while in the first term. In 2003, the year he visited the continent for the first time (Mr. Bush visited Africa before becoming president), Liberia was the epicenter of a violent conflict. And Mr. Bush was pressured to deploy US troops to stop the bloodshed. At the same time, thousands of American troops were stretched too thin in Iraq and Afghanistan, where Mr. Bush had deployed them to fight the war on terror. The huge concentration of US troops in Iraq and Afghanistan reduced the possibility of an imminent US intervention into Liberia.

The call for an American intervention in Liberia was the latest in a series of calls that began as far back as 1990, when the civil war in Liberia reached a turning point. During that time, it was Mr. Bush's father, George H.W. Bush, who was president. Even though the US did not send troops to Liberia, its financial and military support to the Economic Community of West African Peace Monitoring Group (Ecomog) provided the critical linchpin that led to the success of that mission. Nonetheless, many Liberians felt betrayed that their country's long historical and traditional relationship with the US indeed warranted an actual American intervention.

Thus, there was a great deal of uncertainty that Mr. Bush would dare dispatch US troops to intervene in another civil conflict on a continent where a previous US intervention in Somalia ended in failure, leading to the deaths of 18 US soldiers.

Yet, against what seemed a compelling and obvious reason not to dabble in the Liberian civil war, Mr. Bush ordered US troops to be positioned off the coast of Liberia. And in a speech to the US-Africa trade conference, in 2003, just before he visited Africa for the first time, Mr. Bush called for the immediate resignation of former president Charles Taylor, saying, "President Taylor needs to stop down so that this country can be spared further bloodshed."

This was the first time the Americans had gotten directly involved in the Liberian conflict. The US troops proceeded to create the buffer zone that paved the way for the successful deployment of a contingent of the United Nations peacekeeping force to Liberia, as well as removed major road blocks throughout the city of Monrovia.

By responding to the call to get involved in Liberia, Mr. Bush was not only attempting to counter the conventional wisdom that the US only reacts when its strategic and geopolitical interest is at stake. Mr. Bush's decision to commit troops to Liberia and the substantial support his administration has demonstrated over the pass few years, must also be viewed in the context of his belief and leadership. Evidence of this was reflected during his campaign for the presidency in 2000. Mr. Bush built his campaign rhetoric around two words, "compassionate conservative." And throughout his administration, Mr. Bush has turned this compassionate conservative rhetoric into a principle that continues to inform the core of virtually all his policies.

In his second Inaugural address, a speech widely accepted has the best summation of his ideology of "compassionate Conservative," Mr. Bush said, "All who live in tyranny and hopelessness can know that the United States will not ignore your oppression or excuse your oppressor. When you stand for your liberty, we will stand with you."

Mr. Bush has come a long way as a compassionate conservative. He says that he believes in the strength of humanity and in their ability to accomplish great things. When Mr. Bush announced his run for the White House, in 1999, that belief was underscored in a speech explaining the essence of the American Dream. Mr. Bush said: "The success of America has never been proven by cities of gold, but by citizens of characters. Men and Women who work hard, dream big, love their families, serve their neighbors. Values that turn a peace of earth into a neighborhood, a community, a chosen nation."And when he visited Africa in 2003, Mr. Bush spoke these words:

"The spirit of Africans in America did not break. Yet the spirit of their captors was corrupted. Small men took on the powers and heirs of tyrants and masters. Years of unpunished brutality and bullying and rape produced the dullness and hardness of conscious...A republic founded on equality became prison for millions. And yet, in the words of the proverbs, 'no fist is big enough to hide the sky.' All the generations of oppression under the law of men could not crush the hope of freedom and defeat the purposes of God."

It appears that even those who do not agree with some of Mr. Bush's policies however do respect his leadership underpinned by his fervent belief that "To whom much is given, much is expected." Mr. Bush often says that the United States has a moral obligation to help the world, especially people under oppression and hopelessness. Perhaps, it is to fulfill this moral responsibility as well as his compassionate belief that has inspired him toward noble and ambitious goals such as fighting the spread of HIV and AIDS in Africa and elsewhere, eradicating global poverty, and preventing malaria by providing thousands of bed nets, among many.

In January 2003, Mr. Bush proposed the Emergency Plan for Aids Relief and urged the US Congress to commit $15bn over a five-year period to turn the tide against AIDS around the world. Under this plan, according to the White House, about 7 million new infections will be prevented, more than 2 million people living with HIV and AIDS will be provided with advanced antiretroviral treatment on a large scale, and ten million HIV infected individuals and AIDS orphans would be cared for.

Recently, in his last State of the Union of Address, Mr. Bush again asked Congress to double this amount to $30bn. in the next five years. By the time he leaves office, it is said that the Bush administration would have spent far more money on AIDS in Africa than the Clinton administration. In March of 2002, under the Millennium Challenge Account (MCA), President Bush called for "a new compact for global development, defined by new accountability for both rich and poor nations alike. Greater contributions from developed nations must be linked to greater responsibility from developing nations." Mr. Bush pledged that the US would lead by example and increase its core development assistance by 50 percent over the three years, an amount that resulted in an annual increase of $5bn. by FY 2006, according to the White House.

President Bush has shown a particular interest toward aiding Liberia in its quest toward democratic consolidation. It can be safely said that his influence in Liberia's debt forgiveness was pivotal. The Bush administration through the US Agency for International Development (USAID) has undertake several developmental and infrastructural project, including a grant that renovated Liberia's Capitol Building, the seat of the Liberian parliament, and another grant financing the Security Sector Reform (SSR). And in September 2007, as anxiety increased among Liberians on the Temporary Protected Status (TPS) in the US in anticipation of the program's October 1st 2007 expiration date, President Bush authorized the Home Land Security Secretary, Michael Chertoff, to extend the TPS by an additional 18 months in response to an appeal made by President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf.

Therefore, when Air Force One touches down at the Roberts International Airport today, thousands of Liberians are expected to line the streets of Monrovia to catch a glimpse and pay homage to President and First Lady Laura Bush. This is a historic visit for Liberia as President Bush is the first American President to visit Liberia since 1978. Among the turnout expected today will be many who would expect that President Bush announce a huge aid package for Liberia similar to the $770 million he signed for Tanzania.

While there is a great deal of expectation of what Mr. Bush will give or not give, however, it is worth noting that part of the reason Tanzania received the $770 million deal is because that country is eligible under round five of the MCA. In fact, with the exception of Benin and Liberia, the other three countries Mr. Bush visited--Tanzania, Rwanda, and Ghana--all passed the FY 2008 indicators test and could receive grant under the MCA. Liberia is not a candidate yet and Benin, who was a candidate in FY 2007, was eliminated for FY 2008 for failing one of the key indicators.

Beyond all this, the visit of President Bush means well for the government and people of Liberia. It also means well for Liberia's international image, and a testimony of the leadership Liberia is currently enjoying under President Sirleaf. It is therefore imperative that Liberians of all persuasions embrace this visit in the spirit of national triumphalism and accomplishment over the legacy of violence and destruction of the last two decades.

WMU GRAD AWARDED FELLOWHIP TO ASSIST LIBERIANS

WMU Home

Jan. 9, 2008

KALAMAZOO--A recent Western Michigan University graduate is the recipient of a $35,000 grant to work as a special assistant in Liberia as that African nation rebuilds from 14 years of civil war.

Norris Tweah, who earned a master's degree in development administration from WMU's Department of Political Science in 2006 and his bachelor's degree in communication in 2003, was chosen one of six Scott Family Fellows, a program run through the Center for Global Development. The program recruits young professionals to work for senior Liberian government officials with the goal of helping with reconstruction and development efforts. The six were chosen from among 230 applicants.

The grant program is conducted in cooperation with the Liberian government, and Liberian President Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf participates in choosing the assignments for the grant recipients.
In his role, Tweah is the chief of office staff and special assistant to the minister of information, Dr. Laurence K. Bropleh. His work focuses on writing project proposals, press releases and attending meetings on behalf of the minister. He also helps develop communication strategies for the Liberian government and the Poverty Reduction Strategy and supervises all employees in the minister's office.

"At the ministerial level, I developed the concept paper and wrote the project proposal/framework called `The Liberian Renaissance, Changing Minds, Changing Attitudes,'" says Tweah. "The concept takes some of its theoretical justification from such theory which asserts, `Unless democratic transitions are accompanied by distinct elite transition--from an experience of disunity to consensual unity in the case of democratic transition--they should be regarded as strictly temporary.' The Liberian Renaissance takes this theory further in advocating for a total societal transformation instead of just an elite transformation."

Tweah worked for the Center for Transparency and Accountability in Liberia. He is a member of the board of directors at Able and Willing, an international foundation that builds schools in Congo-Kinshasa, and he is leading the organization's exploratory initiative for a micro-finance project to benefit urban women in Monrovia.

While at WMU, he received the Howard Wolpe African Field Research Award and twice received the Zoa D. Shilling Award. Tweah also studied at the University of Liberia from 1995 to 1999.

The Scott Family Fellow program is funded by a grant from the family of Edward W. Scott Jr., chair of the board of directors of the Center for Global Development. The program, announced in February 2007, is a collaborative effort between the Liberian government, the John Snow Inc. Research and Training Institute and the Center for Global Development.

Media contact: Deanne Molinari, (269) 387-8400, deanne.molinari@wmich.edu
WMU NewsOffice of University RelationsWestern Michigan University1903 W Michigan AveKalamazoo MI 49008-5433 USA(269) 387-8400www.wmich.edu/wmu/news

The Presidential Medal of Freedom, a Truimph for Liberia

Last October 29, our President, Madam Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf, celebrated her 69th birth anniversary. In her remarks to the gathered assembly of predominantly women, the President spoke of her leadership, the role of women, the country, a little about her life, and said something to the effect that that birthday would be the one she'd remember best!

Today, 5 November, exactly seven days after her birthday, at a time when the President could still be receiving belated birthday wishes, President George W. Bush will bestow upon her the Presidential Medal of Freedom. This Medal is the highest civilian honor bestowed upon an individual with a meritorious contribution to world peace, cultural, public or private service.

I suspect, in the remarks she will deliver to the assembly, which will not be predominantly women, the President will again speak of her leadership, the role of women, the country, maybe a little more of her life, and say something that would precisely have the effect of immortalizing November 5, 2007 as a day our country would forever remember.

October 29 belongs exclusively to citizen Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf; November 5 belongs to President Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf and the people of Liberia and the entire continent of Africa. As the first Liberian to get the Medal, the first West African, and the second African--Nelson Mandela received the Medal in 2002—Mrs. Sirleaf has been elevated on the same pedestal as Rosa Parks, Martin Luther King, Jr. Nelson Mandela, Jimmy Carter, and many more whose life-long commitment was to leave our world a better place than they inherited.

Mrs. Johnson-Sirleaf is not quite half way in her first six year term as president, and judging from the leadership she has demonstrated through her government's dedication to democratic principles, its long-term economic vision, current road construction projects—has now thrust her as the presumptive front runner to become the greatest Liberian of the 21st century, if not in the history of our country.

One benefit of receiving such an honor is that it gives the recipient an added incentive to set their sight on the attainment of more noble goals. So better for Liberia that its president is chosen for this honor, as it would inevitably unleash a newfound commitment and enthusiasm toward ensuring that the country continues in the right direction.

But what is equally worth mentioning is the other seven recipients of the Medal.

Gary S. Becker is a University of Chicago economic professor and a recipient of the Noble Prize in economics. As a graduate student, I had the privilege of studying Becker’s theory of human capital. More specifically, his theory that countries seeking upward mobility on the international division of labor latter (Liberia included) should therefore invest in human capital rather than physical stock because investment in the former has a higher rate of return than investment in the latter. Perhaps Liberia can learn and apply some of this theory.

I was thrilled to learn that Brain P. Lamb, founder and Chairman of C-SPAN, a non-profit network financed by the cable industry, which features live and recorded public debate and discussion on politics and democracy in the US., will receive the Medal. According to a 1996 profile of Mr. Lamb in the Times, Mr. Lamb first conceived of the idea that there was a public who might sit still for long hours of watching politicians up close at work or play. I was that public.

As an undergraduate student in broadcast journalism and a devotee of C-SPAN, I watched this iconic broadcast journalist interviewed several prominent people, from presidents to political activists and holocaust survivors, etc. In June, just before I left the US for Liberia, I watched with a great deal of satisfaction Mr. Lamb interview Mr. Michael Gerson, a former chief speech writer for President Bush, the one who is said to provide Bush with many powerful and lasting expressions, such as “the soft bigotry of low expectations"-- a phrase Bush used in a speech to capture how stereotypical and prejudicial opinions can affect minority students.

In recognition of his advocacy for human rights and democracy in his native Cuba, the Presidential Medal of Freedom will also be bestowed upon Oscar Elias Biscet-Gonzalez, who is serving a twenty-five year prison sentence in Cuba for allegedly committing a crime against the sovereignty and integrity of the Cuban territory. In December, 2002, Dr. Biscet was arrested along with 11 other political dissidents for leading a petition drive for human freedom and was sentenced by the Cuban authority at the Combinado del Este Prison in Havana, Cuba.

Also receiving the Medal will be Francis S. Collins, whose contribution to genetic research has made tremendous breakthrough and expanded our insight and understanding of the human genome and human DNA.

Benjamin L. Hooks will receive the Medal for his advocacy and commitment toward the principle of equality, justice and freedom for all men and women. He was a pioneer of the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s.

Nelle Harper Lee will be recognized for her contribution to the study of literature, and in particular, for her best-selling novel, To Kill a Mockingbird, which won the Pulitzer Prize in 1960.

And Henry John Hyde, a former member of the US Congress, who represented the 6th District of Illinois from 1975 to 2006, will be honored for his contribution and defense of freedom in the world. According to a press release, Mr. Hyde served America with distinction, especially during his career in the House where he became a powerful defender of life and a leading advocate for a strong national defense.

This year’s honorees all have a demonstrable track record of success, fortitude, and commitment at what they have done and continue to do to make our world a better place. Thus, President Bush’s decision to award the Medal is clearly vindicated by their exemplary service to all of humanity.

For Liberia, this is particularly important, given our history of bad leadership which did so well to represent our shame and disgrace rather than its pride and dignity. That our President is being recognized for helping to heal our country devastated by years of political and ethnic division should be seen not as a personal accomplishment for her, but as a national and collective triumph over the subculture of violence and destruction of the past 14 years.

Seasonal blogging from Monrovia

My Dear Readers,

I know some of you may be wondering why you haven’t seen any recent postings from the Accurate Guesser—especially at a time when the entire country, as well as those in the Diaspora— seemed to be embroiled in a heated debate regarding the draft budget.

Well, the reason-- I was packing and getting ready to take up residence in Monrovia. And so, I would like to inform my readers that the author of this blog safely arrived in Monrovia, last week, on June 13, as one of the Fellows selected for the Scott Family Liberia Fellows program.

So, for the next 12 months or so, I will be in Liberia working to help the Liberian government with capacity building. My specific assignment is within the Ministry of Information, where I will be working as an assistant to Minister Laurence K. Bropleh, building the capacity of his local staff and doing all it takes to enhance the capacity and efficiency of his ministry.

However, between the time I left the US, on Tuesday, June 12, and arrived in Liberia, Wednesday, June 13, it appears a lot has happened. For instance, I didn’t know that the Spurs swept the Cavaliers 4 nil until Sunday night. I was told that that final was the least watched in NBA history.

Anyway, who cares for the NBA final in this country that has become a quintessential soccer nation?

Here, in Monrovia, all last week, two things seemed to be on everyone’s mind: The penultimate game in the Spanish football league and Auditor General John Morlu’s assertion that the government of Liberia is three-times more corrupt as the former interim government of Gyude Bryant.

My people, it was not easy here Sunday night! Real Madrid won the Spanish title in a dramatic fashion--what a finale-- and though Lone Star played on Sunday and drew, everyone is still talking about the brass from Jose Antonio Reyes and the header from Diarra in the second-half as Real came from behind to beat Real Marllorca 3-1. And despite the two fine goals from Messi, Barca (pronounced here as Baca as opposed to the BBC version, Basa) surrendered the title, leaving many of its local fans dejected while their Real counterparts were incandescent with ecstasy.

A friend of mine, a football enthusiast and an astute political observer, said something so interesting when I asked of the almost equal proportion of fans supporting the two Spanish giants. He said those who support Barcelona are more likely to support Manchester United and those who support Real Madrid tend to support Chelsea. He’s probably right. I rooted for Barca and I’m Man U fan. Man United, Chelsea and Arsenal are the other European teams with huge fan base here.

The other thing—Morlu’s claim, is as divisive as the fans who support Real Madrid and Barcelona. And when I asked my friend what he made of the claim by Morlu, he said, “Morlu has a lot of good things to say, but his approach is wrong.”

Well, I am getting settled into the political and social culture of the country. Incidentally, it’s one thing to be outside of the country and write, but a whole different ball game when you’re inside. What sometimes makes the headlines outside isn’t what people here are talking about. Our source of news out there-- the Internet-- is limited and very slow here; while on a given Wednesday like this, over ten local dailies flood the offices of Monrovia.

And people here, especially men, like to talk politics and disagree over things such as, who the better player—Ronaldo or Messi? Or which coach has the pedigree to bring up young players— Fergie or Wenger?

If you like politics and don’t care spending your leisure talking about the Red Devils and your dislike of the Blues, you will find as many people who think you suck as those who cheer you. Essentially, you must know what the following terms mean: Old Trafford, Stamford Bridge, the Nou Camp, The Reds, then you will “never walk alone” in Monrovia. Sorry, if you don’t know where the phrase “never walk alone” come from. That’s what I’m talking about. “You will never walk alone” is the team song of the Liverpool Football Club, and it became popular here when Liverpool FC beat AC Milan two years ago on penalties after being led 3 nil at the interval in what is arguably the best champions league final ever. Football and politics go together here.

Anyway, the Accurate Guesser will enter what I call “Seasonal Blogging from Monrovia” for the next 12 months. I’m yet to figure out how different it would be, but I imagine the Guesser would assume a more social and cultural bent, but topics could vary depending on what’s making news. The main challenge, I suspect, would be finding the time to blog outside my hectic fellowship schedule. Obviously, the other challenge would be accessing the Internet. There are myriad Internet cafes here in Monrovia, and they charge by the minute, so that can be a bit expensive depending on how long you spend on it. But we will see.

Let's keep in touch!

Conclusions of GEMAP's failure are premature

In 2005, the Liberian interim government and its international partners—UN, US, EU, ECOWAS, etc, — signed an economic framework known as the Governance Economic Management Assistance Program (GEMAP). It was a move to bring fiscal sanity and sound economic management to a financially ruined country.

GEMAP has now been in existence for about 15 months and is gradually coming under increasing scrutiny. Several Liberians have begun expressing ambivalent sentiments about the program. Many are questioning the program's utility and relevance to the country. A fortnight ago, for example, Cllr. Negbalee Warner, former civil society representative on the GEMAP steering committee, voiced out the strongest criticism against GEMAP so far at the Edward Wilmot Blyden Press Union forum. Mr. Warner said "[GEMAP] has lost its true objectives and lacks accountability and transparency in its design.”

Thus, Mr. Warner’s statement, compounded by the public cynicism toward GEMAP, the suspicion that corruption led to the firing of its expert assigned at the Liberia Petroleum Refining Company (LPRC), the general dearth of awareness of the program among ordinary people, and the public growing contempt toward exogenous driven and managed program, are forcing Liberians of various persuasions to a conclusion that GEMAP is a failure.

I find some of Mr. Warner's remarks noteworthy, especially his concern that GEMAP needs to recruit qualified Liberians to serve as experts. A Liberian expert would bring familiarity and understanding of the social-political environment to the position. However, this is not a recipe for success either, and if done improperly, could may as well do more damage.

But it was Mr. Warner's imputation that GEMAP was fast-tracked on the Liberian people that I find puzzling. I do not think GEMAP was fast-tracked. GEMAP involved considerable debate over a 5 month period involving the major stakeholders shuttling between Copenhagen, Accra, Niamey and other capitals. GEMAP had to undergo a prolonged adjustment process. This process let to the first proposition, Economic Governance Assistance Program (EGAP). After EGAP was proposed, discussion soon followed in the subregion, as there were some concerns that the new proposition was deflecting attention away from the Accra Comprehensive Peace Accord (CPA).

Then on June 27, 2005, two days before the international donors formally submitted EGAP to NTGL, Chairman Bryant and his officials presented a counter-proposal, the Liberia Governance and Economic Management Assistance Programme (LEGAP).

In late July-August, 2005, the EGAP drafters along with the NTGL team, presented a document as a joint resolution agreed by both parties. It was this document that came to be called GEMAP, and Chairman Bryant signed it on September 9, 2005.

The notion that GEMAP was fast-tracked on Liberia, as claimed by Mr. Warner, has little merit in so far as judging from all the processes that went in the final signing of the document, some of which I have described in the the preceding paragraphs.

Mr. Warner also questioned the transparency and relevance of GEMAP to Liberia. I do think GEMAP is very relevant and so far is transparent in its dealings. GEMAP has led to an increment in revenue collection at the Ministry of Finance, which should be seen as a major achievement given the notoriety of Finance as a redoubt for corruption, "Ghost Checks", and its almost impenetrable bureaucratic structures. These gains, however marginal, must be attributed to GEMAP's presence, justifying the program's relevance to the country.

Also, the presence of GEMAP has enhanced credibility and confidence in the international community about the governing structures of the country, especially within its revenue and expenditure control system. This credibility is vital to Liberia because it could increase its chances of receiving future loans or grants from donor agencies.

The difficulty that GEMAP faces from the beginning, and even now, especially its inability to reach the broad political spectrum of the society, can be blamed in part to the negative press coverage it suffered from its inception. Also, its failure to inform the general public about its scope of activities have significantly contributed to this perception as well. These criticisms, however, should now provide the occasion for the program to adopt a better approach of informing the general public.

The last time a plan similar to GEMAP was carried out in Liberia was in 1988, when the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) sponsored a Liberia Economic Stabilization Support Project to improve collection and expenditure control. This project failed after less than a year because the government at the time would not commit to the overhaul of public financial management.

The difference this time around is that the present administration has so far cooperated with GEMAP. Back in 1988, it was the government who refused to work with the economic stabilization plan; now, is the general public, including Mr. Warner, who are questioning GEMAP's utility and relevance. However, it is worth mentioning that GEMAP has serious problems of its own. The manner in which it handled the abrupt dismissal of the LPRC expert has left more questions than answers. Yet, those problems do not justify questioning its relevance.

The statement by Mr. Warner is worrying and a major setback to GEMAP's efforts at winning the hearts and minds of an increasingly doubtful public. Because Mr. Warner has an in-depth experience with the program. To the extent that civil society's former point-person on the GEMAP steering committee is questioning a program perceived by some to be central to the consolidation of democracy in the country has important implications for GEMAP and the way the public sees it.

In conclusion, GEMAP still has 15 months remaining before it expires, a sufficient time to make significant improvements where it has lagged so far. Moreover, it is being implemented in a society where infrastructure and institutional support are a major challenge. This requires restraints and patience. To question its relevance and utility is to ignore the significant changes it has brought to the country. So far, the evidence adduced by Mr. Warner and others do not merit questioning its relevance. Those are important questions that can be used to improve it. We can not make any definitive conclusions as to GEMAP's failure or success until it completes its term of reference, otherwise, these conclusions will be premature.

Will Tiawan Gongloe take the hit at Justice?

Someone at the Ministry of Justice ought to take the hit for shutting the doors of the Independent Newspaper without a court order. That action, at the bare minimum, amounts to a dereliction of the commitment to uphold the law, at the maximum, is an infringement of that very law. Administratively, the obvious candidate for that hit is the head of the ministry, the Justice minister, who is also the Attorney General of Liberia.

However, it appears that Liberia’s Solicitor General Tiawan Gonlgoe has thrust himself in the spotlight as the de facto head at the ministry; in him does exit its legal and political mainstay. Therefore, his statement that the newspaper closure is consistent with the law puts him in the running as a candidate in "waiting" for the hit. That statement suffered its latest defeat last Thursday when President Ellen Sirleaf declared:“[The] police was wrong to shut down the Independent Newspaper in the absence of a court order.” That disagreement is a hit of itself.

Tiawan Gongloe has an impressive resume as one of Liberia’s finest human rights lawyers. In 2003, he made headlines around the world when images of his beating while serving in Charles Taylor’s dungeon made the front pages of major newspapers. The bodily harm he sustained became a gruesome metaphor for the brutality and cruelty of the Taylor regime.

In 2005, Mr. Gongloe was appointed Liberia’s solicitor general, and the following year, 2006, he made another headline, as the first—perhaps only—solicitor general in the history of Liberia to arrest and handcuff a former president, the same president—Taylor—who ordered his arrest and detention without a court order. Recently, Mr. Gongloe achieved another milestone in his legal profession, when he confirmed the arrest of former interim chairman Gyude Bryant on charges of economic sabotage, according to the Voice of America.

But it seems all of Mr. Gongloe’s impeccable resume may be forever scarred by the manner in which he has addressed the issue of the newspaper closure. And if the Supreme Court follows in the direction of the President and rules in favor of the Independent, it would be the final nail in the coffin of Mr. Gongloe’s tenure as solicitor general of Liberia.

If that happens, it would be a disappointment to many, including myself, who respect and admire him for the temerity and audacity he demonstrated in raising the awareness of human rights abuses under Taylor. For Mr. Gongloe to appear now as the one denying that very freedom he fought to ensure under Taylor has to be sending a chill down the spine of those who expect him, if anything, to err on the side of the law.

The solicitor general office is the second highest legal counsel for the government of Liberia. Its responsibilities include such functions as providing legal advice and representation for the government in all legal matters. Though by comparison the solicitor general position is second to the Attorney General position of the United States in terms of authority, the political and legal bent Mr. Gongloe brings to this position, warrants comparing him to Mr. Alberto Gonzales, Attorney General, of the U.S. government.

Like Mr. Gongloe, Mr. Gonzales is under fire for the manner in which his office fired eight U.S. attorneys. In his public statements, Mr. Gonzales said that he was not involved in discussions prior to the firing, but evidence suggests the contrary. This has prompted calls from some Republicans and Democrats in Congress for Mr. Gonzales to step down, citing incompetence and lack of confidence in his ability to continue as the nation’s top lawyer.

Interestingly, Messrs Gongloe and Gonzales have a few things in common, which, when put together, would make for an entertaining comparison, if not a very serious one. For example, the two share the same three first letters in their last name: "Gon." They both were trained at Harvard. Mr. Gongloe was at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government, while Mr. Gonzales received his law degree from Harvard Law School. And both of them currently serve presidents who were themselves educated at Harvard.

So, that these two supposedly smart and intelligent legal minds are under attack for apparently making decisions, which call into question their ability and competence, and could probably lead to their firing or resignation, is a cause for concern.

Mr. Gongloe faces a more uncertain future of the two. The fact that his boss disagreed with him in such public manner shows limited support, so much so that if it comes down to a decision as to whether he should continue or take the hit, that disagreement would serve a basis for the latter.

However, Mr. Gongloe’s partner in trouble, Mr. Gonzales, has been shown a lot of support from President Bush, which means calls for his firing will be like “wasting water on dog back,” as we love to say in Liberia, except more disturbing evidence and contradictions are reviewed.

In government as well as in many management positions, high profile public servants should thrive to occupy the space that guarantees the support of their boss-- essentially the space in which Mr. Gonzales now seems to occupy in the Bush administration. That can be the grey area that allows you to remain for the long haul instead of taking the hit.

Who Should Become Speaker

Today, March 14, 2007, is the one month anniversary of the resignation of former speaker Edwin Snowe. It seems a long time given the many things that have happened in Liberia. Anytime from now, pending the conclusion of deliberations as to the constitutional procedure in replacing a speaker, a motion may be made by one of the 64 members of the House of Representatives for an election or the ascendancy of a new speaker. Whatever happens, that speaker is expected to come from the Congress for Democratic Change (CDC), the party with the majority--16 in total-- and currently enjoys that position in acting Speaker Rep. Mulbah Tokpah.

To many, that CDC produces the next speaker is as interesting as who the individual actually is. That interest is driven in part by the allegation of bribery levied by former speaker Snowe, who accused some lawmakers as well as officials connected to the Executive Mansion as the progenitors of what is dubed "the unsuccessful removal attempt."

Predictably, if there is voting, a CDC candidate will win and catapult the party as the leading political opposition to the Unity Party-led government, finally correcting a once bizarre political configuration in our presidential system in which an independent held the speaker position.

Reportedly, three men are at the center of the caucusing for this position--acting Speaker Tokpah, Rep. ketterkumehn Murray, and Rep. Edward Forh. That one of these men becomes the next speaker is hardly surprising. That none becomes is almost inconceivable; however, legislative politics in Liberia is embedded with a degree of uncertainty and indeterminacy that tends to make prediction such as mine shortsighted.

Of the men, acting Speaker Tokpah has the better chance of landing the job. He has the experience. He also has the the power of incumbency, an advantage that can come handy during election, especially from moderates who may not want the total changing of the guard--not to mention the likely support from those who opposed Snowe's removal.

On the party front, it is in the acting speaker that CDC has the better chance of retaining the speaker position; having 16 of the 64 members is not a comfortable majority, especially in a House where former speaker Snowe and others have called for investigating the allegation of bribery.

In a political democracy, any appearance of a rift among lawmakers from the majority party usually jeopardizes that party's chances of succeeding, whether it is in an election or the passage of a bill. The way the numbers are distributed in the lower House, any rift among lawmakers representing the CDC could ensure it loses out on the speaker position in an election where other parties feed candidates.

In fact, one can sense some sort of rift emerging between the acting speaker and Rep. Murray. Read the acting speaker's interview given to Frontpage Saturday:"My position is clear on that issue and I think the constitution is very clear on this issue. If they want to violate the constitution that's their prerogative, but I am not going to stand with them," Tokpah said.

Assuredly, Rep. Murray is one of the people the acting speaker is vowing not to stand with. The Montserrado County representative is the man leading the charge for electing a new speaker, the one the acting speaker thinks wants to break the law. I don't think Rep. Murray wants to break the law. His contention that the Constitution is unclear as to replacing a speaker is right, but it is counter-intuitive at best because the framers of the constitution imagined that in the event a speaker is removed, incapacitated, etc, the deputy speaker should ascend, or the House should revert to a precedent experience to determine the option that best approximates with the House rules, which would be consistent with the constitution.

Rep. Murray was the presumptive front runner in the race to replace former speaker Snowe. On January 22, 2007, the Frontpage newspaper ran a story that revealed that he was a "wanted" man in the United States for sexual offense. It is actually unclear whether the lawmaker is wanted, but the timing of the story had the effect of bludgeoning any ambition Murray harbored of becoming speaker. Also, former speaker Snowe has implicated him in the bribery fiasco as one of the recipients of the infamous $5,000. But Mr. Murray has denied those allegations.

In his district, Rep Murray faces a threat of impeachment from some citizens, according to the Public Agenda newspaper. But the impeachment threat is as old as Rep. Murray as lasted in the House, making it appears as if it is politically motivated from people with a lingering residual anger carried over from the 2005 election. Despite all this trouble, Rep. Murray does not appear as a man hanging onto his position. But the controversy about him is too plenty for someone who wants to be speaker. His best bet for now is to remain the Chairman of the Executive Committee.

The name Edward Forh has been mentioned several times in connection with the position. But not much is known of him, safe his sturdy opposition to former speaker Snowe. He is most definitely the unknown variable, the one who could be the formidable challenger to the acting speaker in an election. He is a hardliner at best, the one who objected to the inclusion of Rep. Murray on a delegation to the U.S. recently, according to a story in the Public Agenda newspaper.

But he is not without issues. Sources familiar with legislative politics accuse him of being the choice of the Executive Mansion; and therefore would not provide the kind of opposition we saw under Snowe, something that is said to be critical for the system of checks and balances. Even some go so far as to doubt his loyalty to his party, but he does command considerable clout within, especially among those who opposed Snowe. He has been implicated in the bribery scandal, as the one who distributed the cash. But he has denied those allegations as well. After all the theatrics and antics in the lower House, a best case scenario is for him to fight to become the deputy speaker.

Therefore, after all that has beset the lower House in recent times, it is best for the country that acting Speaker Tokpah becomes the next legitimate speaker.