Humanitarian Action

Rather than looking at Liberia and seeing Somalia, the administration should see Rwanda, where inaction by the Clinton administration led to horrendous torture and death that subsequent investigations suggest could have been stopped with even a modest increase in an international armed presence.

The time left to act in Liberia is short; rebel forces are pushing into Monrovia; the government of President Charles G. Taylor refused a truce Tuesday that would have provided peacekeepers time to establish themselves. U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan was correct to ask the Security Council to approve the immediate deployment of Nigerian peacekeepers there, but a U.S. military presence, which both sides say they would accept, is desperately needed to restore order and save tens of thousands from chaos and starvation.

Unlike Iraq, this situation doesn’t need extensive secret intelligence reports. Its severity is not in dispute and the ability of the United States to help is not questioned. In doubt is the U.S. interest in the region. It offers no points for combating terrorism, no path to regional control, not enough natural resources to stir the administration’s entrepreneurs. The intervention would be for humanitarian reasons, to bring calm after more than a decade of fighting that has left the majority of the country too dangerous for relief agencies and forced hundreds of thousands of Liberians into camps.

Saving Mr. Taylor’s regime isn’t the answer – last spring a U.N.-backed tribunal in Sierra Leone indicted him for war crimes. The rebels, Movement for Democracy in Liberia, Liberians United for Reconciliation and Democracy, may or may not bring relief. But certainly before any new government takes power, outside forces must assure food distribution is resumed and attacks on the camps are prevented or the fighting will erupt again through different groups but with results similar to the disaster that is occurring now.

President Bush sent three warships to Liberia, but has said he wants a cease-fire in place before sending in U.S. troops. This is understandable, especially considering the military commitments in Afghanistan and Iraq. The question is whether Liberia has time for this margin of safety for the troops or will collapse before a cease-fire is possible. It is a gamble with thousands of lives at stake.

The president has an opportunity in Liberia to strengthen U.S. ties with the United Nations, work cooperatively with an international force and swiftly intervene in a human tragedy that did not happen a dozen or more years ago, as did some of the horrors of Iraq, but is happening now. This would be a doctrine of pre-emption in which bad is stopped from becoming worse.