By Charles S. Mombo
@CafeLiberia, #Liberia, @burnedbrass, @charlesSMombo
U.S. Democrat Representative Jesse Jackson, Jr. who represents the 2nd Congressional District of Illinois and U.S. Republican Representative Ed Royce who represents California’s 40th District have indirectly warned the Liberian government that if former Liberian president Charles Taylor was found non-guilty and returned to Liberia it would cause far-reaching consequences and seriously undermine bilateral relations with the Republic of Liberia and the United States of America.
According to a recent article by AllAfrica.com, U.S. Democratic Representative Jesse Jackson, Jr. who represents the 2nd Congressional District of Illinois and U.S. Republican Representative Ed Royce who represents California's 40th District have indirectly warned the Liberian government that if former Liberian president Charles Taylor was found non-guilty and returned to Liberia it would cause far-reaching consequences and seriously undermine bilateral relations with the Republic of Liberia and the United States of America. The men also threatened Liberia with the possibility of cutting U.S. support to Liberia. Taylor’s trial which was conducted by the Special Court for Sierra Leone (SCSL) at the International Criminal Court in The Hague has concluded and he is awaiting the verdict.
Jackson and Royce were reacting to comments by Winston Tubman, the Chairman of the Congress for Democratic Change (CDC) political party in which he told the press in London that if Taylor is acquitted of the pending war crimes charges by the Special Court for Sierra Leone, he could be free to come home to Liberia.
After reading the article, the questions that immediately came to mind is whatever happened to double jeopardy?Double jeopardyis a procedural defense that forbids a defendant from being tried again on the same or similar charges following a legitimate acquittal or conviction.
Would Royce and Jackson have made the same irresponsible comments by suggesting the possibility of cutting of U.S. financial support if this was Israel? Jackson and Royce comments can best be described as belligerent and a chauvinistic U.S. foreign policy towards African.
No Fan of Charles Taylor
I’m absolutely no fan, whatsoever, of Charles Taylor. In my opinion, similar to previous presidents, Taylor was an ineffective leader and did not have the slightest clue of governance. Today, Taylor or previous Liberian presidents would be incapable of managing a two man crew at a McDonald’s restaurant or any other fast-food joint. Sadly so, they all have some things in common: poor character or integrity; little or no track record; self-serving or egotistical nature; one size fits all leadership style; lack of focus and follow-through; no vision or proactivity; and, no focus on citizen development.
Although I am not a fan of Taylor, fair is fair. The “Lady of Justice” with her blindfold, sword and scales which symbolize fairness and equal administration of the law without corruption, avarice, prejudice, or favor should be applicable to all democratic countries, be it the U.S. or Liberia.
The case against Taylor
Taylor, President of Liberia from 1997 to 2003, is the first African president to face trial for war crimes at the International Criminal Court in The Hague. On April 31, 2004, the Special Court for Sierra Leone ruled that Taylor’s position as former Head of State could not prevent him from being prosecuted by an international tribunal. He is charged with five counts of crimes against humanity which includes murder, rape, sexual slavery, other inhumane acts and enslavement; five counts of war crimes which includes acts of terrorism, murder, outrage upon personal dignity, cruel treatment, pillage; and one count of other serious violation of international humanitarian law which include enlisting children under the age of 15 years into armed forces. On the opening day of the trial, the Prosecution laid out a case which placed Taylor at the center of a systematic campaign of terror waged against civilians in Sierra Leone after November 30, 1996.
I watched and observed the case against Taylor. In the years that followed, the case against him literally fell apart. The prosecutors' case could not hold water. It was extremely weak, circumstantial and at times they appeared to coerce the witnesses.
In my opinion, Taylor’s lead defense counsel, Courtenay Griffiths, and the rest of his legal team did an impeccable job by defending their client. On March 10, 2011, during their closing argument, they attacked the credibility of the prosecution’s witnesses. They brilliantly argued that the credibility of some of the witnesses was so poor that the court should completely disregard them. “In this case, there are so many examples of egregious implausibility and in a number of cases downright lies [that] we submit that it is appropriate to completely put aside several prosecution witnesses altogether,” said, Munyard, a member of Taylor’s defense team. The team also pointed to the danger of relying on insider witnesses, some of whom were accomplices, and the large amount of hearsay evidence heard in the trial. Hearsay evidence is allowed at the SCSL and other international courts. However, the defense suggested that hearsay evidence can affect the witness’s credibility and that hearsay evidence cannot be used to corroborate or support other hearsay evidence.
Why is Liberiareluctant in charging Taylor?
I have always wondered why the Governmentof Liberiawentmute on the issue of Taylor’s atrocities and not pressed charges against him. His crimes were committed against his own people – the Liberian victims.As a key instigator in the Liberian civil war that left at least 250,000 citizens dead, those who survived his brutal and barbaric tactics were left physically and emotionally scarred.
If the Liberian Government was really serious about persecuting Taylor, they simply could issue an arrest warrant for him the moment he is released from prison in The Hague.
Living in a glass house
As I write this article, Jackson is being investigated by the U.S. House Ethics Committee for allegedly trying to buy President Barack Obama's vacated Illinois Senate seat. Jackson has denied the charges and has not been charged with any wrongdoing. The case was deferred in September 2009. Using Jackson’s illogical thought process, should I then assume that he should be banned from the House floor even if he is found innocent?
While the U.S. House Ethics Committee’s investigation is not clear, the committee is looking at whether Jackson, or someone acting on his behalf, offered to raise funds for then-Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich in return for an appointment to the Senate seat. The committee previously revealed that the investigation included allegations that Jackson improperly used his staff in Washington and Chicago to mount a public campaign to secure the seat.
Jackson, the son of civil rights leader Jesse Jackson, is in his ninth term. Jackson, Jr. has repeatedly said: "I have done nothing wrong, nor have I been accused of doing anything wrong. Everyone knew that I was interested in the Senate appointment. I was deeply honored and humbled to receive the support of public officials, organizations and citizens from across the state. My efforts and actions were all public, ethical and legal."
U.S. ramshackle bilateral relationship with Africa
Jackson and Royce’s threats to Liberia to undermine bilateral relations only underscore the current gravitational pull of trade between China and Africa. China is now Africa’s largest trading partner, and, surprisingly, China has a trade deficit with Africa, importing more than it exports to Africa. Visit any shopping center in any country in Africa and it is clear that China is flooding Africa with consumer goods and also machinery, automobiles and electronic items. China’s burgeoning economy is demanding more and more natural mineral resources like oil, copper, nickel, gold, etc. In the areas of minerals and food, Africa has great promise. It is well known that Africa is rich in a wide variety of minerals from oil to copper. Africa’s vast amount of land could fit the entire land mass of not only China but also India, the United States, Mexico, France, Italy and a number of other countries. Besides land, and more importantly, Africa has huge resources of water essential for bountiful harvests.
China’s attraction to Africa is clear. Africa is also attracted to China — China is a developing country demonstrating a successful growth model and this is an opportunity for African leaders to learn from them. China has the money to import Africa’s resources and the money to help build Africa’s urgent need for infrastructure: roads, railroads, ports, electric power systems, etc.
Africa’s exports to China are about 80% raw materials like oil, but it is increasingly trading manufactured and agricultural goods such as Egyptian oranges, South African wines, Ghana’s cocoa beans, Ugandan coffee, Tunisian olive oil and more. In order to promote that trade, China has bilateral trade agreements with 45 African countries, a number of which now have zero tariff preference with China.
In addition to trade, investment from China into Africa between 2003 and 2009 grew from $490 million to $9,300 billion. Investments focused on 49 African countries in mining, manufacturing, construction, tourism, forestry and fisheries. Part of the China’s efforts is to sign a bilateral agreement, now with 33 African countries, for protection of Chinese investments. A China-Africa Development Fund has already been created to invest in African equities. That fund has already reached $1 billion for investing in over 30 projects in agricultural machinery manufacturing such as electric power and mining. Plans call for the fund to expand to $5 billion.
As early as the 1970s China has helped to build infrastructure projects in Africa such as the 1,860 kilometer Tanzania-Zambia railway, the 58,000 square meter Cairo International Conference Center, the highway in Somalia, a harbor in Mauritania, a canal in Tunisia, a National Stadium in Tanzania, and over 500 other projects.
Preferential loans amounting to over $10 billion to finance projects for airports, housing and hydropower plants have also been made.
The Chinese government has always supported African countries in their effort to reduce their debts, which has helped relieve their burden of debts to China. From 2000 to 2009, China canceled 312 debts of 35 African countries, totaling 18.96 billion yuan. That demonstrates China’s determination to help Africa develop and to help Africa reduce the debt it owes to other countries.
Although China does not interfer in other countries’ internal affairs, their trade and investment in Africa is not without problems. Like other countries around the world, there have been scandals, corruption, and disputes. There was a Chinese infrastructure project in Algeria mired in a bribery scandal, and, an arbitrary seizure of property in Zimbabwe, among other issues.
using 
By Charles S. Mombo
@CafeLiberia, #Liberia, @burnedbrass, @charlesSMombo
U.S. Democrat Representative Jesse Jackson, Jr. who represents the 2nd Congressional District of Illinois and U.S. Republican Representative Ed Royce who represents California’s 40th District have indirectly warned the Liberian government that if former Liberian president Charles Taylor was found non-guilty and returned to Liberia it would cause far-reaching consequences and seriously undermine bilateral relations with the Republic of Liberia and the United States of America.
According to a recent article by AllAfrica.com, U.S. Democratic Representative Jesse Jackson, Jr. who represents the 2nd Congressional District of Illinois and U.S. Republican Representative Ed Royce who represents California's 40th District have indirectly warned the Liberian government that if former Liberian president Charles Taylor was found non-guilty and returned to Liberia it would cause far-reaching consequences and seriously undermine bilateral relations with the Republic of Liberia and the United States of America. The men also threatened Liberia with the possibility of cutting U.S. support to Liberia. Taylor’s trial which was conducted by the Special Court for Sierra Leone (SCSL) at the International Criminal Court in The Hague has concluded and he is awaiting the verdict.
Jackson and Royce were reacting to comments by Winston Tubman, the Chairman of the Congress for Democratic Change (CDC) political party in which he told the press in London that if Taylor is acquitted of the pending war crimes charges by the Special Court for Sierra Leone, he could be free to come home to Liberia.
After reading the article, the questions that immediately came to mind is whatever happened to double jeopardy? Double jeopardy is a procedural defense that forbids a defendant from being tried again on the same or similar charges following a legitimate acquittal or conviction.
Would Royce and Jackson have made the same irresponsible comments by suggesting the possibility of cutting of U.S. financial support if this was Israel? Jackson and Royce comments can best be described as belligerent and a chauvinistic U.S. foreign policy towards African.
No Fan of Charles Taylor
I’m absolutely no fan, whatsoever, of Charles Taylor. In my opinion, similar to previous presidents, Taylor was an ineffective leader and did not have the slightest clue of governance. Today, Taylor or previous Liberian presidents would be incapable of managing a two man crew at a McDonald’s restaurant or any other fast-food joint. Sadly so, they all have some things in common: poor character or integrity; little or no track record; self-serving or egotistical nature; one size fits all leadership style; lack of focus and follow-through; no vision or proactivity; and, no focus on citizen development.
Although I am not a fan of Taylor, fair is fair. The “Lady of Justice” with her blindfold, sword and scales which symbolize fairness and equal administration of the law without corruption, avarice, prejudice, or favor should be applicable to all democratic countries, be it the U.S. or Liberia.
The case against Taylor
Taylor, President of Liberia from 1997 to 2003, is the first African president to face trial for war crimes at the International Criminal Court in The Hague. On April 31, 2004, the Special Court for Sierra Leone ruled that Taylor’s position as former Head of State could not prevent him from being prosecuted by an international tribunal. He is charged with five counts of crimes against humanity which includes murder, rape, sexual slavery, other inhumane acts and enslavement; five counts of war crimes which includes acts of terrorism, murder, outrage upon personal dignity, cruel treatment, pillage; and one count of other serious violation of international humanitarian law which include enlisting children under the age of 15 years into armed forces. On the opening day of the trial, the Prosecution laid out a case which placed Taylor at the center of a systematic campaign of terror waged against civilians in Sierra Leone after November 30, 1996.
I watched and observed the case against Taylor. In the years that followed, the case against him literally fell apart. The prosecutors' case could not hold water. It was extremely weak, circumstantial and at times they appeared to coerce the witnesses.
In my opinion, Taylor’s lead defense counsel, Courtenay Griffiths, and the rest of his legal team did an impeccable job by defending their client. On March 10, 2011, during their closing argument, they attacked the credibility of the prosecution’s witnesses. They brilliantly argued that the credibility of some of the witnesses was so poor that the court should completely disregard them. “In this case, there are so many examples of egregious implausibility and in a number of cases downright lies [that] we submit that it is appropriate to completely put aside several prosecution witnesses altogether,” said, Munyard, a member of Taylor’s defense team. The team also pointed to the danger of relying on insider witnesses, some of whom were accomplices, and the large amount of hearsay evidence heard in the trial. Hearsay evidence is allowed at the SCSL and other international courts. However, the defense suggested that hearsay evidence can affect the witness’s credibility and that hearsay evidence cannot be used to corroborate or support other hearsay evidence.
Why is Liberia reluctant in charging Taylor?
I have always wondered why the Government of Liberia went mute on the issue of Taylor’s atrocities and not pressed charges against him. His crimes were committed against his own people – the Liberian victims. As a key instigator in the Liberian civil war that left at least 250,000 citizens dead, those who survived his brutal and barbaric tactics were left physically and emotionally scarred.
If the Liberian Government was really serious about persecuting Taylor, they simply could issue an arrest warrant for him the moment he is released from prison in The Hague.
Living in a glass house
As I write this article, Jackson is being investigated by the U.S. House Ethics Committee for allegedly trying to buy President Barack Obama's vacated Illinois Senate seat. Jackson has denied the charges and has not been charged with any wrongdoing. The case was deferred in September 2009. Using Jackson’s illogical thought process, should I then assume that he should be banned from the House floor even if he is found innocent?
While the U.S. House Ethics Committee’s investigation is not clear, the committee is looking at whether Jackson, or someone acting on his behalf, offered to raise funds for then-Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich in return for an appointment to the Senate seat. The committee previously revealed that the investigation included allegations that Jackson improperly used his staff in Washington and Chicago to mount a public campaign to secure the seat.
Jackson, the son of civil rights leader Jesse Jackson, is in his ninth term. Jackson, Jr. has repeatedly said: "I have done nothing wrong, nor have I been accused of doing anything wrong. Everyone knew that I was interested in the Senate appointment. I was deeply honored and humbled to receive the support of public officials, organizations and citizens from across the state. My efforts and actions were all public, ethical and legal."
U.S. ramshackle bilateral relationship with Africa
Jackson and Royce’s threats to Liberia to undermine bilateral relations only underscore the current gravitational pull of trade between China and Africa. China is now Africa’s largest trading partner, and, surprisingly, China has a trade deficit with Africa, importing more than it exports to Africa. Visit any shopping center in any country in Africa and it is clear that China is flooding Africa with consumer goods and also machinery, automobiles and electronic items. China’s burgeoning economy is demanding more and more natural mineral resources like oil, copper, nickel, gold, etc. In the areas of minerals and food, Africa has great promise. It is well known that Africa is rich in a wide variety of minerals from oil to copper. Africa’s vast amount of land could fit the entire land mass of not only China but also India, the United States, Mexico, France, Italy and a number of other countries. Besides land, and more importantly, Africa has huge resources of water essential for bountiful harvests.
China’s attraction to Africa is clear. Africa is also attracted to China — China is a developing country demonstrating a successful growth model and this is an opportunity for African leaders to learn from them. China has the money to import Africa’s resources and the money to help build Africa’s urgent need for infrastructure: roads, railroads, ports, electric power systems, etc.
Africa’s exports to China are about 80% raw materials like oil, but it is increasingly trading manufactured and agricultural goods such as Egyptian oranges, South African wines, Ghana’s cocoa beans, Ugandan coffee, Tunisian olive oil and more. In order to promote that trade, China has bilateral trade agreements with 45 African countries, a number of which now have zero tariff preference with China.
In addition to trade, investment from China into Africa between 2003 and 2009 grew from $490 million to $9,300 billion. Investments focused on 49 African countries in mining, manufacturing, construction, tourism, forestry and fisheries. Part of the China’s efforts is to sign a bilateral agreement, now with 33 African countries, for protection of Chinese investments. A China-Africa Development Fund has already been created to invest in African equities. That fund has already reached $1 billion for investing in over 30 projects in agricultural machinery manufacturing such as electric power and mining. Plans call for the fund to expand to $5 billion.
As early as the 1970s China has helped to build infrastructure projects in Africa such as the 1,860 kilometer Tanzania-Zambia railway, the 58,000 square meter Cairo International Conference Center, the highway in Somalia, a harbor in Mauritania, a canal in Tunisia, a National Stadium in Tanzania, and over 500 other projects.
Preferential loans amounting to over $10 billion to finance projects for airports, housing and hydropower plants have also been made.
The Chinese government has always supported African countries in their effort to reduce their debts, which has helped relieve their burden of debts to China. From 2000 to 2009, China canceled 312 debts of 35 African countries, totaling 18.96 billion yuan. That demonstrates China’s determination to help Africa develop and to help Africa reduce the debt it owes to other countries.
Although China does not interfer in other countries’ internal affairs, their trade and investment in Africa is not without problems. Like other countries around the world, there have been scandals, corruption, and disputes. There was a Chinese infrastructure project in Algeria mired in a bribery scandal, and, an arbitrary seizure of property in Zimbabwe, among other issues.
Hide Sites
Related posts: