Former Finance Minister Samuel D. Tweah, Jr writes
Reproaching or praising 2024 National Orator Dr. Robtel Pailey for her courageous but unflattering and undiplomatic remarks towards the United States in its relations with Liberia fundamentally misses the point.
Robtel Pailey has said what almost unanimously every Liberia statesman or politician ardently believes: that the United States has not lived up to its fair fair share of the bargain in its long-standing relations with Liberia. Whether or not this assertion or statement is justified is NOT the issue. The issue is that from almost every perch of governance or of high Liberian society, this argument appears a settled consensus, a staple in conversations on US-Liberia relations.
For example, on the question of the role of the U.S Government throughout Liberian history, page 243 of the Truth and Reconciliation Report reads thus:
“In the decades since the United States began intervening in the fate of this small West African territory, it has alternately supported, exploited, welcomed, and abandoned Liberia and Liberians. While the relationship over time has been complex, during several key periods the United States actions and omissions have led to disastrous results for Liberians.”
Much more recently, Senator Edwin Melvin Snowe of Bomi County frustratingly vented out in similar directions against the Americans, though on a less formal occasion during a legislative debate.
What the 2024 National Orator merely did was to officially, and formally put the American genie out of the Liberia bottle at a moment Liberians and the world were listening! Now that the genie is out what do Liberia and America do?
First, any prudent observer would have to place U.S. embassy reaction to Dr. Pailey’s critique in the context of America’s vaunted pedigree for freedom. America itself is the bastion of democracy and freedom and American national anthem goes so far as to glorify America as “the LAND of the Free and the HOME of the brave.”
Even the Charge d’affaire would agree freedom and bravery should have no limits! Clearly, Robtel’s criticism is sustained by these glowing American values. In other words, America is big and can handle criticism. Now that what has been generally hushed, muffled or unread criticism has been formally cast in national relief by the 2024 National Orator, how does this exposure impinge on US- Liberia relations?
On this point I offer a few generalized prescriptions. As a starter, the new U.S. Ambassador or the interim leadership at the embassy should not relish in condemnations, denunciations or repudiations of the orator’s critique. This is mere hypocritical postering since the Government itself holds this view privately, in the same way other Liberian Governments have held the view.
It would be more interesting for the current Charge d’Affaire to seize on the debate and momentum spurred by the national oration and challenge Liberians or their officials as to the merits of this viewpoint! With the genie out of the bottle, we can now diplomatically have a frank and honest conversation about the way U.S and Liberia engage each other on a range of issues and interests. That engagement should change, and these changes may redound to the good of Liberia.
The former CDC administration had grave concerns about the shape of this engagement and no doubt the current administration might have similar concerns. Beyond CDC’s concerns about former Ambassador Michael McCarthy’s public, undiplomatic criticism of CDC governance, there may actually be an acceptable role for such manner of criticism provided the basis for this new engagement are firmed. In private meetings, U.S. and Liberia officials should openly and frankly exchange without fear of reprisal. For example, McCarthy should have informed the CDC Government that Americans were contemplating sanctioning officials within the administration. The fairness and justice in U.S sanctions would or might have been the subject of discussions, either leading to mutually desired outcomes or to the Government having itself to blame for not taking cue from such discussions.
At U.S Treasury and State Department meetings, our Government did complain to their U.S counterparts about a lack of strategic engagement on issues about which the Liberian Government was subjected to public criticism or to reporting that was not clearly aligned with views emanating from the IMF and the World Bank, which did provide record levels of support to the CDC administration, as well as with views inspired from the MCC-scorecard!
In advancing the country’s international interest, the Boakai administration can learn from this failure of strategic engagement and propose new rules for avoiding “gotchu’ moments that bedeviled the CDC.
In this Robtel-inspired era of frank diplomatic exchanges, Liberian officials should be courageous to challenge their American counterparts on burning issues concerning to the American but more importantly concerning to Liberians.
Without attempting to spell out the issues, they could broach the desirability and perplexities of establishing a war crime’s court in light of why two previous administrations avoided this; they could opine on the quality of U.S aid, it’s alignment with aid from other development partners and its overall impact on Liberian governance and development; they could assess with Americans the impact of US criticism or stances on the politics of Liberia; and finally, they could sustain a discussion on the absence of long-term visas for Liberians, considering the historic nature of the relationship.
For example, why should Ghanaians have the ability to receive visas of five-year duration while Liberians are stuck with a limit of one year? I am not sure any Liberian Government, including mine, has formerly, seriously and sufficiently pressed the Americans on this and other issues.
The list of issues tends to be long, but the point is there is need for a new tone, nuance, quality and direction in the throes of US-Liberia relations and engagement. If this is established, Americans would probably not be walking out of Liberian occasions in reaction to criticism and Liberians would also not be lashing out against a future Michael McCarthy undiplomatically criticizing a Liberian Government.
In short, Dr. Robtel Pailey is not a villain but only a brave messenger purveying a much tabooed but silently widespread message: in doing so, she may have inspired a Robtellian weltanchauung which may or should lead us all on the path to reframing the diplomatic rules of engagement between Liberia and the United States!
