Iron Ladies Liberia_Reflection Memo

Violence on the post-African continent has long been viewed as an instrument for the allocation of resources i.e. as a determinant of who gets what, when and how. Its patrimonial social system has consistently ensured that accountability takes the form of redistribution, which is generally a matter of perception depending on its beneficiaries. While this perception may be true, in the case of Liberia, I found the global character of the conflict and its local economic implications an interesting subject matter. After watching the educational video titled ‘Iron Ladies; Road to Reconciliation’ these factors seemed to resonate on all levels of the society. As such, the objective of this essay is two-fold; first, reflect on the role of Liberia’s international partners, especially Firestone Rubber Company, secondly, land control and distribution after the 14 year civil war. The essay opens with a brief descriptive background of Liberia up to the civil war in order to give historical guidance to the essay. This will be followed by an assessment of Firestone Rubber coy looking at their roles, interests during and after the Liberian civil war and then an analysis of the allocation of resources, especially Land during and after the civil war. This essay concludes that the role of monopolies and land grabbing in Liberia is an example of how state accountability in Liberia and post-colonial Africa is becoming more an external affair. States are more accountable to the vagaries of their international donors than the people, a situation that nourishes the roots of violence on the continent.
Background
Settlement of freed slaves from the US in what is today Liberia began in 1822; by 1847, the Americo-Liberians were able to establish a republic. William Tubman, president from 1944-71, did much to promote foreign investment and to bridge the economic, social, and political gaps between the descendants of the original settlers and the inhabitants of the interior. In 1980, a military coup led by Samuel Doe ushered in a decade of authoritarian rule. In December 1989, Charles Taylor launched a rebellion against DOE's regime that led to a prolonged civil war in which DOE was killed. A period of relative peace in 1997 allowed for an election that brought TAYLOR to power, but major fighting resumed in 2000. An August 2003 peace agreement ended the war and prompted the resignation of former president Charles TAYLOR, who was convicted by the UN-backed Special Court for Sierra Leone in The Hague for his involvement in Sierra Leone's civil war. After two years of rule by a transitional government, democratic elections in late 2005 brought President Ellen JOHNSON SIRLEAF to power. She subsequently won re-election in 2011 and remains challenged to rebuild Liberia's economy, particularly following the 2014-15 Ebola epidemic, and to reconcile a nation still recovering from 14 years of fighting. The UN Security Council in September 2015 passed Resolution 2239, which renewed the mandate for the UN Mission in Liberia for another year. In July 2016, the UN handed over peacekeeping responsibility to Liberia and reduced the UN troop presence, which now serves a support role.
Actor Analysis; Firestone Rubber Company
Established in 1926, Firestone Rubber Company was favoured for a 1 (one) million acre piece of land for the value of 6 cents per acre for a period of 99 years. Firestone also provided a $5 million loan at a 7% interest rate to the government to pay the foreign debts it had and to build a harbour needed by Firestone. The loan was given in exchange for complete authority over the government's revenues until the loan was paid, thus solidifying its place as the main source of foreign revenue for the country.  The loan took (and continues to take) a larger and larger portion of the Liberian government's incomes: it grew from 20% of the total revenue of Liberia in 1929, to 32% in 1930, to 54.9% in 1931 and nearly the whole revenue in 1932. Currently the company and the Liberian government signed a new 37-year deal raising the lease to 50 cents per acre. The company argues that it has been responsible for opening the country to global market for raw markets and foreign direct income. However this position is flawed in that, such acts has come at a dire cost to the economic recovery plan of the country. By sustaining Liberia’s economic dependence through uneven trade deals, high handed diplomacy, and deplorable working conditions, Firestone at best can be seen to be enhancing the patron-client relationship between the two partners.
Furthermore, new investigations into its role during and after the civil war calls into question the company’s transparency records in its adherence to international codes of conducts especially on human right protection. The relationship between Firestone leadership and Charles Taylor (instigator of the civil war) was remarkable as the warlord used the plant as his base of operations in a civil war. The investigation revealed that between 1989 and 1992, Firestone struck a deal with the warlord and channelled millions of dollars to Taylor in exchange for being able to keep the profitable rubber business in operation. In the words of the US chief of missions at the time, he said "I believe they facilitated a warlord in his insurrection and in the atrocities that he created…”.  Furthermore, in a UN report titled "Human Rights in Liberia’s Rubber Plantations: Tapping into the Future" (2006), Firestone managers in Liberia admitted that the company does not effectively monitor its own policy prohibiting child labour. UNMIL found that several factors contribute to the occurrence of child labour on Firestone plantations: pressure to meet company quotas, incentive to support the family financially, and lack of access to basic education. The report also noted that workers' housing provided by Firestone has not been renovated since the houses were constructed in the 1920s and 1930s. On the country’s road to reconciliation, Liberia will need to revisit the activities, terms and conditions between international companies like Firestone Rubber coy. At the meagre cost of 50 cents per acre, the country can and should raise the social responsibilities of such companies.
Land Control & Distribution
While watching the documentary on Iron Ladies (more than 60 minutes), I noticed that only one thing was able to reduce the lead female character to tears. No, it wasn’t the level of carnage caused by the civil war neither was it the return of Charles Taylor. It was the land dispute she had with a bodyguard of the president and the failure of responsible agency to effectively adjudicate in the issue. After years of conflict, Liberia’s land management is in a state of disarray. Land records are missing, difficult to search for or at risk of deteriorating. From the outset, the Liberian government operated under dual systems of laws and policies — one for the coastal Americo-Liberians and the other for indigenous Africans living in the hinterlands. Land tenure for the Americo-Liberians were based on English common law (or “statutory rights”). The indigenous people governed themselves using their own “customary” fashion based on community rights. At the same time, the government has long allocated large land concessions to private sector investors like timber, mining, and agriculture firms — often without the knowledge of the people already living there. The concessions bar the indigenous communities from the land they have occupied for generations. It is this safe to say that, at the heart of all civil conflicts in Liberia has been land distribution. There will need to be a land reform policy that gives the country ‘lordship’ over the land. The country should be encouraged to diversify its methods of safeguarding land rights. The land administration framework should be automated by the use of technology to ensure confidentiality, accountability and assurance that information stored can be accessed when required for resolving land disputes.
Such a system should be easy to use, mobile, spatially enabled, flexible, quick to implement, scaleable, and cost effective, reflecting Liberia’s ethnically diversified country and lack of state wide infrastructure such as connecting roads (Liberia has a little above 657 kilometres of paved roads), Literacy rate (Liberia a literacy rate of slightly below 57%). Such a system would offer a safety lock against land grabbing activities by international companies such as Firestone Company, transnational logging and diamond mining along the Liberia-Sierra Leone border. Also, data can be pulled up to determine the effective distribution of land resources.    
Conclusion
In thinking about African security especially in the 21st century, one has to put in mind that violence in post-colonial Africa shares more than just barbarism and ethnicity/cultural traditions in common. Most of the time they also have a history of being peripherally included in the economic structures and processes of the country, in this case Liberia. Also, a case must be made for African state accountability to its citizens in terms of equitable and effective distribution of wealth. Finally, the role of technology will also play a role in shaping the affairs of security studies on the continent.

Iron Ladies Liberia_Reflection Memo

The movie Iron Ladies of Liberia follows the first year of Ellen Johnson Sirleaf presidency, after she was elected as the first African female head of state. While the movie itself is constructed as a portrait of the newly elected president and follows chronologically her steps through the dinamic country, it also reflects many conceptual issues which we can observe. Already at very beginning, in what appears to be a prolog, we can recognize that the problem of framing is still a ongoing issue in African matters. While the pictures of violence, armed clashes and crime appear to us as events rather expected of current Liberia, the movie tries to stand against it, focusing on various other neglected issues which many, not only African sates, are facing. As Gerald Bareebe et al. says „Simplified narratives have for a long time played an important role in the discourse... The unintended consequences of these narratives, Autesserre argues, are severe and include the ignorance of other root causes“. It is evident, that the author wants to dismiss these narratives, proposing a portrait story that redefines the perception on gender, politics and civic dynamics in current Liberia. I chose several concepts that were for me the most intriguing and interesting from both positive and negative perspective: Gender, emancipation of the state, reconciliation and democracy. Considering the role of woman in the government of president Sirleaf it can be proposed that the systemic victimization of woman in African conflict countries has been the sole narrative of gender. However, we can see that while the violence on woman is a pressing all present issue conceptualized at best by Johan Galtungs structural violence, the other side of the coin is without question the new wave of politically empowered woman, who only now are surfacing on the political scene, after a life long governmental career in the shadows of previous leaders. Throughout the whole movie we can observe how the common gender narrative is taken into question by portraying strong women that fight against corruption, violence and injustice. Another great topic of the movie is the problem of emancipation of the state, as after the long rule under Charles Taylor the bureaucratic system embedded patrimonialism as its modus operandi. The newly elected president Sirleaf takes on the issue of dismantling corruption and cronyism. However as she admits, it is much deeper rooted than she expected. The question of democratic rule arises where she admits that democracy is not possible until the state is ready for it. I would therefore suggest, that the coming years after her election are considered more as a middle stage between dictatorship and democracy, a form of autocratic democracy, where the citizens can enjoy their freedoms however only until a certain point and only under a strict supervision by the government, as full democracy in the western sense would endanger the new effort of ending patrimonialism. The most intriguing issue depicted in the movie is however the question of reconciliation, trust, the role of opposition and political plurality. The president is aware that although she has the official sole power to divide and rule Liberia, she has not to ignore the various groups which only few months ago enjoyed privileges and support, but are now left with no reason and no prospects in their life. This is very clearly depicted by the ex-soldiers, who with no political leader left, are now concerned understandably with the means of ensuring theirs livelihood. Demonstrating for their deserved pensions which were promised to them conflicts with the demands of civilians who, as the president clearly pointed out, are the real victims, the one who endured violence, and the one who also crave for financial benefits to be able to continue with their everyday lives. While the president could have limited the activities of Charles Taylors ex-militias to the very minimum, she decided that the only way to achieve peace is through inclusion and inclusive politics. Therefore she allows the opposition to practice their freedoms of protest, but on the other hand faces the demands of the victims. Such a balancing between just and reconciliation seems like a fragile situation that might be overturned by the slightest event. However her approach to reconciliation seems as a very conscious choice. As the president said: „We will not make heroes out of them“. Offering a fair public trial to the ex-president Taylor dismantles the opposition and their strife for martyrs, presenting to the citizens the new order of functioning law and justice. Last but not least, while the movie did a great work dismantling the common stereotypes of pure violence and anarchy in African states, it did however lack a more subjective standpoint toward president Sirleaf first year of presidency. The pictured events were carefully chosen to underline her new reformative politics and her stand against the old rule. A more holistic approach would compliment the movie significantly, depicting also her negative traits ad decisions, as no new government is able to rule a country with such past without doing mistakes. 

Iron Ladies Liberia_Reflection Memo

In my first class reflection memo I would like to reflect on the movie Iron Ladies of Liberia which follows the first year of the first African female president Ellen Johnson Sirleaf in office. The comments I would like to make are related to the journalist (and director as well if I understood correctly) who is leading the audience throughout the documentary and to the situation of African females in the highest positions of a state. To be honest, I was truly surprised when it was said that the documentary focuses on the female president of Liberia Ellen Sirleaf. I know that my lack of knowledge and probably also my biases against Africa in general contributed to my suprise but I did not expect a female president to run any African country. It is also because there are (were) not many female presidents in Europe or any other continent and even despite the situation is getting better, I still did not expect any woman to become a head of an African country in next few years (how much I was wrong can be illustrated not only with Ellen Sirleaf but also with Joyce Hilda Banda, former president of Malawi or Ameenah Firdaus Gurib-Fakim, current president of Mauritius (YNaija 2015)). I was even more astonished (in a very positive way) when it was said that president Sirleaf appointed other women to the highest posts (if I remember correctly the Ministers of Justice, Commerce and Finance and also Chief of Police, which is pretty unusual, were women). The position of Ellen Sirleaf, when she was appointed to the office, was definitely not easy at all. She (and the whole government) had very hard tasks ahead of them, they basically had to rebuild the whole country and transform it from devastated, patrimonial state into prospering, democratic country. Liberia suffered from long civil war which resulted in high rate of uneymployment, land problems, displacement of many people, corruption and massive international debts, which seemed to me as the most crucial issue for president Sirleaf to resolve. This only problem was truly solved at the end of the document (I was wondering if also other issues which were touched by her had the same successful end and why it was not included in the documentary as well but the reason may be that the topic of international debt was truly the most important one and it had to be solved first in order to solve other problems. The other issues could have been resolved as well but since the documentary focused only on the first year of the presidency, we have no knowledge about it). President Sirleaf also had to deal with the inclusion of the soldiers who fought for the former President Charles Taylor and who were causing troubles because of their made up stories of not receiving their retirement wage. I would argue that President Sirleaf coped with this situation greatly because she listened to the demands of the former soldiers but at the same time she showed them her toughness. She was willing to make a compromise but she was definitely not willing to step back from her principles which had to be especially hard because she was under many pressures. I also expected that some opponents of President Sirleaf would attack her „just“ because she is woman and therefore not able to run the country properly (as this attitude is nothing new). Of course, there were many dissatisfactions among Liberian citizens, some even said that the current government was not different from Charles Taylor's government, but nobody said that she or the other ladies in the government were incapable of leading country „just“ because they are women. However, this could be because of the not really objective attitude of journalist Siatta Scott Johnson who is the director of the documentary. Even despite the fact that President Sirleaf definitely is an inspiring woman, sometimes it seemed to me that Johnson tried to picture her in the best light possible and focused only on all the good things she did and not on the possible negative aspects of her presidency (one explanation can be that there were truly no even slight failures but it is hard to believe since President Sirleaf is still just a human). I also wonder if it was neccessery to include President Sirleaf's sister in the documentary as she only told us how hard President Sirleaf is working and how she was always supposed to do „something big“. As I indicated earlier, I think that the journalist Johnson was too interested in the documentary and therefore not really objective. I was thinking about somebody else who would shoot the documentary in a neutral way but then I realized that it is especially hard since no Liberian is neutral (everobody supports somebody which is projected in their opinions and therefore it is maybe not possible to actually shoot an objective documentary). One option could be that somebody out of Liberia would shoot the movie but again, there is another problem of not experiencing the things Liberian citizens went through and therefore not understanding properly the current situation. I am also not sure if it was absolutely necessary to include Johnson's dispute over the land she bought. I understand her intention to show the real problems Liberian were facing after the chaos of the civil war but, in my opinion, she could have shot a dispute of somebody else since I believe that she was definitely not the only person who was struggling with land problems. On the other hand, I would argue that at this moment there was first (and as far as I remember also the only one) indication of some criticism of President Sirleaf (Johnson had the land dispute with a bodyguard of President Sirleaf and it was visible that she was little angry because the changes she expected were not happening as fast as she would like. On the other hand she acknowledged that it was hard to rebuild the country so her anger could have been interpreted not as a criticism of Sirleaf but just as an act of frustration). What I found especially limiting was the fact that Johnson decided to monitor only the first year of Sirleaf's presidency. I am aware of the fact that monitoring all the six years (Constitution of the Republic of Liberia 1980: 19) of her time in the office would be extremely demanding but maybe it would be worth the effort to see if her government was doing as great as in the first year and if the desirable transition to democratic country and all her other efforts were successful. 

Iron Ladies Liberia_Reflection Memo

This movie as many other related movies I have watched, shows you the tension, violence and imbroglio been faced by most African nations in their quest for freedom, good governance and a better life. While watching this movie I also got to see what the greed of one person can also cause on an entire country. And lastly the question I always get to ask myself is can any African nation ever achieve full peace, stability and development?
First while watching this movie, I saw the enthusiasm and energetic vibe of jubilation in the people when Madam Sirleaf Johnson was elected, the people were filled with joy that a new dawn has come for Liberia. And we could see that from her first days in office she tried to examine the situation on ground and get things running and setting up her cabinet.
I also got to realize that fixing a country that has been torn apart by years of civil war isn’t an easy task. Looking at Liberia we saw that most institutions like in many other African states a dead and one could say that this was a deliberate act by patrimonial powers in the past. When no institution works, they become virtually like the only thing working in the country and people are desperate and willing to do anything for those leaders because they are seen as gods.
Just like many other many of leaders who came with the strong will of change, Madam Sirleaf was getting to point of frustration, were I could say that to some point she might feel like giving up because the problems were enormous. I also learnt from the movie that international actors who were always desperately pushing for change, were reluctant in been part of that change. We could see how long it took them IMF to assist Liberia.
Also this shows me, how the hopes of many Liberians were beginning to fade away and the fear of another war breaking out was eminent. Liberians who held theirs flags high months back were beginning to lose faith in the government. I been from Africa could say that this is the situation most of my people go through. Just like my country Nigeria were the current president was elected with so much hope of brighter future, those hopes are beginning to fade away and just like Liberia people start comparing the old government with the new one.
From this movie we could also see the grate influence this international actors have on many little African nations. One could see that without the aid of the U.S, China and other international actors Liberia would have gone back to its civil war. Also this shows new form of colonialism, because they are the once funding your government and you must first comply with their terms before you’re assisted.
After seeing such movies and learning from history, sometimes I ask myself if African states can ever achieve full progress? Which I can say I doubt. Looking at the company that was in Liberia, the firestone company. Throughout the whole conflict their interest and activities in the country remained stable but every other part in Liberia was torn apart. Could you call this luck? Or could you say that since they are also facilitators of such conflicts, that’s why they remained safe and the answer would be yes to me.
This shows me, Madam Sirleaf just like any other many other African leaders who come in power thinking they could be the change that people want, soon get to realize that powers or opposing forces are far too great and bigger and all they could do is compromise. And also when seeing the division and hate that has been artificially instilled in the peoples mind, one could begin to salvage a meaning out of the predicament that they are in by suggesting that it’s a curse or its beyond human control.