U.S. Support for Regional Complex Contingency Operations: Lessons from ECOMOG

Taw, Jennifer Morrison; Grant-Thomas, Andrew

doi:10.1080/105761099265865

Cited by 4 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…ECOMOG's intervention in Liberia was not without resistance from the rebel forces led by Charles Taylor. Taylor initially rejected ECOMOG's mandate arguing that the intervention contradicted Article 3(2) of the OAU Charter and Article 2(4) of the UN Charter which prohibits interference in the domestic affairs of member states (Taw, 1999). Moreover, Taylor never viewed ECOMOG as a neutral body because of Nigeria's former president Ibrahim Babangida's closeness to Samuel Doe.…”

Section: Geostrategic Context Of Nigeria's Asylum To Charles Taylormentioning

confidence: 99%

Was Nigeria’s Offering of Asylum Status to President Charles Taylor of Liberia a Diplomatic Blunder?

Ngara¹

2022

JIS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper critically examines the appropriateness or otherwise of the granting of asylum status to former Liberian President, Charles Taylor by the Nigerian government on August 11, 2003. The paper argues that the granting of asylum status to Taylor was consistent with Nigeria’s Afrocentric foreign policy and traditional “big brother” role in Africa. The objective of the asylum was to end the 14-year-old-conflict and return peace and stability to Liberia. However, after the asylum was granted to Mr. Taylor, Nigeria came under serious international pressure from the United States (US) and Western allies to release Taylor for trial at the Special Court for Sierra Leone (SCSL). Using desktop review, the findings showed that the asylum was an outcome of a multilateral agreement in which the United Nations (UN), African Union, Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), the US, and the United Kingdom (UK) played active roles. The paper also establishes that granting asylum to Taylor was within Nigeria’s international obligation under Article 12(3) of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights of 1981, for which Taylor qualified at the time of the asylum. Similarly, the Declaration of Territorial Asylum, 1967 gives asylum granting the state the powers to evaluate the grounds for granting such asylum. Thus, Nigeria’s asylum accorded to Taylor was the country’s prerogative and consistent with international law even though he was indicted for war crimes and crimes against humanity by the SCSL. Therefore, Nigeria’s action in granting asylum to Mr. Taylor neither violated any treaty to which Nigeria was a signatory at the time of granting the asylum nor amounted to a diplomatic blunder. Rather, Nigeria’s willingness to grant asylum to Taylor which subsequently led to the successful resolution of the Liberian crisis was widely commended in global diplomatic circles. Apart from applying indigenous diplomacy in conflict resolution, Nigeria’s rating as an effective regional power increased. To sustain the country’s pedigree of diplomatic excellence in resolving the Liberian crisis, Nigeria should rally ECOWAS countries to deepen economic integration, achieve self-reliance and make the sub-region less vulnerable to manipulation by Western powers.

show abstract

Section: Geostrategic Context Of Nigeria's Asylum To Charles Taylormentioning

confidence: 99%

Was Nigeria’s Offering of Asylum Status to President Charles Taylor of Liberia a Diplomatic Blunder?

Ngara¹

2022

JIS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

The Peacekeeping Potential of African Regional Organizations

Berman¹,

Sams²

2003

Dealing With Conflict in Africa

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Nation Building and Women: The Effect of Intervention on Women’s Agency

Caprioli

Douglass

2008

Foreign Policy Analysis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Regardless of the primary motive, international military intervention aimed at nation building is partly intended to establish democratic societies. And scholars have demonstrated that intervention does have a positive impact on democratization. With democratization generally follows greater support for human rights. Feminist scholars, however, have questioned definitions of democracy in which at minimal, women's political rights are absent. This brings into question the impact of intervention on the status of women. Particularly in both Iraq and Afghanistan women's rights have become prominent in the post-invasion American political rhetoric. Since intervention seems to be associated with the spread of democratic principles, we seek to discover whether intervention actually moves societies toward gender equality. We examine all six cases of completed military intervention aimed at nation building in sovereign states during the post Cold War period. Three of the cases-El Salvador, Mozambique, Namibia-evidence democratic change; whereas, the remaining three states-Cambodia, Haiti, Somalia-remain undemocratized. We test the extent to which intervention has or has not improved women's equality and find no dramatic effect, either positive or negative, of intervention on the status of women in any of the six states.

show abstract

U.S. Support for Regional Complex Contingency Operations: Lessons from ECOMOG

Cited by 4 publications

References 0 publications

Was Nigeria’s Offering of Asylum Status to President Charles Taylor of Liberia a Diplomatic Blunder?

Was Nigeria’s Offering of Asylum Status to President Charles Taylor of Liberia a Diplomatic Blunder?

The Peacekeeping Potential of African Regional Organizations

Nation Building and Women: The Effect of Intervention on Women’s Agency

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About