September 4, 2000
Stumble in the Jungle
What the Sierra Leone kidnap farce should have told
us about Britain and its armed forces
WHERE
THEY THERE?
Firstly
I would like to apologise for interrupting my "Is England Free?"
series, but things turned up, like 11 British
troops at an African roadblock. But surely, you ask in sarcastic
tones, Britain has withdrawn
from Sierra
Leone and the place has been restored to peace, prosperity and
democracy? Firstly, less of the lip and almost as importantly, after
the British put out a few press releases when they realised that
they wouldn’t fully defeat the rag tag Revolutionary United Forces
(RUF) they left in a great fanfare, and stayed. But the British
stayed to train Sierra Leone’s army, we were told. At least we were
told that line until 11 British troops were stopped in an out
of the way jungle roadblock without a raw recruit in sight. Ah,
we were subsequently told, they were liaising with the UN
troops. Quite what they were supposed to be liaising about has
not been made clear, neither was the fact that they were doing this
job at all (and hence that Geoff Hoon, the British defence secretary,
technically lied to parliament). Even this story is in doubt as
the United Nations rashly denied that they had been liaised with
at all, leading to the inescapable conclusion that the British government
was on a frolic of its own. Like Montenegro
questions need to be answered. It seems that a ransom
has been paid for five of the troops and the British will probably
pay a quiet ransom for the rest.
THE
WITHDRAWAL METHOD
The
most important news to come from Sierra
Leone was that the British troops had not withdrawn. Indeed
I had fought a lonely, geeky but ultimately successful campaign
with the BBC web site on the issue of withdrawal. They were stating
at the time that British troops were leaving Sierra
Leone. The implication was clear, all British troops
were leaving. But they weren’t. The minister of Defence Geoff Hoon
said that they would be leaving behind a small number to train the
Sierra Leone army (he didn’t say that this would be 40% of the peak
deployment and they would be doing many other things, but leave
that aside). So the BBC, the government owned broadcaster, was misrepresenting
what the government minister himself had said in Parliament. After
a number of e-mails and a wait of a few days, the BBC reported that
"the bulk of British Troops" were leaving Sierra Leone.
Sad, I know, but a triumph nonetheless. This was important in that
at least a couple of web addicts now knew, and could probably grasp,
that Britain had undertaken another long term commitment.
A
MATTER OF NUMBERS
What
I had not grasped was not just that the media were misleading
but the government were lying. There were meant to be 100 troops
at most, purely devoted to training the Sierra Leone army. The media
had misreported this, it is true, but I thought that when the government
would go to Parliament it would tell the truth about what the troops
were doing. This kidnap attempt not only raised the fact that British
troops were still in Sierra Leone, quite contrary to the impression
created by the government and media, but that there were four
times as many as we had been told. Three hundred troops
more than we were told, now that’s a lot to forget about.
SOME
TRAINING
Not
only that but they were clearly not for training purposes. The official
story, for what that is worth is that they were in the north liaising
with a UN detachment. The
UN deny this, and the West
Side Boys – the militia that captured them – say that they were
in their area of operations without permission. Why would they be
in the area of operations of an erstwhile ally, without permission?
Basically all bets are off. To be contradicted on one official story
is unfortunate, to be contradicted on two smacks of carelessness.
Whether they were scouting the area, preparing for some sort of
offensive action, will not be told. If British troops are still
involved in guard duties is similarly uncommented on. What is clear
is that 400 troops are not needed for training. What are they there
for?
REMEMBER
WHEN?
This
is not the
first time that this has happened in Sierra Leone. Last
May we had the same rigmarole. First the troops were needed
to secure the evacuation of the British citizens. Then they needed
to evacuate all the EU citizens (we had an embassy there
you see, no I don’t understand). Then they needed to secure
Freetown airport, even though the UN had already secured it. Then
they needed to secure other key points in Freetown. Then the peninsula
on which Freetown lay needed to be secure. After that they were
involved in providing logistical aid and artillery support to "government
forces" (who included the West Side Boys). And finally they
had a "co-ordinating role" – or total control – over the
government forces. Even when we withdrew we left behind a "training
contingent", and we know how much they limited themselves to
training. Each time we were told that we were only going so far
and no farther, and each time we found we were going a bit farther.
Remember that the British foreign secretary, Robin
Cook, said:
I
can certainly assure the House – as I have already done – that we
have no intention of deploying combat troops as part of the UN mission.
PARLIAMENTARY
SALAMI
There
is a method in this seeming madness. If the government told the
country exactly the extent of the intervention and the open ended
length of the deployment that was envisaged, they would have had
to let Parliament know. They would have won any parliamentary vote
on this, it is true, but they would have had to explain what national
interest there was in Sierra Leone, or how the RUF were any more
brutal than Britain’s allies the West
Side Boys. Could you? Thought not. But with creeping deployment
it is easier. Who among the opposition
wants to leave British civilians at the mercy of ruthless arm-chopping
bandits? Come now, hands up. Now who thinks we can get them out
without an airport? Any takers? You get the drift. People may not
be enamoured of sending troops to fight a rebellion in a place they
could not find on a map, but they are not eager for British troops
to "do what they can" to protect themselves. By a slow
release mechanism on the truth, Parliament
is denied one of its basic rights – deciding on a declaration
of war.
WITH
FRIENDS LIKE THESE
Which
brings me to the present day. Remember those West Side Boys? Well
who are they? No , don’t switch off, this is really important. The
West Side Boys are a militia, loyal to the former coup leader Johnny
Paul Koroma. Although they were at one time allied with the RUF
they switched sides to the government some time before the British
troops arrived. Now Johnny Paul has not been idle since leading
the coup. In May the BBC described him as a "Pro-Government
militia leader". The militia he was leading? The West Side
Boys, of course. He is now a minister in the government, you know
the one we are supporting. When we "co-ordinated" pro-government
forces and provided artillery
cover for them, which was one of the largest contingents, that’s
right the Boys. British troops were kidnapped by their allies. Think
about that. If the opposition or the media were half as alert as
they think they are there would have been an almighty fuss, British
troops were held in captivity by the forces we were told were the
only force for decency. They don’t seem that decent to me. But how
does the Government owned media, the British Broadcasting Corporation,
report these allies of the Government? They’re rebels of
course.
YOU
THINK THE WEST SIDE BOYS WERE NUTS?
Remember
the RUF and tales of limbs being cut off? They were obviously the
baddies, right? And the Sierra Leone government are obviously the
good guys, because they don’t indulge in the savage practices of
their opponents. Well, that’s what we are led to believe, even to
the point when the BBC continually claim that the West Side Boys
are "rebels", with the obvious intent that most British
people would confuse the pro-government militia with the RUF. Now
some in the British media are now trying to explain that the West
Side Boys are not really with the government, or that they
are uniquely barbaric for a government militia. Maybe they haven’t
heard of the Kamajors.
These make the West Side Boys, or for that matter the RUF, look
like models of Western decency. Oh, and they are ultra loyal
to the Government. They use the most modern bullet proofing - juju
chants and smearing the upper body with paste. They are steeped
in the pagan and tribal religion, and have the same enlightened
attitudes towards women and people of different ethnicities. In
their areas they patrol in headdresses and leather ju-ju jackets.
Oh, and they don’t like other pro-government factions in their areas,
does that sound ominous? Are the British unsure of these allies,
who are more powerful, less rational and far, far more ruthless
than the West Side Boys? Well David Richards, the former British
commander in Sierra Leone said of them "there is an important
place for a strong militia." Seems like this kidnapping is
only the first of many.
|
