A reply to Ian Yhap By H. Boima Fahnbulleh, Jr.
I have read the latest from Yhap and accept the challenge to respond to the many inquiries and speculations. For the uninitiated, this may seem an honest attempt by Yhap to come to grip with some historical anomalies. On the other hand, this inquisitional diatribe is familiar to me. The attempt at geopolitical analysis, the bit of security and intelligence snippet, and the legal trust of cross examination is indicative of a person who has dabbled in the field of law and radical politics. I know the individuals who wrote this and I am not surprised. This is their modus operandi, the timid inquisition to confirm their prejudices, and their not so clever attempt at rectifying history according to their perception. The fact that Yhap allows his name to be put on a lengthy missive based on rumous and hearsay demonstrate to me the shallowness of his understanding.
Howbeit, I will deal with the article, assuming for the sake of historical inquiry that it is written by Yhap. One must note how Yhap moves among the names he calls me: “Henry Boima Fahnbulleh, Jr., Boima Fahnbulleh, and Dr. Fahnbulleh.” This inconsistency, as trivial as it is, presents a telltale sign of different authors. In security, we look for patterns in identifying culprits and rogue elements. From hatching conspiracy theories of assassination in the midst of fifteen thousand UN troops to castigating me behind the monikers of aggrieved men, demonstrate that some actors do not have the courage of their conviction! I will leave this for future references. Suffice it to say that I do not feel that I am in anybody’s courtroom. My attempt to explain the role I played throughout the years has been explained exhaustively in the TRC Report. This is the reason I referred you to that Report in order to cut off the political showjumping. The repetitive questions will not allow us space and this could suffocate us under the piles of political pretences and political gerrymandering!
I will ignore all the rhetorical questions and say to Yhap that you have to stand alone on matters of interpretation pertaining to exile politics of the eighties and nineties. Many people were involved but do not have the courage or honesty to stand and admit their roles in the tragedies that befell our country. In Ghana, brothers were thrown into prison because they disagreed with the opinions of certain Liberian exiles who had contacts in the revolutionary government. They used these contacts, not to protect desperate Liberian political exiles but to fabricate stories and throw them into prison. One such case was that of the late student leader, Augustine Nyesua. He spent months in prison based on the lies told by one of these exiles. The poor chap contacted tuberculosis. I was informed by another exile from my base in Europe and sent a strong plea to the revolutionary government in Accra. Augustine Nyesua was released subsequently but was no more the progressive student leader as before. He could not understand in his youthful idealism how fellow countrymen and women could be so treacherous and unkind to a fellow citizen in exile. He contacted me and wanted to know why he had to suffer the plight of intimidation, torture and neglect in a foreign country. I told him that it was the nature of the politics of greed, vaulting ambition and the craving for control which one finds in people with ruthless streaks due to some pathological derangement. Again, there was the case of Charles Taylor, a hapless exile looking for protection in West Africa. He was lied on, conspired against and thrown into prison. You must know Yhap that in most cases, exile politics is one of intrigues and conspiracies. One perishes if one was not strong, especially in our case, where we had ambitious and devious characters, ready to send you to your death based on fabrications. I tell you this in order for you to fight your own battle and not fall prey to any Macbethian unscrupulousness! A word to the wise is sufficient! However, if you want to jettison the role of puppet, we can then leave the puppet masters behind and debate the issues with honesty and a semblance of decency.
I cannot imagine any credible individual asking me why I had armed bodyguards throughout the Liberian civil war when it was obvious that there were real threats to my person. Many serious revolutionary leaders in the Global South have been murdered due to slight oversight. We are not religiously inclined to go towards martyrdom and give our political enemies the satisfaction of outliving us and mutilating the historical records. You can see the volume of lies, innuendoes, and snide insinuation, woven on a canvas of historical half truths and outright fabrication. This, when we are still around and can debunk the sophism forcing them to hide their true identities. This is where all the rhetorical questions come from as if I did not deal with them in my testimony before the TRC. Do not ask me to give you answers to question I have answered on countless occasions. You can search for the answers yourself and do your interpretation. My duty is to write about the history I made and know. As for the interpretation of certain events of which I was not a participant, I will do my research and come out with my conclusion!
History is first and foremost an honest attempt to grapple with the vexing problems of human interactions. The key word here is honesty. One does not have to be a scholar to be honest with people. Conviction and courage are traits of a noble character. These are not taught in any university on planet earth. They come from an inner spirit that is unnatural in many cases. Dishonesty is the hallmark of quacks and charlatans and this lead to the path of perversion, trickery and corruption in many countries. I do not intend to offend but to admonish. Deal with the issues to the limit of your ability and this will show responsibility and integrity!
I knew from your second article that you were rattled and diverted to outlining relationships and genealogy as if these were important. Now, you have reappeared to convince yourself that your arguments are logical constructs and prove ipso facto that Fahnbulleh contributed to the cascading events that culminated in the tragedies in the country. In political history, we must contextualize events to make them relevant to our interpretation. By arguing that Fahnbulleh was part of November 1985 and therefore the cumulative sequence produced Charles Taylor and violence is non sequitur. It is like saying that the sale of Liberian citizens to Fernando Po in the twenties led to grievances that produced the 1955 political violence and subsequently the political upheavals of latter decades. By this line of reasoning, there are no historical accidents, consciously conceived and carried out, as the NPFL invasion of Liberia or mere happenstance, like Fahnbulleh being around certain places at different times. Historical accidents are judged after the fact but unfortunately this does not absolve the perpetrators of guilt. Likewise, there could be happenstance that does not make one innocent. This is the circle of contradictions in which you find yourself. Either the invasion of December 1989 was not conceived, orchestrated, and pointed at certain objectives despite the rigged elections or it was consciously planed, programmed, and executed to exact brutal revenge in order to achieve political power notwithstanding the objection of Fahnbulleh and others. Charles Taylor himself has said that he had his plans. He was determined to avenge the perceived injustice against his person not necessarily against the country. He had been imprisoned for allegedly embezzling a million dollars. Being one who strongly believed in the trappings of high office, it was repugnant to him that other embezzlers were moving about freely at the time he was languishing in exile after prison, indigent and frightened. His primary goal was “to teach that boy a lesson!” The lesson ended in a catastrophe for which you Yhap want to spread the blame.
The reference to you dancing on the edge was a form of hyperbole to state that you had not landed with your queries and suppositions. Now that you have landed in whatever guise, I will deal with the issues as honestly as I know. You say: “The relevant questions now become who were these men? Who selected them for the Ethiopian program? Who decided that they would remain for military training, and under whose authority was the decision made? What was the intended purpose of their training? To whom were they loyal, and what became of them after they completed or abandoned the literacy program?”
These men were Liberians, passionate and committed to their people. They were selected by the Department of Adult Literacy at the Ministry of Education under my tutelage. The decision that few of them would take military training was the prerogative of the minister of education, in this case me, who was responsible for their safety as they venture into remote villages to train illiterate peasants. This was a military government operating under martial law and I as a major in the AFL had the responsibility of protecting those under my command—be they soldiers or civilians! The question of their loyalty was clear. It was undoubtedly to the Republic of Liberia and not to an individual. They did not abandon the literacy program. They were sent to various counties to teach Adult Literacy. Their names and locations were submitted to the NSA under Sylvester Moses to indicate that there were no ulterior motives in training and sending them to the countryside. The military hierarchy was fully briefed and the program went on smoothly until I transitioned to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
There were lies and propaganda proffered by hostile elements to the military and your queries here are not surprising. I heard them all before. What these elements did not realize was that the military fellows knew my honest commitment to the people. On two occasions, I was handled a loaded gun in the presence of the military hierarchy for my personal protection. None among them feared me. They saw me as a patriot and a revolutionary. Those who feared me were the deceitful political charlatans and they still do! I could write about instances when I was called after midnights to deal with security and diplomatic issues while other cabinet ministers were asleep. I spoke honestly as I still do!
Your inquiry that: “The question must therefore continue. Were the men who received military training in Ethiopia later connected to Liberian opposition organisations?” smacks of an attempt at inquisition not historical inquiry. But I will answer. None of them were ever connected to Liberian opposition organisations as far as I know. When I left the Ministry of Education in 1981, they were still literacy teachers posted to slum areas in Monrovia and to the various counties. There were 82 of them in all. The military hierarchy was aware of their duties and responsibilities. Your question about travelling to Libya and training has exposed you. I told you that I know the cowards hiding behind all of this revival of inquisition. However, this does not matter to me. You must find those who you want to know about and question them. I do not know if any of the trained literacy teachers ever went back to Libya or join cadres there. I guess you know them and therefore you should ask them. I believe two of the literacy teachers are still alive and could give you a better account of their lives since the Ministry of Education. As for me, from the Foreign Ministry, I went into exile in 1983!
I have said many times that there was no connection between Ethiopia and Libya that involved me. Ethiopia was in 1981 and Libya was in 1989. This is a period of eight years. During those eight years many things happened in Liberia, of which you are no doubt aware. I see no logical connection between your inquiries and the attempt to paint Fahnbulleh as an individual who helped plunged Liberia into bloodbath, massacres and destruction. As regards 1985, I have explained to the TRC. Apart from my commitment to the struggle against tyranny, I helped many Liberians in exile, young and old, who were fleeing from the brutal tyranny that had emerged in Liberia after 1984. A few of them have acknowledged my generosity in one way or the other. We talked politics in exile and dreamt of returning home one day but none of them can say I provided arms and launched an invasion after 1985! The story of why I did not will be explained at my time and choosing.
Exile politics is most often the politics of anger and dejection. Some men grieve and accept their fate; others organize and take the bold step of confronting tyranny. In the case of Liberian exiles, no one convinced them. Men who put their lives on the line to rectify perceived grievances do so out of conviction and not playacting. Thus, Fahnbulleh stood his own ground as Charles Taylor stood his. No door was opened for any one. Brothers were helped to settle, adjust and make their own decisions. In times of historical reckoning, men and women will surge into history to win or die!! Your desperation to find connectivity, to identify men who took training after a generation (25 years) tell me that you are not interested in historical occurrences but in accusations and the beating of your chest in ephemeral satisfaction that you have discovered what has been troubling you for all these many years.
Your argument that: “…his own story places him inside the political network through which Taylor moved during the years before the invasion,” tells me that you are pretending not to know the activities of Charles Taylor in the Ivory Coast. Charles Taylor had no political network in Ghana. He was there to survive and feel safe. In Accra, he was lied on, deceived and prepared for elimination because some envious political backstabbers could not stand the thought of him upstaging them. It is so evil that after all these years, these people have not abandoned their dirty tricks which are patently obvious to all who know them. For me, this is political treachery and thus, all such scripts based on falsehood and misinformation must be dealt with firmly. From 1986 to his invasion, there was no political network through which Taylor and I moved before the invasion. We met several times as friends, in Accra and Freetown. Political network connotes a circle of political activities wherein individuals interact for specific goals. There were casual meetings and long intervals. From 1986 until Charles Taylor launched his invasion, I saw him once in Freetown. There were exchanges of views on issues from survival in exile to the condition of the people back home. Charles Taylor was not a political man given to analyses and political projections. He was a practical man who listened to political analyses and then waved them aside. Therefore, your insidious attempt at apportioning blame falls in the face of the reality in West Africa at the time. There was absolutely no time for political networking in Accra involving me. In the face of tyranny, political networking is the convenient talk shop of egg heads and cowards. I was never part of such arrangement. Like the tyranny with its absolute domination of power, so too the movements that trained men had little stomach for debates and networking. There was a leader and he gave commands and instructions. These were military outfits that did not accept questions and inquiries. They were not political institutions. Like Samuel Doe, like Charles Taylor, these were commanders of military forces and not leaders of political parties no matter what they said on the contrary.
As a revolutionary who studied the science of politics, I watched and waited, drawing the appropriate conclusions. I went looking for information to connect the dots. I knew about ECOMOG and its formation and deployment. I knew about the formation of the interim government. I knew some of the leaders of the various factions. I knew the stories and histories of their rise and fall. I knew every ECOMOG commander from Quainoo to Inienger. They were all my friends and we shared stories about the war and the pitfalls of the many negotiations. After ten years, I met Charles Taylor for the first time in Abuja at the meeting arranged by the Nigerian military ruler for all candidates in the pending Liberian elections of 1997. This does not mean that I swept the ground for anyone or facilitated the movement of anyone to the total control of the country. You are wrong about my involvement in the Liberian political arena. This is obviously your intention to create an image of a man who has not taken any blame for what you and others consider his major role in the instability and destruction of the country. Apart from this being inaccurate, it is a frantic attempt to carry out crucifixion for the hurt and injuries that you and your social group suffered. You know that this condemnation of Fahnbulleh has nothing to do with the destruction of the people and their communities. You and others will care less if these unfortunate people were swept into the sea. We had an image of that during Operation Octopus. It was merciless violence to seize power and the people paid the price. Please do not pretend that your bitterness comes from the people’s misery. We pray that many of them will survive and that their children will write the true history of our country. I now rest my case but not before asking: “will the real Ian Yhap please stand up?”