SIERRA LEONE: DAILY CONCERNS OUTWEIGH

UNCLAS FREETOWN 000049 SIPDIS E.O. 12958: N/A TAGS: PGOV PHUM SL SUBJECT: SIERRA LEONE: DAILY CONCERNS OUTWEIGH RECRIMINATIONS AGAINST FORMER COMBATANTS ¶1. Summary: There are no government reprisals in Sierra Leone against former combatants, and reprisals at the individual or communal level appear to be minimal, if any. The populace is focused on surviving in the present, not settling old scores. End Summary. ¶2. For Sierra Leoneans today, the decade of brutality 1991-2001 (which Sierra Leoneans simply call "the war") is an ever-present memory, since so many Sierra Leoneans lost members of their family and bear severe physical and psychological scars. One of the remarkable things about Sierra Leone, however, is the relative absence of an urge to retribution. Poloff took the occasion of a long discussion February 3 with senior opposition figure Al-Haji Kanjesesay to explore this surprising phenomenon. Kanjesesay, who presided over Disarmament and Demobilization (DDR) activities for the decade prior to the change of government in 2007, agreed that the memory of the war is a key factor for present-day stability in the face of grinding poverty, the sagging economy, and widespread dissatisfaction with the government, as if Sierra Leoneans, from every political persuasion and region and ethnic group and religion, share a common cry from the heart, that anything is better than returning to those bad days of violence. He cautioned that this is not a shared motive that will last forever, if economic and governance trends continue downward, but it is a key restraining factor among people who went through the war (i.e., not the very young),and it is important in understanding why there is so little retribution against former combatants. Sierra Leoneans today are focused on survival in the present and do not give much thought to the past, however brutal it was. ¶3. There are other factors that account for the absence of retribution. The war affected the whole country but had severest impact in the south, from whence came both the most violent rebel group RUF and the political party of President Tejan Kabbah, who emerged in control, and who made a sincere and concerted effort, with considerable outside assistance, to promote reconciliation (including establishing a Truth and Reconciliation Commission),and succeeded in restraining retributive tendencies within his party. If retribution had been the order of the day, it would have been wrought also against a large swathe of the army, which had mounted coups against the elected government and, at one juncture, cooperated with the RUF, and against the numerous local militias that had also participated in violence and brutality. There were fingers to point in every direction and there would have been no end to it. ¶4. It was important that RUF leader Foday Sankoy was eventually captured and removed from the scene, and his removal was key in lancing the scourge. Moreover, some of the former combatants were teenagers and younger children, and there is a widespread recognition in Sierra Leone that they, in particular, cannot be held responsible. Another factor was the burgeoning of the population of Freetown after the war and the mixing up of ethnicities therein. Most of the villages of the country spilled population into the capital city, where there is no pattern of segregation along regional or ethnic lines, so the city's population explosion has also helped in leveling animosities. ¶5. At the election of 2007, Kabbah stepped down, and his southern-based party (Sierra Leone People's Party, SLPP) some of whose die-hards might with his departure have wanted to turn the screws of retribution, was voted out of power. The northern-based All People's Congress (APC),which ruled the country for over two decades prior to the war, returned to power and has less motive to dredge up the violent past than the SLPP. ¶6. In the years after the war, there was some grumbling about the process of disarmament and reintegration that took place after the war, as packets of cash and tools were handed out to former combatants being enticed to settle down to a peaceful life. To some Sierra Leoneans, it seemed that killers and murderers and mutilators were being rewarded while everyday people got little. However, as Kanjesesay recounted, as early as 1998 the system for handling combatants and victims was separated, yet there was always a parallel focus on both, and an emphasis on total community development as a way to restart the lives of both combatants and victims. Religious leaders and reconciliation organizations were extremely active. By 2004, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission disbanded and there were no more officially-designated internally displaced people. Reparations have continued to be paid to victims through the National Commission for Social Action. Large numbers of people remain "displaced" in the sense of coming to the capital city and remaining. But, as Kanjesesay (an opposition figure with motive to paint the present government in the worst light) points out, with all of Sierra Leone's problems, retribution against ex-combatants simply "is not happening." ¶7. Embassy is aware of no exactions taken by the present government against former combatants. At the social or village level, the situation is more complex and difficult to fathom, and we hear of shunning, but the instance of physical retribution against former combatants appears to be infrequent, and increasingly so. For the handful of ex-combatants still residing overseas, should they return, they would face the same economic challenges as the general population, but likely would not be subject to repression or retribution based on their previous activities during the war. FEDZER