In the latest issue:

Real Men Go to Tehran

Adam Shatz

What Trump doesn’t know about Iran

Patrick Cockburn

Kaiser Karl V

Thomas Penn

The Hostile Environment

Catherine Hall

Social Mobilities

Adam Swift

Short Cuts: So much for England

Tariq Ali

What the jihadis left behind

Nelly Lahoud

Ray Strachey

Francesca Wade

C.J. Sansom

Malcolm Gaskill

At the British Museum: ‘Troy: Myth and Reality’

James Davidson

Poem: ‘The Lion Tree’

Jamie McKendrick


Jenny Turner

Boys in Motion

Nicholas Penny

‘Trick Mirror’

Lauren Oyler

Diary: What really happened in Yancheng?

Long Ling

Small AmericaMichael Peel

Terms and Conditions

These terms and conditions of use refer to the London Review of Books and the London Review Bookshop website ( — hereafter ‘LRB Website’). These terms and conditions apply to all users of the LRB Website ("you"), including individual subscribers to the print edition of the LRB who wish to take advantage of our free 'subscriber only' access to archived material ("individual users") and users who are authorised to access the LRB Website by subscribing institutions ("institutional users").

Each time you use the LRB Website you signify your acceptance of these terms and conditions. If you do not agree, or are not comfortable with any part of this document, your only remedy is not to use the LRB Website.

  1. By registering for access to the LRB Website and/or entering the LRB Website by whatever route of access, you agree to be bound by the terms and conditions currently prevailing.
  2. The London Review of Books ("LRB") reserves the right to change these terms and conditions at any time and you should check for any alterations regularly. Continued usage of the LRB Website subsequent to a change in the terms and conditions constitutes acceptance of the current terms and conditions.
  3. The terms and conditions of any subscription agreements which educational and other institutions have entered into with the LRB apply in addition to these terms and conditions.
  4. You undertake to indemnify the LRB fully for all losses damages and costs incurred as a result of your breaching these terms and conditions.
  5. The information you supply on registration to the LRB Website shall be accurate and complete. You will notify the LRB promptly of any changes of relevant details by emailing the registrar. You will not assist a non-registered person to gain access to the LRB Website by supplying them with your password. In the event that the LRB considers that you have breached the requirements governing registration, that you are in breach of these terms and conditions or that your or your institution's subscription to the LRB lapses, your registration to the LRB Website will be terminated.
  6. Each individual subscriber to the LRB (whether a person or organisation) is entitled to the registration of one person to use the 'subscriber only' content on the web site. This user is an 'individual user'.
  7. The London Review of Books operates a ‘no questions asked’ cancellation policy in accordance with UK legislation. Please contact us to cancel your subscription and receive a full refund for the cost of all unposted issues.
  8. Use of the 'subscriber only' content on the LRB Website is strictly for the personal use of each individual user who may read the content on the screen, download, store or print single copies for their own personal private non-commercial use only, and is not to be made available to or used by any other person for any purpose.
  9. Each institution which subscribes to the LRB is entitled to grant access to persons to register on and use the 'subscriber only' content on the web site under the terms and conditions of its subscription agreement with the LRB. These users are 'institutional users'.
  10. Each institutional user of the LRB may access and search the LRB database and view its entire contents, and may also reproduce insubstantial extracts from individual articles or other works in the database to which their institution's subscription provides access, including in academic assignments and theses, online and/or in print. All quotations must be credited to the author and the LRB. Institutional users are not permitted to reproduce any entire article or other work, or to make any commercial use of any LRB material (including sale, licensing or publication) without the LRB's prior written permission. Institutions may notify institutional users of any additional or different conditions of use which they have agreed with the LRB.
  11. Users may use any one computer to access the LRB web site 'subscriber only' content at any time, so long as that connection does not allow any other computer, networked or otherwise connected, to access 'subscriber only' content.
  12. The LRB Website and its contents are protected by copyright and other intellectual property rights. You acknowledge that all intellectual property rights including copyright in the LRB Website and its contents belong to or have been licensed to the LRB or are otherwise used by the LRB as permitted by applicable law.
  13. All intellectual property rights in articles, reviews and essays originally published in the print edition of the LRB and subsequently included on the LRB Website belong to or have been licensed to the LRB. This material is made available to you for use as set out in paragraph 8 (if you are an individual user) or paragraph 10 (if you are an institutional user) only. Save for such permitted use, you may not download, store, disseminate, republish, post, reproduce, translate or adapt such material in whole or in part in any form without the prior written permission of the LRB. To obtain such permission and the terms and conditions applying, contact the Rights and Permissions department.
  14. All intellectual property rights in images on the LRB Website are owned by the LRB except where another copyright holder is specifically attributed or credited. Save for such material taken for permitted use set out above, you may not download, store, disseminate, republish, post, reproduce, translate or adapt LRB’s images in whole or in part in any form without the prior written permission of the LRB. To obtain such permission and the terms and conditions applying, contact the Rights and Permissions department. Where another copyright holder is specifically attributed or credited you may not download, store, disseminate, republish, reproduce or translate such images in whole or in part in any form without the prior written permission of the copyright holder. The LRB will not undertake to supply contact details of any attributed or credited copyright holder.
  15. The LRB Website is provided on an 'as is' basis and the LRB gives no warranty that the LRB Website will be accessible by any particular browser, operating system or device.
  16. The LRB makes no express or implied representation and gives no warranty of any kind in relation to any content available on the LRB Website including as to the accuracy or reliability of any information either in its articles, essays and reviews or in the letters printed in its letter page or material supplied by third parties. The LRB excludes to the fullest extent permitted by law all liability of any kind (including liability for any losses, damages or costs) arising from the publication of any materials on the LRB Website or incurred as a consequence of using or relying on such materials.
  17. The LRB excludes to the fullest extent permitted by law all liability of any kind (including liability for any losses, damages or costs) for any legal or other consequences (including infringement of third party rights) of any links made to the LRB Website.
  18. The LRB is not responsible for the content of any material you encounter after leaving the LRB Website site via a link in it or otherwise. The LRB gives no warranty as to the accuracy or reliability of any such material and to the fullest extent permitted by law excludes all liability that may arise in respect of or as a consequence of using or relying on such material.
  19. This site may be used only for lawful purposes and in a manner which does not infringe the rights of, or restrict the use and enjoyment of the site by, any third party. In the event of a chat room, message board, forum and/or news group being set up on the LRB Website, the LRB will not undertake to monitor any material supplied and will give no warranty as to its accuracy, reliability, originality or decency. By posting any material you agree that you are solely responsible for ensuring that it is accurate and not obscene, defamatory, plagiarised or in breach of copyright, confidentiality or any other right of any person, and you undertake to indemnify the LRB against all claims, losses, damages and costs incurred in consequence of your posting of such material. The LRB will reserve the right to remove any such material posted at any time and without notice or explanation. The LRB will reserve the right to disclose the provenance of such material, republish it in any form it deems fit or edit or censor it. The LRB will reserve the right to terminate the registration of any person it considers to abuse access to any chat room, message board, forum or news group provided by the LRB.
  20. Any e-mail services supplied via the LRB Website are subject to these terms and conditions.
  21. You will not knowingly transmit any virus, malware, trojan or other harmful matter to the LRB Website. The LRB gives no warranty that the LRB Website is free from contaminating matter, viruses or other malicious software and to the fullest extent permitted by law disclaims all liability of any kind including liability for any damages, losses or costs resulting from damage to your computer or other property arising from access to the LRB Website, use of it or downloading material from it.
  22. The LRB does not warrant that the use of the LRB Website will be uninterrupted, and disclaims all liability to the fullest extent permitted by law for any damages, losses or costs incurred as a result of access to the LRB Website being interrupted, modified or discontinued.
  23. The LRB Website contains advertisements and promotional links to websites and other resources operated by third parties. While we would never knowingly link to a site which we believed to be trading in bad faith, the LRB makes no express or implied representations or warranties of any kind in respect of any third party websites or resources or their contents, and we take no responsibility for the content, privacy practices, goods or services offered by these websites and resources. The LRB excludes to the fullest extent permitted by law all liability for any damages or losses arising from access to such websites and resources. Any transaction effected with such a third party contacted via the LRB Website are subject to the terms and conditions imposed by the third party involved and the LRB accepts no responsibility or liability resulting from such transactions.
  24. The LRB disclaims liability to the fullest extent permitted by law for any damages, losses or costs incurred for unauthorised access or alterations of transmissions or data by third parties as consequence of visit to the LRB Website.
  25. While 'subscriber only' content on the LRB Website is currently provided free to subscribers to the print edition of the LRB, the LRB reserves the right to impose a charge for access to some or all areas of the LRB Website without notice.
  26. These terms and conditions are governed by and will be interpreted in accordance with English law and any disputes relating to these terms and conditions will be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales.
  27. The various provisions of these terms and conditions are severable and if any provision is held to be invalid or unenforceable by any court of competent jurisdiction then such invalidity or unenforceability shall not affect the remaining provisions.
  28. If these terms and conditions are not accepted in full, use of the LRB Website must be terminated immediately.

The sense of lives ruined for no purpose is pervasive in Liberia, a country colonised by freed US slaves, cultivated as a strategic anti-Communist American interest in Africa and largely ignored by the West during a post-Cold War decade in which its name became a byword for brutality. I first had a glimpse of Monrovia’s ruined infrastructure, along with the wretched refugee camps near the border with Sierra Leone, in 1998. At the time Sierra Leone was caught in an internal conflict of its own with which the huge troubles of Liberia and the surrounding region are closely linked. When I returned to the country recently, after the announcement of a short-lived ceasefire in the latest civil war, I talked about my earlier visit to a Liberian woman in the queue at Immigration. ‘It’s still the same,’ she said.

In 1998, Liberia had just emerged from another devastating civil conflict, in which the current President, Charles Taylor, played a leading role. A former Government minister who fell out with the military regime of Samuel Doe, Taylor managed to escape from a Massachusetts jail in 1985: he was being held pending extradition on embezzlement charges. He launched his bid for power on Christmas Eve 1989, when a small band of his fighters entered Liberia from the east intending to end Doe’s rule as it had begun, in 1980, by armed overthrow. Doe’s own military coup had involved the execution of 13 former Cabinet ministers on a Monrovia beach and concluded the 133-year hegemony of Liberians of US descent. Doe had little to offer, however, beyond human rights abuses and corruption. In 1985, he rigged the election intended to legitimise his rule. Taylor was not the only one gunning for him. The rebellion soon split and the President was cornered in the capital in 1990 by fighters loyal to a different rebel commander, Prince Johnson. The video of Doe’s torture before he died, compiled by Johnson and his men, is available across West Africa, a notorious symbol of the depravity of Liberia’s conflict.

Six years of factional war followed, and with them the familiar images of soldiers dressed in women’s wigs, or carrying Mickey Mouse bags, which stood in grotesque technicolour contrast to the atrocities they were committing. In Mark Huband’s The Liberian Civil War (1998), the author describes his growing disillusionment with all the rebel leaders, including Taylor, who spoke of his uprising as a grassroots response to the shame Liberians had felt in the face of the Doe regime. Several hundred thousand people are thought to have died as Taylor’s group and the other factions fought for control after Doe’s death. Outside Africa, the war was barely noticed.

Taylor established himself as the most powerful of the competing warlords and won an election in 1997: people voted for the clique they thought was most likely to bring peace. At the time of my visit the following year, Monrovia was calm and plastered with stickers urging people to help rebuild the country, but in 1999 a new rebel group emerged in the north: Liberians United for Reconciliation and Democracy (Lurd). What Taylor had once seen in Doe Lurd now saw in Taylor: a regime which thrived on violence and corruption and which would have to be removed by force. The insurgents gained ground gradually over the following years and arrived on the outskirts of Monrovia two months ago. Since then they have made several advances on the capital, a ceasefire agreed in Ghana has collapsed and many hundreds of people are thought to have died.

As the US talks of rebuilding nations in the Middle East and elsewhere, the war in Liberia and its neighbouring states looks increasingly like a paradigm of what happens when lawlessness, mass poverty and social injustice go unaddressed. A United Nations report published in May described what is now a nihilistic conflict unfolding in Liberia and the surrounding region, involving armed youths moving freely between four countries. The document is an implicit criticism of those in the international community who for years have concentrated on excoriating President Taylor and given the impression that removing one man from power could in itself solve a region’s problems. In a sub-Saharan echo of debates over the Middle East, Western powers – and the US and Britain in particular – are accused by many observers of advocating regime change without giving much thought to what follows.

Lurd, for its part, has shown little evidence of a clear command structure or an aim beyond unseating the President. Last year, the rebels refused to take part in national reconciliation talks set up by the Government, saying there could be ‘no peace and security with Mr Taylor in power’. James Brabazon, a journalist who has travelled with Lurd, reports that many of the rebels fought against Taylor during the previous civil war and were not integrated into the Government Army when he became President. Lurd’s human rights record is said by some to be better than that of the Taylor Government – in part because the rebels need civilian support in their bush war – but Human Rights Watch has received reports of serious abuses.

The damage Monrovia has sustained over 14 years of intermittent fighting provides a darkly satirical backdrop to the billboards put up by the authorities in an attempt to create an atmosphere of national self-improvement. ‘Be your brother’s keeper,’ one urges. ‘Total reconciliation before 2024.’ Others instruct a dispossessed public – the Red Cross estimates 80 per cent of the population has been displaced by the fighting – to go back and farm the land and advise putative refugees that it is ‘unwise’ to abandon the motherland and build ‘another man’s home’. For some of the time I was in Monrovia, the front line appeared to be a bridge that ran across Providence Island, where the first US settlers arrived in 1882. The warring parties could have gazed from their respective positions at a monument telling them to ‘Respect the civilians’ and ‘Respect human dignity’. The history of colonial occupation embedded in Providence Island is integral to an understanding of the circumstances destroying Liberia today. In one sense, the country is a model of the oppressed turning into the oppressors. Outside the Centennial Pavilion, there is a monument in which large statues of J.J. Roberts, the first President, and William Tubman, head of state from 1944 to 1971, face one another beside an inscription listing the country’s Americo-Liberian leaders under the portentous heading: ‘These men have governed Liberia.’ The 19th-century colonising elite of American freed slaves adopted the lifestyle of wealthy whites and developed a fondness for morning coats and champagne; there was a huge gulf between their values and those of indigenous Africans. The system finally gave amid ‘native’ discontent over injustices such as the high price of rice, which generated riots and helped create the opportunity for Doe’s coup in 1980. The monuments of the Americo-Liberians – from Monrovia’s masonic temple to the Southern plantation-style mansions around the city – mostly lie in ruins today, chiefly of interest to squatters fleeing the war.

Life in Liberia is far removed from that of the US, yet Monrovia is full of wilting Americanism. People talk in a drawl, using a laconic idiom that often belies the gravity of their circumstances. When the fighting restarted in June and panic hit the town, one young man in Monrovia told me: ‘It won’t be an easy disaster for us.’ The following day, President Taylor complained in a radio address that Lurd had ‘come once again to disturb the peace and quiet of the country’. People speak about the US with more affection than many Africans in neighbouring countries refer to their former colonisers. It is ‘our closest friend’, for instance, or ‘our big brother’. Evidence of the old country is plentiful in public life, from the US-style street names to the Liberian flag: a lone star and stripes. Many Liberians look to the US for assistance and feel betrayed when it fails to arrive. ‘Liberia is small America,’ says John Dahn, one of thousands of people who took refuge in Monrovia’s main sports stadium during the recent fighting. ‘Whenever we have problems we call on America to help.’ Liberia’s colonial experience is both more contemporary and more intimate than that of surrounding countries in the region, most of which were ruled by the British or the French. In Liberia the incomers were almost all black and the oligarchy they set up continued to rule the country until two decades after much of the rest of Africa had won its independence. The violent overthrow of the old political order – in 1980 – occurred in the lifetime of many young adults; in Ghana, the first country in sub-Saharan Africa to win independence, no one under the age of 45 has first-hand experience of the anti-colonial struggle. The Liberian appeal for US assistance is also a reflection of the links between the two countries over much of the past quarter-century. While many former European colonies got limited financial aid from their former occupiers after independence, the Doe regime received generous support from the US.

In The Liberian Civil War, Huband argues that Liberia’s importance to the US ‘lay almost solely in the form of strategic installations’ such as the Omega transmission station that served as a navigation post for aircraft and ships in the Atlantic. Doe was an ally against the Soviet Union in the proxy conflict between the two superpowers in Africa, and many hundreds of millions of dollars in aid were disbursed in the face of well-documented evidence of the brutality of his regime. The story of US-Liberia relations since 1990 is one of dramatic reversal: the Government is not even trusted with relief aid and diplomatic links have frayed, consequences, presumably, of the country’s diminished strategic importance and post-Cold War concerns about human rights abuses by the Taylor Government. A billboard near Taylor’s executive mansion captures the dysfunctional mood: it is dominated by a huge image of a path dotted with important dates in Liberia’s history, at the end of which a small figure in shorts talks to a tall man in a stars-and-stripes hat. ‘We have come a long way, big brother, but it’s still rough,’ the small figure says. ‘We are still suffering.’ ‘For true?’ is his American counterpart’s perplexed reply.

Without aid, Liberia’s social and economic life is a shambles. According to US State Department estimates, there is almost no foreign investment and 70 per cent unemployment. The souring of relations with the US is part of a pattern: Taylor has fallen out with a good many countries, including his neighbours, some of whom are accused of supporting the rebel war against him. Part Americo-Liberian and educated in the US, Taylor himself is widely accused of fomenting conflict in Sierra Leone, Guinea and Ivory Coast. In June, a UN-backed court in Sierra Leone announced that he would be charged with war crimes and that he bore ‘the greatest responsibility’ for many atrocities committed during the decade-long civil war (he had supported the Sierra Leonean rebel movement).

In Monrovia, the ritual flight from the areas of conflict to the diplomatic quarter and the US Embassy has been underway for some time. The streets are full of people carrying plastic bowls, foam mattresses, bundles tied in long coloured cloths and checked hold-alls. One man I saw was carrying a big cool-box with the motif ‘All power belong to God.’ On Broad Street, a group gathered quickly around me to condemn the breach of the ceasefire agreed in June. It was a reminder that for every child soldier in Liberia whittling sculptures from human bones, there are many ordinary people who can give a sophisticated analysis of the situation they find themselves in and an eloquent account of why the international community should help them get out of it. Everybody agrees that the US has a responsibility to help.

The following morning, there were hearsay reports of heavy looting by pro-Taylor militias in town. I went with a group of journalists to talk to some of the huge crowd of refugees gathered outside the US Embassy. We walked up UN Drive, astonished at the number of people camped out in the street and gathered at the windows of the tall buildings lining the road. A white pick-up truck went by, full of armed young men in plain clothes. Some other youths leaning on a car called out: ‘Journalists, how are you doing?’

The first blast hit as we were walking past the entrance to the Embassy. A short time later, a second explosion sent the retreating crowd into a panic. I almost ran into a vanful of armed youths; they barely noticed in their hasty retreat from the action. A photographer colleague reported seeing four dead bodies, victims of an attack on an Embassy building in which civilians were taking refuge. As so often in Liberia, those responsible – loyalist or rebel – were never identified.

Back at the hotel, the wounded soon started to appear on their way to the Médecins sans Frontières centre down the road. One young man was being carried in a fireman’s lift; another was being pushed in a wheelbarrow, his white T-shirt covered in blood. We helped where we could and then watched footage of the incident, leaning the hand-held camera on one of the hotel’s exterior walls. A disembodied voice called up to me from the other side of the wall: a small distance that belied the separation between the speaker’s vulnerability and the relative safety assured by our power and wealth. ‘This thing is a problem to us,’ the voice said plaintively. ‘Come and talk to me.’

President Bush has been under pressure to reach a decision on the deployment of US peace-keeping contingents in Liberia. The Pentagon has ordered 4500 troops to the Mediterranean as part of its ‘prudent planning’ for a possible intervention, although it could take the units several days to sail to Liberia. Extra Marines have arrived to defend the heavily fortified Embassy, but none is detailed to help protect civilians in the surrounding areas, which have come under heavy mortar fire. Liberians have protested by piling corpses outside the main section of the Embassy compound. Human rights groups and Western diplomats, who argue it is Washington’s turn to take some peace-keeping responsibility, are also dismayed by the delay. Both the US and Ecowas, the 15-member union of West African states, appear to be watching one another before making a decision on deployment. US intervention without Ecowas would mean that US troops had to police the front-line; Ecowas intervention without the US could quickly drain the resources of the poor West African countries that make up the union. If Ecowas went in alone, it would raise unhappy memories in Liberia of a similar intervention during the 1990s, when the Nigerian contingent was accused of partisanship and looting.

A further complicating factor is uncertainty over the intentions, and the future, of Charles Taylor. The US has said it will not send troops until the President goes; Taylor has said he will not quit until a peace-keeping force arrives. He has accepted an offer to take refuge in Nigeria when he leaves office, although it is not clear what this would mean for the charges laid by the Sierra Leone special court. Vaanii Paasewe, Taylor’s press secretary, says the President is coming under ‘immense pressure’ from his supporters to reconsider his decision to leave the country. Such enthusiasm as there is in Washington for intervention seems to derive from the threat that Liberia could pose as a ‘failed state’ and a base for anti-Western terrorists (see Stanley Uys, below). On an economic level, instability in Liberia might be unhelpful to attempts to drill for oil in the greater Gulf of Guinea region, which provides the US with a useful strategic bulwark against problems with Middle Eastern supplies. The issue of historical or post-colonial responsibility seems to mean less to Washington than it did to Britain when it sent troops to Sierra Leone in 2000, or France when it deployed three thousand troops to help stabilise Ivory Coast, and protect its own nationals, after the attempted coup last September.

Those interventions almost certainly saved many lives in the short term, but they raised questions about the international commitment to long-term peace and development in West Africa. Rich nations have become involved only in areas of their own immediate interests, effectively trying to ring-fence conflicts. In Ivory Coast, the French are protecting a former colony that once offered opportunities for French companies and a fine quality of life for expatriates. In Sierra Leone, Britain is prepared to back up what has become a substantial commitment to training Sierra Leone’s Armed Forces and developing institutions of government.

The country by country approach risks ignoring the much bigger problem of a disenfranchised, uneducated and brutalised younger generation, who can travel without restriction across porous borders and whose legitimate grievances can turn into abuses of their fellow citizens. As one diplomat puts it, the sizeable British investment in developing Sierra Leone’s democratic institutions since the end of the civil war could be futile unless Liberia receives similar help. Liberians are desperate, but there is little sense of the subjugation that exists in de facto dictatorships such as Equatorial Guinea. Perhaps the fighting itself has revived the possibility of political change; in what are ostensibly more stable states, by contrast, there is a deep cynicism about the institutionalisation of corruption and self-enriching elites. Before that change, however, Liberia needs a lasting ceasefire, and that can only mean intervention. As I write, President Bush has ordered an unspecified number of troops to be positioned off the Liberian coast to help support a West African peace-keeping force.

25 July

Send Letters To:

The Editor
London Review of Books,
28 Little Russell Street
London, WC1A 2HN

Please include name, address, and a telephone number.

Read anywhere with the London Review of Books app, available now from the App Store for Apple devices, Google Play for Android devices and Amazon for your Kindle Fire.

Sign up to our newsletter

For highlights from the latest issue, our archive and the blog, as well as news, events and exclusive promotions.