In part one, I presented six peace initiatives that prove that Taylor is a man of peace. I also mentioned that the Liberian Civil War ended quickly and easily, thereby helping the Liberian people not to suffer too much for too long. These are all plain facts. It only takes people who are oblivious of history, or ignorant of the realities of the Liberian Civil War, that period that I will constantly refer to as the Period of Suffering, Death and Destruction, who will challenge me on these historically factual points. Those who are informed will concord without much ado.  

1. Taylor’ persistent refusal to allow ECOMOG to deploy in his controlled area is another development that helped to end the Liberian war quickly and this, by extension, makes Taylor the Man of Peace. This particular situation took the peace process in an unprecedentedly positive direction. There are those who will contend that if Taylor had not persistently insulted and fought ECOMOG, but had sincerely and peacefully welcomed the urgent deployment of ECOMOG in 1990, the war would not have been so destructive and so prolonged, and Liberians would not have heard about and seen the emergence of later rebel groups such as ULIMO, LPC, LDF, so forth and so on. In other words, these people are arguing that later rebel factions that participated in the Liberian game of war sprang up squarely because of Taylor’s intransigence and refusal to allow ECOMOG to perform its duty from the very beginning. Again, this is another misleading argument because almost everybody knows that it is that intransigence and refusal by Taylor that caused the war to end quickly and easily. Can any sound individual reflect on such a peace initiative by Taylor and deny him the title – the Man of Peace? No way!
    

2. Taylor was always against the full deployment of ECOMOG in his controlled territory. However, when ECOMOG somehow finally managed to succeed in setting the pace for the full deployment of its forces by sending in the first hundreds of its men, Taylor, in 1992, provocatively disarmed, encamped and inhumanely treated over five hundred of it soldiers. This particular action had a positive, not an adverse, effect on the peace process. To climax this positive development, Taylor’s forces even went to the extent of killing six of the Senegalese soldiers serving in ECOMOG. Is it wrong, then, to consider Taylor the Man of Peace?
    

3. Taylor’s persistent use of the title “president” also immensely contributed to the peace process and the quick resolution of the conflict. Even before Doe’s death, Taylor had already begun calling himself president and encouraging his loyalists to not only call him president but also to treat him like a president. Many unreasonable individuals assert that Taylor spuriously did this to receive undue homage and to also have the chance to exploit the country more. They also contend that the inappropriate use of the title “president” made other voracious presidents and diabolical international figures befriend Taylor, thereby making it difficult for Taylor to respect ECOWAS’ peace efforts and end the war quickly. These are all false. The truth of the matter is that the use of the title president caused the war to end quickly. If Taylor had not used that title, the war would have taken years to end. That’s why I always got extremely angry with the BBC and the international community because, while Taylor was calling himself president and encouraging his followers to call him so, the BBC and the international community was busy calling Taylor rebel leader throughout, and referring to Dr. Sawyer as Interim President of Liberia.
    

4. Until 1995, Taylor’s persistent and unrealistic rejection of the pivotal role of Nigeria and the subsequent ill-treatment of her citizens – both civilian and military, beginning from 1990 – was another fantastic factor that facilitated the Liberian peace process. Sometimes I hear some Liberians indicate that Taylor’s earlier refusal to recognize the super-power and unavoidable role of Nigeria in the Liberian crisis only to recognize it five years later, even to the extent where he visited Nigeria and commended Abacha and the role of Nigeria in the Liberian nightmare, is something that helped to unnecessarily prolong the suffering of the Liberian people. Again, I strongly disagree with this argument. The fact of the matter is that if Taylor had quickly recognized the role of Nigeria, he would have been considered a weak man and a man against peace. The only sensible thing to do at the time was to reject, insult, denigrate and fight Nigeria and, then, accept her after five years – I mean, after hundreds of thousands of our kinsmen had already been killed. And that’s exactly what Taylor did. Shouldn’t he, then, be considered the man of Peace? Of course, he should.

I challenge anyone – Liberian and non-Liberian – to present a single scenario or example, which indicates that Taylor was anti-peace during the entire Period of Suffering, Death and Destruction. Is there anyone out there who is ready, willing and able to prove me wrong? I am absolutely sure that there isn’t.  

For now, allow me to rest my pen for the next article.