On a typical weekday at St Peter’s Lutheran Church in Monrovia, children can be seen scoring three-pointers at the basketball court while adults crank up their engines in an adjacent parking lot. Yet, beneath the thick slab of asphalt on the church’s one-acre compound lie mass graves flanked by two large memorial stars painted in white.

On July 29 and 30, 1990 – as Liberia’s first war was raging – about 600 men, women and children were massacred in and around the perimeters of St Peter’s. Today their families and massacre survivors are embroiled in a battle of wills with the church over whether the erection of a basketball court and parking lot on mass graves demeans the victims buried there. The Lutheran Church Massacre Survivors Association (LUMASA) has also advocated for exhuming the remains and reburying them in a more dignified location.

As Liberia marks two decades since the end of its second war, which combined with the first took the lives of more than 250,000 people, the St Peter’s Church reckoning over memorialisation reflects the unfinished business of postwar stability and the country’s struggles with collective amnesia.

Since the conflicts ended on August 18, 2003, Liberia has only seen what peace studies pioneer Johan Galtung has called “negative peace” – the absence of direct physical violence characterised by fears of relapse into warfare. Its transition from war to peace remains incomplete because its norms, rules and regulations continue to fuel inequality and injustice.

What Liberia should strive for is “positive peace”, which involves building values, customs and institutions that create and sustain peaceful societies.

Our country has beaten insurmountable odds to maintain stability. It has defeated two epidemics, successfully overseen the withdrawal of a massive UN peacekeeping mission, and experienced the first democratic transfer of power from one president to another since 1944. Yet, the hallmarks of “negative peace” endure.

Structural violence persists in the guise of economic mismanagement, lawlessness, resource extraction without value addition, rampant corruption, crumbling infrastructure, and deteriorating education and health outcomes.

Perhaps the most extreme example of Liberia’s “negative peace” is the politicisation of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC), which was created in 2005, and the lack of traction to bring those who bear the greatest responsibility for the wars to justice.

Unlike South Africa’s solely restorative TRC framework, Liberia’s approach comprised both restorative and retributive measures aimed at tackling the root causes of the conflicts. The TRC’s work ended in 2009 with the release of its final report endorsing actions that national authorities should undertake to ensure accountability.

One of its flagship recommendations was the establishment of an extraordinary criminal court for over 100 individuals allegedly involved in gross human rights violations, violations of international humanitarian law and war crimes.

The TRC also proposed lustration in the form of barring from public office those it recommended for prosecution; the seizure of individual and corporate assets acquired by means of economic pillage during the wars; and reparations for designated survivors administered through a Reparations Trust Fund.

Although most Liberians at home and abroad hailed these recommendations, with some activists mounting domestic and international support for the establishment of a war and economic crimes court in Liberia, successive Liberian governments refused to carry them out. Thus, the root causes of the wars presented in the TRC’s final report – inequalities of access and opportunity, poor governance, damaged intergroup relations and a weak judiciary – have remained unaddressed.

In the past two decades, impunity has reigned supreme with alleged war-era criminals engaged in political intimidation, threats of renewed violence and doling out the spoils of war. Some have reinvented themselves as millionaires-cum-moguls, philanthropists, political kingmakers, ethno-nationalists or reformed evangelists, manipulating and distorting violent wartime memories for the purpose of evading accountability.

A case in point is a resolution to establish a Transitional Justice Commission (TJC), proposed by the Liberian Senate in 2021 but rejected by the House of Representatives. It was perceived as elite manoeuvring to formally audit the work of the TRC and declare its reports and recommendations illegal.

Prosecuting alleged Liberian war criminals abroad through universal jurisdiction has also been challenging. A mere three convictions have been handed down in American and European courts, with the most recent ruling in Switzerland sentencing a notorious rebel commander to 20 years in jail.

The lack of accountability and other hallmarks of “negative peace” have permeated Liberia and are often reflected in its politics. A recent incident involving supporters of President George Weah (no relation to author Aaron Weah) carting a casket in Monrovia with the photo of Joseph Boakai, the main opposition candidate, is a good illustration.

Taking place just two months before the fourth postwar elections scheduled for October, this provocative spectacle not only evoked wartime grief and political violence but also violated the tenets of the Farmington River Declaration on upholding peaceful polls signed by all presidential candidates.

The ruling party’s reticence to condemn the casket display, despite public outrage, reflects Liberia’s political reality in which the spectre of violence persists. A subsequently brutal confrontation between supporters of the two leading presidential candidates signals looming electoral aggression.

So, how can the country achieve “positive peace” amid political hostilities at home and military coups in the region?

The first step in this process is to build public trust among citizens, civil society actors, grassroots communities and political elites.

To deepen public trust, Liberians must also forge a new consensus on the relevance of the TRC’s final report and criminal accountability as an essential ingredient in attaining “positive peace”. This consensus must foreground the dangers of forgetting the wars and the history that preceded them, especially for Liberia’s post-2003 generation who comprise 70 percent of the population.

It is our hope that renewed trust will motivate Liberians to pursue accountability while taking measures to combat structural violence.

We see “positive peace” as both the duty to remember and the responsibility to guarantee justice for survivors and victims of the massacres at St Peter’s Lutheran Church and beyond. But there can be no “positive peace” in Liberia without justice.

Editor’s note: An earlier version of this article wrongfully identified Johan Galtung as “the late peace scholar”. Galtung is 92 years old and very much alive and well. 

–

This article was first published by Al Jazeera. The views expressed in this article are the authors’ own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial stance.

Nigeria has recently announced plans to remove its consumer fuel subsidy. While this decision presents opportunities for redirecting the subsidy funds towards enhancing other sectors of the economy and potentially reducing carbon emissions, it is important to acknowledge that without additional support, this removal could potentially exacerbate inequality and impose economic burdens on Nigeria’s population.

In his inauguration speech, the new president of Nigeria, Bola Ahmed Tinubu, announced the total removal of consumer fossil fuel subsidies. He expressed concern that the subsidy scheme was increasingly favouring the wealthy population at the expense of the poor masses and stressed that the subsidy’s escalating costs could no longer be justified.

Fossil fuel subsidies are typically measures that are either aimed at reducing the expenses associated with fossil fuel energy production or reducing the amount that is usually paid by domestic energy consumers. In Nigeria, fuel subsidies exist because the government fixes the price of petrol for consumers below the international price and uses government resources to pay the difference.

Nigeria’s oil is mainly refined in Europe and then imported back into the country – the reason being that Nigeria’s three major refineries are grossly moribund. Therefore, the price of importation (which is mostly determined by international market forces) is typically deemed to be higher than any national prices assuming the products were to be refined within Nigeria. This explains why the expenses linked to the petrol subsidy have been considered by the Nigerian government to be no longer workable.

Shortly after the announcement that the subsidy would be removed, the state oil company – the Nigerian National Petroleum Company (NNPC) – increased the price of petrol by 200%, from N189 per litre to N570, triggering an escalation in the prices of consumer goods and services within Nigeria. Many citizens expressed their discontent and frustration, lamenting the implications of these changes. The government has attempted to promote the potential benefits of eliminating the fossil fuel subsidy including increased resources for investments in public infrastructure, education, and healthcare.

The prevailing global perspective suggests that maintaining fuel subsidies often results in inefficiencies and financial leakages. Consequently, there is a growing consensus that all nations must ultimately eliminate fossil fuel subsidies to fulfil their international obligations, particularly in the context of the climate crisis.

There is a mounting body of evidence that fossil fuel subsidies lead to increased greenhouse gas emissions, contributing to climate change and eco-anxiety globally. Nigeria has made some progress in curbing carbon emissions through notable initiatives, particularly in the field of solar energy. However, it is important to acknowledge that Nigeria’s plans for sustainability are still evolving and await complete realisation.

The amount spent on the fuel subsidy has fluctuated in recent years as reports seem to suggest that the amount roughly budgeted in recent times up to the year 2023 is a staggering US$1.2 billion a month. These figures are reported to surpass the government’s expenditure on education, health, and infrastructure during the respective periods examined.

Nonetheless, despite the apparent agreement among the elite regarding the need to remove the subsidies, it is imperative to approach this move with political caution and precision, particularly in the context of a developing nation like Nigeria. If poorly handled, consumer fossil fuel subsidy reform or removal can disproportionately impact vulnerable households, trigger social unrest, and cause profound inequality.

History and realities of fuel subsidies in Nigeria 

Since the 1970s, Nigeria has implemented a fuel subsidy programme, initially aimed at mitigating the effects of rising global oil prices on its citizens. This initiative involved the government consistently selling petrol to Nigerians at below-cost prices.

After the enactment of the Price Control Act in 1977, fuel subsidies became institutionalised in Nigeria, leading to the establishment of regulated prices for certain products, including petrol. This legislation made it unlawful to sell these products above the prescribed price.

If poorly handled, consumer fossil fuel subsidy reform or removal can disproportionately impact vulnerable households, trigger social unrest, and cause profound inequality.

The Price Control Act was introduced during the regime of the former military head of state, Olusegun Obasanjo, as a response to the global “Great Inflation” era of the 1970s, which was characterised by a significant increase in energy prices worldwide. The purpose of this law was to mitigate the impact of rising energy costs and provide a cushioning effect on the Nigerian economy. Although the objective of this law was achieved, however, and as evidence now suggests, these measures cannot be sustained financially. This is besides the huge negative environmental implications of the fuel subsidy scheme.

Tread with care

The Nigerian government appears determined to proceed with its policy of removing the fuel subsidy. However, it is important that this decision is implemented in a manner that does not compromise the ability of low-income individuals to access an acceptable standard of living. Therefore, to ensure a fair transition, it is imperative that the removal of the subsidy is accompanied by the provision of adequate social safety nets and protective measures, and undertaken with diplomacy.

The Nigerian government should prioritise a complete understanding of the socio-economic conditions in communities that are and will be subsequently affected by the subsidy removal and related reforms. This will involve conducting a thorough analysis of the levels of subsidy support that were provided and examining the distributional impacts associated with its withdrawal.

This drive can be partly achieved by exploring the Fossil Fuel Subsidy Reform simulator that aims to assist policymakers in understanding and visualising the significant potential of reallocating funds that are currently spent on fossil fuel subsidies. The simulator operates as a dynamic and interactive platform that allows policymakers to explore different scenarios and evaluate the impact of removing fossil fuel subsidies. It provides a comprehensive understanding of the financial, social, and environmental implications associated with subsidy reinvestment.

In the same vein, the government should conduct a thorough examination of the cost of governance, which is widely considered to be unreasonably high. Drastic reductions should be implemented to free up more resources that can be effectively utilised for development purposes.

The government must seek to ensure consistent social and political support for the fuel price reforms and subsidy removal. The fossil fuel subsidy reforms should incorporate compensatory measures specifically designed to support the poorest and most impacted households, which may involve establishing social safety nets. These reforms should concentrate on strengthening the existing social welfare benefits, such as implementing cash transfer mechanisms and temporary basic income initiatives to mitigate the increase in fuel prices.

The fossil fuel subsidy reforms should incorporate compensatory measures specifically designed to support the poorest and most impacted households.

The government should engage in effective public communication and foster deep stakeholder engagement to gain widespread support across the society and the different sectors. Clear explanations and demonstration of the environmental effectiveness and equitable distributional impacts of the reform will help secure public confidence. One crucial and potential element of success is building consensus around key approaches in the implementation of the reforms. This may require close collaboration with experts and opinion leaders alike. Careful handling of the removal of Nigeria’s consumer fossil fuel subsidy is crucial to avoid disproportionate impacts, social unrest, and exacerbating inequality.

The potential creation of a new currency for BRICS countries would shift the focus away from the US dollar as the trade transaction currency. The ambitious proposal, together with Dilma Rousseff’s inauguration as president of the BRICS bank, the New Development Bank, promise to be an alternative to the conditional investment loans of the World Bank and the IMF.

The following is an excerpt of a piece originally published in April, shortly after Lula da Silva’s visit to China. You can read the full article here.

In September 2006, on the occasion of a UN General Assembly , the foreign ministers of Brazil, China, Russia, and India began to outline what would be a grand trade and monetary support agreement. In 2010, at a meeting of the presidents of these countries in Brasilia and a year later in China, it was ratified and began to shape what is now known as the BRICS , a nucleus to which South Africa was added.. Although at first they demonstrated the will to produce greater dialogue between the member countries, over the years the agenda began to contemplate a broader agreement at the international level and, above all, economic and financial associations in strategic sectors such as energy, agriculture and scientific and technological development.

The visit to China made last week by Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva to his colleague Xi Jinping was more than one more step in this integration process. In addition to important commercial and financing agreements signed, the abandonment of the dollar as an exchange currency and trade with national currencies (Chinese yuan and Brazilian real) was announced, which constitutes a great leap towards the de-dollarization of the planet.

“Every night I wonder why all countries are forced to do their trade backed by the dollar – Lula commented – Why can’t we do our trade backed by our currency? Why don’t we bet on innovation? Who decided that the dollar was the currency?, after the disappearance of gold as parity”.

Elvin Calcaño , a political scientist at Polititank , commented to El Ciudadano that “since 1945, after the end of World War II, the United States remained the great power. And it was thus that, based on their specific interests, the current global governance scheme on international politics and economics was designed. Hence institutions such as the IMF and World Bankthat respond to that design ultimately. In this framework, the dollar has always been an instrument of power for the United States in the world sphere. Used, as we have seen so much lately, as a coercive element to discipline and overwhelm, through unilateral economic sanctions, those countries that act outside their geoeconomic interests. Countries like China, Russia, Brazil, India and others in the BRICS orbit are now trying to get out of that design. From their interests that also have them. In the geopolitical sphere, what moves is power and specific interests between the parties. Another thing is the justifying speeches”.

Calcaño added that “Lula’s trip to China must be seen in the context of the geopolitical vocation of the current president of Brazil; which he amply showed in the previous two terms of his government. Lula, from a leftist perspective, has a sovereign vision of foreign relations. Which, being Brazil a regional and world economic power of global weight, generates strong repercussions when such characters come to power. On the other hand, you have to look at it in terms of the geopolitical struggle between the United States and China. Brazil seeks its own space within the framework of this dispute based on its interests; which tend to be, in many sectors, convergent with China, but divergent with the United States. Finally, this visit by Lula to China, for what motivates it and the world scenario that frames it,

Replacing the United States

In the state of Bahia, an old Ford car factory that was recently closed will be reopened with Chinese capital from the BYD brand, a firm that will produce electric and hybrid cars. The new Chinese plant accounts for the change in global economic powers, previously restricted to the countries of the north of the world.

The agreements signed between Brazil and China mainly concern renewable energy, the automotive industry, agribusiness, information technology, health and infrastructure. In fact, Lula visited the Huawei Technologies factory, which has been operating in Brazil for 20 years and currently supplies 5G technology. The Chinese technology firm since the time of Donald Trump has suffered a series of boycotts and sanctions in the United States.

China is currently Brazil’s main trading partner. Bilateral trade during 2022, despite the distance between former president Jair Bolsonaro and the Chinese government, was $170 million dollars, which doubles the figures exchanged between the United States and Brazil. The trade balance between China and Brazil left a surplus of US$ 30 billion (R$ 157 billion). If on the one hand the Latin American country exports to China soybeans, corn, sugar, coffee, meat and iron, among other products; the Asian giant brings manufactured products to Brazil and generates investments in infrastructure projects.

Brazilians and Chinese are also working together to launch satellites, such as those corresponding to the Sino-Brazilian Terrestrial Resources Satellite (Cbers) program, which between 1999 and 2009 has put six devices into orbit.

The end of the dollar as a currency for commercial transactions and the potential creation of a new currency for the BRICS countries was contested by the former US ambassador to Brazil, Thomas Shannon, who argued that the idea could upset the US government.

“When I go to talk to the United States I am not worried about what China might think. I am talking about the sovereign interests of my country. When I come to speak in China, neither do I. I worry about what the United States thinks. This is how the United States, China and all countries do it” – was the response of the Brazilian president.

Dilma Rousseff at the Head of the BRICS Bank

Another important step for Brazil was assuming the rotating presidency of the BRICS bank, New Development Bank (NDB), a position that began to be held by the economist and former president Dilma Rousseff, an event held at the agency’s headquarters in Shanghai and attended by Lula.

The NDB was created in 2014 and since then it has approved US$32.8 billion in financing for 96 infrastructure and sustainable development projects in 9 countries, including Bangladesh, Egypt, the United Arab Emirates and Uruguay, in addition to the BRICS countries.

Rousseff’s promotion by Brazilian diplomacy reflects the interest in establishing a solid relationship, which would allow Brazil and other countries in the region to have more alternatives and without conditions of neoliberal reforms of the economy, conditions set by loans from the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF).

The political scientist and professor of international relations, Bruno Lima Rocha, believes that Brazil, through the NDB, will seek Latin America as its geopolitical and economic place. “Brazil’s relations with China and with the BRICS are going to be a very important point of Lula’s foreign policy in his third term – the analyst commented to El Ciudadano – It is not by chance that Dilma is indicated to be president of the BRICS bank. If Brazil has the position of the BRICS leadership to make a collateral system of guarantees for the integrated customs currency of Brazil with Argentina as an experiment to advance international trade at an intra-Latin American level without going through the dollar, I believe that the BRICS will operate as the fundamental axis of this notion of development, if not sustained it is at least sovereign.

Lula’s bet is related both to his political experience, having been imprisoned in a trial without evidence pushed by the United States and raised by former judge Sergio Moro, and to the possibilities of his government, internally conditioned by a parliament in which he does not have a majority and the neoliberal policies of a Central Bank empowered by Bolsonaro.

Lima Rocha comments on the matter that “it is necessary to understand that this possibility of the BRICS was one of the most important external push factors for the Bridges Project of the Obama government that resulted in the Lavajato lawfare and brought down Dilma at the beginning of her second government. It can thus be said that the size of the BRICS challenge was fueled by Washington.

The analyst adds that Rousseff’s role will be paramount. “Dilma’s presence in the NDB will be essential to boost the semiconductor industry, operate international chains where Brazil does not enter only as a seller of grains or minerals. This on a macro level. On the other hand, the bank of the BRICS and the Eurasian economic axis complements itself without needing the others. China, India, Russia and even Pakistan can produce everything a modern 21st century society needs. And this has to be an important part of the BRICS policy to put a leading industry to compete with the economic and financial axis that SWIFT manages, for example”.

For his part, Pierre Lebret, political scientist and Master in international relations from La Sorbone, highlights that China and Brazil are important trading partners. He considers it important “that the countries of the South organize themselves, have a voice again and are key players on the global scene. The war in Ukraine is reordering the global geopolitical map. That is why this visit is important, Lula’s return opens a new stage and clearly this must allow the establishment of the bases for integration, for the promotion of a multipolar world”.

Lebret adds that “South-South cooperation will be strengthened, particularly within the framework of the BRICS. The South must also act to avoid scenarios of confrontation between powers. The past shows us that this type of scenario has very serious economic, social and political consequences for the peoples of the South. I also believe that it is important for Brazil to act on the global scene without ceasing to think about Latin America, so that Latin American integration itself has a chance to prosper”.

For Elvin Calcaño, the appointment of Dilma Rousseff at the head of the BRICS bank “is a clear step towards a global geo-economy outside the hegemony of the dollar. Fundamentally from the convergence between emerging and consolidated powers that, outside the western orbit dominated by the Anglo-Saxon North Atlantic axis, are moving towards other designs of world economy”.

Lula’s Peace Club

One year into the Russia-Ukraine war, China put up a 12-point peace proposal . For his part, Lula since he began his round of meetings with leaders, such as Joe Biden, Emmanuel Macron and Olaf Scholz, made the end of the conflict an important point of conversation.

In the meeting held with Xi Jinping, Lula, in addition to criticizing the shipment of arms to the war, returned with his proposal that a group of neutral countries mediate in the peace negotiations between Russia and Ukraine. “It is necessary to constitute a group of countries willing to find the way to make peace. That is to say, I talked about it with the Europeans, I already talked about it with the Americans”- the Brazilian president maintained.

Regarding the shipment of arms, Lula commented that those who deliver arms to Ukraine are “fomenting the war.” She argued that “America must stop encouraging war and start talking about peace. It is necessary for the European Union to start talking about peace, so that we can convince Putin and Zelensky that peace is in everyone’s interest and that war for now only interests both of us.”

The political scientist Pierre Lebret comments that “Lula has always been characterized by carrying out humanist, progressive projects, by implementing policies to fight against hunger and poverty. This war is taking root in the collective mind as an ongoing conflict, and is a threat to global stability. A peaceful outcome is an imperative, and for this reason an initiative like the one being proposed by the Brazilian president must be highly considered, firstly, because the civilian populations are paying too high a price, secondly because it is a war that has a global impact, and thirdly because the nuclear risk is still valid. The Brazilian mediation proposal with other countries not involved in the conflict seems to be an opportunity that neither Russia, nor Ukraine, nor Europe should reject”.

The Game to Two Sides of Lula

At the beginning of March, Lula spoke with Volodymyr Zelensky by videoconference , who took the opportunity to invite him to Kiev, to which the Brazilian president replied that he was willing to go to the Ukrainian capital at an appropriate time, adding that the return of peace would facilitate said meeting.

On that occasion, Lula expressed his readiness for any effort to bring together a group of nations willing to talk with both parties to the conflict. A few weeks earlier, breaking the tradition of abstaining in the conflict between Russia and Ukraine, Brazil voted in favor of a resolution condemning Moscow for the invasion of Ukraine, approved by 141 countries, 7 against and 33 abstentions. On the occasion, Lula stressed that “Brazil defends the territorial integrity of Ukraine.”

Brazil was the only BRICS country, along with India, Russia, China and South Africa, to vote against Russia . While India, China and South Africa abstained.

Despite his position in said vote, Lula’s two-sided game also implies having contacts with Russia. For that, he sent his main adviser on foreign relations , his former foreign minister Celso Amorín , to visit France and Russia recently.

Starting this Monday, Brazil also received the visit of the Russian Foreign Minister, Sergei Lavrov , who anticipated his visit to Latin America by publishing a letter in newspapers such as Folha de São Paulo in which he argued about the urgency of defending a multipolar world .

A few days ago, Lula told reporters at the Planalto presidential palace that “this war has gone too far” and urged China to play an active role in the peace negotiations.

“What does Putin want? He can’t keep the Ukrainian land. Perhaps the Crimea will not be discussed, but what he recently invaded is going to have to be rethought ”- Lula said and then added that“ Zelensky cannot have everything he thinks he may want either ”.

However, the peace proposal put forward by Lula was not well received by the Ukrainian authorities. The foreign spokesman, Oleg Nikolenko, although he appreciated “the efforts of the Brazilian president to find a way to stop the Russian aggression”, maintained the position of unrestricted respect for the Ukrainian sovereign territory and the recovery of Crimea as a condition for the end of the conflict.

Subsequently, the Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelensky , reinforced his position against peace. Through a video he maintained that “the world should know: respect and order will return to international relations only when the Ukrainian flag returns to Crimea.”

This recent Sunday Lula returned to the subject. “I think the construction of the war was easier than the way out of the war will be,” she said.

He then added that “President Putin does not take the initiative to stop. Zelensky does not take the initiative to stop. Europe and the United States end up contributing to the continuity of this war. I think we have to sit at a table and say enough is enough, let’s talk because the war has never brought and will never bring benefits”.

Similarly, Western countries are pressing for Brazil to limit its participation in the new BRICS bloc. For this Lula invited by the Japanese minister Fumio Kishida to visit Hiroshima, where the next meeting of the G-7, which brings together the richest economies in the world, will take place between May 19 and 21. Although it is not the first time that Lula has attended these meetings, having already participated in 2004 and 2009, the invitation responds to an effort by the United States and Europe to undermine the new multipolar pact.

Lula is also expected to take advantage of this occasion and the next scheduled visits to Portugal, Spain and the United Kingdom to promote the peace proposal.

–

This article was first published by Progressive International.