The Liberian crisis is indeed an intractable conflict, the solution to which has remained elusive for too long. According to Boubacar N'Diaye, assistant professor of black studies and political science, it should be considered a test case for tackling a severe crisis in Africa and resolving it decisively to show the concern of the international community for the suffering of human beings even in a small country without significant strategic importance.

Q. What is the source of conflict in war-torn Liberia?

A. Like all conflicts, the causes of the conflict in Liberia are multiple and more or less ancient. Its roots are political as well as economic. Of course ethnic rivalries play a role, though not as central as generally believed outside of Africa. The Liberian crisis is essentially one of governance. Most observers would agree that the 1980 military coup led by Sergeant Samuel Doe was a critical event. This coup, triggered by economic hardship, displaced the Amero-Liberians elite (former enslaved Africans who returned to found Liberia) who had dominated Liberian politics for more than a century. His chaotic, ethnically based, and repressive rule led to a decade-long civil war and led to the most ruthless of guerilla leaders (Charles Taylor) to take power. He managed not only to run Liberia into the ground, but also to destabilize all of West Africa just to retain power.

Q. What can a United States peacekeeping force of 2,000 troops accomplish?

A. Though I doubt the U.S. will commit that number of troops, a U.S. peacekeeping force of just about any size can accomplish a lot. The effect is, first and foremost, psychological. Most armed groups would not wish 'to cross' any part of the military of a superpower. More importantly, it would signal that the U.S. is committed to ending that conflict. However, this assessment would be true only with Charles Taylor out of the country, a cease-fire duly signed between the parties in conflict and ECOWAS (Economic Community of West African States), and with the presence of peacekeepers from the region.

Q. Is Liberia a politically strategic country, or is the United States' involvement strictly humanitarian?

A. During the Cold War, Liberia was of strategic importance to the U.S. and the historical affinities between the two countries were also played up to further U.S. global objectives at the time. Liberia was then a valued ally and supported by the U.S.,even the unsavory regime of Doe. Liberia no longer has the same strategic importance. However, it does not help the U.S. in its current strategic objectives (defeating terrorism) to have another failed state terrorists could use as a sanctuary. The involvement of the U.S. should not be seen as being motivated by humanitarian considerations only. It is also motivated by self-interest, moral obligation, and to score political points with Africans during this trip by demonstrating concern for Africa's pressing problems.

Q. Why is President Bush insisting that Liberian President Charles Taylor leave the country?

A. Bush and his advisors understand what most West Africans (most Liberians certainly) have known for a long time - that Mr. Taylor is the main cause of Liberia's problems and of the instability in West Africa for nearly 15 years now. The president must have reached the conclusion that there can be no real solution to the Liberian crisis as long as Mr. Taylor is involved. One can add that President Bush knows that Mr. Taylor is very vulnerable, almost desperate.

Q. What are the consequences of political instability in West Africa?

A. It has been devastating to the sub-region. The list of its adverse consequences is very long indeed. Just the human toll is already staggering. Of course, no economic activity is possible without stability and some predictability. For one, investments will not flow where there is no stability. The scarce resources of the sub-region were diverted from critical sectors such as health and education to the security sector, as insecurity spread. These are only a few of the consequences of the chronic instability in which most (not all) of West Africa has been mired for too long.

Q. What message, if any, would a United States' peacekeeping force in Liberia send to neighboring nations?

A. If the U.S. were to commit peacekeepers to Liberia, and do it in the appropriate form, the effect would be very positive on neighboring states. It would signal the commitment of the U.S. to helping African states resolve at last a major source of instability for the sub-region. It would convey the message that the U.S. is ready to back its rhetoric up with concrete actions. Finally, it would also signal to all that Africa is of real import to American policymakers and that the era of 'Africa for Europeans' is over.

Q. Should the United States become more involved with other crises in Africa, particularly poverty, hunger, illiteracy, and government corruption?

A. Of course, while the U.S. cannot escape its responsibilities to Africa as the only superpower left, it has not been inclined, and frankly, cannot be involved in every crisis in Africa or alleviate every problem in that continent. However, it can do a lot to affect outcomes on the continent, often without major efforts. What the U.S. should do, whenever necessary, is show its willingness to be on the side of African peoples. A good example is the current U.S. policy in Liberia, where the U.S. has clearly chosen the Liberian people over Mr. Taylor. Thankfully, this contrasts with long-standing U.S. policy in the region, where support too often went to corrupt and repressive leaders. This support helped some of the most repressive leaders retain power leaving no alternative to their opposition but take up arms. Therein lies the root cause of instability.