In once-brutal war zone, a model arises

For a decade, opportunistic forces came in the form of the RUF. In 1991, RUF rebels initiated their campaign to topple the government and gain control of the country's vast diamond wealth. Three peace deals were signed and then ignored by the rebels.

Previous elections were marred by violence. In 1996, the RUF rejected the ballot. Rebels attacked voters and cut off their hands. Throughout the war, thousands of people were mutilated in RUF attacks that have left victims – mostly civilians – without arms, legs, ears, or lips.

The latest cease-fire was negotiated at the end of 2000, and in January of this year, the war was declared over.

Mr. Prendergast argues that when there is serious international engagement, combined with serious regional engagement as was the case in Sierra Leone in the late 1990s, "you have a recipe for potential success that can be replicated anywhere on the continent."

Prendergast says there is no "rational trip wire" that triggers international engagement or determines what type of engagement that will be. "It is very idiosyncratic," he says, pointing out, for example, that in Sudan and Zimbabwe, the international community has employed diplomatic efforts, not military ones. But during the Rwanda genocide, notoriously, little effort was made at all.

In Congo, meanwhile, another warring African country several times the size of tiny Sierra Leone, the UN has engaged militarily, but to a much smaller degree, sending in 5,500 UN peacekeeping troops, roughly the same number of international peacekeepers currently in Afghanistan.

Factors that affect the international community's decision to engage in a certain conflict, says Prendergast, include viability of the mission; the size and political/economic importance of the country in question; the price tag of intervention; and whether an exit strategy can be crafted.

Other criteria, such as a historic connection with the country in question – as is the case for Britain and its former colony Sierra Leone – might also be deciding factors.

"Sierra Leone is bite-size," says Martin Collins, an expert adviser with the International Military Advisory Team (IMAT), a 140-strong body from Britain, the US, Canada, Bermuda, Australia, and France who are helping retrain the Sierra Leone military. "The country, in the past, has known stability, and the government and people were eager to regain that," he says. "This was a manageable-sized mission. We felt it was a potentially do-able operation and engaged. I don't know if it would work elsewhere."

While it is too early to say "our work is done here," says Margaret Novicky, spokeswoman for the UN mission in Sierra Leone (UNAMSIL), it seems the transition has been a success. "We will continue to follow events," she says. "But assuming everything continues to go well, we will gradually cut back on troops."

"We went through hell in Sierra Leone," says Idriss Jallau, a security guard at the airport. "My old granny had her leg cut off with a cutlass by three young boys. My dad cried when he saw this – and those evil boys laughed."

The war would never have ended, says Mr. Jallau, if it had not been for the assistance of the international community. But, he adds, now things are different. "Today, we can try standing by ourselves," he says. "Even if it is just on one leg."

"When the helpful foreigners all leave," pipes in officer Bangura, as she listens to the guard, "then I will smile ... because that is when I will be sure we are back to normal."

Page: 1 | 2