WESSEH: I work for the Center for Democratic Empowerment. The Center for Democratic Empowerment in Liberia.

INTERVIEWER: And what is the -- I'll wait for these people to pass by behind you. Tell me, what is the mission of the Center for Democratic Empowerment?

WESSEH: We're about promoting the culture of democracy in Africa, paying particular attention to the situation in West Africa. And that includes a whole range of issues. In that sense, we are a multidisciplinary organization.

INTERVIEWER: You are a nongovernmental organization?

WESSEH: We are a nongovernmental organization.

INTERVIEWER: Tell me about the role of small arms, both in Liberia and in the conflicts you've experienced there, and in West Africa more broadly.

WESSEH: Well, we're very much concerned about small arms in Liberia, West Africa, and the continent as a whole. For good reasons, as you well know. In Liberia, we saw 150,000 people being killed in the period of seven years, seven years war. And most of those people died from small arms, from the action of small arms, the fear small arms induce, the displacement it caused, diseases, the hunger, and all that.

Because of that, our initial set of activities had to do with disarmament of the warring parties. Disarming them with the help, and encouraging the peacekeeping force, the West African peacekeeping force, and the United Nations monetary group.

We followed that by determining and participating, as well as assisting, in the settlement of the leadership question. And we felt that should be settled through elections instead of the force of arms. Followed by post-election reconciliation.

INTERVIEWER: Where does that process stand today?

WESSEH: Well, the disarmament process, first there had to be cease-fire. There had to be a measure of disarmament before elections. That wasn't totally successful, I must say. The peacekeeping force admitted that. I'm sure the United Nations people who observed the process would also admit that it wasn't that successful.

One of the leaders of the warring factions won the elections. Part of the reasons had to do with the level of arms that existed, the fear existed. And therefore, we all know that in order to have a reasonably fair elections, we should do more about the --

[Recording interruption]

INTERVIEWER: So again, you were telling me about efforts at -- after the election, about the impact of weapons on the election process there.

WESSEH: Well, basically what I've been saying is that there has been a negative impact of weapons, light weapons, on the peace building process in Liberia. In the first instance, it was because of light weapons that so many people got killed and so much destruction, and the disease and hunger that are the defect of fear. Running in the displacement into refugees camp, over half of the -- about half of the population in the refugee camps.

So that's the -- the wit of that.

Then into the election process, which is supposed to help to settle the leadership question, we've found that light arms -- the fear of that, of light arms -- led to an election which was free, but wasn't fair. It was free because people didn't have arms hanging around the place. On the day of the election, there were no such arms.

But those who voted knew that the arms were right in the corner, and therefore, they voted for the one who they perceived had the biggest arms, and the lightest number of arms. Now, that affected the results of the elections.

We say that the arms are still in our society, and they're being used by security forces who themselves require some training. Therefore with that presence, with that fear, it undermines democratic building, democracy building. And we are active in removing, campaigning for the removal of the kind of arms we're talking about. We like to see a society where our children will not be inundated, and be -- you know, addicted to arms.

INTERVIEWER: In West Africa, in Liberia, you say the area -- the entire region is awash with light weaponry. How -- what are some of the steps, or mechanisms, you think would be the first steps that might be effective in reducing the number, or [inaudible]?

WESSEH: Well, I think one of the first things should be, you know, the pressure from countries where the arms are -- where the arms come from. I think --

INTERVIEWER: I'm going to keep interrupting rudely. Don't mind me.

WESSEH: Yeah.

INTERVIEWER: Just start that sentence over again. Say that same thing again, straight through.

WESSEH: We would like to see the end to the flow of arms from the countries of the north, especially. And from anywhere else to conflict zones, especially the areas in West Africa, and the Great Lakes region in north . We think that is the first step.

The other step is to continue to put pressure on the governments and the states where the arms are already existing to insure that they, as part of development assistance, they remove arms from their system. They must demonstrate that they are committed to removing arms as part of the demands for development assistance, the conditions for development assistance.

We think that is very crucial. That's a first step.

INTERVIEWER: It seems that in -- in Liberia, that having the gun led to political power. It proved there is value to having the most, you know, military strength. How do you go about devaluing the role of small arms in the process?

WESSEH: Well, I think that if one does reflect now in the country, the most recent assembly of Liberians, the biggest assembly of Liberians since the election, and probably for a long time, in an atmosphere of dialogue, was a national conference. And one of the key issues raised at the national conference, organized by the government, was the issue of small arms, the issue of the security people, security services carrying arms, brandishing them, widespread display of arms, and the feel that it invokes.

So therefore, it's not fashionable any more to go around and carry arms. If elections were held as to whether one would carry arms or not, people would vote against it.

People have now gotten over the fear, the fear of those who have arms not giving peace, and therefore should have power. They realize that it is -- it's counter to freedom. It's counter to their own democratic aspirations.

INTERVIEWER: And that's message is flowing upwards?

WESSEH: I think it's coming from ground to up, and in some cases, have compelled the government, a government which came to power through seven years of the use of arms, now realize that there is nothing to bluff about. There is nothing to go home and talk about.

INTERVIEWER: Do you feel that -- we often hear these conflicts separately, Liberia, Sierra Leone, the great lakes even further, but do you think something needs to be addressed on a more broad, regional basis because of refugee flows and the interconnectedness between these countries?

WESSEH: I think that is a question which is so pressing that we, in our activities, don't just talk about Liberia. We talk about the subregion.

The Liberian conflict spilled over in Sierra Leone. The Liberian conflict has impact on Guinea, on Ivory Coast, on the other countries beyond Liberia. We often say that the Liberian conflict is a -- it just happened, it's a West African -- it's a, it's an African -- it's an international conflict that is playing itself out in Liberia. And therefore, the reverberations are going beyond Liberia.

To resolve it in Liberia, is to resolve the problem in Sierra Leone, and to resolve the problem in Sierra Leone is about dealing with the problem in Guinea, in L'Cote d'Ivoire. And therefore, we have to deal with the problem in a holistic way, dealing with the countries of the subregion. And countries, like the United States, and other powers, should consider the problem in this light. And therefore, take action that will be, in the whole, dealing with the flow of arms in the subregion, the development assistance linked to the use of arms, to the display of arms, to the of arms existing. You know

INTERVIEWER: So conditionality.

WESSEH: There must be conditionality.

INTERVIEWER: What about issues that contribute to demand? A lot of people say it's demand-driven, that there's inequality, or impunity; that people take justice into their own hands. Do you think that that would be one avenue to approach, or is that cart before the horse?

WESSEH: Well, yes. Demand from the side of the oppressed. The one who is affected by the policies of government. And especially when government forces, security forces, are seen using the arms against ordinary people in ways that require a response, an adequate response. That is where the demand is.

That demand also comes from the level of poverty, the level of segregation, the level of alienation that -- the question of ethnic tensions in our community. These things lead to people looking for ways to force it.

But I must warn that while there are legitimate grievances on the part of sections of society for which they require -- they revolt, there are elements, including criminal elements, who take advantage of the legitimate grievances of the people to take up arms and compel society to recognize their commonality as something worthy, only because it provides them more legitimacy.

So as the Canadian Foreign Minister alluded to, we see a situation of criminalization of political issues, or the politicization of criminals. Now, in our parts of the world, some of the things we've experienced is legit. How many people who have some criminal intentions link with their kind in the north, who act as arms brokers of suspicious and unscrupulous businessmen interact.

So you have a flow of timber, diamonds, gold, to this north, and then come arms coming to elements who with this kind of trade, and with some extra money in their pockets.

INTERVIEWER: Can you speak more to that? That's very interesting, and often overlooked is the economic links to the riches of these countries. People tend to think of it, oh, it's rebel groups, you know, political this or that, but there are outside groups seeking the natural resources in the area. How do they impact on the small arms issue there?

WESSEH: Well, as I've been saying, it's basically that kind of business, where they continue to benefit from these resources. Oftentimes, businesses that do not have second degrees of legitimacy, but feed into legitimate organizations, business organizations in Europe and America. So you have these fly-by-night businessmen, who are really criminals, you know, doing business with their kind, who -- groups of people calling themselves rebel leaders of one sort or the other.

Now, let me be -- let me be clear. There are some genuinely serious cases where rebel leaders are fighting for a cause. I am not denying that fact. But I'm saying, quite often we are now finding that people who are criminals, or who have criminal intentions, have sense -- some kind of way accumulation, linked with their kind in Europe, in this kind of trade. And they ordinarily would not have led a cause but for legitimate grievances in society, grievances sometimes created by the kind of power structure that exists, by inadvertently, the fall out from the [inaudible] practices, the fallout from a certain kind of economic activity, the fallout from -- you know, by the support we give to dictatorship. You know.

So these other things are fertile ground for criminal elements to enter the picture.

Now, I think that countries where these resources go a duty to begin mechanisms, putting into place mechanisms, to control this flow of resources. At least, they should ask where the timber is coming from. Where the diamonds are coming from. Where the gold is coming from.

In that way, they would know how much they are contributing to the conflict from the source of those resources. They should be able to put into place mechanisms to persecute those elements who are the arms brokers. You know. They should -- they should be able to prosecute those kind of dubious business people who are involved in this kind of trade, and not -- I think, to close their eyes when governments in Europe and America, or anywhere else, close their eyes. Then they are only abetting the criminality that is taking place on our soil.

INTERVIEWER: So you think there is something that the governments of developed countries could do to clamp down on this process?

WESSEH: Certainly. The timber diamonds and gold we're talking about don't go anywhere else. They come to Europe, Western Europe, and the United States, I think.

INTERVIEWER: And it's an unregulated --

WESSEH: They're unregulated, uncontrolled. You know. It gets ridiculous.

INTERVIEWER: Right.

WESSEH: And make us helpless. And the more helpless we become, the more people find ways to address it. There are -- that's where you find the attraction among young people to believe that, Well, you ought to join an group and participate in a looting of your own country. You know.