The Liberian diaspora and conflict

Why is the diaspora so crucial to originating, sustaining and ending conflicts? Have their widely criticized roles in conflicts, as supporters of insurgencies in their homelands, and as ‘long-distance nationalists’ (Anderson, 1998), on the one hand, and as peace activists, peacemakers and initiators of peace processes, on the other, been made possible by virtue of the distance between them and theatres of conflict in their homelands? To what extent are they used as proxies by host states to prosecute conflicts in their homelands? And to what extent have the ethnic and filial relations between populations in conflict, and their ethnic kinsmen, across borders mattered? Does this affinity pose a threat to state sovereignty and a key characteristic of the Weberian state – the monopoly of the use of force? These are some of the questions that readily come to mind when attempting to examine the role of the diaspora in conflicts. While it is not possible to provide answers to all of these pertinent questions, an attempt is made below to address the most relevant ones that pertain to this research and help shed further light on the Liberian diaspora's role in the fourteen-year civil conflict.

It is widely acknowledged that the diaspora has continually played a critical role in conflicts across the world. What is at contention is whether these roles are crucial to the extent that they are major determinants to continued conflict or its resurgence (Duffield, 2001; Collier, 2003; Collier and Hoeffler, 2004), or that their roles have been over-emphasized or exaggerated (Ballentine, 2003; Berdal, 2005). Østergaard-Nielsen (2006) observes that there are two main polarized views in studies of diasporas and conflict. On one hand is the dark side, which portrays diasporas as ‘long -distance nationalists’ that may perpetuate conflict through political and economic support at no risk to themselves, thereby portraying the diaspora as part of the problem, and not the solution. On the other hand, it highlights the commitment of the diaspora and exiled groups to non-violent conflict resolution, with the potential to spearhead democratization and post-conflict reconstruction processes in the home states (Østergaard-Nielsen, 2006: 1).

While these views largely capture the broad spectrum of current discourse, they do not represent the entire picture, as there is a ‘middle ground’, which highlights both the positive and negative aspects of the discourse.