Should the United States Have Intervened in Sierra Leone?

United States Intervention

            In 1961, the United States and Sierra Leone established diplomatic relations. Since then, the United States has aided the people of Sierra Leone in multiple ways, the most recent being during the Ebola outbreak in 2014. However, the United States was silent when the Revolutionary United Front (RUF), originating from Libya, entered the country in pursuit of diamonds in the early 1990s. For eleven years, the RUF terrorized the people of Sierra Leone, killing and cutting off the limbs of thousands. During this time, the United States was silent. Therefore, the question remains; should the United States have done more to help Sierra Leone or was it wise of the United States to keep their distance? A simple answer to this question is that it was wise for the United States to stay out of the conflict.

            It is important to mention that, in 1997, the United Nations Security Council placed sanctions against Sierra Leonne, and in 1999, the United Nations finally intervened. However, this was eight years after the beginning of the conflict, and the damage had already occurred. Also, getting a unanimous decision in the Security Council as to what to do about the conflict in Sierra Leone would have been extremely difficult to do because of the veto power of China and Russia. It does not mean the United States should have bypassed the United Nations though.

            As stated before, the United States and Sierra Leone do have diplomatic relations. However, having diplomatic relations with a country is a lot different than having a formal alliance with them. Alliances hold a more profound meaning because ties are stronger, especially when one is in need. On the other hand, diplomatic relations are merely friendly communications between two states, and the bond between these countries is not nearly as strong. Therefore, the United States was under no obligation to intervene on behalf of the Sierra Leonne government.

            It was also arguably better the United States did not send troops in to help fight the RUF. In the past, United States intervention has not led to a better government in the area, nor seen more peace. Although the civil war in Sierra Leonne happened before, the United States intervention in the Middle East after 9/11 could be an indicator as to what would have occurred in Sierra Leonne had the United States entered. Had the United States intervened, it is quite possible that they would try to take the lead in every aspect of the fighting. Thus, when the conflict was finally over, the United States would have felt that it was their obligation to “put the country back.” Had this happened, Anti-Americanism would have been a significant consequence.

            As seen in the Middle East, the United States’ intervention has seen a rise in terrorist organizations and attacks. While the Americans thought they were helping, the citizens of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Syria had a growing distrust in them. Had the United States intervened in Sierra Leone, this same reaction could have been a consequence.

            In the end, the United Nations applied sanctions on Sierra Leone which soon led to the conclusion of the civil war. Although the United Nations should have done something sooner, rather than waiting eight years to intervene, applying sanctions was the best option. For the United States, not intervening meant no American lives were lost, and anti-Americanism did not grow in the region.