Charles Taylor

Charles Taylor, former president of Liberia, has been sentenced to 50 years imprisonment at the International Court for aiding and abetting rebels in Sierra Leone during the  10 year civil war which ended in 2002.

I wasn't going to comment on this but by popular demand (Dave Phillips in Reno Nevada) I shall do so.

I say 'at' the International Court because Mr Taylor cannot be tried by them, his misdeeds having taken place before the Court was created. Instead he is being tried by the Special Court for Sierra Leone, set up by Sierra Leone under the aegis of the United Nations. The rules of this court state that the trial must take place in Sierra Leone, but in this case it was thought proper to ignore that.

I can't say I feel comfortable about all this.

Britain and America often supply arms and assistance to rebel groups - the recent overthrow of Gaddafi in Libya is a good example. The trick is to be on the winning side, which Charles Taylor was not. America, by the way, has withdrawn from the ICC, as has India.

Taylor was not present in Sierra Leone, indeed for all I know he has never been there, but has attracted the stigma of war criminal.

Doubtless there was some nasty stuff in the Sierra Leone civil war - there usually is - and doubtless Taylor is a nasty piece of work, but is what he was up to worse than our involvement in Libya or Russia's involvement in Syria? One day Assad will be ousted; will Putin and Medvedev be dragged before the court in the Hague? I don't think so.

Then there is the problem of imposing western values on other people (I have written about this before). Suppose some African tribal leader is hauled before these unelected judges, from such places, by the way, as Nigeria and Uganda, and indicted for eating missionaries. His people have always eaten missionaries, he says, indeed it is an essential tribal ritual. But no, he is guilty because British and Americans don't eat missionaries.

Mr Taylor is being tried essentially by Sierra Leone where, let's face it, they want a guilty verdict. None of this is such as to leave one feeling comfortable.

Taylor is not the sort of person you would want your daughter to marry and not the sort to invite to a dinner party. But should we have the arrogance to allow his former opponents to condemn him? My vote is no.