The_Open_Door_deel1

xvii
economically more developed countries.
The Liberian Government shared less in the profits of foreign investments
than it had initially thought. As this study shows, the
Liberian Government owes this partially to itself by allowing 1/
long tax holidays, 2/ long exemption periods of import and export
duties, 3/ special tax tariffs for some investors and 4/ many and
large tax deductable items in cases where the investors were liable
to taxes.
On the other hand, investors sometimes abused the lack of control
by the Liberian State on their activities, resulting in tax evasion,
illegal exploitation of natural resources of the country and the
use of complicated structures which negatively affected the Liberian
Treasury. The country could not cope with this adverse situation
because of the absence of experienced administrators.
The unequal relation existing between the Liberian State and the
foreign investors can be illustrated with two striking examples:
1/ The profits retained by Firestone-Liberia after tax was paid
to the Liberian Government in 1951, still amounted to three times
the total income of the Liberian Treasury for the same year.
2/ Revenues of the "Liberia Mining Company", the country's first
iron ore mine, surpassed the total revenues of the Liberian Government
until 1960.
One of the most important conclusions of this study is that the
disappointing results of the Open Door Policy cannot be blamed
only on ignorance and the lack of knowledge on the part of Liberia
at the time of negotiations with foreign investors. They were also
caused by the fact that the Americo-Liberian minority, who was in
power, voluntarily accepted the dependence on foreign investors
and refused to cooperate and integrate with the tribal population
of the country. Because of this, the economic, as well as the
political future of the country depends on the realisation of an
acceptable combination of foreign investments, economic development
and national unification for all parties concerned.