5 questions few are asking about Libya
Issandr El Amrani | Libya Not to rain on anyone's parade, but while I'm glad that the multinational intervention is giving cover to Libyan insurgents, I'm rather shocked at the desultory coverage of what might come out of the military intervention. A tragedy has been taking place in Libya, whose people deserve help, but that doesn't mean not thinking through consequences. Here's a shot at it:
1. UNSC Resolution 1973 isn't really about getting a ceasefire, is it?
Not really. Even if Qadhafi were to produce a real ceasefire, which is unlikely, the rebels would not observe it: they would keep trying to topple the regime. This resolution, under the guise of obtaining a ceasefire, seeks to carry out regime change. It would get even more complicated as the Libyan government headed by Qadhafi remains legitimate under international law, and thus can be argued to have law enforcement duties to implement against armed insurgents. This resolution is not just about preventing a massacre of civilians, it's about taking sides. The Qadhafi regime is over as far as the international community is concerned, and mission creep will ensure that things will swiftly move from imposing a no-fly zone to more direct efforts, including ground missions. This might be good for the insurgents, might split them, and might not be so good for the countries leading the intervention. Time will tell.
2. But what if Qadhafi hangs in there, and there's a stalemate?
Well, prolonged civil war happens. But it's not clear whether this is a likely outcome, particularly if there are such stringent sanctions and travel restrictions on regime officials. There could a "liberated zone" and a Qadhafi-controlled zone for a while, with ongoing skirmishes. Western and Arab supplies of weapons to the insurgents would likely increase (Egypt is already supplying them). Although the insurgents have insisted on a united Libya, the fact is that historically there is strong regionalism in the country. A split could perdure, backed by both the regime's control through force and genuine tribal support in its favor. The international community could be moved to escalate the mission to make it officially regime change, or push other actors (some would like that to be Egypt) to intervene directly. Some openly advocate for Egypt to invade Libya. I liked the idea of regional powers acting as regional policemen, but no one has asked Egypt whether it wants that role. It also has to think about thousands of Egyptians the regime might hold hostage there.
3. What happens if Qadhafi is toppled but the remnants of the regime, perhaps backed by some measure of tribal or other popular support, remains in place?
The best way to end the bloodshed would clearly be to decapitate the Qadhafi regime, something the insurgents are probably not able to do for now and the international community is likely to refrain from carrying out initially, although things are almost certain to head that way. If so, splits in the international community would resurface — this would be a major violation of the principle of sovereignty. But in a sense the West and the Arabs have already backed the rebels. It gets more complicated in the Qadhafis are gone, both Westerners and Arabs may be ready to deal with regime remnants (particularly if they play a role in getting rid of the Qadhafis) but the insurgents may not want anyone associated with the former regime in place. So prolonged civil war is one possible outcome, yet again. This is why some kind of recognized leadership for the insurgency that is able to negotiate with whoever comes after Qadhafi is necessary.
4. What if the insurgents don't want to negotiate?
Once empowered, the insurgents will naturally want to go all the way and topple Qadhafi. I totally support them in that endeavor. But we don't know much about them, or how they might behave towards non-combatants that back the Qadhafi regime. I'm sure any violence against civilians by insurgents will be ignored by the intervention force in the fog of war, but this is possible only to a certain extent before it becomes embarrassing, particularly as UNSC Resolution 1973 gives a mandate to protect civilians from everybody, not just the Qadhafi regime. Sometimes the good guys can be bad guys, as we saw in Darfur (both in terms of the stalled peace process and in terms of the actions of certain Darfuri groups).
5. What is the most desirable outcome?
Obviously, to see Qadhafi toppled. But that's only step one. We don't know what the insurgents want aside from a Qadhafi-free Libya. We don't know what Western powers (if they are united on this) want to see. We don't know what the Arabs want to see. Libya will get increasingly porous and subject to external interference as well as possible splits on the inside. Ideally, a new government emerge that is generally seen as legitimate by Libyans and works to prevent further splits, paving the way for the creation of a new political system (a constitution, parliament, etc.) I really hope this happens, but we can't realistically expect it to be easy. We just don't know what the political forces are on the ground.
Reader Comments (34)
Actually, many are asking these questions. But few are answering them so intelligently. Your predicted scenarios are interesting.
Really interesting and intelligent analysis. Thanks as always.
"We don't know what the insurgents want aside from a Qadhafi-free Libya."
Actually we do, at least the ones in leadership positions have repeatedly said they want a democratic Libya as a country of institutions under the rule of law with freedom of expression. We could assume they are lying or just take such statements at face value. Statements a lot of Libyans in the east have made.
This 'just war' started exactly 8 years after the Iraq war. It follows the 72+8 years cycle of economical crashes and splendid little wars, engine of the industrial r=evolution of machines, we forecasted 20 years ago... Some of those wars are blatant interferences some are just but the point is wars and the financial-military-industrial complex follows the famous short cycle of the product (8 years) and long kondratieff cycle of longer crashes. 'pecunia bellum nervi' Tacitus
www.economicstruth.com
how did the people of Libya become "insurgents"? I mean, under what definition have they become so? I see them as citizens who refuse to live under qaddafi's rule anymore after 42 years. There are many reasons to render their wish legitimate, over and above the fact that they are the people and they so please!
I don't think there are full tribes in favor of qaddafi. Maybe there are people benefiting from his being in power, as was the case with some baathists in Iraq, but by now he's managed to kill people from different tribes and from what I hear nobody's backing him anymore. If any tribes were backing him they would've fought by his side. There is no evidence supporting that. What seems to be the case is that there are tribes unable to fight against him because they don't have weapons and/or he is holding members hostage. In fact, some officers from different tribes were found executed when they refused to shoot at their fellow Libyans.
You're comment is bullshit. Easy to say from a blow-job-warmed couch in London. While some remarks may be acurate, you dont know. Obviously you're not Liban, and if you are..... you got your ass pumped with oil
A response on each of your points. First, UNSC 1973 could have produced a ceasefire, if Gaddafi would actually cease firing. That's what I thought he was planning to do, bait the rebels into a response via heavy shelling and then cry foul. Nope. Now this operation is about regime change, period.
Second, it's going to take just a couple of days of airstrikes for his mercs and tank units to crack. These are not very powerful assets in the grand scheme of things, and they are going to get hammered in the desert terrain until they withdraw/scatter/surrender.
Third, Gaddafi is the regime. He and his sons control everything. There's little chance of "remnants" here as long as his tribe is dealt with fairly by the other tribes.
Fourth, the freedom fighters have shown captured prisoners being treated well, although there was a lynching of two mercenaries in Al Bayda near the start of the uprising.
Fifth, what we want to see is the Gaddafi regime disintegrated and replaced by the TNC in Benghazi, which has pledged to step down and hold elections in 6 months.
Sadiq, why are you angry about a simple comment
Hey sympathize with them too Mandy. They are insurgents because they are revollting against the established govt. I am not attaching any connotation to the word.
The rebels are just CIA paid mercenaries and former Gaddafi turncoats who want to stay in power. Of course their 'cannon fodder' contains naive people that want real freedoms, but the leaders are cynical opprtunists. I expect a 'heaven on earth' like in Iraq and Afghanistan where a few of the 'rebels' are rewarded with positions of power by the west and the rest are forced to scratch around in the dirt to survive.
The proof that the west controls them is in their demand for a 'No Fly Zone' when it was obvious that a No Fly Zone wouldn't have protected them at all if it was just a plan to deny Gaddafi the use of aircraft. They were getting easily beaten on the ground, with the planes doing very little damage. The 'No Fly Zone' does benefit the west though and such a thing allowed the US and it's allies (France is just pushed out first so it doesn't look that obvious that the US is at it again) to push through the resolution at the UN. Had the rebels asked for more, then it wouldn't have happened.
They knew what Gaddafi was like. They should have negotiated a transition rather than trying to just overthrow him. He was never going to let his pride allow him to run away just like that. Better would have been to allow Gaddafi to save face and step down under some pretext like ill health etc. and let his son manage a transition to democracy. All this BEFORE starting to protest and attack government installations.
Issandr: It feels negative to me. I could be wrong. The qaddafi government is no longer the established one so let's think of a new term :-)
Mariusz: The National Interim Provisional Council are not the ones who started the revolution. They merely joined and promised to leave in 6 months. To answer your next question: we'll just have to wait and see. So far they've done well and stuck by the Libyan youth.
Where does it say or show that the Libyan fighters were beaten on the ground? My information says that qaddafi's troops either surrender, defect or flee. They don't have a cause, as it turned out. Thank God it's not only a No-Fly Zone and that his tanks can be neutralized, as well, because he was using tanks and airplanes + grad and other prohibited weapons against people with little or no military training of experience and little or no light weapons.
Mariusz: If I remember correctly they were trying to peacefully protest asking for reform when they were attacked with anti-aircraft weapons and that's when they started asking him to leave. Excuse me, but where does it say that a people who have been attacked and killed should stop and think about the pride of the person supposed to serve their interests not his.
IT IS A SHAME TO HAVE ALLOWED THAT RABBISHLY MAD MAN TO GOVERN LIBYA FOR 40 YEARS-ANYONE & ANY SITUATION WILL BE BETTER
"We don't know what the insurgents want aside from a Qadhafi-free Libya".
Aside from that common objective, 'the insurgents' are probably far more diverse than what international media depicts. All the revolutionary Libyans whant a Jalil government with strong Western influence? A liberal version of the Arab police state, containing again African migration to Europe as well as safeguarding Western interests in the region? Doubtful, given the winds of change that are sweeping the Mediterranean...and hopefully soon also in fearful, colonial-minded Europe.
You are kind o person that sees problems everywhere. I am from ex-dictatorship country I according to my experience parts of the overthrown regime either accept new rules of the game, or go to retirement. Those who committed crimes will be brought to justice (for example military commanders who ordered bombing of the civilians, and I think we all agree that they should be brought to justice). Top regime figures must leave the country or die, because they TORTURED PEOPLE for so long that they deserve nothing but the death.
Text like yours happen when someone who has never lived under dictator power writes about revolutions and human rights. Game rules are different. You can't apply western democratic game rules to a country in which ruling regime molested it's own people for such a long time. Everyone who has benefited from Gaddafi regime should be punished, either by taking it's wealth, or by leaving the country. There will be few crimes committed after the insurgents get to power, but it will be nothing compared to crimes that regime did to the people.
It is very important that international community ends its representatives in to the Lybia once insurgents get to power (something like in Bosna and Hercegovina after the war). It is important so that revolution leaders would not establish another dictatorship.
Looking at how the west turned Iraq into a very violent, infighting hotbed of unrest. Is this what Libya has to look forward to?
I hope not and it would be wonderful to see a real democracy that is free from outside interests. But is the UN action about freedom for the people of Libya? To say "yes" would be incredibly naive. They HAVE indeed chosen sides. Again... the real meter for democracy seems to be ... "does the country have oil?". Look at Israel for proof. Nobody is asking for removal of the leaders there. Even after so much bloodshed and illegal occupation.
On a side note, why did Qadhafi and his armies not just enter Benghazi without bloodshed under the flag of a ceasefire and 'occupy' it with mass rallies. Without shooting. The rebels would have had to fire and so he could then 'defend' ... anyway, I am glad that he didn't.
Tom. Britain would have to pay billions then.
How can you say that those are unarmed or poorly armed civilians when they have tanks, artillery, anti-aircraft weapons and even combat aircraft?
The same guys who were constantly asking for a no-fly zone were the first one to break it?
The same no-fly zone no one asked for when the rebels were on the advance, taking city after city not with the idea but with guns. Not to mention that no one from rebel side wanted any discussions, hey, they were on a winning streak.
And then the rebels got kicked out of Bin Jawwad in just one day. Why, what happened with local support? Maybe this article helps:
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/mar/08/world/la-fg-libya-rebels-20110308
Only after they started loosing on the battlefield they rememberd to ask for a no-fly zone, and intervention from their western sponsors. Jeez, that really looks... childish.
So now the situation on the battlefield has changed again. This very strange alliance of western powers, Saudi-led states, extreme islamic fundamentalists, ex-Gaddafi officials - opportunists, and "useful idiots" has the upper hand. They will probably prevail, and then you'll have a new Libya (or maybe two or three).
Guys from Darnah and Benghazi will make sure that new Libya is a secular state and that women's rights are respected. Don't know about them? Read this West Point report:
http://www.ctc.usma.edu/harmony/pdf/CTCForeignFighter.19.Dec07.pdf
Those rebels that killed a number of unfortunate black Africans that got stuck in the middle of this conflict will bring multiculturalism.
Others, who killed all those pro-government civilians in "liberated" cities will bring freedom of speach and tolerance.
Ex-Gaddafi turncoats will make sure corruption is kept to a minimum.
Self-appointed leaders of the rebellion will bring fair elections... where you'll be able to choose between couple of hand-picked candidates. Unless they go after each other's throats once they feel the sweet taste of power.
Those who cried for outsiders to bomb and kill their fellow countryman will bring Libya into a new era of national unity, seeking ways to reduce divisions and tribalism.
And the France, GB and US will make sure that you have free education, free healthcare and good social program, cause that's what they have back home. In exchange, they will take just a small percentage of your oil revenues... 90% if you're lucky.
Enjoy this 100 year setback of libyan society.
This analysis is naive as to the real reasons behind the intervention.
I suppose you are correct that we "do not know" what the Arab countries want for Libya, but we can make some troubling inferences. The Saudi intervention in Bahrain points to a decision by Riyadh (and Washington???) to foment counterrevolution (http://mwcnews.net/focus/analysis/9291-riyadh-foments-counterrevolution.html and update at http://shadowedforest.blogspot.com/2011/03/mideast-counterrevolution-takes.html).
The Saudi intervention and Saleh's instant copycat tactics in Yemen suggest that a split is emerging in the Arab world between whatever societies manage to erect popular regimes and the recalcitrant old guard. Let us hope that the Spanish Civil War does not become the proper analogy for Libya.
Another question that needs to be considered is what happens when the coalition forces accidentally kill civilians either on the pro- or anti-Gaddafi sides because it is bound to happen. Do the anti-Gaddafi forces understand that there may be friendly fire deaths and will they accept them or will it turn them against the coalition?
Also, how about calling the sides anti-Gaddafi forces and pro-Gaddafi forces? That avoids the semantic arguments around rebels, insurgents, etc.
I appreciate the original article and the discussion that follows. My comments come out of living for several years in places other than Canada - 6 months in Iraq in late 2003, and 3 years in Zambia in the late 1990's. In both locations I spent a lot of time talking to nationals about their situation, why it was what it was, etc.
It was our observation that the situation in Iraq deteriorated in large part for two reasons: 1) the governing power that took over after the fall of the regime had their own economic agenda, and 2) they did not understand Iraqi society sufficiently. Another way of framing it was that the problem was that it was a foreign occupation, not a local liberation. Things look better for Libya (for now) from that perspective.
On the other side of the coin, local liberation movements in Africa have by and large not resulted in improvements for the citizenry. Those who led rebel movements wanted more than just a chance to compete for President of the country - they wanted the Presidency by whatever means it took to get it. As President Chiluba of Zambia said in the first week of power (he won an election against Kaunda who'd been the post-colonial President for 30 years), 'Power is Sweet'. This, and many other reasons, mitigate against a quick and easy transition to democracy, especially in a country of several competing tribes who don't trust each other.
Peaceful democracy comes most often out of a slow democratizing process. It takes time. America achieved democracy by means of an armed revolution, but that is the exception, not the rule.
Those are my thoughts to this point.
" We don't know what Western powers (if they are united on this) want to see. " .......... the writer of this article sums up in this one sentence , that appears in the last paragraph , the confusion that many people have about american intentions in Libya and americas views on rebellion and revolution in general . America views rebellion and revolution uniquely and differently than any other country ( with the possible exception of France ) . America has a different history than other " western " countries , and a different perception when it comes to sovereignty and revolution ......... if you consider the fact that America would not be independent from the British if it were not for the French who came to our rescue we would without a doubt still be subject to a king today , so we view intervention in international revolutions as entirely acceptable and legitimate in itself ........... also ( and in this view we have more support ) we view the government only as legitimate if the people of that government support it , the legitimacy is determined by the people of any country . if the people do not support the government we see that government as illegitimate . and those who support the regime we think they are doing this out of fear . this leader has used fear to manipulate people in the past . america is definately taking sides and definately support the revolutionaries .
Internet is what started all this. Internet is the real battleground. Instead of sending armies, we should reinforce the virtual space. More eyes on the ground, journalists, mobile phones with cameras (drop them form the air). Collect evidence centrally and let judges look at it. Find ways of checking observations.
The international community should work harder to check, collect and present evidence to back up it's actions.
America has achieved INDEPENDENCE by armed means, not democracy.
There was already a more-less democratic parliamentary system in the Great Britain homeland. Just not in the colonies. The elite creating the US of A understood/lived in it, as well as most of the literate. Also, the war and later a continuing threat of foreign invasion had a HUGE uniting effect on the colonies preventing further civil wars.
If there could be a democracy in Libya, more specifically in Western Libya, it is if its tribes voluntarily unite, and achieve a military stalemate favorable enough to them to sustain them economically. Then there might actually come a democracy out of such a Tripolitanian union.
I do not believe a democracy is possible in Cyrenaica after the past month. The corrupt and radical elements have already hijacked the momentum and they will not relinquish power voluntarily. In will be for another generation, not remembering the civil war of 2011, to start a new rebellion and remove them. That is, if the new Cyrenaican masters, the EU, would allow such. That I doubt could happen until there is oil in there.
And all that above, is the optimistic scenario.
As for what the western powers would like to get?
Look no further than Saudi Arabia. But Nigeria or even Iraq (without the ground force) would do, as far as they are concerned.
From an informed observer.