Further thoughts on Libya
Issandr El Amrani | Libya Here is some reaction to some recent developments on Libya and the ongoing confusion over what the mission is, exactly. (Following on my previous questions on Libya.)
Barack Obama, presumably speaking for the United States (until Hillary Clinton decides to muddle the message):
Now, just as there are those who have argued against intervention in Libya, there are others who have suggested that we broaden our military mission beyond the task of protecting the Libyan people, and do whatever it takes to bring down Qaddafi and usher in a new government.
Of course, there is no question that Libya -– and the world –- would be better off with Qaddafi out of power. I, along with many other world leaders, have embraced that goal, and will actively pursue it through non-military means. But broadening our military mission to include regime change would be a mistake.
Incidentally I generally liked the speech, outlining as it does a flexible policy that incorporates a reluctance to dedicate too many resources to this kind of humanitarian interventionism. I largely agree with what Michael Tomasky says about it in the Guardian. Nonetheless, it is worth noting the perhaps unavoidable inconsistencies. In the same speech, Obama says:
Joining with other nations at the United Nations Security Council, we broadened our sanctions, imposed an arms embargo, and enabled Qaddafi and those around him to be held accountable for their crimes. I made it clear that Qaddafi had lost the confidence of his people and the legitimacy to lead, and I said that he needed to step down from power.
So which one is it? Does Qadhafi absolutely need to go (I agree in principle, but it's not part of the UN mandate although some beg to differ — see below)? Do you achieve that by killing him and his family (what I would support to get this done as quickly as possible), or negotiating with him? More on this at the end of this post.
David Cameron and Nicolas Sarkozy see it differently:
Britain and France have demanded that Muammar Gaddafi should stand down immediately and declared that the era of the Libyan leader is over.
On the eve of a conference on Libya in London, to be attended by more than 40 foreign ministers, Britain and France made clear they expected Gaddafi to face justice after launching attacks on Libya's civilian population.
Britain and France have clashed in the past week during the negotiations which led to an agreement to hand all aspects of the military campaign – the no-fly zone, protecting civilians threatened by Gaddafi's forces and enforcing an arms embargo – to Nato. But the two countries are keen to ensure pressure is maintained on Gaddafi by reminding the Libyan leader that UN security resolution 1970, passed last month, gave the international criminal court the authority to investigate the regime's attacks on civilians. The ICC is investigating whether war crimes have been committed.
Qatar joins France as the only country recognizing the Libyan rebels as the legitimate government:
Qatar has become the first Arab country to recognise Libya’s rebel national council as the representative of the North African nation, easing the way for the opposition to profit from oil sales on global markets.
Over the past two days, rebels have seized control of the bulk of Libya’s oil industry – including the country’s largest oilfields in the so-called Sirte basin and the main terminals – as they have pushed back Muammer Gaddafi’s forces with the assistance of Nato air strikes.
A Libyan opposition leader said that Qatar had also agreed to sell oil on its behalf in international markets – although Qatari officials were on Monday unavailable to comment on any such deal. But Washington made clear that opposition oil sales need not be subject to the sanctions imposed on Libya.
However, US Treasury officials cautioned that the rebels would have to create a payment mechanism that did not involve the Gaddafi-controlled National Oil Company, the central bank or any other government institutions.
The Qatari news agency said that the national council, which until now has only been recognised by France, had “practically become the representative of Libya and its people”.
Qatar is also supplying the rebels with fuel as supplies run low.
Russia is not happy:
Russia has expressed concern that the Nato coalition is going well beyond its UN mandate, as rebel forces and allied air strikes focus on the same targets.
Under the terms of UN Security Council resolution 1973, agreed 12 days ago, UN members are entitled to take “all necessary measures” to protect civilians under attack in Libya.
In the immediate aftermath of the resolution, Britain, France and the US specified they wanted Muammer Gaddafi to pull his forces out of the towns and cities of Misurata, Benghazi and Ajdabiya. In the past few days, however, Nato has attacked pro-Gaddafi forces elsewhere, notably around Col Gaddafi’s stronghold of Sirte, the target of a big rebel push.
Russia was quick to voice concern on Monday that the action of the past two days had gone beyond the protection of civilians. “There are reports – and nobody denies them – of coalition strikes on columns of Gaddafi’s forces; reports about support for actions by the armed insurgents,” said Sergei Lavrov, foreign minister. “We consider that intervention by the coalition in what is essentially an internal civil war is not sanctioned by the UN Security Council resolution.”
And what if the rebels won't negotiate with him, in the case of a stalemate on the ground? Brian Whitaker argued against negotiations in a Guardian debate yesterday:
Amid repeated claims that Libya could turn into another Iraq or Afghanistan, there are growing calls for a negotiated solution. Such talk at the moment serves no purpose, apart from throwing a lifeline to the Gaddafi family and helping them maintain their grip on the country, or at least some of it.
Calls for negotiation are predicated on the idea that the situation in Libya will reach a political/military impasse. It might do, but it hasn't yet – so there is no need to start behaving as if it had.
A more likely scenario, though, is that the Gaddafi regime will implode suddenly and fairly soon – in a matter of weeks rather than months or years. We should at least wait to see if that is what happens. Hardly anyone in Libya seriously believes in the leader's eccentric Green Book ideology, and most of those who currently support him can be expected to abandon him once they perceive that he is on the way out.
So the effect of negotiations at this stage would be to help the Gaddafis salvage something. That certainly seems to be the aim of the leader's son, Saif al-Islam, who has reportedly been trying to interest the US, Britain and Italy in a "transition plan". Not surprisingly, Saif's plan envisages Saif taking over from his father for a period of two to three years, while Libya is transformed from a revolutionary jamahiriyya into a liberal democracy. In the meantime, all the Gaddafis – despite their crimes over the years – would be granted immunity from prosecution.
No one would like to see Qadhafi survive this war. But is a call against negotiations a call against:
- A negotiated exit for the Qadhafis, by which they get safe passage to Venezuela or Sudan or whatever state wants them?
- Negotiations with the remnants of the Qadhafi regime once the family is mostly dead or gone?
And:
- Will the rebels be willing to negotiate with the Qadhafis? Will the rebels be willing to stop their ground attacks on Qadhafi-held towns should the Qadhafis decide to declare, for real this time, a unilateral ceasefire?
- Will the rebels be willing to negotiate with remnants of the regime — for instance what if (the notoriously bloodthirsty, etc.) Musa Kusa is left behind by the Qadhafis?
Right now, it's make-it-up-as-you-go-along. Maybe that's inevitable, but for the taxpayers financing this military adventure it's unnaceptable and undemocratic. What I'd like to see, as someone who reluctantly supports military intervention to prevent a massacre in Benghazi (but would prefer that it was carried out, even less efficiently, by the Europeans and Arabs rather than drag in America) is a few clear delimitations:
- A timetable by which the rebels have to secure their territory or drive out Qadhafi — Whitaker above says give it time before negotiations, but how much time? One or two months?
- A clearer end goal: the French and British have the merit of being clear about Qadhafi's survival not being acceptable. But then what is being done to secure that as quickly as possible? If he can't be killed or arrested, then they should be working on exile somewhere and ICC immunity. But pretending that this war isn't fundamentally about getting rid of Qadhafi is dishonest and confusing.
- A commitment not to deploy ground troops of any kind into Libya, ever — even if not doing so means the rebels lose.
Maybe today's conference in London will produce greater clarity. In the meantime, the terms of reference of this operation need to be seriously scrutinized.
Reader Comments (11)
To me it seemed clear: US Policy is that Gaddafi must go. US Military's actions on the other hand is limited by UN resolution, and thus should not go further unless new UN resolution is created.
I wish commentators would address the political realities, rather than accepting our governments' propaganda at face value. Eg (a) We are not merely enforcing a UN resolution. The UN resolution was written and tabled by the UK and France and it says what we wanted it to say. (b) We are not protecting civilians, we are supporting an armed rebellion. (c) We are not enforcing a no fly zone, we are carrying out attacks from the air on Libyan targets in support of that rebellion.
I know that, for reasons of diplomacy and propaganda, our governments cannot admit to these facts and I also accept that there are many people who believe that what we are doing is fully justified on humanitarian and other grounds.
But why do all journalists and commentators, across the whole spectrum of the press, repeat these euphamisms unquestioningly? It's so weird - particularly after the experience of Iraq - or are they just gullible? Do they believe they have a patriotic duty not to undermine our brave servicemen and women by giving any morale boost to our enemy etc?
Another joke is the continuing denial that there have been any civilian casualties at all as a result of our bombs and the lack of any interest in military casualties, which must be running into the thousands by now. Again, these may be fully justified and, of course, our governments are going to hold the propaganda line. But do journalists need to toe the same line?
It's not as though any vital UK interests are at stake. If we are there to save lives, then all lives matter. If we are not there primarily to save lives, then that's a pretty big story, isn't it?
I fear we have a flabby, spoiled press, who would let our leaders get away with anything, just as they did with Iraq. They get incensed about MPs' expenses, but spill a few thousand (Arab) lives and a few billion pounds of taxpayers' cash and no one really questions it.
Disappointing.
Quite
It is very important that Qatar supports the rebels. One of the key issues here is Arab self-determination. I have been surprised that the Arab League asked for the no-fly zone, but has placed no military support behind it.
www.democratizingegypt.blogspot.com
Sincerely, Warigia
Qatar and UAE are supporting the US and the UK, rather than the rebels. They have huge investments in the West and rely on US military power for their security. They are supporting their allies, that's all.
When the Arab League asked for a no fly zone, they thought it would was a peace-keeping measure, designed to reduce the deathtoll and deliver a message to Gaddafi to pursue dialogue with the rebels. They though it meant no one could bomb anyone in "the zone".
I suspect they are regretting what they asked for now, but would lose too much face if they reverse their position (and the West would take no notice anyway).
I agree with Robert! Truth is the first thing that dies in war...
Oh, come on. The Arab League isn't naive. There was a NFZ in its neck of the woods for over 12 years in Iraq, as well as to the north of the region in Kosovo. They know what a NFZ entails. Moussa's reversal was a face-saving flourish, a screwy attempt to have it both ways.
The Western nations and a few Arab countries are supporting ARMED REBELS, with the support of UN Sec-Gen Mr. Ban.
I have no liking for Gaddafi. Neither do I have liking for rebels, esp. armed rebels.
Western nations are taking side on this civil war.
I hope this will be the end-game:
1. Gaddafi wins initially
2. Armed rebels are destroyed
3. Western nations destroy Gaddafi
4. Aggressive Western nations destroy themselves - economically first, then politically and socially
I hope the end game is an amicable settlement and the West realises it should not intervene in places it has no business to.....however, your scenario is more probable, except for item 4. Life isn't fair.
I always thought Libya was in Africa for some odd reason, along with egypt and tunisia....I'll say this much though note the lenght of time between Khaddaffi's claim of possesion of information on the french president's election campaign funding and the first french strike and then lets do this piece over...Also, whilst Khaddaffi is no Lybian, nor African hero by any stretch of the imagination he would better serve Libya alive at least until he has repatriated all the soverign libyan money he has stashed accross the world, i mean i think that will be more important to libya's future than more bloodshed, I mean if you want a look a what happens to dictators funds when they die in exile look at Mobutus swiss money never returned to the RDC...just saying.
Dear beloved,
I address you a stranger for I believe you good and honest. I am widow of late dictator of Libya and wish to transfer US$1,000,000,000 (one trillion) from my late husbands accounts to safehands for investment and support my family. Your share is 10% of funds invested.
Please send full details of you account with power of attorney.
Bless you,
Mrs N Gaddafi
Ghana - whoops - Tripoli