The only way to save lives and bring peace quickly to Libya will be a negotiated settlement, with no set pre-conditions. I was surprised at how lightly NATO dismissed the chance to resolve this crisis brokered by the African Union last week. By applying pressure to the rebels, who after all depend entirely on NATO, we surely could have convinced them to agree also to negotiate. It is simply untrue that Gadaffi has no support whatosever among the civilian population. It is estimated he has over 80% support in the highly populated cities of Tripoli, Sirte plus in the western and southern regions. One reason for this support is simple tribal loyalties, because two of the most populous tribes are called Gadaffi and Magrahi. If overwhelming western military air power plus arming and training the rebels does finally lead to the collapse of Gadaffi, who is then going protect these civilians from the revenge killings of the rebels ?
Main Ethnic groups in Libya
If NATO really wants a ceasefire, the protection of all civilians, the free access for humanitarian aid, and a political resolution leading to democratic reform, then why did they not back the African Union peace proposal for Libya ? This was precisely in line with UN resolution 1973, and Gadaffi’s acceptance of these proposals could simply have been tested with a pause in the air campaign. It was already apparent that NATO air power was playing an active support role in the rebellion (insurgency), and now this seems to have been made explicit with the new Obama/Cameron/Sarkozy statement. NATO and to some extent UN hierarchy had already taken sides – the hidden objective seemingly always was regime change, no matter what resolution 1973 says. If as stated we were genuinely concerned about protecting Libyan lives – then we would have seized the opportunity for an AU negotiated ceasefire. Instead our leaders backed up the rebels total rejection of the plan, stepped up the attacks on Gadaffi’s military resources, and humiliated the AU. Libya has been an active and consistent member of the AU supporting African interests and not just Arab interests throughout the last 30 years. Do we even really know who are the rebels ? Are they the libertarian Democrats we would all hope them to be, or are many of them Islamists with a different view of the world – who once in power will turn against us later ? The Danes should remember that these same “rebels” also demonstrated against the Julands Post cartoons in Bengazhi, and it was this anniversary which triggered the riots. It is a big gamble which we are taking, as we already see happening in Egypt where the Muslim Brotherhood influence grows daily, and in Tunisia – where attacks continue on women’s rights and 25,000 migrants already have fled to Lampedusa.
I fear that we have already humiliated the African Union, but this must change as eventually it can only be them or the Arab League that can reach a political solution. Can we even be sure that a victory for the rebels essentially enabled by NATO military power will not end up consequently bringing a massacre to those civilians who support Gadaffi in Sirte and Tripoli ? William Hague asserts that we are there only to protect civilians, but then in the same sentence states there can be no future in Libya until Gadaffi’s regime goes. Hence it is seemingly spin that we should attack just Gadaffi’s forces when they make advances – but not the rebels when they threaten, for example, civilians in Gadaffi’s birthplace of Sirte. And just how do we define which civilians we are protecting? Just the “innocent” ones ( presumably the rebels with kalashnikovs and their supporters) – certainly it seems not to be the “guilty” ones ( i.e. Gadaffi forces and those supporting him). NATO pilots face little danger as they fly 10,000 feet up and take out 25 tanks in just one day – presumably killing all the tank crews. Each one of those soldiers also has a wife, family and children. We know that Gadaffi has done some terrible things in the past, but are we really sure these rebels are the good guys we would like them to be ?
Wikipedia Quotes: “Fifty loyal mercenaries and two Libyan conspirators were executed by protesters in Al Bayda. Other conspirators were killed in Derna after protesters captured them, locked them up in a prison, and then burned it down.[Owen Bocott, Guardian Feb 18]” Libyan rebels hanged at least two suspected pro-Gadhafi fighters in the chaotic early days of the uprising, witnesses say, revealing for the first time a bitter struggle within the rebellion about how to contain the anger unleashed after decades of oppression. The full extent of revenge killings in eastern Libya is unknown. Near the coastal city of Darna, locals say they discovered a heap of bodies in the badlands south of town, where at least a dozen men appeared to have been executed with gunshots to the head.” Presumably these actions will also be investigated by the UN courts when this war is all over ?
From the Guardian Today: Barack Obama, David Cameron and Nicolas Sarkozy, warn that it would be “an unconscionable betrayal” if Gaddafi remained in power. “Our duty and our mandate under UN security council resolution 1973 is to protect civilians, and we are doing that,” the three leaders said. “It is not to remove Gaddafi by force. But it is impossible to imagine a future for Libya with Gaddafi in power.”
Is that letting the Libyan people decide their own future? Do they even understand the ethnic, tribal, and historical background in Libya? How does democracy fit in here ?
Russia’s foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov, said the Libya crisis needed a political solution that should be led from the region, particularly by the African Union, rather than outside it. “There is no magic bullet,” he said. Asked about whether Nato should boost military operations to oust Gaddafi, Lavrov said: “The UN has not authorised regime change.”
This civil war must eventually end with some sort of negotiation. The longer it goes on the more dangerous it gets and the more lethal the reprisals and killings are likely to follow whoever eventually prevails.
France, UK and US stating that they will continue to increase military action against Gadaffi’s regime, because they cannot be allowed to play any part in their countries future is pure brinkmanship. Their rhetoric has now boxed them in because they know that their domestic political credibility is at stake if Gadaffi is not overthrown. Despite this, it is still not too late with a bit of political courage ….. they can still keep their faces in tact and win international credit by seeking a political solution rather than a pure military one.
The African Union can and should still play a major role in negotiating an eventual solution. They have the background ethnic knowledge and regional impartiality.
