THE GREAT LIBYAN POLITICAL CRISIS……..AN OVERVIEW INTO THE PAST, PRESENT AND FUTURE

The crisis in Libya comes in the context of wider unrest throughout the Middle East and North Africa. The surge of what looks like spontaneous and ground up pro-democracy protests has been spreading throughout a region long controlled by authoritarian regimes from left and right of the political spectrum, and both pro and anti-West.

            Since Libya’s Muammar Qaddafi came into power over 40 years ago in a coup, he has been seen as an international pariah and his brutal willingness to kill civilians that threaten his position has been clear for all to see. Yet, until the recent crisis, the West had been opening up to him and was keen to do (mostly oil and some arms) business with him — as they have been with various others in the region.

            Peaceful protests against the Qaddafi regime in February resulted in a violent crackdown. As the situation quickly escalated ordinary citizens took up arms to help free themselves from Qaddafi’s brutal regime. Despite some military defections, the opposition has generally been a disorganized and out-gunned rebel force.

            As Qaddafi’s forces increasingly targeted civilians the opposition appealed to the international community for a no-fly zone to limit or prevent the bloodbath that Qaddafi threatened.

            The West appears to have responded with what looks like a genuine humanitarian intervention attempt. Yet, when looked at a bit more deeply, there are many murky — often contradictory — issues coming to the fore that complicate the picture.

THE PRESENT LIBYA

            Libya is has the largest oil reserves in Africa. The U.S. Energey Information Administration cites 44.3 billion barrels proven reserves, as of 2010 (the next up: Nigeria at 37.2 and Algeria at 12.2 bbl). Libya kept its crown jewels off limits to foreigners. The huge onshore oil fields that accounted for the bulk of its production remained the preserve of Libya's state companies. Yet without advanced foreign technology to improve oil-recovery rates, output at these big fields gradually declined, by as much as 6% a year in some cases.

           

            Libya's state-run oil companies have generally excluded Western corporations, and external economic sanctions have both hampered full exploitation of oil in the 1990s. Only in 2003 did Libya's oil fields open up to some corporate involvement. This era, and BP's famous off-shore exploration deal linked in the media with their Gulf of Mexico spill and the release of "Lockerbie Bomber" al-Megrahi, has come to symbolize Libya's purported openness to Western greed. It has led many to believe there is no problem getting at Libya's oil as things stood.

            However, the last two or three years had seen gradual pull-out of many of these companies in the face of unpopular limitations and terms.

           

REASON

            The current conflict comes as protesters demand an end to the current regime and democratic elections in Libya, a country ruled by Colonel Muammar Qaddafi for over 40 years when he lead a coup against King Idris and established the Libyan Arab Republic.

            His rule has been oppressive, banning dissent and the formation of any other political parties, while also committing state-sponsored terrorism in the past. Oil revenues have accounted for a large portion of revenues, and his family is accused of amassing a large fortune (which is one of the reasons he supposedly overthrow the monarchy for).

QADDAFI’S RESPONSE

            In response to the 2011 uprising that was initially quite peaceful, he has been quite defiant threatening many civilian lives if needed. The uprising has since turned into an armed rebellion and numerous diplomats and military personnel have defected over the increasingly violent reaction by the ruling regime.

            The generally untrained and disorganized rebel forces have, however, been out-gunned so far (though as a current conflict as of writing, the situation is of course volatile and could change quickly).

            Qaddafi’s brutal response escalated the situation. The opposition, centered in Benghazi, worried about possible massacres from the regime. The international community, it seemed, were slow to respond, but eventually UN Security Council resolutions threatened the regime with war crimes prosecution if the situation worsened and eventually also allowed for a no-fly zone to be established to protect civilians.

QADDAFI’S RULE

            According to the 2009 Freedom of the Press Index, Libya is the most-censored state in the Middle East and North Africa.

            Qaddafi created Revolutionary committees to keep tight control over internal dissent in 1973. Ten to 20 percent of Libyans worked as informants for these committees. Surveillance took place in the government, in factories, and in the education sector. The government often executed dissidents through public hangings and mutilations and rebroadcast them on state television channels. In 2011, Libya's press was rated as the most censored in the Middle East and North Africa. Up to the mid 1980s, Libya's intelligence service conducted assassinations of Libyan dissidents around the world. As late as 2004, Qaddafi still provided bounties on his critics, including $1 million for one Libyan journalist in the United Kingdom. Until recently, foreign languages such as English and French were banned from school syllabus and talking with foreigners about politics carried a three-year prison term. Dissent was illegal under Law 75 of 1973, and Qaddafi regularly asserted that anyone guilty of founding a political party would be executed.

Qaddafi's military commanders summarily executed soldiers who refused to fire on protesters. The International Federation for Human Rights reported a case where 130 soldiers were executed. Some of the soldiers executed by their commanders were burned alive.

CHINA’S ROLE DURING THE CRISIS

“The Libyan dilemma, a rising power starts to knock against the limits of its hallowed “non-interference”

            ALONE of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council, China has yet to recognise the new government in Tripoli, a clue as to how the recent upheaval in the Arab world has put unusual stress on the country’s much-vaunted hands-off policy when it comes to others’ affairs.

            With growing economic interests and ever more citizens to worry about in far-flung regions, Chinese policymakers are tweaking their strategy. A more normal—that is to say, less reactive—big-power approach could be slowly in the making.

            Rhetorically, the principle of “non-interference” remains sacred. On September 6th China issued a white paper on its “peaceful development” (ie, rise), its first on the topic since 2005, well before financial crisis crushed Western economic confidence and propelled China even more to the fore in international terms. The document said China still upheld the principle and that it respected the right of others to “independently choose their own social system and path of development”. Usually this has meant supporting whoever is in power no matter how thuggish or unpopular. In Libya, though, China wavered. It could have done as it did in earlier Arab uprisings: wait on the sidelines and recognise the legitimacy of opposition movements only after dictators had fallen. But Libya presented an unusual combination of challenges for China. These included demand at home for prompt action to ensure the safety of more than 35,000 Chinese working in the country; widespread support among (China-friendly) Arab countries for tough action against Muammar Qaddafi; and economic interests in Libya that might be threatened by supporting the wrong side.

China’s response at the start of the year to the upheaval in Egypt was typical of the old style. The state-owned media were quick to portray Cairo’s anti-government demonstrators as

lawless troublemakers and played down their impact. The Communist Party did not want citizens at home to get any ideas. After President Hosni Mubarak’s resignation in February, and with calls for a Chinese “jasmine revolution” circulating on the internet, many police were deployed in the centres of big cities to prevent any copycat unrest. China appeared defensive and insecure. But its approach to the Libyan unrest proved somewhat different. First came its decision to vote in favour of UN sanctions against Colonel Qaddafi. Then it mounted a big operation to fly out its citizens on chartered flights and four military aircraft (China also sent a frigate from its duties off the Horn of Africa to provide protection for vessels transporting refugees across the Mediterranean). The official media called this the largest such operation China had mounted abroad since the Communist takeover in 1949. In a recent paper, the European Council on Foreign Relations, a think-tank, said these moves seemed to reflect China’s realisation that a posture of non-interference was “increasingly at odds with its global economic presence”.

In March China retreated somewhat by abstaining in the vote on the UN Security Council resolution that authorised “all necessary measures” to protect civilians in Libya. But it knew what the outcome would be: a NATO-led operation (the very words fill Chinese nationalists with anti-imperialist loathing) aimed at hastening Colonel Qaddafi’s downfall. To protect itself from the nationalists’ venom, the Chinese government condemned the NATO air strikes and avoided any hint of support for the rebels’ cause.

But then in June the government dipped its toes into the conflict, first by meeting the rebels in

Qatar and then by sending a diplomat to meet them in Benghazi itself (ostensibly to discuss the humanitarian situation and the security of Chinese businesses). In late June a senior official of the rebels’ National Transitional Council (NTC) held talks in Beijing with China’s foreign minister, Yang Jiechi. This was followed in July by another visit to Benghazi by a senior Chinese diplomat.

Although China has not officially recognised the NTC’s late-August assumption of power in Tripoli, on September 1st it sent a deputy foreign minister to the Paris summit on Libya, where he met the NTC’s chairman, Mahmoud Jibril.

Yet China did not abandon Colonel Qaddafi. In June it received his foreign minister in Beijing. This week it confirmed that his representatives had also visited Beijing in July on a weapons-buying mission (reports of this having appeared in a Canadian newspaper based on documents found in Tripoli). China’s foreign ministry denied, however, that any arms were shipped and said the visit took place without the government’s knowledge. NTC officials say they believe some countries including China supplied weapons to Colonel Qaddafi’s government after the Security Council’s approval in February of a ban on such assistance.

Now China worries that Libya’s new authorities will make it pay for its support for the old regime by discriminating against it in business deals, including potentially lucrative ones related to the oil industry. During Colonel Qaddafi’s rule, China had big interests in Libya’s economy. Chinese media say it was involved in projects worth more than $18 billion when the conflict broke out, mostly in construction. Libyan oil last year accounted for just 3% of China’s crude imports, but Chinese oil companies are keen to get bigger stakes.

A need for oil and other resources greatly shapes Chinese foreign policy in Africa. Having long supported the government of Sudan (a big supplier of oil) in its fight against secessionist rebels, China eventually swung into line with Western governments. It was quick to recognise oil-rich South Sudan when it seceded in July, having sent observers to monitor its referendum on independence.

China will remain extremely cautious, however. It does not want to send signals at home that rebellion can ever be justified. Despite the police crackdown earlier this year, which involved a sweeping round-up of dissidents, occasional articles still appear online and even in the official media urging the government to learn lessons from the Arab world’s upheavals. Before the authorities rushed to delete it, a Shanghai newspaper managed to publish a commentary on its website giving warning that unless it “gradually but resolutely” gave its people more political choice, every developing country faced the same “nightmare” of violent upheaval.

UN’S RESPONSE

The U.N.’s response to the conflict in Libya demonstrates that the Security Council can act swiftly and decisively where action is needed, and that governments can muster the political will and military strength to fulfill their responsibilities, including the protection of civilians. In 1999, NATO took action to halt “ethnic cleansing” in Kosovo, without seeking Security Council endorsement because it was assumed that any authorizing resolution would be vetoed.

In less than three weeks, the Security Council adopted two resolutions on Libya. The first, Resolution 1970, adopted on February 26, invoked the Libyan authorities’ responsibility to protect the Libyan people, demanded an immediate end to the violence, imposed an arms embargo and targeted sanctions, and referred the matter to the International Criminal Court for possible prosecution for war crimes and crimes against humanity. The second, Resolution 1973, adopted on March 17, in a historic move, authorized international military intervention by U.N. member states to protect civilians in Libya.

The General Assembly has also taken action. In February, the Assembly decided to suspend Libya from the Human Rights Council. On the diplomatic front, the U.N. Secretary-General’s Special Envoy Abdel Elah Al-Khatib is in close contact with the Libyan authorities and the opposition, and trying to help broker a political settlement to the crisis.

The U.N. is a potentially powerful instrument for conflict prevention, management and resolution. It has at its disposal unique legal and moral authority. It can do what member states agree to give it the power to do. Not more.

THE MASSACRE FOLLOWING 20 AUG 2011

            Heads of the rebellion reported on 21 August 2011 that Qaddafi's son Saif was under arrest and that they had encircled the leader's compound, suggesting that the war had reached its endgame with an imminent rebel victory. By 22 August, rebel fighters had gained entranceinto Tripoli and occupied Green Square, which was promptly renamed 'Martyrs' Square' in memory of those who had died fighting in the civil war. Early on 23 August, Qaddafi's son Saif appeared at the Qaddafi-controlled Rixos Hotel in central Tripoli and boasted his father was still in control. Later the same day, rebels blasted open the Bab al-Azizia compound in Tripoli through its north gates and stormed inside. Despite previous reports suggesting that Muammar Qaddafi may be inside, no members of Qaddafi's family or army forces were found.

Early the following day, 24 August, Qaddafi broadcast an address from a Tripoli local radio station in which he said the withdrawal from Bab al-Azizia had been a "tactical" move. The New York Times reported rebel leaders as saying they believed the only areas still under Qaddafi's control, other than the immediate neighborhood of Bab al-Azizia, were al-Hadhba and Abu Salim, the latter including the Rixos Hotel where a group of foreign journalists had been trapped for days. However, the report noted the rebels lacked a unified command and that Qaddafi loyalists and snipers remained at large in many areas of Tripoli. Local hospitals and clinics, even in areas considered under rebel control, were reporting hundreds of cases of gunshot wounds and the death toll was impossible to estimate.  By late afternoon the journalists trapped at the Rixos Hotel had been released while heavy fighting continued in the Abu Salim region close to Bab al-Azizia and elsewhere.  The rebels were reported as estimating 400 people had been killed and a further 2,000 injured in the battle thus far.

THE LIBYAN ROYAL FAMILY

            Muhammad as-Senussi, son of the former Crown Prince and grand-nephew of the late King Idris,  sent his condolences "for the heroes who have laid down their lives, killed by the brutal forces of Qaddafi" and called on the international community "to halt all support for the dictator with immediate effect."  as-Senussi said that the protesters would be "victorious in the end" and calls for international support to end the violence. On 24 February, as-Senussi gave an interview to Al Jazeera where he called upon the international community to help remove Qaddafi from power and stop the ongoing "massacre".  He dismissed talk of a civil war saying "The Libyan people and the tribes have proven they are united". He later stated that international community needs "less talk and more action" to stop the violence.  He asked for a no-fly zone over Libya but does not support foreign ground troops.  On 20 April, Muhammad spoke in front of the European Parliament calling for more support for Libya.  He also stated that he will support any form of government that Libya will choose after Qaddafi including a constitutional monarchy.
A rival claimant to the throne, Idris bin Abdullah al-Senussi, announced in an interview with Adnkronos that he was ready to return to Libya and "assume leadership" once change had been initiated. On 21 February, he made an appearance on Piers Morgan Tonight to discuss the uprising. In March, it was reported Idris bin Abdullah had held meetings at the State Department and Congress in Washington with US government officials. It was also reported attempts at contact had been initiated by French and Saudi officials. On 3 March, it was reported that another member of the family, Prince Zouber al-Senussi, had fled Libya with his family and was seeking asylum in Totebo, Sweden.

THE POSSIBLE SOLUTION

Libya is in the middle of one of the messiest political crises of the 21st century thus far. Political crises call for political solutions, but political solutions do not come about overnight as we have learned from recent events in Egypt, Tunisia, and south Sudan. With Libya truly in danger of becoming the next Rwanda or Bosnia, the international community needs to step in now. The crisis besieging Libya is no longer akin to how Egypt and Tunisia are currently playing out, or Bahrain for that matter.

Qaddafi is beginning to commit a genocide, and the world needs to keep the promise of “never again.” Reports of “people weeping over bodies of the dead left in the street.” Deputy Libyan U.N. Ambassador Ibrahim Dabbashi called on the international community today to act on behalf of the Libyan people and accused Qaddafi of genocide.  Qaddafi himself is already losing support of his international ambassadors, security units, and at least one major Libyan ethnic group, the Egyptians are setting up displacement camps on the border, and regime-supported militias and thugs continue to kill protesters as well as n0n-aligned civilians.

A full-scale military intervention into Libya would be irresponsible, at least at the moment. The last thing Libyans need is a humanitarian crisis and hundreds of thousands of additional innocents displaced. Doing nothing may end in that very humanitarian crisis. However, limited military action could be the catalyst to force Qaddafi from power and turn the Libyan military to the side of the people they are supposed to be protecting. The international community should take a logical approach. The African Union, U.N., and other power military organizations such as NATO should bypass Qaddafi and his cronies by ordering Libya’s air power to remain neutral or face direct confrontation for Libyan airspace.If the air force refuses to recognize that Qaddafi’s regime has forfeited the right to rule by engaging in genocide, then the world should prepare to implement a no-fly zone across Libya and then follow through.

Action such as the above are desperately needed as Libya could easily fragment if the violence continues. Strong, limited military action now followed by a powerful diplomatic push can be the catalyst for change. Even if Qaddafi is overthrown in the next few days, Libya will remain at-risk of becoming the next nation to suffer a genocide, making intervention now much more reasonable over waiting and hoping for the best.