Libya is not ready for a political solution – The Guardian

Libya is not ready for a political solution | Ranj Alaaldin |

Muammar Gaddafi’s foreign minister is in Tunisia today to discuss a possible settlement to the ongoing conflict in Libya. A settlement should be welcomed, but it has to begin with the departure of Gaddafi and his inner circle from Libya.

The problem is that there can be no way forward with Gaddafi still in place – which is why South African president Jacob Zuma has already failed twice to end the conflict through a political settlement. There have been similar difficulties in Yemen where Arab Gulf states have sought – and so far failed – to implement a “transition” plan that does not require President Saleh’s immediate resignation.

A recent proposal relating to Libya from the International Crisis Group suffers from the same flaw. The ICG envisages a two-phase road to peace where, firstly, peacekeeping forces are deployed so as to facilitate talks and allow for humanitarian assistance and, secondly, where a mutual declaration of a ceasefire leads to negotiations between the regime and the opposition Interim National Council (INC).

The ICG argues that preserving Gaddafi and his inner circle is necessary, to ensure there is someone with the authority to deliver a ceasefire. The problem, however, is what to do if Gaddafi proves unable or unwilling to deliver a ceasefire. The ICG’s extensive report has no suggestions for dealing with this rather likely eventuality.

The ICG seems to want to keep Gaddafi, to avoid “political chaos and collapse into a kind of warlordism”. But that would only happen if the entire political and security apparatus in the country were disbanded, as in post-2003 Iraq. There is nothing to suggest that the INC, once in power, would embark upon such a course.

Another report, from the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI), calls for a transitional “face-saving process” that would see Gaddafi hand power over to one of his sons, who would then hand power over to a regime insider, who would then establish an interim “unity” government with loyalist representation.

Unlike the ICG, RUSI at least maintains the option to resume hostilities and enforce resolution 1973 should the regime fail to abide by any settlement terms. However, once military operations are halted it is going to be extremely difficult to restart them.

If this “face-saving” approach were adopted, the debate would switch from a simple issue of whether Gaddafi should go to the never-ending question of whether Gaddafi has had enough time to comply. The problem is principally one of determining when and whether a brutal, authoritarian regime has failed to keep its promises. Halting overt military action by the regime is only one part of the problem.

No international peacekeeping force will be able to shut down Gaddafi’s secret police, who are likely to continue their killings and torture in prison cells and far-flung compounds that the outside world will never know about.

Nor would the international community be in a position to do much about the repression of opponents and the detention of hundreds if not thousands of Free Libya activists, journalists and human-rights defenders.

In other words, a policing role will not be feasible or sustainable. But there is something abhorrent about encouraging power-sharing between a dictator and a democratic, revolutionary force just when the former, an established force for instability that has proven it cannot be trusted, is gradually being defeated by the military, and while defections from inside the regime are continuing.

It is vitally important that any ceasefire or political settlement gives no reason for Gaddafi to believe the international resolve for defeating him is diminishing. Equally, there must be no reason for the people of Libya to fear that the vicious dictator will ever be in a position to exact revenge upon them.

3 thoughts on “Libya is not ready for a political solution – The Guardian

  1. Libya is a dress rehersal for Iran. In fact, the entire Arab Spring as been orchestrared by America as a ploy to instigate revolution in Persia. Like a gambit in chess, they have sacraficed a few minor pieces so has to take a more powerful piece a few moves down the line. Iran is the prime piece left on the Middle Eastern chessboard not to be taken by America, not only for its vast reserves of oil and gas but for its strategic location. By overthrowing the islamic anti western regime in Tehran and installing a compliant puppet democracy, the Persian Gulf and the whole of centrel Asia would then come under US hegemony, which in the process would place Russia, the king of kings in chess terms, in check mate. So watchout in the coming months for a massive insurrection, calling for the end of Amadinajad and the supreme council. Inevitably, this insurrection will be crushed, except for a few pockets of resistance, NATO will then offer air support, weapons and training to this raggletaggle army ushering in world war three. Although America will call Russia’s bluff viz-a-vizi the balkans and find them wanting. Even so, Iran as enough fire power to turn Isreal and Saudi Arabia into a graveyard which will illicit a nuclear response. Isreal will then use this conflageration to evict all the Palestinians from the holy land and take back the temple mount.

    For the peace and security of the world, all of us must take to the streets and stop these psychopaths, weather Zionist,Freemasonic or followers of the Party Ali, from dragging us into their apocalyptic delusions.

  2. Do you really think Davd Cameron could care less about Libya, when he doesn’t even care about his own people – mind you, I’ll requalify that; he does care about his own people – bankers, oil men, tax exiles, arms dealers – etc – he loves very very much indeed.

  3. in the past, the likes of Gaddafi might have flown to cuba on his Lea Jet but since the setting up of the international criminal court and the execution of Saddam where giving these dictators no way choice but to fight to the death which only serves to prolong the bloodshed and misery. Furthermore, why do the architects of South African Aparthied get a slap on the wrist at the truth and reconciliation commitee and Pinochet gets to fly home after recieving tea and sympathy from Baroness Thatcher – could it be that they were let off because they did all their killing in the name of capitalism, whereas Milosevic, Saddam and, now, Gaddafi were socialist tyrants.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s