THE DEATH OF GADDAFI AND WIDER IMPLICATIONS

Embed Doc
Copy Link
Readcast
Collections

CommentGo Back

Download

2011

REGIME CHANGE: THE DEATH OF GADDAFI AND WIDERIMPLICATIONS PART 2

In the previous article entitled; Regime Change: The fires of the Maghreb Ibriefly discussed the objectives of the NATO led mission in Libya and theexpectations of the Libyan people and the region. The events in Libyahave since moved at a faster rate than anticipated and have culminatedin the death of Gaddafi in circumstances being alleged by theInternational Criminal Court (ICC) as a summary execution after beingcaught alive by the National Transition Council (NTC) forces. From the aneutral point of view one can only speculate how Gaddafi would havedealt with his enemies if the roles were reversed given the fact that theColonel was well known for absolute brutality against opponents. If itturns out that NATO war planes deliberately bombed the convoy thatallowed the Libyan NTC troops to capture Gaddafi then NATO went beyondthe resolution 1973. The UN resolution 1973 is a mandate that inprinciple allowed NATO to enforce a NO flying zone

to stop the escalationof the conflict to separate the two sides and

secure humanitarianprotection. However, Russia, China, the African Union (AU) and manyother countries have since argued that what essentially happened in Libyawas a military operation by NATO aimed squarely at supporting the NTCforces while limiting the capability of Gaddafi royalists. In other words,NATO overstepped their boundaries defined by the Security Councilframework which was strictly civilian protection and created deliberatepre-conditions for regime change. I am sure the interpretation of the UNresolution 1973 and the actions of NATO will be subject to a fierce debateover the coming months and years. The removal of Gaddafi also raisesthe issue of the validity of continued NATO operations in Libya under thecurrent mandate 1973. However, if post-Gaddafi instability materialisesthat would mean that it would be necessary and imperative for NATO toreturn to the UN for a new mandate. The removal of the Gaddafi regime from power is surely welcome as itbrings to an end the tyrannical rule in Libya, however, the manner inwhich it was done confirms a number of things: first some dictators aremore preferred than others, for instance, in Syria, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain,Algeria and Yemen there is no freedom of speech and opposition isbrutally crushed and suppressed but I doubt if one will ever see aresolution calling for military intervention in these countries because whatmight replace the current regimes in those countries might be the stuff of

2011

nightmares for the western countries i.e. worse than the current friendlydictators in those countries. It also helps if leaders of these countrieshave European or American connections through marriage or descent asis the case with Syria, Jordan, Morocco and many others in the region.When asked about Nicaraguan dictator Somoza, Franklin DelanoRoosevelt (FDR) former president of the USA allegedly said ‘we know thathe is a brutal dictator and a pain in the backside of everyone but he is ourpain in the backside’ (paraphrased). From this statement it is reasonableto conclude that certain dictators are accepted because they serve apurpose. The statement by FDR embodies a principle which has become acornerstone of international relations and politics for most countriestoday. In addition, the direct intervention by NATO shows the weakness of the UN as a world body. If military intervention was of the utmost urgencywhy not a UN force or NATO force under UN command, to opponents a UNlead Libyan mission would have left no room to doubt the objectives of protecting civilians. Furthermore, if protecting civilians was the majorobjective why didn’t NATO and her allies ask for the UN mandate toprotect civilians in Bahrain, Syria, Yemen, Zimbabwe, Sudan, and Egypt? The operations in Libya shows that sometimes even powerful nations suchas the US, UK, France have scores to settle. It is common knowledge thatGaddafi was perceived a thorn in the backside of the west for decades dueto his alleged support for terrorism in the west in the 1980s and 90s, WMDprogramme which he eventually abandoned, his anti-west rhetoric andgrowing influence in Sub-Sahara.It is true that the death of Gaddafi has sent shockwaves in Libya andaround the world sociological and psychological. For the last 42 years,Libyans have been under the rule of a single minded despot who modelledthe country in his own visions of self grandeur and ruled the country withan iron fist. However, unlike other countries Libya can claim underGaddafi to be the only country in Africa where citizens had free educationto university level, social security and free health care. Now that Gaddafiis dead, Libyans will turn their attention turns to promises andexpectations of the revolution. People want the expectation to be met forthe revolution to have a meaning to them otherwise the hard fought warto remove Gaddafi would have been for nothing. Therefore, managingexpectations and promises of the new Libya especially those of youngmen and women with high hopes presents the biggest challenge for thepost-Qaddaffi Libyan leaders. If not managed well, the young will revoltand turn their frustration toward the new leaders. Gaddafi had alukewarm relationship with fellow Arab dictators and hence he turned his

2011

attention to Sub-Sahara where he enjoyed popularity and allowed blackAfrican to work in Libya. However, now that Gaddafi is dead non-Arabimmigrants who enjoyed relative inclusion are now seen as no more thanmercenaries to some extent that some have been killed and other beaten. The plight of black Africans post Gaddafi has been raised by the Head of UN humanitarian affairs Baroness Amos. The death of Gaddafi has wider business implication as time has come forsharing the spoils of war or rather time to be rewarded for the effort of removing Gaddafi. In Britain, USA and France the media is already callingfor NTC to give preferential treatment to businesses from NATO countrieswhen it comes to Oil/Gas deals and national reconstruction contracts.Others may use this to argue that this goes to show the real purpose forNATO intervention in Libya. Prior to the capture and death of Gaddafi theofficial stance on Libya by UK and France was that it was necessary toprevent an escalation of violence and humanitarian catastrophe on thedoor steps of Europe as the consequences of complacency far outweighsthe cost of intervention. However, what was not overtly discussed wasthe business component post Gaddafi Libya. I explicitly stated in theprevious article that no government supports another for free and soonthe NTC will find out that time has now come to pay the liberators. Libyais a country segmented by tribes and Gaddafi found a way to moderatetribal rivalries through a mixture of careful coercion, financialinducements and social incentives. Absence of attention to the tribaldynamics will have an impact on the social structure and relationshipwithin Libya. The alleged victims of the Gaddafi regime in their thousandsand some part of the NTC will call for justice and retribution once the gunsand gears of war are silenced. The debate is whether the NTC will opt forreconciliation and national unity given that the despot is dead. How theNTC deals with the remnant of the previous regime and manage Libyanexpectations will not just impact relationships within Libyan but betweenLibya and other countries. The NTC will perhaps opt to rekindle therelationship with the Arab league, NATO, strengthen EU ties and have alukewarm participation in the African Union. Whatever actions the NTCtakes will set the stage for the type of government and direction in whichLibya should go.Dr M. MukangaEmail: Mukanga@visumglobal.co.uk

of 00

Leave a Comment