Libya: Benghazi's Declaration for Semi-Autonomy Comes As No Surprise

Πηγή: allAfrica
BY ABDELKADER ABDERRAHMANE
March 15 2012

After having initiated the uprising that eventually ousted Muammar Gaddafi last September, on March 6th, authorities in Benghazi, through their leader,Ahmed Zubair Senussi, declared the semi-autonomy of their Cyrenaica eastern region, from the Tripolitana. Senussi is a relative of the ousted King Senussi.

Six months after the fall of Gaddafi, such a decision should not come us a surprise. There are indeed several reasons that may explain the current situation in Libya.

Firstly, beyond the ousting of Gaddafi lays a strong historical distrust and animosity from Benghazi vis-à-vis Tripoli. Under King Senussi, Benghazi was the capital city of Libya. Moreover, Benghazi is also known to be a city of dissent and of opposition movements. It is only when Gaddafi came to power in 1969 that Tripoli became the political and economic epicentre of the country.

Secondly, in the current highly unstable situation across the country, those in charge of the eastern capital have undoubtedly remembered the old days under Senussi's reign whereby Libya was from 1951 to 1961 a confederation composed of three autonomous regions: Cyranaica, Tripolitana and Fezzan. This confederation was based on the 1951 Constitution that was then amended in 1963 and discarded in 1969 when Gaddafi came to power. Benghazi's leaders have therefore done nothing but to reactivate this old idea.

Thirdly, despite the fact that 80% of the total Libyan oil is allocated under its soil, Benghazi and the Cyranaica region remain poorer than the Tripolitania. This is explained by the deep neglect of the region during Gaddafi's reign. By declaring the semi-autonomy of the region, the eastern leaders intend therefore to correct this situation. And it is for this same reason that Tripoli has reacted strongly against the move to autonomy.

Additionally, the leaders of Benghazi argue that the February election law adopted by the centralised National Transitional Council (NTC) does not take into consideration the demographics of the country. Indicatively, the Cyranaica region will be allocated only 60 out of 200 seats at the assembly for the elections of next June.

Furthermore, the NTC remains a very heterogeneous group, initially with just one shares purpose: to get rid of Gaddafi. The people forming the NTC have undoubtedly little in common and this weakness is coming to light today. In addition to this, the NTC has so far been rather incompetent in governing the country, which has led to a growing dissatisfaction of the population. Problems range from human rights abuses and atrocities occurring across Libya, to the large number of militias who harass the population, as well as the slow pace of political reforms. All of these factors should be taken into account to understand the current dramatic situation in Libya.

Last, but not least, the growing personal ambition of those in charge of the country today for whom the unity of the country may not be the priority. Let us not forget that Libyans have little, if no experience of democratic political culture.

Also, having said that, it is difficult to take seriously the recent statements by NTC chairman Mustafa Abdeljalil, who was quick to accuse 'foreign Arab influences', whom he couldn't name, for being behind Benghazi's declaration. According to him, Arab countries, as well as some remnants of the former regime who have infiltrated the NTC lines are behind all this agitation.

What is next? Abdeljalil reportedly said that the NTC would defend national unity, using force if necessary. Such a declaration is not only dangerous as it could enflame the current crisis but also, using force would only worsen the current instability. It is important to underline that the power struggle that has just erupted between Tripoli and Benghazi may not end any time soon. As the elections for a new constituent assembly due next June could well be postponed if no agreement is reached rapidly. What is very likely to happen is that no common strong agreement will come up in the near future. Eventually either the country will remain ruled from Tripoli, yet after a tough political and perhaps military battle, or schism may finally occur, not only between the Tripolitana and the Cyrenaica but also with eventually the Fezzan region.

Indeed, this move from Benghazi may be emulated by the Fezzan region which could also demand its own autonomy. This would in the short to medium term dramatically weaken the state of Libya which, it is important to recall, has no real political experience. Libyans have yet to learn the skills of living within a pluralistic political culture.

Furthermore, one could argue that the geographical integrity of the state that may well be at stake. A recent poll indicated that 16% of the Libyan population was prepared to resort to violence for political ends. Not only is this poll cralarming, but this figure could increase in the event of profound and growing discrepancies across the country.

It is estimated that 700 militias operate in the country without any authority, making them believe they are above the law. Most of these militias have so far refused to be disbanded and are therefore a threat to the national stability. Also, pro-Gaddafi elements still remain in the country, principally in the region of Beni Walid, South-West of Tripoli. These people could well take advantage of the situation to align itself with one group - most likely Benghazi - to create deeper chaos across Libya. With an unknown number of arms circulating across the country, added to the current instability of Libya, this volatile situation could well spill over across the entire region. All the arms and ammunitions that were shipped from Qatar and other Arab and European countries to the NTC in Benghazi in the early days of the uprising would definitely be a danger for both the Libyan population as well as for the country. The on going events in Libya certainly signify that the country is at a high risk of profound and durable instability, not to say a civil war.

In this regard, it is important to recall that in Libya, more than in any Arab country in the region, tribal cleavages are ancestral. One of the reasons Gaddafi managed to remain in power for more than forty years is due to his shrewd manipulation of these tribes - an important aspect the leader of the NTC appears to have neglected. Indeed, once the latter came into power, Mustafa Abdeljalil should have rapidly brought together all the tribal leaders, to not only strengthen the NTC's central position but also to put an end to these militias which put Libya at a risk of implosion. As indeed, individuals in Libya would be loyal to their tribesman before any central government.

The leaders in Benghazi stated that they would run their own government, parliament and administration and would manage the financial affairs, leaving the control of oil revenues, foreign policy and the national army to the centralised government in Tripoli. However, although members of the Benghazi committee has stated that the aim of their regional government is motivated by administrative purposes only and neither independence, nor separation were on their agenda, this is nonetheless not a positive start for the post-Gaddafi era. The situation in Libya looks rather gloomy and it will take a great amount of patience, wisdom and political manoeuvring for Libya not to be divided.

It is important here to recall the position of the African Union prior to NATO's intervention in Libya last year, which raised its concern for the future territorial integrity of Libya. Six months after the fall of Gaddafi, the AU's warnings are sadly coming true..

All in all, when looking at the current situation in Libya, it is difficult not to see the result of irresponsible politics conducted by NATO. And a weak Libya is definitely not good for the North Africa region or for the rest of Africa.

Abdelkader Abderrahmane is North Africa senior researcher in the Conflict Prevention and Risk Analysis Division of the ISS.

Russia wants AU pledge for UN seat

Πηγή: BusinessDay
By LOYISO LANGENI
Jan 24 2012

Russia says it will support a bid by African countries for a permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council only if there is "consensus and unanimity" in the African Union on which country will best represent the continent’s interests.

RUSSIA will support a bid by African countries for a permanent seat on the United Nations (UN) Security Council only if there is "consensus and unanimity" in the African Union (AU) on which country will best represent the continent’s interests.

SA, Nigeria and Egypt are jostling to become permanent members of the UN Security Council even though the AU has not decided which country will represent the continent should such an opportunity arise.

SA, which has the rotating presidency of the council for this month, is pushing for it to be reconstituted to include at least two African countries among the permanent members.

Russia and China, which have permanent seats with veto rights on the five-member council, had been accused by developing countries of not showing — at least publicly — any appetite to expand the council to include other regions. France, the UK and US are the other permanent members with veto rights.

So far only France and the UK have embraced transforming the council by calling for African countries to be included as permanent members without veto rights as a starting point.

Provisions have been made for 10 UN members to be represented on the UN Security Council in rotation for two years.

"Our position on the reform of the council has not changed," Georgy Chepik, a counsellor in the embassy of the Russian Federation in Pretoria, said last week.

"We want to reform the UN Security Council but Africa must reach a broader consensus on which country is eligible for the seat. Sometimes we are being unfairly criticised for a lack of appetite to transform the council, but African countries must agree with each other before we can support a candidate."

A foreign policy analyst has questioned whether SA will have enough "scope" during its term to "shape council decision-making and champion its own particular emphasis on the African agenda".

S. Africa slams Security Council over Libya airstrikes

Πηγή: yahoonews
By AFP
Jan 12 2012

South Africa's President Jacob Zuma on Thursday slammed the UN Security Council for allowing the NATO military strikes in Libyathat played a key role in the downfall of Moamer Kadhafi.

Zuma complained to the Security Council that an African Unionpeace plan for Libya was "completely ignored" and said Libya's problems had now "spilled over" to other countries in north Africa because of the council's action.

The South African president lectured the 15-member council as he chaired a special debate on relations between the United Nationsand the African Union.

South Africa abstained in the council's resolution 1973 passed on March 17 last year, which authorized military action to protect civilians and enforce a no-fly zone.

NATO's airstrikes have since divided the council, however. Russia, China, South Africa and India insist that the military alliance breached the resolution.

Zuma said the council had to avoid a repeat of the Libya episode when the AU had its own political initiative, which the president said was "completely ignored in favor of bombing Libya by NATO forces."

"The consequences of the actions that were carried out in Libya in the name of the United Nations Security Council have spilled over into other countries in the region," Zuma told the meeting, which was attended by ministers from Africa and council members.

NATO insists its military action in Libya was within the UN resolutions and UN ambassadors from its members say the Security Council was fully aware of the kind of action to be carried out.

But Zuma said African Union views "must be listened to if we are to strengthen our relationship and prevent conflict."

He also said there must be no return to the Cold War, when Africa was a "playground" for the rival sides battling for influence.

Libya: Leaked UN Report Sees 200 Military Observers, NATO but Not AU Role

Ban & Ian Martin - nouveau L. Paul Bremer?

Πηγή: Inner City Press
By Matthew Russell Lee
August 26 2011

UNITED NATIONS -- Before rebel fighters entered Tripoli, and before UN Special Adviser Ian Martin traveled this week to Doha and Istanbul to belatedly meet with National Transitional Council officials, Martin on August 22 handed a detailed plan to Secretary General Ban Ki-moon.

After its requests to the UN to release the document, at least to member states, were denied, Inner City Press obtained a copy of the report and is putting it online today, here (10 page Martin report) and here (longer background report).

The UN Secretariat is proposing up to 200 Military Observers, to begin with a Multi-National Force led by two member states, up to 190 UN Police, and additional elections and other civil staff.

The report estimates that Gross Domestic Production could decline as much as 47%. It puts frozen Libyan assets at $150 billion, and recommends that many of the assets not be sold and quickly returned to Libya (Paragraph 136).

Martin's report offers some praise of the Qadhafi -- its spelling -- regime, for example in the fields of health and education (Paragraph 71). It speaks of "reforms" by Saif al-Islam, now indicted by the International Criminal Court, and former Prime Minister Ghanem.

It asserts that the (TNC) opposition engaged in some killings and property seizures, even constituting war crimes, and like Qadhafi used child soldiers (Paragraph 88). It several times expresses doubt about Qadhafi's "alleged" use of foriegn fighters or mercenaries.

The report assumes at a minimum sending military and police advisers and liaisons, saying that "no specific [Security] Council mandate would be required for these type of tasks."

  It flatly says that "the Security Council's 'protection of civilians' mandate implemented by NATO does not end with the fall of the Qadhafi government and, therefore, NATO would continue to have some responsibilities." (Introduction, Paragraph 8)

Significantly, while it envisions a continued NATO presence, particularly in Tripoli, it allows for no role for the African Union. It archly notes that only in Qadhafi's post-coup declaration was Libya said to be part of Africa. As Inner City Press has reported, even staff in the UN Department of Political Affairs Africa Divisions have expressed outrage at this, as well as the central role assigned to "the Brit" Ian Martin, to the agitated displeasure of DPA chief Lynn Pascoe when Inner City Press asked him about it on August 25, click here for that.

Troubling, but perhaps indicative of Ban Ki-moon's UN, is the report's recommendation that non-State media be "monitored" lest it "rush to resort to public opinion."

While Pascoe called "extraordinary" the failed mediation work of Ban Ki-moon's envoy for Libya Abdul Ilah Al Khatib, Martin's report mentioned Al Khatib only once, as a person consulted with. (Al Khatib has throughout remained a paid Senator in Jordan.)

Also consulted were UN funds and programs (the UN Office on Drugs and Crimes wants in and UNDP plans a "Surge" and to play a role in procurement), the International Migration Organization and the World Bank -- but, despite discussion for example of currency stabilization and exchange rates, NOT the International Monetary Fund.

Even to compile the report, the UN and Martin reached outside of the UN System and hired Dartmouth professor Dirk Vandewalle as a consultant. When Inner City Press first asked, UN deputy spokesman Farhan Haq refused to even confirm Vandewalle's hiring.

This week, when Inner City Press asked that the report be released in light of Vandewalle's public description of his role, Haq said no, and his associate spokesperson even claimed the report is "not a UN document."

One of the many questions arising from the report is under what mandate, and with what accountability, the UN Secretariat developed this "post-conflict" Libya plan, and then refused to share it even with member states.

There will be many other questions. For now, in advance of the (August 16 video) meeting convened by Ban Ki-moon, Inner City Press is making the UN's plan public, as it should have been. Watch this site.

Time to end Nato's war in Libya

Nurse at the hosptial in Misrata in Libya looks at a boy injured in the fighting, July 2011. Photograph: Irina Kalashnikova

Πηγή: The Guardian

By Dennis Kucinich

Sunday 21 August 2011

Whether Gaddafi goes or not, this costly intervention has thwarted peace talks and betrayed its 'humanitarian' mission

In March of this year, the US, France, Britain and their North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (Nato) allies launched military operations in Libya under the guise of a "humanitarian intervention". US diplomats and world leaders carelessly voiced unsubstantiated claims of an impending massacre in Benghazi. You hear no such appeals to humanity while Nato, in the name of the rebels (whoever they are), prepares to lay siege to Tripoli, a city of nearly 2 million people.

Libyan rebels are now advancing on the capital city of Tripoli with the aid of Nato strikes; this is sure to result in a real bloodbath, as opposed to the one that was conjured in Benghazi this past winter. Nato is assisting rebels who are blocking food, water and medical supplies from coming into the capital city, and is stopping those who need advanced medical care from travelling to Tunisia to access it. Nato is bombing power stations, creating blackouts, and using Apache helicopters to attack Libyan police checkpoints to clear roads for rebels to advance.

Regardless of whether Muammar Gaddafi is ousted in coming days, the war against Libya has seen countless violations of United Nations security council resolutions (UNSCRs) by Nato and UN member states. The funnelling of weapons (now being air-dropped) to Libyan rebels was, from the beginning of the conflict, in clear violation of UNSCR 1970. The use of military force on behalf of the rebels, in an attempt to impose regime change, has undermined international law and damaged the credibility of the United Nations. Countless innocent civilians have been killed, and Nato air strikes continue to place many at great risk.

So much for the humanitarian-inspired UNSCR 1973 as a means to protect civilians. The people of Libya cannot take another month of such humanitarian intervention.

The leading donor nations of Nato – the US, France and Great Britain – have been free to prosecute war under the cloak of this faceless, bureaucratic, alphabet security agency, now multinational war machine, which can violate UN resolutions and kill innocent civilians with impunity. War crimes trials are only for losers. The prospective conquerors, the western powers and their rebel proxies, will then expect to be able to assert control over Libya's vast oil and natural gas reserves.

The US share of the war against Libya has probably exceeded the $1bn mark. This extraordinary amount of money for an intervention that Americans were told would last "days not weeks" could only be explained by looking at the war as an investment, and at control over Libya's wealth as an opportunity to make a return on that investment. Cynical? Then tell me why else we are at war in Libya.

Viable peace proposals, such as the one put forward by the African Union (AU), have been quickly and summarily rejected. If there is going to be a peaceful resolution of the conflict, the US must work with and empower the AU to ensure regional security. The AU has proposed a peace plan that would facilitate an immediate ceasefire, the unhindered delivery of humanitarian aid, a dialogue between the Transitional National Council and the Gaddafi government, and the suspension of Nato strikes.

The use of force and ultimatums has not worked. As the war enters its sixth month, it is time for the US president and secretary of state to clean up the mess they've created with this needless military intervention, and to work to seriously to bring about a negotiated end to this war.

In June, I proposed a peace plan (pdf) derived in part from the efforts of the AU. This plan calls for an immediate ceasefire and lays out the principles necessary to create a framework to achieve reconciliation and national unity in Libya by a meaningful process. In its June report on Libya, the International Crisis Group stated:

"A political breakthrough is by far the best way out of the costly situation created by the military impasse. This will require a ceasefire between the regime and the Transitional National Council, the deployment of a peacekeeping force to monitor and guarantee this under a UN mandate, and the immediate opening of serious negotiations between regime and opposition representatives to secure agreement on a peaceful transition to a new, more legitimate political order. Nato and those states supporting its military action should facilitate this development, not hinder it."

I have recently received several reports indicating that a settlement was close, only to be scuttled by state department officials. Given that the department of state seems to have taken a singular role in launching the US into this war, it is more than disconcerting to hear that the same agency has played a role in frustrating a resolution to this conflict. There are viable solutions to peacefully end the conflict, if there is a desire to do so.

Continued military action promotes a cycle of violence that will persist whether Colonel Gaddafi is ousted or not. On 19 March 2003, the United States pursued regime change in Iraq. Eight years later, we're still wondering why the people of Iraq are not sufficiently grateful for our intervention, which has resulted in the death of over 1 million of their fellow countrymen and women.

How can we expect this grim manifesto of interventionism to ever result in anything but tragedy? It's time to end the war against Libya.