AU position is the best for Libya
Apr 04, 2011
WHEN demonstrations against President Muammar Gadaffi’s regime broke out in Libya a few weeks ago, few thought they would evolve into the chaotic civil war that the North African nation is now engulfed in.
Mary Karooro Okurut
WHEN demonstrations against President Muammar Gadaffi’s regime broke out in Libya a few weeks ago, few thought they would evolve into the chaotic civil war that the North African nation is now engulfed in.
Inspired by the demonstrations in neighbouring Tunisia and Egypt that had brought down the regimes of both countries, the Libyans figured the arrow that had killed two leopards could surely kill a lion as well.
Not exactly, they have since found out; for unlike Tunisia’s Ben Ali and Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak that bowed to public pressure and quietly stepped down, Col. Gadaffi responded with the biblical fire and brimstone. The colonel’s overtures were met with the United Nations Security Council resolution that authorised intervention by Western powers on humanitarian grounds, to protect the civilians from Gadaffi’s wrath.
The world is now witnessing as Libya is reduced to a frying pan: thousands dying but neither the rebels nor Gadaffi gaining the upper hand in a country now split into two. It is like a football match with the score at 5-5; a high-score draw in which both teams score and concede goals in equal measure.
Even when you win 6-5, it is a hollow victory. It should not be forgotten either that even the Security Council solution is itself inherently costly because it is difficult to use firepower without killing some of the people you are supposed to protect, albeit inadvertently. Gadaffi is a man whose tenure as President of Libya has been largely a mixed grill served on the same plate. On the good side, Libya is a great example of what can be when a country invests a decent proportion of oil proceeds into its people.
The discovery of significant oil reserves in 1959 and the subsequent income from petroleum sales enabled one of the world's poorest nations to establish an extremely wealthy state. Libya has the highest human development index in Africa and the fourth highest Gross Domestic Product par capita in Africa (more than $15,000), behind Seychelles, Equatorial Guinea and Gabon. These are largely due to its large petroleum reserves (Libya has the 10th-largest proven oil reserves of any country in the world and the 17th-highest petroleum production) plus a low population— just over six million people.
It is interesting to note that the conditions that created Gadaffi and ushered him into power (Arab nationalism) are the same conditions that are ushering him out of it. Although oil drastically improved the Libyan government's finances, resentment among some factions began to build over the increased concentration of the nation's wealth in the hands of King Idris. This discontent mounted with the rise of Nasserism (after the late Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser whose revolutionary mentality inspired many people) and Arab nationalism throughout North Africa and the Middle East.
On September 1, 1969, a small group of military officers led by then 27-year-old army officer Muammar Gadaffi— today referred to as the "Brother Leader and Guide of the Revolution" - staged a coup d'état against King Idris, launching what he called the ‘Libyan Revolution’.
But apart from helping many of his people to become wealthy, Gadaffi has not done much else of consequence. Human rights observance and good governance have been sacrificed at the altar of his quest to stay in power forever.
Much of the country’s income from oil, which soared in the 1970s, was spent on arms purchases and setting up an extensive spy network. It is estimated that one out of every five Libyans is a state agent, monitoring possible threats to and infringements on Gadaffi’s monopoly of power.
Eastern Libya that was agriculturally sound became impoverished by Gadaffi’s flawed economic and military adventures. His latest campaign was to form a United States of Africa— probably with him at the helm—which could explain his "King of Kings of Africa" label, a title he assumed in 2008, in a move that had many folks question his prudence.
That seems to have been his last gamble because the very wind that blew Gadaffi in— Arab nationalism—is back to blow him out, having begun with President Ben Ali of Tunisia, followed by Hosni Mubarak of Egypt within a matter of weeks.
Unlike Tunisia and Egypt, the Libyan conflict is a delicately balanced situation. Libya may be a prosperous country, thank you, but it is extremely vulnerable, because of its too many weaknesses. Gadaffi has made no effort to build strong, credible state structures that will outlast him and foster continuity, the way Tunisia and Egypt are. Libya has been built essentially around Gadaffi. Political parties were banned in 1972.
The media is heavily censored; but even then it is mostly state-owned and more of a propaganda machinery than anything else. Trade Unions are illegal and so are demonstrations.
The Libyan civil war is a conflict that had better end quickly, for with 140 tribes and clans, in the absence of state systems and structures, and in the absence of a clear winner in what could end up as a long drawn-out war, Libya has every chance of ending up with a Somalia-like scenario: state collapse, for these are precisely the conditions that flushed Somalia down the drain.
The five-point solution advanced by the African Union—long before the intervention by Western powers—remains the best way forward: cessation of hostilities, provision of humanitarian assistance to affected people, political dialogue that leads to an agreement to end the crisis; then setting up a government of national unity for a transitional period which would then create and conduct the political reforms necessary to meet the aspirations of the Libyan people.
WHEN demonstrations against President Muammar Gadaffi’s regime broke out in Libya a few weeks ago, few thought they would evolve into the chaotic civil war that the North African nation is now engulfed in.
Inspired by the demonstrations in neighbouring Tunisia and Egypt that had brought down the regimes of both countries, the Libyans figured the arrow that had killed two leopards could surely kill a lion as well.
Not exactly, they have since found out; for unlike Tunisia’s Ben Ali and Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak that bowed to public pressure and quietly stepped down, Col. Gadaffi responded with the biblical fire and brimstone. The colonel’s overtures were met with the United Nations Security Council resolution that authorised intervention by Western powers on humanitarian grounds, to protect the civilians from Gadaffi’s wrath.
The world is now witnessing as Libya is reduced to a frying pan: thousands dying but neither the rebels nor Gadaffi gaining the upper hand in a country now split into two. It is like a football match with the score at 5-5; a high-score draw in which both teams score and concede goals in equal measure.
Even when you win 6-5, it is a hollow victory. It should not be forgotten either that even the Security Council solution is itself inherently costly because it is difficult to use firepower without killing some of the people you are supposed to protect, albeit inadvertently. Gadaffi is a man whose tenure as President of Libya has been largely a mixed grill served on the same plate. On the good side, Libya is a great example of what can be when a country invests a decent proportion of oil proceeds into its people.
The discovery of significant oil reserves in 1959 and the subsequent income from petroleum sales enabled one of the world's poorest nations to establish an extremely wealthy state. Libya has the highest human development index in Africa and the fourth highest Gross Domestic Product par capita in Africa (more than $15,000), behind Seychelles, Equatorial Guinea and Gabon. These are largely due to its large petroleum reserves (Libya has the 10th-largest proven oil reserves of any country in the world and the 17th-highest petroleum production) plus a low population— just over six million people.
It is interesting to note that the conditions that created Gadaffi and ushered him into power (Arab nationalism) are the same conditions that are ushering him out of it. Although oil drastically improved the Libyan government's finances, resentment among some factions began to build over the increased concentration of the nation's wealth in the hands of King Idris. This discontent mounted with the rise of Nasserism (after the late Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser whose revolutionary mentality inspired many people) and Arab nationalism throughout North Africa and the Middle East.
On September 1, 1969, a small group of military officers led by then 27-year-old army officer Muammar Gadaffi— today referred to as the "Brother Leader and Guide of the Revolution" - staged a coup d'état against King Idris, launching what he called the ‘Libyan Revolution’.
But apart from helping many of his people to become wealthy, Gadaffi has not done much else of consequence. Human rights observance and good governance have been sacrificed at the altar of his quest to stay in power forever.
Much of the country’s income from oil, which soared in the 1970s, was spent on arms purchases and setting up an extensive spy network. It is estimated that one out of every five Libyans is a state agent, monitoring possible threats to and infringements on Gadaffi’s monopoly of power.
Eastern Libya that was agriculturally sound became impoverished by Gadaffi’s flawed economic and military adventures. His latest campaign was to form a United States of Africa— probably with him at the helm—which could explain his "King of Kings of Africa" label, a title he assumed in 2008, in a move that had many folks question his prudence.
That seems to have been his last gamble because the very wind that blew Gadaffi in— Arab nationalism—is back to blow him out, having begun with President Ben Ali of Tunisia, followed by Hosni Mubarak of Egypt within a matter of weeks.
Unlike Tunisia and Egypt, the Libyan conflict is a delicately balanced situation. Libya may be a prosperous country, thank you, but it is extremely vulnerable, because of its too many weaknesses. Gadaffi has made no effort to build strong, credible state structures that will outlast him and foster continuity, the way Tunisia and Egypt are. Libya has been built essentially around Gadaffi. Political parties were banned in 1972.
The media is heavily censored; but even then it is mostly state-owned and more of a propaganda machinery than anything else. Trade Unions are illegal and so are demonstrations.
The Libyan civil war is a conflict that had better end quickly, for with 140 tribes and clans, in the absence of state systems and structures, and in the absence of a clear winner in what could end up as a long drawn-out war, Libya has every chance of ending up with a Somalia-like scenario: state collapse, for these are precisely the conditions that flushed Somalia down the drain.
The five-point solution advanced by the African Union—long before the intervention by Western powers—remains the best way forward: cessation of hostilities, provision of humanitarian assistance to affected people, political dialogue that leads to an agreement to end the crisis; then setting up a government of national unity for a transitional period which would then create and conduct the political reforms necessary to meet the aspirations of the Libyan people.