aLibyan leader Colonel Muammar Gaddafi claims that he does not have power, even though it is clear that he wields a lot of power on a number of issues. Why does the international community not take the Libyan leader at his word and ask him to explain who actually has power in this unique tribal system.
aLibyan leader Colonel Muammar Gaddafi claims that he does not have power, even though it is clear that he wields a lot of power on a number of issues. Why does the international community not take the Libyan leader at his word and ask him to explain who actually has power in this unique tribal system.
Who are the parties to this conflict, just Colonel Gaddafi and the people? What is the interest of third parties in this conflict? What do the people actually want − simply to emulate what happened in Tunisia and Egypt and get rid of Gaddafi? What will happen after that?
What is the position of some of the other leaders who have crossed from Gaddafi’s inner circle to join the opposition forces? Are any of these co-responsible for what happened during the past 40 odd years? Could some of them also be referred to the International Criminal Court?
Some of the world leaders have also not cared much about the people of Libya when it was in their interest to do business with the leader! Was not the plight of the Libyan people the same as it is now? Is it not a classic case of inconsistency and double standards?
It is correct for the super power to keep all options open and put everything on the table. But what about conflict analysis and resolution? Has the United States Department of State engaged the Institute for Conflict Analysis and Resolution of George Mason University, and/or the United States Institute of Peace, and/or the Alliance for Peacebuilding to analyse this conflict and propose possible solutions?
The United Nations Security Council was very quick to reach a decision or binding resolution, apart from the meeting in Geneva on human rights. Has the UN taken a similar quick action to involve the UN Peacebuilding Commission? The same applies to the European Union and other powerful states.
How can some powers condemn the possible path to a civil war and at the same time contemplate arming the rebels or the opposition? Would this not result in a bigger bloodbath? Is it possible that some members of the weapons industry perceive the current situation a good opportunity to make a good profit by arming different sides? Who is keeping watch?
Interim National Council
As an interim measure, why cannot the international community suggest to Gaddafi to set up an interim National Council with half the members representing himself and his close allies, and the other half representing the opposition. In the absence of a national parliament this could be a first step.
The interim National Council could be assigned two main tasks. It could draw up a revised version of the Green Book to act as a temporary constitution. Secondly, it could examine the basic human needs of the people of Libya and propose measures to satisfy as many of these as possible, including their security, identity and recognition. Eventually, some measures to provide true representation on this National Council and other mechanisms, will have to be drawn up.
At the moment, we do not really know who is behind the popular revolt. There has been no referendum or elections to know exactly who has the majority behind him, or whether there is a lot of fragmentation for different objectives. Some of the leaders of the opposition could have their own reason for seeking power.
To complement the interim National Council, interim regional councils could also be set up. In this case these councils could draw from the popular figures in the region, including representatives of the regime, representatives of the opposition, and other tribal leaders of the region concerned.
The present situation does not have to end in a zero-sum game. Why is the international community incapable of thinking outside the box and evolve an integrative set of solutions for consideration? While in the interim National Council, some decisions could be taken on a top-down basis, while in the regional councils some decisions could be reached on a bottom-up basis.
Malta
The present situation is not easy and there is no doubt that our authorities are doing their best to address all possible outcomes. It is not certain whether it is in our best interests to become party to the conflict by taking sides. We might be playing with fire and genuinely driving the agendas of third parties without knowing.
The perception of our authorities could be different from that of other parties. While the. Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs called the operation to bring over a couple of Maltese workers from the desert a “humanitarian” one, the website of the British Ministry of Defence clearly identified it as a “military operation”! Why don’t we call a spade a spade as the US Secretary of Defence has said concerning the possible implementation of a no fly zone. Couldn’t these aircraft that apparently violated Libya’s air space, have departed from a Nato base?
http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/MilitaryOperations/RafAircraftArriveInMaltaWithEvacueesFromLibya.htm
While it is appropriate for our authorities to take full account of the people of Libya, they need to examine whether such needs could be served better through a peaceful resolution, instead of a chaotic civil war. Why cannot the authorities look for a win-win resolution?
Given Libya’s proximity, it might be important for that country’s leadership to perceive the actions of our authorities as being fair and neutral, if our authorities wish to try and make a positive impact on the current situation.
Does the international community condone the keeping of stolen goods? Could not our authorities seek an understanding with the Libyan leadership that the Mirages be used solely for self-defence and not against the Libyan people?
Alfred A. Farrugia
ATTARD