Rebels on top of a captured tank. Source: AP
On March 2004, Tony Blair, then the British Prime Minister, visited Libya and received a warm welcome from Colonel Muammar Gaddafi. It was the first British politician to visit the country on a diplomatic trip after UN and US sanctions were lifted in 1999 and 2006 respectively. Blair then praised the booming economy of the country and the government's commitment in the fight against Al-Qaeda. As he put it, "I have been struck by how Colonel Gaddafi wants to make common cause with us against extremists and terrorism. The signs are better than they have been for many years. And the future prize in terms of security not just of this region but the wider world, indeed our own country, is great".
Exactly seven years later, on March 2011, UN's Security Council approved resolution 1973, imposing a no-fly zone over the country and authorising "all necessary measures" to protect the civilians against the Libyan army, boosting the rebels' aspirations. Only a few days before, France had become the first country to recognise the rebels as the legitimate government of Libya. But who are the rebels?
First time the world heard about the Libyan rebels was last February, after demonstrations held in the main cities of the country against Gaddafi's tough regime were firmly repressed by the use of military force. A few weeks later, the demonstrators organised themselves and occupied Benghazi, Libya's second biggest city, making it their stronghold. Further combats drew Gaddafi's forces back, while the rebels advanced towards the capital Tripoli.
According to Imad El-Anis, Libya specialist and lecturer in International Relations at Nottingham Trent University, "the ‘rebels’ are a diverse range of people: some are soldiers who in effect defected, some are people who are still closely linked to one tribe or another, but basically they are a patchwork of ordinary Libyans from all walks of life who have the same cause: reform of their government. The military response that the regime took against the pro-reform movement in its early stage also pushed ordinary civilians into the ‘rebellion’ in order to defend themselves."
On the other hand John Pike, director of defense think tank Globalsecurity.org points out that the conflict between the rebels and the Libyan government is the result of clashes between different tribes in the country. He argues that when Libya was created it forced different existing ethnias and tribes to form part of the same political territory, sharing an artificial governance in an artificial country.
"Libya is a divided country, and one underlying dynamic in play here is the conflict between Cyrenaica and Tripolitania. Although both territories had been united into Libya at independence in 1951, for the previous three thousand years these two territories had persisted as separate and distinct entities. Decades of Libya had not overcome the differences of millennia, and a territorially based civil war was the natural product of these distinctions. In Cyrenaica, the tribe was the chief focus of social identification. In Tripolitania, by contrast, loyalty that in a social context was reserved largely to the family and kinship group could be transferred more easily to a political party and its leader. The separateness of the regions is much more than simply geographical and political, for they have evolved largely as different socioeconomic entities, each with a culture, social structure, and values different from the others. Cyrenaica became Arabized at a somewhat earlier date than Tripolitania, and beduin tribes dominated it", explains Pike.
Exactly seven years later, on March 2011, UN's Security Council approved resolution 1973, imposing a no-fly zone over the country and authorising "all necessary measures" to protect the civilians against the Libyan army, boosting the rebels' aspirations. Only a few days before, France had become the first country to recognise the rebels as the legitimate government of Libya. But who are the rebels?
First time the world heard about the Libyan rebels was last February, after demonstrations held in the main cities of the country against Gaddafi's tough regime were firmly repressed by the use of military force. A few weeks later, the demonstrators organised themselves and occupied Benghazi, Libya's second biggest city, making it their stronghold. Further combats drew Gaddafi's forces back, while the rebels advanced towards the capital Tripoli.
According to Imad El-Anis, Libya specialist and lecturer in International Relations at Nottingham Trent University, "the ‘rebels’ are a diverse range of people: some are soldiers who in effect defected, some are people who are still closely linked to one tribe or another, but basically they are a patchwork of ordinary Libyans from all walks of life who have the same cause: reform of their government. The military response that the regime took against the pro-reform movement in its early stage also pushed ordinary civilians into the ‘rebellion’ in order to defend themselves."
On the other hand John Pike, director of defense think tank Globalsecurity.org points out that the conflict between the rebels and the Libyan government is the result of clashes between different tribes in the country. He argues that when Libya was created it forced different existing ethnias and tribes to form part of the same political territory, sharing an artificial governance in an artificial country.
"Libya is a divided country, and one underlying dynamic in play here is the conflict between Cyrenaica and Tripolitania. Although both territories had been united into Libya at independence in 1951, for the previous three thousand years these two territories had persisted as separate and distinct entities. Decades of Libya had not overcome the differences of millennia, and a territorially based civil war was the natural product of these distinctions. In Cyrenaica, the tribe was the chief focus of social identification. In Tripolitania, by contrast, loyalty that in a social context was reserved largely to the family and kinship group could be transferred more easily to a political party and its leader. The separateness of the regions is much more than simply geographical and political, for they have evolved largely as different socioeconomic entities, each with a culture, social structure, and values different from the others. Cyrenaica became Arabized at a somewhat earlier date than Tripolitania, and beduin tribes dominated it", explains Pike.
Children play on a tank in Benghazi. Source: EPA
Libya's rebels have become an armed group that fights a guerrilla-like warfare against government forces in the country. The emergence of this insurgent group is linked with the events that took place in Egypt and Tunisia early this year.
Tunisia and Egypt undertook a relatively peaceful revolution, removing the historical leaders of both countries from power, Ben Ali in Tunisia and Hosni Mubarak in Egypt. They had ruled their countries firmly for decades, but massive pacific protests and social pressure made the two leaders step down from power, putting an end to these tough regimes without a shot being fired.
Libya's situation, however, was different. Here Gaddafi reacted with violence to the first protests, ordering the army to open fire to the demonstrators. Whereas in Tunisia and Egypt the army decided not to intervene, in Libya it was tightly controlled by Gaddafi. The violence by which government forces reacted to the protests led to a military uprising in the East of the country, carried out by a force later known simply as "the rebels".
According to Dr. Eugene Rogan, Director of the Middle East Centre at Oxford University, "the uprising has led to civil war in Libya because the army has split, so there were armed elements in Benghazi siding with the opposition, and loyalist military units in Tripoli to support Gaddafi. It could be simply that those furthest from the capital were able to rise up against the regime with less risk than those closest to Tripoli".
Dr. El-Anis, on the other hand, argues that the difference between Libya, on one hand, and Egypt and Tunisia, on the other, underlies in the social and military structure of these countries.
"The military response that we saw in the early stages of the movement in Libya is the key difference. In Tunisia and Egypt the military was not used against the civilian movement. In both cases the military refused and instead basically sided with the masses. The military structure in Libya is quite different and is very closely controlled and connected to the regime and the ruling family in particular. Furthermore, the military response that the Gaddafi regime insisted on in the early stages was quite disproportionate and did not leave room for any kind of negotiated process of reform like we have seen in Morocco, Jordan and Oman", explains El-Anis.
The rebels, an heterogeneous group of armed militia, soldiers and civilians, didn't seek for Western military support from the very first moment. In the first weeks they carried out a blitzkrieg-style offensive that took them almost as far as 20km away from the capital, Tripoli. But a counter-offensive by the government forces, through their 22,000-man strong air force, pushed the rebels back to Benghazi. The rebels' strategy changed then, seeking for support from Western countries.
Tunisia and Egypt undertook a relatively peaceful revolution, removing the historical leaders of both countries from power, Ben Ali in Tunisia and Hosni Mubarak in Egypt. They had ruled their countries firmly for decades, but massive pacific protests and social pressure made the two leaders step down from power, putting an end to these tough regimes without a shot being fired.
Libya's situation, however, was different. Here Gaddafi reacted with violence to the first protests, ordering the army to open fire to the demonstrators. Whereas in Tunisia and Egypt the army decided not to intervene, in Libya it was tightly controlled by Gaddafi. The violence by which government forces reacted to the protests led to a military uprising in the East of the country, carried out by a force later known simply as "the rebels".
According to Dr. Eugene Rogan, Director of the Middle East Centre at Oxford University, "the uprising has led to civil war in Libya because the army has split, so there were armed elements in Benghazi siding with the opposition, and loyalist military units in Tripoli to support Gaddafi. It could be simply that those furthest from the capital were able to rise up against the regime with less risk than those closest to Tripoli".
Dr. El-Anis, on the other hand, argues that the difference between Libya, on one hand, and Egypt and Tunisia, on the other, underlies in the social and military structure of these countries.
"The military response that we saw in the early stages of the movement in Libya is the key difference. In Tunisia and Egypt the military was not used against the civilian movement. In both cases the military refused and instead basically sided with the masses. The military structure in Libya is quite different and is very closely controlled and connected to the regime and the ruling family in particular. Furthermore, the military response that the Gaddafi regime insisted on in the early stages was quite disproportionate and did not leave room for any kind of negotiated process of reform like we have seen in Morocco, Jordan and Oman", explains El-Anis.
The rebels, an heterogeneous group of armed militia, soldiers and civilians, didn't seek for Western military support from the very first moment. In the first weeks they carried out a blitzkrieg-style offensive that took them almost as far as 20km away from the capital, Tripoli. But a counter-offensive by the government forces, through their 22,000-man strong air force, pushed the rebels back to Benghazi. The rebels' strategy changed then, seeking for support from Western countries.
The Libyan conflict and the pipelines. Source: Stratsis Incite
On March 18, only 24 hours after Resolution 1973 was approved by UN's Security Council, French planes bombed, for the first time, positions held by Gaddafi. It was seen as a victory for the rebels, which conceived the Western intervention and the setting up of a no-fly zone as a definitive boost to their interests. But the Western support proved insufficient as Gaddafi forces resisted the strikes and advanced farther towards the rebels' stronghold of Benghazi.
The Western intervention also aroused ignited discussions among the allied countries. The initial discourse was based on the premises of protecting the civilians through a series of air strikes that would hit Gaddafi's military forces. The irruption of land forces was rejected since the very beginning. Only now, after months of a stalemate in the battle and the continuous claims of the rebels for Western support, UK, France and Italy discuss the possibility of sending "advisors" to the rebels .
"I do not think the Western powers will commit land forces to Libya. They seem to regret getting so deeply involved already, and the recent strike on the Gaddafi family residence suggests they are trying to hasten an end by killing Gaddafi himself. While the Afghan war continues, neither the US nor the UK will be willing to enter any new Afghanistans", says Dr. Rogan.
Dr. El-Anis also points out that the situation has reached a critical point. "We can be sure that on the ground and behind closed doors in decision making circles there is still a lot of activity. I think NATO forces understand that the situation will not be eased for quite a few weeks and months. There is very little chance of NATO or any other soldiers on the ground in Libya any time soon", explains.
The situation has reached a point in which none of the combating forces seems a clear winner. According to a research carried out by IHS Global Insight, an American think tank, "NATO allies will be stuck between a rock and a hard place for the foreseeable future, fearing being dragged into a prolonged conflict for which they might be forced to take responsibility. The more active allies, UK, France and US might therefore seek fresh means of engagement, through non-lethal military aid, such as the package declared by the US on 20 April, and logistical and training support. However, without a strategic military shift that swings the power balance decisively in the hands of the rebels, the stalemate is set to drag on ".
The UN has also warned that more funds would be needed to support "relief operations" in Libya. "Unless funds are swiftly committed by donor countries, this shortfall will likely impact vital humanitarian assistance for tens of thousands of people displaced by the recent fighting", said UNHCR spokesperson Andrej Mahecic .
The shortage of Western military and economic support would be a hard blow to the rebels' aspirations.
The Western intervention also aroused ignited discussions among the allied countries. The initial discourse was based on the premises of protecting the civilians through a series of air strikes that would hit Gaddafi's military forces. The irruption of land forces was rejected since the very beginning. Only now, after months of a stalemate in the battle and the continuous claims of the rebels for Western support, UK, France and Italy discuss the possibility of sending "advisors" to the rebels .
"I do not think the Western powers will commit land forces to Libya. They seem to regret getting so deeply involved already, and the recent strike on the Gaddafi family residence suggests they are trying to hasten an end by killing Gaddafi himself. While the Afghan war continues, neither the US nor the UK will be willing to enter any new Afghanistans", says Dr. Rogan.
Dr. El-Anis also points out that the situation has reached a critical point. "We can be sure that on the ground and behind closed doors in decision making circles there is still a lot of activity. I think NATO forces understand that the situation will not be eased for quite a few weeks and months. There is very little chance of NATO or any other soldiers on the ground in Libya any time soon", explains.
The situation has reached a point in which none of the combating forces seems a clear winner. According to a research carried out by IHS Global Insight, an American think tank, "NATO allies will be stuck between a rock and a hard place for the foreseeable future, fearing being dragged into a prolonged conflict for which they might be forced to take responsibility. The more active allies, UK, France and US might therefore seek fresh means of engagement, through non-lethal military aid, such as the package declared by the US on 20 April, and logistical and training support. However, without a strategic military shift that swings the power balance decisively in the hands of the rebels, the stalemate is set to drag on ".
The UN has also warned that more funds would be needed to support "relief operations" in Libya. "Unless funds are swiftly committed by donor countries, this shortfall will likely impact vital humanitarian assistance for tens of thousands of people displaced by the recent fighting", said UNHCR spokesperson Andrej Mahecic .
The shortage of Western military and economic support would be a hard blow to the rebels' aspirations.
A Libyan rebel guards a checkpoint in Brega. Source: Stratsis Incite
The current situation seems far from being resolved. Experts have already warned that the conflict in Libya could evolve into a permanent civil war with the presence of NATO forces, transforming the country into a new Afghanistan. Former Libyan Foreign Ministry, Moussa Koussa, which fled the country in early April, told the BBC that "taking Libya into civil war would lead to so much blood and Libya would be a new Somalia".
A rebel victory in the conflict seems unrealistic right now, and it will certainly never happen without Western support. In that unlikely situation, Libya could end up being ruled by an unknown leader under the close surveillance of the UN and the Western powers. This would appease all the factions involved in the conflict, as happened in Afghanistan with Mohammed Karzai. Western leaders have asked Gaddafi to step down from power and go into exile in several occasions. Still, even if the rebels win with Western support, there is a high risk of confrontation between different factions, given their heterogeneous nature.
A rebel victory in the conflict seems unrealistic right now, and it will certainly never happen without Western support. In that unlikely situation, Libya could end up being ruled by an unknown leader under the close surveillance of the UN and the Western powers. This would appease all the factions involved in the conflict, as happened in Afghanistan with Mohammed Karzai. Western leaders have asked Gaddafi to step down from power and go into exile in several occasions. Still, even if the rebels win with Western support, there is a high risk of confrontation between different factions, given their heterogeneous nature.
"The future in Libya no doubt will involve regime change. The US, UK and France have all pledged not to stop until Gaddafi goes, so they have made that much clear. In the absence of sound state institutions, the scope for collapse and further conflict is a present danger. A UN trusteeship cannot be ruled out to help the Libyans secure their country post-Gaddafi while shaping new institutions of government", says Dr. Rogan.
Middle East experts at Quilliam, a counter-extremism think tank, argue that the Western powers should indeed back the creation of a national anti-Gaddafi coalition. "Such a broad national coalition could become the basis for a transitional government that could guide Libya towards achieving a just, representative and democratic government. The creation of a broad-based, respected and widely-accepted transition government with a large military component will be necessary to create a suitable environment in which Libya’s first free and fair post-Gaddafi elections could be organised", explain.
Dr. El-Anis, on the other hand, warns that the conflict will be long, and the possible future scenarios are not very clear. "The rebels don’t have much chance of success if international pressure on Gaddafi eases off. Financially speaking the regime is running out of funds and this is probably going to be the key. Ultimately though I don’t think the rebels are likely to be able to overthrow the regime militarily and likewise Gaddafi’s forces are not likely to be able to militarily re-assert their control over much of Libya as long as NATO is involved. Eventually I think we will see some kind of progressive political process alongside the military one and the removal of the Gaddafi regime is still what I think will happen", argues.
Saif Al-Islam, heir to Gaddafi's regime. Source: AFP
Another situation could see Gaddafi fleeing the country and his second son, Saif Al-Islam, ruling it but undertaking several reforms which will try to appease the Western powers. Mr. Al-Islam, who studied at the London School of Economics and owned a mansion in London, still enjoys a close relation with prominent figures in the UK. He also told in an interview published in The Spectator, back in 2002, that once in power his policy would be focused on transforming Libya into a Western-like democracy .
Whatever happens, the prospects of a rapid and clear victory of the rebels seem highly unlikely.
0 comments:
Post a Comment