Tag: Libya

Categories
Jasmine Politics

Risks of a Libyan No-Fly Zone

RANIER FSADNI penned a brilliant article in today’s Times of Malta analysing the risks of a Libyan No-Fly Zone. He has kindly agreed for J’accuse to reproduce this article here as a Zolabyte:

As I write (Tuesday morning), Muammar Gaddafi is advancing east towards a showdown with Benghazi. Pressure is growing on the United Nations’ Security Council to approve the imposition of a no-fly zone in Libya.

The case is being made by the Libyan rebels as well as (most prominently) by France, the UK and the Arab League. The US has been troubled, however, by the consideration that military action could end up bolstering Libyan support for Col Gaddafi.

One can see why. At least three of the major assumptions behind the request are not as solid as they look.

First, it is assumed that the battle for Libya is a fight between the Libyan people, as a whole, and Col Gaddafi’s militias. However, there are important western centres that have conspicuously not committed themselves.

There is Tarhuna, with its major tribe, the Ferjan. There is Bani Walid, centre of the Warfalla, said to be a million strong. And there are the two major tribes of the south, the Magarha and the Awlad Suleiman. Between them, these tribes dominate large parts of Tripolitania, down to the south proper. If they take a stand, several smaller tribes are likely to join them.

All four have branches settled in Sirte and its hinterland, which means they are settled on the major boundary the rebel army in the east has to cross. And they are inter-married with Col Gaddafi’s tribe, the Gadadfa.

They have not taken a formal stand for Col Gaddafi. (However, on Tuesday, Libyan state TV announced a letter of support from a group of unnamed representatives of Tarhuna.) But neither have they taken an unequivocal stand with the rebels. Occasional reports concerning the Warfalla have come to nothing so far.

So, what would these tribes do in the face of the considerable military aggression needed to impose a no-fly zone? They all have a proud history of anti-colonial struggle. So do the tribes of the east but the imposition of a no-fly zone is more likely to afflict the western tribes with inevitable “collateral damage”, the accidental killing of civilian men, women and children.

I’m not sure anyone knows the answer to that question. But if Col Gaddafi persuades that the allied attacks constitute imperial aggression, the no-fly zone could end up sparking the civil war that has so far been avoided.

The second assumption is that the rebels do want a no-fly zone. They are, of course, explicitly requesting it and recognising that it would entail bludgeoning attacks on Libyan territory. But it is not clear their understanding of one of their key conditions – no foreign ground troops – is the same as that of, say, a supporter like US Senator John Kerry.

When one of the rebel leaders sought to illustrate what he meant, he said that, of course, if a foreign pilot’s plane was shot down, it would be all right if he parachuted himself down to Libyan territory – “he would be our guest”. It is indicative of how strictly the rebels reject the idea of foreign ground troops that it was thought worth pointing out that concession.

In any case, however, the likelihood is that a pilot would bail out far closer to Col Gaddafi’s forces.

And the record of the US and UK armies is that they send troops on helicopter gunships to rescue soldiers stranded behind enemy lines. Nor is it to be excluded (a notorious case arose in Afghanistan) that stranded soldiers may need to decide, at short notice, whether to kill civilians who have accidentally discovered their hideout.

In short, the distinction between a no-fly zone and ground troops could be messy in practice. Even if the rebel leaders relent on their current firm rejection of any foreign troops on Libyan soil, specific incidents may give them a difficult time with their own people. The third assumption is that regional Arab involvement in a no-fly zone unequivocally aids the effort. Not necessarily; it depends on whose narrative carries the day.

Libyan state TV is portraying the Arab League’s secretary general, Amre Moussa, as a munafiq (hypocrite, but with connotations of treachery in Islamic history), bribed with US support for his presidential candidacy in Egypt. News of Egypt resuming exports of gas to Israel has been given prominence. The narrative of US/Israeli control over oil supplies and the Arab world is being pushed.

It may gain currency if the US continues to take a meeker stance in response to state repression of protests in Bahrain and Saudi Arabia. A weak stance may indeed be the price the US has to pay for Saudi support in Libya. In that case, however, it would be easier for Col Gaddafi to portray US concerns over violence in Libya as a hypocritical pretext, with the real motive being control over oil.

Individually, each of these risks can be mitigated. In combination, they must feature prominently in the calculations of the US and Col Gaddafi as they assess what lies within grasp and what could be fatal overreach.

*****
Zolabytes is a rubrique on J’accuse – the name is a nod to the original J’accuser (Emile Zola) and a building block of the digital age (byte). Zolabytes is intended to be a collection of guest contributions in the spirit of discussion that has been promoted by J’accuse on the online Maltese political scene for 5 years.
Opinions expressed in zolabyte contributions are those of the author in question. Opinions appearing on zolabytes do not necessarily reflect the editorial line of J’accuse the blog.
***

Related articles
Enhanced by Zemanta
Categories
Immigration Jasmine

The Devil You Know

Joseph Muscat must be chewing his liver by now. The Libyan Crisis has propelled our Prime Minister back up in the popularity stakes thanks to the wonderful transformation of our island into the Florence Nightingale of the Mediterranean. After the early hesitant pussy-footing Prime Minister Gonzi took a stand in line with the UN, the EU and the major policy-makers of the West. The “neutrality” issue was only bandied about by remnants of the “That 70’s Show” that still tend to appear as uninvited warts in our political constellation.

Thankfully, Muscat’s labour distanced itself from the likes of Reno Calleja but it was already too late. Muscat had dilly-dallied and hedged his bets too far. He had once again proven himself to be a massive FAIL in the statesman department. All the better for Lawrence and his troops who could draw cheques on the well thought international reputation bequeathed by his nationalist predecessors. There is no doubt that on an international level most voters with a thinking head on their necks would prefer the consistency and statesmanship of Lawrence Gonzi any day.

Behind the Scenes

It’s not so airy fairy behind the scenes though is it? We may be passing through a moment when Facebook is full of Maltese of all colours and creeds declaiming their pride to be Maltese and joy to see their nation at the service of humanity and humanitarian activity. As shiploads and planeloads of escapees from Libya entered our air and sea ports we clapped enthusiastically and patted ourselves on the back for a job well done.

David Cameron stopped short of granting a new George Cross to the island (the reference to the first period of assistance by the Maltese was not so cryptic was it?) and US viewers got their umpteenth chance to discover that Malta was an “independent tiny island” in the Mediterranean (so we also got the publicity Joseph had crassly craved for).

But we kept smelling something fishy. For behind the statesmanlike dealing with the crisis there was an incredible volte-face at both a political and popular level. Just think of it. We were watching a boatload of 2,000 workers who had lost their job due to the events in a troubled nation. Few, if anybody, were calling for them to “Go Back to Their Country”. We were suddenly the most hospitable of nations – an oasis of opportunity.

What difference is there, I ask, between a boatload of Eritreans displaced by Civil War and a boatload of Chinese displaced by Civil War? The Chinese are going home I hear you say? Oh so that is what it takes does it? So what you  mean is that so long as we can wash our hands from the responsibility of safeguarding the human life ourselves then we are quite happy to don the nurse’s hat and play the hero. Is that it?

Libya no More

Until a few months ago we have seen boatloads of Sudanese, Eritreans and Somalis heading to our country. All we could think of was “Go Away”. When we panicked and when we could not draw the attention of the international community to our plight (hell, despite all efforts the Swedish foreign minister still finds claims of immigration exodus “an exaggeration”) we turned to those who offered an alternative: Muammar Gaddafi’s Iron Fist (with the connivance of Signor Maroni and the EU Commission).

We were happy to turn the boats back to Libya and then like the proverbial monkeys closed our eyes, ears and mouth as to the consequences. They were another people’s problem. So yes. Until a few months ago we bargained with Colonel Gaddafi of the “pills in Nescafe and Al Qaeda in Benghazi”. We asked the man who paid mercenaries to shoot on his own people, his own blood, his own nation to help us solve the illegal immigrant problem.

We trusted a mad man to provide us with a humanitarian solution. He obliged. Later he would come up with the 5 billion euro blackmail as the lives of thousands of persons became subject to a barter with a Europe that was too busy to care.

Still patting yourself on the back?

 


From OpenDemocracy.org:

EU migration control: made by Gaddafi?

Related articles
Enhanced by Zemanta
Categories
Jasmine Politics

The Libyan Opportunity – 2

A few years ago when there was  military coup in Thailand I called an uncle of mine who has business interests in the country. I asked him if he was worried that all the years of investment and relocation (from Spain – too much bureaucracy in Spain) would all go up in smoke – a factoory, huge amounts of stock and employees. His reply was very matter-of-fact. It all boiled down to a business risk. He had chosen Thailand for the well-priced labour, for the good prices on goods and for the markets that would be available from there (including the Middle East). The political turmoil was one of the cons in the equation but it had to be factored in – he had to hold his chin up and bear the brunt of any effects on his risk investment.

Chapter 2 – The “Save Our Business” Brigade

An article in today’s Times describes a Maltese businessman’s views of Libya: “Libya has proven to be fertile ground for Maltese business interests and some had plans for “massive” expansions. But the scenario seems to have changed overnight and they now question whether they would materialise.” The article was less crass than Tony Zarb over at GWU (see the Runs’ apt interpretation on that one) but whether it is workers or entrepreneurs you still get the impression that these people had absolutely no idea of the risk factor entered into when living, working or investing in a country run by a mad dictator.

Fashion outlets in Tripoli or Benghazi? Sweet. Did the immigrants held back by Ghaddafi as ransom to EU pockets stop over at the Libyan equivalent of Zara or Benetton to buy a piece of clothing or two for their nieces? One entrepreneur complained of furniture stock stuck in the UK and costing him 3,000€ every fifteen days.  I remembered Antonio from the Merchant of Venice worrying about his lost merchandise at sea… business risks, business risks. History is full of entrepreneurs who had to factor in the risks of dealing with volatile nations. The Venetian Republic combined business and policy (and a bit of conniving thievery) to great effect for many a year. This business risk however carried the moral weight of investing and encouraging the growth of a dictator’s home patch. So long as he showed us the money we were not worried about storage were we?

What does baffle me is how bloggers and article writers can suddenly yell out in favour of our “business interests”. The same bloggers who would unthinkingly slap a Fair Trade logo on their blog or denounce sweat shops in India or China do not seem to be able to make the same equation for a similar reality closer to home. Well, I guess Nike, Apple and Sony don’t have the same familiar faces as hotel chains full of juicy restaurants, enticing spas and luxurious bedrooms.

Would you work in Afghanistan? Do you wonder why jobs in certain hot spots are much better paid? Do you know why an oil rig job is so well paid by the hour? The risk factor has a lot to do with it. Then when it comes to morals… the price is never high enough. Dealing with Ghaddafi means joining him in his quest to have the funds to pay mercenaries to shoot to kill.

On a state level it may be a Macchiavellian choice that is slave to the realpolitik of the day (like buying oil or submitting to the Italian request to pass on arms through your space). On a business level it is the equivalent of the golden goose… you never know when it is going to croak its last breath do you?

Again, forgive us if we are not weeping “our” business’ losses.

More on Entrepreneurs & Libya (pre-revolution)

Categories
Jasmine Politics

The Libyan Opportunity – 1

J’accuse feels obliged to be its usual cynical self. The news from home is that everybody with a keyboard or a pen has been worked up into a frenzy about the Malta – Libya relationship now that the Mad Dog has exhibited evident signs of the late stages of rabies. The fog of war – or the blinding light of international attention – seems to have turned our collective media machine into an exhibitionist three year old eager to show the dinner guests its latest development in potty training.

Where do we start?

Chapter 1: The “I told you so” brigade

No you didn’t. Forget partisan divides, forget the finger pointing to Mintoff’s or Tonio Borg’s cuddling up to the Michael Jackson lookalike. We’ve been living in the shadow of Muammar for as long as he’s been there. He’s been a permanent fixture in the World Constellation so inevitably his proximity to our tiny nation could not have been ignored. Our leaders chose invariably the option of kowtowing to the Libyan threat via at first enthusiastic then reluctant cooperation. I do not recall anybody yelling “foul” at the different depths of government strategy of coping with Ghaddafi.

Not until the Egypt revolution was almost over did we hear the first yelps of anti-Ghaddafism – yelps that could be translated to let’s do something to stop encouraging the leader. Until then we had all remained mum about the flow of investment and collaboration between successive Maltese governments and Ghaddafi. After all, since the end of the US embargo it HAS been a free for all.

Of course there were a few tut-tuts and mellow barks along the way (last one was when Ghaddafi awarded Mintoff his eccentric prize) but on the whole one can confidently state that the Maltese people were quite content to settle down around a system of forgetful appeasement. Brothers in Libya my arabic back side.

Now we are divided between those in who one corner practically wear the revolutionary hat while plotting complex evacuation plans and calling for the government to save the businessmen and the brains in the other corner who stare a democratic uprising in the face and can only see the threat of immigrant invasion.

Forgive us if we’re not that carried away.

Categories
Mediawatch

They Don't Really Care About Us

We may fret and worry about joint Libyan and BP plans to sink an oil well off our coast (and Libya‘s) but when it comes to public acclaim about a potential disaster little or no mention is made of Malta. Surprised? Here is Andrew Johnson writing in the Independent on Sunday (IOS, UK): BP Well Threatens Ancient Libyan Sites:

Plans by the energy giant BP to sink an oil well off the Libyan coast could have disastrous consequences for the region’s rich heritage of coastal ancient city sites and shipwrecks – already under threat from oil tankers, coastal erosion and tourist developments – archaeologists from around the world have warned. […]

BP has, however, announced that it intends to go ahead with plans to sink a well – which would be 200m deeper than the one in the Gulf of Mexico – around 125 miles off the coast of Libya. Work is due to begin before the end of the year. Archaeologists fear that an oil spill in the region could destroy the area’s numerous ancient coastal and underwater sites and that thousands of historic shipwrecks could be at additional risk from drilling activity.

These include the ancient harbour town of Apollonia, in Cyrenaica – which dates from the 7th century BC and is five metres below sea level – along with two ancient cities in the region of Tripolitania, both of which are World Heritage Sites. Claude Sintes, the director of the Museum of Ancient Arles in the south of France and director of the sub-aquatic team of the French archaeological mission to Libya, said that the sites are either on the beaches or underwater close to the shore. Washed-up oil would soak the porous stone and be impossible to clean, he added.

Quick. Someone tell them about Ghar Dalam, Hal Saflieni and NET TV.

Related articles by Zemanta
Enhanced by Zemanta