The Sunday News
IN these 54 years, many of “Azania’s” leaders have been hauled to the ICC for crimes “against humanity” yet George W Bush and Tony Blair’s hands are soaked in Iraq, Afghanistan and Africa’s blood. Have we ever asked ourselves, fifty-four years later if the civil wars in Africa have not been orchestrated and protracted by the global moral prefects? Some might argue these 54 years are nothing to celebrate because they have been five decades of self-betrayal, a hall mark of the sell-out culture, part of our African ethos to impress “Baas John”.
Today we remember Libya, a once flourishing state. Libya, in the throes of a civil war, now represents the ugly facet of the much-hyped Arab Spring which Africa was inactive on. With an area of 1,8 million square kilometres, it’s the fourth largest country in Africa, yet its population is only about 6,4 million, one of the lowest in the continent, stashing nearly 42 billion barrels of oil in proven reserves, the ninth largest in the world. With a reasonably good per capita income of $14000, Libya also has the highest HDI (Human Development Index) in the African continent. Following the anti-establishment movements in neighbouring Egypt and Tunisia, Libya too witnessed anti-regime rallies and protests, especially in the city of Benghazi located in the eastern Cyrenaican region. Eastern Libya, even in the past, has been at the forefront of rebellions against Ottoman and Italian rule. The legendary Omar Mukhtar, who fought the Italians, which ushered their Independence, hailed from the region. From Benghazi, the revolt spread quickly and Gaddafi ordered troops to quell the rebellion all to no competition against the world bullies.
What happened then?
On 26 February, the UN Security Council passed Resolution 1970 condemning Gaddafi’s crackdown, putting in place an asset freeze and travel embargo of top officials, and referring the regime’s actions to the International Criminal Court. France and Britain pushed for further action against Gaddafi. French President Nicholas Sarkozy, whose presidency had been funded by Gaddafi, led from the front in the campaign to intervene more forcefully in Libya. The primary aim was to get the UN to declare a no-fly zone to protect the rebels under heavy bombardment from Gaddafi’s air-force. The Anglo-French initiative with American support received the backing of the Arab League and the Organisation of Islamic Conference (OIC) and on 17 March, the Security Council passed Resolution 1973 with ten votes in favour while five members; Russia, China, India, Brazil and Germany abstained from the vote. Sincerely, as soon as the resolution was passed, Gaddafi proposed a ceasefire but this was ignored as insincere.
Making sense of the abstentions
To my knowledge, India decided to abstain from the vote since the report of the Secretary General’s Envoy on Libyan situation had not yet been received and therefore the resolution was based on very little clear information, including a lack of certainty regarding who was going to enforce the measures. India stated that it was in favour of giving priority to political efforts than military efforts in finding a solution in Libya. Brazil felt that the resolution went beyond the goal of enforcing the no fly zone.
The Brazilians argued that the use of force as provided for in the resolution will not achieve the immediate end of violence and the protection of civilians, and may have the unintended effect of exacerbating the current tensions on the ground. Russians criticised that the work on the resolution was not in keeping with Security Council practice, with many questions having remained unanswered, including how the resolution would be enforced and by whom, and what the limits of engagement would be. China, while explaining its abstention stressed the importance of respecting the UN Charter and solving the crisis through peaceful means. The Chinese felt that their delegation had asked specific questions that failed to be answered and, therefore, it had serious difficulty with the resolution. Germany felt that the intervention posed great risks and there was the likelihood of large-scale loss of life. Germany warned that the implementation of the resolution may lead to a protracted military conflict that could draw in the wider region. All this was ignored even by South Africa, an African country, last to be independent and celebrates Africa Day like many of us.
The African Union and South Africa’s Political Somersaults
The African Union kept a low profile in the initial phases of the crisis. It’s suffice to realise that many African leaders have been known to have received generous financial support from Gaddafi. South Africa, which voted in favour of the UN resolution after Jacob Zuma received a personal phone call from Barack Obama, came out strongly against the coalition airstrikes as soon as they began but it was too late and that was a reflection of probably poor advisory or analysis of the geo-political interests. Jean Ping, chairman of the Standing Commission of the AU, said that they were not consulted about the crisis before the Resolution 1973 was passed and air strikes started. Not that the AU has a great record in resolving humanitarian crises and conducting cease-fire negotiations but it would have been appropriate to give the organisation a chance before the start of the bombing campaign.
Examining Resolution 1973
Resolution 1973 by all means was a sweeping document with its language, scope and range, leaving too much to interpretation. The resolution authorised Member States acting nationally or through regional organisations or arrangements to take all necessary measures, not-withstanding paragraph 9 of 1970; to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack; while excluding a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory. The resolution appeared to be in conflict with the spirit of the U.N. Charter, especially Articles 2(4) and 2(7), which prohibit the use of force and intervention in the domestic jurisdiction of any state. Moreover, intervention under chapter VII is mandated for situations involving the breach of international peace and security. And even in such cases, Article 42 permits use of force only after exhausting all the measures suggested in Article 41 like “complete or partial interruption of economic relations and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio, and other means of communication, and the severance of diplomatic relation.” As the coalition intervention in Libya progressed on the basis of Resolution 1973, there are a few questions which Africa never questioned even as they celebrated Africa Day six years after a humiliating drag of a founding Father of the AU.
The foremost question was about defining the ultimate objective of the intervention, was it the enforcement of a no-fly zone and protection of civilians or was it regime change? The issue lacked clarity then and even now because the resolution while “authorising military action” did not legally allow regime change as a motive for the operation. However, several senior leaders of the coalition had made it clear that they wanted Gaddafi to go. On 15 April 2011, Presidents Obama, Sarkozy and Prime Minister David Cameron made it clear that they want Gaddafi to go. The three leaders declared that “it is impossible to imagine a future for Libya with Gaddafi in power” and it is “unthinkable” that he “can play a part in the future government.” Confusion also prevailed whether the rebels merit protection under the resolution since they were armed and were involved in fighting. This essentially made them combatants in a civil war and the resolution’s mandate was to protect civilians and civilian-populated areas. But in many instances the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (Nato)-led coalition by default ended up as the airforce of the rebel fighters. The coalition was uncertain about its stance in the event of a direct engagement between pro-Gaddafi fighters and the rebels. Another issue is whether Nato was to interfere if Gaddafi’s forces engage the rebel fighters. Similarly what could Nato do if the rebel forces attack civilians who are supporters of Gaddafi or if they killed black people, suspecting them to be mercenaries? Many such instances were reported, which leaves me wondering if AU really finds peace when celebrating Africa Day in a horde of unanswered questions which led to the humiliating dragging of its founding father.
On 20 October 2011, we sat in front of our television sets, watching helplessly the butchering of Africa’s icon and Africa did nothing. It marked another triumph of colonialism in the 21st century and our leaders only had political rhetoric to deliver in chagrin-suffice to say such a move was palatable. We became spectators of a skimid ride as the Libyan leader who once paraded on the world stage with a style so unique and unpredictable that the words “maverick” or “eccentric” scarcely did him justice was dragged as if he was a local terrific thief. Gaddafi developed his own political philosophy, writing a book so influential — in the eyes of its author, at least — that it eclipsed anything dreamt up by Plato, Locke or Marx. He made countless show-stopping appearances at Arab and international gatherings, standing out not just with his outlandish clothing, but also his blunt speeches. He spent his life reinventing himself and his revolution: one Arab commentator called him the “Picasso of Middle East politics”, although instead of Blue, Rose or Cubist periods, he had his pan-Arab period, his Islamist period, his pan-African period, and so on. Libya under Gaddafi was not entirely hellish as the world has been made to believe.
Follow @mhlanga_micheal.
