The Libyan revolution differs from other Arab revolutions in that it turned almost immediately to military confrontation. The fault lines and objectives of each of the protagonists have emerged in the early days: the rebels want the fall of the regime of Muammar Gaddafi and it wants to eliminate. There is therefore no scope for a compromise solution.
This determines the current fighting and means that we are facing a real danger of civil war. It has been said that the rebels had erred in choosing a military confrontation, especially since they lack relevant experience, money and logistical capabilities and organization. Some say they should have adopted the strategy of peaceful demonstrations and civil disobedience that had been followed successfully by opponents in Egypt and Tunisia.
This view does not take into account the fact that the Libyan regime is quite different from those of Ben Ali and Mubarak Ali Saleh even still in power in Yemen. It's a safe plan that eliminated the institutions and foundations of the state. It is not based on a popular base, nor a people's army, but on the militias.
Added to this is that in forty years of rule and accumulation of oil wealth Gaddafi has not brought growth to the country, but the tyranny, deceit and bureaucratic anarchy through what he calls "Government of the Libyan [the masses]." Moreover, it does not support the challenge and sees an attack on the Libyan and the sacredness of the "brother-leader of the revolution" [reference to the coup of 1969].
This scheme is based on the principle that everyone should shut up and accept without complaint all that said Gaddafi. War crime Given this particular situation, what is the position taken by Arab and Western countries? Let's start with the West. They do not skimp on the statements of support for the Libyan people and those reaffirming the right of a democratic regime.
They asked the colonel to leave power and threaten prosecution before international justice for war crimes against his people. Similarly, these countries have taken the initiative to freeze the financial assets of the family of the leader and raise the prospect of establishing a no-fly zone to prevent the regular Air Force to bomb cities.
However, apart from the freezing of assets, it remains at the stage of statements and has not translated into concrete measures. Europe and the United States are divided on both the idea of a no-fly zone on the recognition or not of the National Transitional Council (CNT) as the legitimate representative of the Libyan people.
This leaves no surprise. The West had he not seen for decades that that system was the worst and most dangerous of all the Arab world? Why he is reluctant to support the Libyan people who wants to get rid of it? The question arises, especially as Western countries, including the U.S., have shown far more from the face of the Egyptian revolution.
Certainly, the rebels refuse any foreign military intervention, but the hesitation of the West for measures that fall far short of that ultimate event. The reluctance of Europe seem all the more amazing that it borders on the same Mediterranean Sea that Libya. However, only one country has so far recognized the CNT, namely France.
Regarding the United States, the national security adviser for Barack Obama, Tom Donilon said they are coordinating with the rebels about the dispatch of humanitarian aid and how the opponents can organize as an alternative government. However, the U.S. administration continues to waver on their recognition as legal representative of the country.
Fly zone Furthermore, the weight of American interests vary greatly from one country to another. According to The New York Times, in fact, Washington and its allies would be reluctant to become embroiled in a civil war Jamahiriya because they do not consider that this country is central to their security.
It also appears that in Washington it is considered that the speed with which are linked revolutions in the Arab world could lead to regional instability and threaten U.S. interests. This suite of simultaneous uprisings in the Maghreb and Mashreq has actually provoked puzzlement among all those interested in the region.
There is no indication that the Western position will evolve much before the emerging greater clarity on the outcome of military confrontations and the attitude of Arab countries. Because the West wants to be covered by the Arabs before deciding to establish a no-fly zone. Now Algeria and Syria do not agree with this idea and have refrained for the moment to say what they think of the Libyan situation.
As for Morocco and Mauritania, they probably expect to see an emerging consensus among the other Arab countries or know what the outcome will be boots on the ground in Libya [March 12, the Arab League voted unanimously a resolution asking the Security Council of the UN to authorize the establishment of a no-fly zone to protect the people of Libyan attacks by supporters of Colonel Gaddafi].
The situation is most curious is that the two countries which led the revolutionary spark, Tunisia and Egypt. Both remain behind and show themselves adverse to the idea of a no-fly zone. This can be understood in terms of Tunisia, a small neighboring country of Libya. But Egypt? It is not possible to justify his attitude by saying she is too busy handling its own internal situation.
This country has gotten rid of the tyrant should have taken the lead to side of the Libyan people so too could get rid of his own. 
This determines the current fighting and means that we are facing a real danger of civil war. It has been said that the rebels had erred in choosing a military confrontation, especially since they lack relevant experience, money and logistical capabilities and organization. Some say they should have adopted the strategy of peaceful demonstrations and civil disobedience that had been followed successfully by opponents in Egypt and Tunisia.
This view does not take into account the fact that the Libyan regime is quite different from those of Ben Ali and Mubarak Ali Saleh even still in power in Yemen. It's a safe plan that eliminated the institutions and foundations of the state. It is not based on a popular base, nor a people's army, but on the militias.
Added to this is that in forty years of rule and accumulation of oil wealth Gaddafi has not brought growth to the country, but the tyranny, deceit and bureaucratic anarchy through what he calls "Government of the Libyan [the masses]." Moreover, it does not support the challenge and sees an attack on the Libyan and the sacredness of the "brother-leader of the revolution" [reference to the coup of 1969].
This scheme is based on the principle that everyone should shut up and accept without complaint all that said Gaddafi. War crime Given this particular situation, what is the position taken by Arab and Western countries? Let's start with the West. They do not skimp on the statements of support for the Libyan people and those reaffirming the right of a democratic regime.
They asked the colonel to leave power and threaten prosecution before international justice for war crimes against his people. Similarly, these countries have taken the initiative to freeze the financial assets of the family of the leader and raise the prospect of establishing a no-fly zone to prevent the regular Air Force to bomb cities.
However, apart from the freezing of assets, it remains at the stage of statements and has not translated into concrete measures. Europe and the United States are divided on both the idea of a no-fly zone on the recognition or not of the National Transitional Council (CNT) as the legitimate representative of the Libyan people.
This leaves no surprise. The West had he not seen for decades that that system was the worst and most dangerous of all the Arab world? Why he is reluctant to support the Libyan people who wants to get rid of it? The question arises, especially as Western countries, including the U.S., have shown far more from the face of the Egyptian revolution.
Certainly, the rebels refuse any foreign military intervention, but the hesitation of the West for measures that fall far short of that ultimate event. The reluctance of Europe seem all the more amazing that it borders on the same Mediterranean Sea that Libya. However, only one country has so far recognized the CNT, namely France.
Regarding the United States, the national security adviser for Barack Obama, Tom Donilon said they are coordinating with the rebels about the dispatch of humanitarian aid and how the opponents can organize as an alternative government. However, the U.S. administration continues to waver on their recognition as legal representative of the country.
Fly zone Furthermore, the weight of American interests vary greatly from one country to another. According to The New York Times, in fact, Washington and its allies would be reluctant to become embroiled in a civil war Jamahiriya because they do not consider that this country is central to their security.
It also appears that in Washington it is considered that the speed with which are linked revolutions in the Arab world could lead to regional instability and threaten U.S. interests. This suite of simultaneous uprisings in the Maghreb and Mashreq has actually provoked puzzlement among all those interested in the region.
There is no indication that the Western position will evolve much before the emerging greater clarity on the outcome of military confrontations and the attitude of Arab countries. Because the West wants to be covered by the Arabs before deciding to establish a no-fly zone. Now Algeria and Syria do not agree with this idea and have refrained for the moment to say what they think of the Libyan situation.
As for Morocco and Mauritania, they probably expect to see an emerging consensus among the other Arab countries or know what the outcome will be boots on the ground in Libya [March 12, the Arab League voted unanimously a resolution asking the Security Council of the UN to authorize the establishment of a no-fly zone to protect the people of Libyan attacks by supporters of Colonel Gaddafi].
The situation is most curious is that the two countries which led the revolutionary spark, Tunisia and Egypt. Both remain behind and show themselves adverse to the idea of a no-fly zone. This can be understood in terms of Tunisia, a small neighboring country of Libya. But Egypt? It is not possible to justify his attitude by saying she is too busy handling its own internal situation.
This country has gotten rid of the tyrant should have taken the lead to side of the Libyan people so too could get rid of his own.
No comments:
Post a Comment