Goodbye Gaddafi

The empire is crumbling all around him.

Like the Romanian Ceausescu back in 1989 or with Saddam Hussein back in 2003, slowly but surely we are seeing the regime of a tyrannical tyrant, falling to pieces.

As I blogged here back in February, I supported the United Nations resolution to provide air attack to stop Gaddafi's regime from inflicting any further horrors on its own people. It hasn't been an easy 6 months since but it was the right decision at the time and events are proving that in retrospect it was the right decision also.

The relative ease to which the 'rebel' troops surged into Tripoli on Sunday gave the lie to Gaddafi's words over previous months. There has clearly not been the overwhelming support for the fallen leader in his nation's capital as he had stated there was.

I must admit that I missed the sudden and swift entry into Tripoli on Sunday evening so I was intrigued to read the views of friends on Facebook who criticised the BBC's slow handling of the on-going and fast-paced developments as opposed to Sky News' front-line presence. Stephen Glenn mentioned it in his blog post here and it chimed with my frustration at the Beeb's slow response to the London Riots of a few weeks back as opposed to Sky News' up-to-the-minute updates on their coverage.

The Arab Sptring Claims Another Victim
After almost 42 years in power (he took control after a bloodless coup on September 1st 1969), his reign as the longest-serving Arab leader is drawing to a close.

It is critical that this modern coup has been done on the ground by the Libyans themselves and not by an imperialist foreign power.

It follows on from the success of the insugencies from below in neighbouring Tunisia and Egypt and whilst at the time of typing, Gaddafi's exact whereabouts is still unknown, it is clear that when he does surface, whether dead or alive (and I very much expect it'll be the former) it will be to a transformed political environment in his beloved Libya in which his his powerbase has evaporated into the mist of battle.

What will come next? There's no certainty. The west will hope for a relatively calm transition to a broadly democratic Libya thought the various factions that have brought about Gaddafi's downfall will quite likely have different opinions as to how that future should look.

There's no certainties apart from one and that is that Gaddafi's time as the Head of State in Libya is drawing to an imminent close.

Not a moment to soon.

Whilst Libya Burns, Yemen Bleeds

One of the great injustices of the developing situation in Libya over recent days is that it has now wholly transfixed our attention away from everything else. Admittedly it would now seem that the nuclear concerns in Japan are beginning to recede but there are nevertheless some 10,000 missing people in that devastated country that is seeking to rebuild itself after nature wreaked its awful magic there less some 10 days ago. But in recent days, it gets little coverage.

But closer to the Libyan home in neighbouring Arabic states, there is much happening that should be receiving far more media scrutiny but which, because of the Libyan intervention, is falling off the news cycle. There's the Saudi Arabian support of the Bahranian crackdown on its protests. There's also the increasing discontent in Syria where crowds have set fire to the ruling Ba'ath Party's HQ as the country's elite face the biggest challenge to its control since they took control almost half a century ago.

Yemen Bleeds
Then there's Yemen. Yes, Yemen. The discontent has been apparent there over the past month as the successful protests in Tunisia and Egypt gave protestors across the region hope that their cause could also lead to change.

It has been reported over the weekend but it was only today that I heard about the awful atrocity that befell up to 52 anti-regime protestors last Friday when snipers, loyal to President Ali Abdullah Saleh opened fire and shot them dead. President Saleh, who has been in office since 1978, announced last month amidst the growing discontent, that he would not stand for re-election in 2013 in the hope of calming the tension.

But it hasn't done so and indeed, the awful events of last Friday have only heightened the anger levelled at the President and his regime. Whilst the leaders of the country's two most important tribes have now turned against their President, so has some of his closest political colleagues. The Human Rights Minister Huda al-Ban resigned, calling her government's action as a "horrible, cowardly and perfidious crime". Abdullah Alsaidi, Yemen's ambassador to the UN also resigned in protest to the crackdown.

So what did President Saleh do in response last night? Typically, he attempted to pass the buck and lay the blame at his Cabinet's door by sacking them all. Like his Arabic counterparts, he is attempting to save his own skin by blaming those below him. Like his Arabic counterparts, he has been in power for decades and has lost the confidence of his people. Like his Arabic counterparts, he is stubbornly refusing to acknowledge that his time is up and that he should go.

Western Hypocrisy
Yet, there is hardly any mention of the Yemen in the news at the moment. It is being totally overshadowed by the UN-mandated action in Libya. Yes, a number of MPs in Parliament spoke of the situation there in today's House of Commons Libyan debate and it is important that they did so to remind Parliament of other neighbouring nations that are being allowed to get away with doing similar deeds to what Gaddafi would have done on his own people.

Even in the British press, it's all about Libya. This is of course understandable but the protestors in Yemen are unlikely to get a look-in. Indeed, even the internationalist 'The Independent' only reported on Yemen in yesterday's edition on page 29. It's all rather depressing stuff.

But it was the ever thought-provoking Yasmin Alibhai-Brown who stated quite clearly in the same paper yesterday that the west are guilty in the outset for fostering these autocratic leaderships over the years. An example is the very fact that the US sponsors President Saleh to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars, to keep al-Qaida in check. In recent weeks, Saudi Arabia have moved into Bahrain with force to help with the crackdown against their demonstrators there. But have there been calls from the western powers for the UN to come down severely on these nations as they have in Libya? Of course they haven't. This is what we call 'double standards'.

Yasmin rightly stated:

Yemenese President Saleh

"Many of the weapons Gaddafi is using were sold by us to him – thank you very much, Mr Blair. As Tunisians and Egyptians made their bid for freedom, PM Cameron was out there selling to the bastards, colluding with them with a smile on his face. The French have been just as busy. (Their excuse is jobs. If miners and other workers are dispensable, why should those making blood goods be for ever protected? So others will step in to make the devil's tools? Let them.) Now they want to be saviours. Not so fast gentlemen. Could you first apologise? And then promise no more such deals? If not, even if Gaddafi is driven out, Western involvement will be suspect. It will be seen as toxic effluence which contaminated the budding Arab Spring.

"Their (the west's) movers and shakers cannot go on cultivating hideous leaders and then turning on them when the winds change. They embrace Saudi Arabia and in the same moment shoot down Libya. Such hypocrisies will no longer be swallowed by people who are now globally connected. Realpolitik needs, I know, to prevail over idealism some of the time. However, if the West wants respect for backing democracy and humane standards, it has to put its own houses in order. The Arab revolutions have spread to our shores and are calling out for consistency and honour and for a foreign-affairs reformation. Whatever happens in Libya, our Government must listen or be damned".

This, perfectly encapsulated by Yasmin, are my foreign ethical policy concerns. The realpolitik of the situation as she admits and as was eloquently stated in the House of Commons today, means that it can not always be possible to do what is right all of the time.

But even if that be the case, the west would have a better moral vantage point to cast its opinion on the internal wrangling of failing nation states if it didn't have a sordid past of selling arms to these nations and propping up what are more often than not, autocratic and aggressive regimes, because it best suits the status quo.

It all comes into sharper focus on days like these. The Libyan intervention is indeed, as I have previously mentioned in this blog, a necessary one. But then there are also other nations such as the Yemen where the case for similar actions could arguably be made. But of course, if the west's hypocritical, double standards needs are better served by not rocking such boats, then the call for international action may well be muted in comparison.

In the meantime, whilst Libya burns for what will hopefully be a better future, the likes of Yemen are allowed to bleed to death.

Libya: The new Korea?

We've moved into the opening few days of open confrontation between the UN-mandated forces and the Libyan authorities under Gaddafi's command.

I blogged here last week about my support for the UN-led action on Libya but now, as we look at the repercussions of the opening days of conflict, it's worth casting an eye to the end-game.

How's it going so far?
What is the aim of the UN-sanctioned action in the first place? Well, it is too safeguard the Libyan civilians who are opposing Gaddafi's rule. So, how's it going so far? Well, by all accounts it seems to be going pretty well. The allies, led by the UK, US and France have rapidly managed to gain control over the airspace above Libya. That means that they've been able to neutralise Gaddafi's air attacks on his own civilians - particularly in his attempt to regain the second city Benghazi. It seems that the feeling there is now more positive as the inevitability of a Gaddafi counter-attack there has been minimised for the time being. It would seem that there is still Gaddafi-led air strikes occuring against dissidents to the west of Tripoli so the allies haven't necessarily gained complete air superiority yet in securing the No Fly Zone.

Whilst it has been the UK, US and France who have led so far, Denmark and Norway are said to be sending 6 planes each to help with their international effort. In addition, Spain has sent at least three planes, whilst Italy also has jets ready to deploy. Canada has deployed six jets to Sicily and is preparing them for action.


Source: BBC News Website



But most importantly is the news that Qatar are to send in 4 planes of their own to help enforce the No Fly Zone. As the first Arab state to do so, this would give the west-dominated UN-sanctioned effort much more credibility in the region. Other Arab countries are said to be prepared to join the effort as well and as far as the US, UK and France are concerned, the more the merrier. Why? Well because the Arab League's Secretary's call since hositilies began to pull back from ariel bombing will have concerned the west.

Arab League Secretary General Amr Moussa, who supported the UN resolution, on Sunday criticised the severity of the bombardment.

He said: "What is happening in Libya differs from the aim of imposing a no-fly zone, and what we want is the protection of civilians and not the bombardment of more civilians".

If the Arab League begin to openly criticise the actions because they go further than merely securing a No Fly Zone then it could undermine the whole campaign. Yet, the UN resolution was a strong one and clearly gave much flexibility to the coalition forces to ensure the safety of civilians in Libya. If the Arab League aren't happy with this, why were Lebanon, one of the main instigators of the resolution along with France and the UK in the first place, not more vocal with these concerns or told by their neighbours of them at the time?

What's the end-game?
So, it seems to be going well so far. But, what next? What is the end-game?

There's news this morning that a senior Gaddafi command centre has been struck by a coalition missile strike. It is not inconceivable then that with all of this targeted bombing, Gaddafi himself may be killed during this confrontation. I doubt that will happen mind (though saying that, it is reported this morning that one of his sons Khamis Gaddafi has died of burn wounds sustained during an attack on Saturday when a Libyan Air Force pilot purposefully crashed his jet into the Bab al-Aziziya compound in Tripoli where Gaddafi and some of his relatives are staying) and even if it did, would it make him a martyr in the eyes of his followers? Because, and let's not beat about the bush here, Gaddafi, for all we may think of him, still has a clear support base in Libya - predominantly it would seem, around the capital in Tripoli.

A significant question is, what is in the minds of the vast majority who we have not seen on the Libyan streets over recent weeks? Yes, there's a very vocal section of the population who want rid of him but likewise there's a vocal section who also support him. What of the majority that have not raised their voices either way? Do they secretly want rid of Gaddafi but are too afraid to say it or are they actually content with him and like his many keen followers, are rallying to the flag in a patriotic fervour from being under attack from 'foreign aggressors'?

This is all important because unless Gaddafi himself is killed in an air strike (and even then he would probably be replaced by one his sons like Saif al-Islam Muammar al-Gaddafi) then he will retain the support of a substantial part of his country - predominantly in the west. In the east however, the second-city of Benghazi remains the hub of the anti-Gaddafi resentment.

Without coalition troops on the ground but with control of the airspace, it would be unlikely that there could be much movement from either side into the other's territory. There is the strong possibility of an impasse where both sides hold control over a significant proportion of Libyan territory. Unless the coalition forces are willing to bomb Gaddafi into submission (which would be testing the UN-mandated resolution to its limits), then what is the alternative?

Partition?
If this uneasy truce were to evolve over the days, weeks and months ahead, then the stasis may resolve itself in a resolution that has uneasily kept the peace on the Korean Peninsular for the past 60 years. The allied carve-up of Korea, agreed at the Potsdam Conference in the summer of 1945, divided the north and south along the line of the 38th parallel. A 3 year war errupted shortly afterwards from 1950-1953 and a troubled truce has lasted ever since.

Could there be a similar fate for Libya? An isolated (because he has led in isolation before) Gaddafi-led west and a UN-supported east under a more democratic, secular leadership? Probably not you may think but then, with or withour Gaddafi, what are the realistic alteranatives?

I agree with David - Cameron & Owen

The United Nations have voted to enforce a No Fly Zone above Libya. Pardon the language, but about bloody time too.

I blogged here, 19 days ago of my pride in the UN for agreeing significant sanctions on the Libyan government. As I stated then, in the world of international diplomacy, progress if made at all, is usually slow and protracted.

Yet, despite this acceptance of the real-politik of the situation, I have become increasingly frustrated in recent days at the UN's hesitance to go a step further whilst in the meantime, Gadaffi's regime has systematically, aggressively and bloodily set about to regain the territory lost to their opposition over recent weeks.

The growing concern was simply this, would a tougher stance against Gadaffi have come too late? The discussions and considerations over the detail of a United Nations resolution only gave Gadaffi more time to undertake his aim of re-establishing control over the entirety of Libya.

UK, France & Lebanon lead the way
Thankfully however, we have an agreed resolution and the British Government deserve praise for leading the calls for a No Fly Zone from an early stage.

David Cameron has been forthright in his opinion on the need for further action against Gadaffi in order to protect innocent civilians on the ground. Indeed, he wasn't the only David who has been on the same wavelength as me on this issue. Weeks ago when the Libyan situation was beginning to deteriorate, Lord David Owen, who I rarely agree with on anything, was calling for such an imposition and I agreed with him at that very early stage.

But it was only the call, last weekend, by the Arab League of the imposition of a no fly zone that really gave the British, the French and the Lebanese who have led the calls for further action, the momentum with their Security Council colleagues. Because without the support of the local Arab community, there could be no realistic action in Libya by the international community without the risk of further inflaming regional tensions.

So with great relief, I watched the UN Security Council vote tonight for action. The detail of Resolution 1973 is as follows.

Resolution 1973

• A call for an immediate cease-fire by Gadaffi and his forces
• Authorises a No Fly Zone
• Rules out a foreign occupation force
• Tightens the arms embargo
• A ban on flights leaving Libya

The final result saw 10 vote in favour, 0 vote against and 5 abstain.

The USA, UK, France, Bosnia & Herzegovina, Gabon, Lebanon, Nigeria, Colombia, South Africa and Portugal voted to approve the resolution, while China, Russia, Brazil, Germany and India abstained.

The fact that Russia and China were persuaded to merely abstain and to not wield their veto is quite an achievement in itself. The 10 votes in favour also surpassed the minimum of 9 out of the 15 required for a successful resolution to be passed.

So now we enter a new phase in this Libyan story. A new and of course potentially dangerous chapter for the pilots of the international allied aircraft that will soon take to the skies above Libya lies ahead of us but this is the reality of the situation.

UN Resurgent
The UN has in recent weeks, re-asserted itself as a credible international body of importance after years of being ignored and neglected by George Bush Jnr and this is to be greatly welcomed.

To live in and to be a part of a reasoned international community means that we must work together in times of urgency when innocent civilians are being attacked by their own government. We have a moral responsibility under the UN charter to act and I'm pleased that, better late than never, the international community has responded in the necessary way on this occasion.

STOP THE PRESS - THE UNITED NATIONS BARES ITS LIBYAN TEETH

I'm actually rather proud of the United Nations this morning.

Amidst the carnage and mayhem unfolding in Lybia at this moment, the United Nations voted in the early hours of this morning GMT to impose sanctions on Colonel Gaddafi's regime.

Not only did it do so, but it actually did so unanimously.

As an internationalist, I'm a big fan of the concept of the United Nations. Indeed, one of the greatest thrills of my life (it's sad I know) was when I visited the UN HQ in New York City back in 2005. Actually seeing for myself the Security Council and General Assembly chambers was awe-inspiring. For it is in these rooms that decisions by the international community should be made for the well-being of the common good of humanity.

Idealism Vs Real-Politik

The problem of course is that in the real world, 'Real-politik' gets in the way of what sometimes may be perceived as getting the right and just decisions to be made. National interests take precedence as votes are often weighed up on the practical and pragmatic grounds affecting each member state.

The permanent veto of the 'Big 5' (China, France, Russia, UK and USA) members on the security council most aptly demonstrates this diplomatic conundrum.

Political impasse and a perceived inability to agree a firm resolution to a global concern has dogged the UN throughout its existence. The need for broad agreement amongst partisan member states has often led to diplomatic deadlock and the sense that for all its worth, the UN is nothing more than a talking shop.

Resolution 1970
Well, I was myself non-too happy when I heard the UN Security Council's toughly worded response to the Lybian situation at the start of this week. Yes it was a strongly worded response to the atrocities, but when the Libyan deputy ambassador to the UN talks of 'genocide' in his country, what use is strong words on a piece of paper for the people of the streets of Tripoli?

So it was with a real sense of pride in the UN that I heard it's unanimous decision overnight to...

• Impose a complete arms imbargo on Libya
• Impose travel bans and an asset freeze on Libyan leaders
• Immediately refer the deadly crackdown on protestors to the International Criminal Court in the Hague
• Introduce new steps against the use of mercanaries by the Libyan government against its own people

Does this go far enough? In my opinion, no. At the very least, there should be a no-fly zone imposed above the country to protect the citizens on the ground from being attacked by its own government from the air.

But as UN General Secretary Ban Ki-Moon stated, even bolder actions may be needed in the days ahead.

But whilst that bolder action may well be required and in my opinion this is already the case, let's not underestimate what the UN did today.

Not only has it unanimously agreed tough sanctions against the Libyan leadership, but it has also, for the first time in its 65 year history, voted unaninously as a collective of 15 sovereign states, to make a referral to the International Criminal Court in the Hague.

I had heard as I went to sleep last night that 14 of the 15 states had agreed to the draft resolution - namely the USA, UK, France, Russia and the 10 non-permanent members (currently serving on a 2 year rota until the end of this year) Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Gabon, Lebanon, Nigeria, Colombia, Germany, India, Portugal and South Africa. The 15th country to not have agreed the draft I gathered was permanant member and veto wielding China whose diplomats were communicating with Beijing to seek approval to support the agreement. My concern on going to bed was that I would wake up and find that China as has happened in the past, would de-rail the resolution by opposing it or make it less powerful by abstaining in the ballot.

But it is to China's credit and the credit of the 14 other member states of the Security Council that  they have shown themselves and the apparatus of the UN as the beacon of internationalism, to be united against the Libyan atrocities.

This was a good day for the UN, for inernational diplomacy and for the concept of the preservation of world peace.

An Ode to our Libyan Brothers in Arms

The BBC are reporting tonight absolute chaos and carnage in Libya. The violence has spread to the capital Tripoli and there are murmours that Colonel Gadaffi has fled to Venezuela.

Senior diplomats are defecting whilst two army aircraft pilots have done so too by landing in Malta and asking for political asylum.

Suddenly, this country that has been ruled by Gadaffi since 1969 seems set to go the way of Tunisia and Egypt.

However, the significant difference is that the regime is fighting back with what some high ranking diplomats are calling 'genocide'. There's bloodshed and there's violence and when I wake up in the morning, I don't know what the news will have for me.

These are critical times for the Libyan people.

At this time of great national upheaval, I give a thought for the poor people who are fighting tonight for their lives.

As Mark Knopfler of Dire Straits sang "We're fools to make war, On our brothers in arms".