Libya And Beyond: What's Next For Democracy?

By Phyllis Bennis

YES! Magazine
February 26, 2011

http://www.zcommunications.org/libya-and-beyond-what-s-next-for-democracy-by-phyllis-bennis

In Egypt, the relatively short-lived military crackdown
by the hated security agencies and pro-regime thugs
actually strengthened the opposition, reminding the
millions in the streets exactly what they were
protesting against. In Libya, the Gaddafi regime seems
to have turned that lesson on its head, apparently
believing that if their response is violent enough,
brutal enough, murderous enough, the opposition will
stop.

So far, it hasn't worked. With earlier attacks from
helicopter gunships and jet bombers, and with reports
of machine gun fire in and around Tripoli continuing at
least through February 24, the estimates of Libyans
killed range from 300 to more than 1,000 people-but the
popular resistance has continued unabated.

What is different in Libya from the earlier iterations
of the Arab world's great democratic revolution of 2011
is that the anti-regime, pro-democracy side that has
succeeded in ousting the regime from major cities and
most of eastern Libya, is now seeing huge sectors of
the Libyan military defect directly to the opposition.
Libyan civil society democracy activists in Benghazi
and elsewhere are apparently taking up arms with and
alongside the military units now on their side, both to
defend their cities and, reportedly, to prepare to help
the people of Tripoli and the west, still under
Gaddafi's contested control, finally to overthrow the
regime. Libya, unlike Egypt and Tunisia or states where
revolutionary upheavals are underway, is moving towards
a military confrontation closer to a civil war.

Social, political, demographic, and other conditions in
Libya are significantly different than in Egypt,
Tunisia, Bahrain or elsewhere, so it is not surprising
that the progress of the revolution has differed too.
The first victories-ousting a dictator in Tunisia and,
soon after, the monumental achievement of the Egyptian
revolution in getting rid of Mubarak-inspired
democratic risings across the Arab world and North
Africa, with parallel movements emerging in sub-Saharan
Africa as well, in Gabon and elsewhere.

Not only the inspiration but crucially the success of
Tunisia and Egypt continue to empower the rest. The
regimes and societies differ widely, but the
dissatisfaction is similar all over: widening gaps
between the wealthy and the poor, rising unemployment
and a lack of jobs for huge young populations, and most
of all, the demand for dignity, hope, and for people to
have a say in determining their own lives and how they
are governed.

The Crumbling of the Gaddafi Regime

In Libya the opposition movement has actually seized
control of cities, and now of whole sectors of the
country, even while the embattled Gaddafi regime
remains more or less in control of the capitol. The
entire eastern parts of Libya, including the key city
of Benghazi as well as numerous other cities and the
long border with Egypt, all now appear to be in the
hands of the opposition, in many cases reportedly with
the military forces joining the protesters rather than
fighting them or fleeing.

The takeover of cities by the pro-democracy
demonstrators seems now to be moving closer to Tripoli
in the western part of the country, with reports from
the nearby city of Misurata claiming the protesters,
backed by defecting army units, have been in control
since February 21. The Financial Times quoted a local
worker in Misurata describing how "the people are now
organising themselves into committees. Some are
managing traffic, others are cleaning up after the
fighting and the fires of previous days. There are also
people handing out water and milk to the population."
It looks very much like the self-organization of Tahrir
Square in Egypt, in the Pearl Roundabout in Bahrain-and
very much like the non-violent society-wide
mobilization of the first Palestinian intifada of
1987-93.

Misurata is only about 125 miles east of
Tripoli-meaning that most of the strategic
Mediterranean coast from just east of the capital to
the Egyptian border (excepting only the area around
Sirte, Gaddafi's tribal homeland) is now apparently
controlled by pro-democracy forces. There are reports
of a new local council being established in Benghazi,
the first city to be taken over by the opposition.

The regime itself continues to splinter, with top
officials, including the justice minister and the
interior minister, being the latest to resign. The
interior minister, responsible for internal security,
said he now supports what he called the "February 17
Revolution," and urged the military forces to support
the Libyan people's "legitimate demands." Libyan
diplomats around the world, including the ambassadors
to the U.S., Indonesia, Australia, India, Bangladesh,
and elsewhere, as well as virtually the entire staff of
the Libyan mission to the United Nations, have all
resigned in protest of the violence.

Other Regimes React to Stem the Tide

The regimes' responses have differed. Some are
desperately trying to make concessions, even before any
protests arise.

>> In Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, where opposition forces
have only barely shown their presence, emirs and kings
have been quick to dole out money ($3,700 per family
and free food for 14 months in Kuwait, new social
benefits in Saudi Arabia).

>> In Jordan, the still-popular king has been trying to
convince a skeptical public that his decision to sack
the cabinet and appoint another appointed prime
minister should somehow satisfy them. (It hasn't.)

>> The King of Bahrain launched a vicious crack-down on
the largely Shi'a protesters demanding an end to the
years of discrimination against their majority
community, but backed off under international pressure
and turned to a series of political and financial
incentives to buy new loyalty; many protesters are
still demanding the transformation to a constitutional
monarchy, but others have now escalated to demand an
end to the king's role altogether.

>> In Yemen, the president has pledged not to run again
in the next election and other meager reforms, but his
offer has been insufficient and the regime has
continued using force against protesters remaining in
the streets.

Meanwhile, in what seems to be an ever-growing list of
countries, democracy is rising. New movements demanding
democracy are rising in Djibouti, where the U.S.
maintains its sole military base on the African
continent; in Algeria, a crucial oil-exporting country
with its own proud history of independent struggle; in
Syria, where the long-standing president has so far
vowed only that he will not run again. And of course,
many union supporters in Wisconsin claim the Egyptian
victory as their own inspiration.

The International Response

With Libya providing huge percentages of the oil and
gas imported by powerful European countries-especially
Italy-and with the UK working hard the last several
years to burnish Libya's image so that British
Petroleum could claim a privileged stake in the Libyan
oil industry and General Dynamics UK could sign
lucrative weapons contracts, western countries came
late and soft to criticize Gaddafi's violent assault.
The United States had not moved as far as most European
allies in rehabilitating the Gaddafi regime after an
initial embrace following Tripoli's agreement to
dismantle its nuclear programs in 2003, but still moved
too slowly to fully condemn the regime.

Only on February 23 did President Obama explicitly
condemn the violence, and called the bloodshed
"outrageous" and "unacceptable." He said "these actions
violate international norms and every standard of
common decency. This violence must stop."

Obama spoke clearly of the importance of international
action, and praised the statement released by the
Security Council the day before. That UN statement
included some important issues, including a
condemnation of the violence, a call on the Libyan
government to abide by human rights and international
humanitarian law and to allow medical, humanitarian,
and human rights workers in to the country, and a
reference to the need for accountability for
perpetrators of the violence.

But the statement was merely a Security Council press
release, which lacks the power of enforcement of an
actual resolution, and falls even below the status of
the formal "presidential statement" which indicates
Council unanimity. There was no decision, for example,
to freeze all assets of Gaddafi and his family, to
impose an immediate end on all weapons sales and a halt
any weapons or security goods currently in the pipeline
to Libya, or to refer the Libyan regime's violence to
the International Criminal Court for immediate
investigation and prosecution.

In his speech, President Obama stated he had "asked my
administration to prepare the full range of options
that we have to respond to this crisis. This includes
those actions we may take and those we will coordinate
with our allies and partners, or those that we'll carry
out through multilateral institutions." His careful
distinguishing between what the U.S. would insist on
doing on its own, as opposed to actions taken with
allies or in multilateral venues such as the United
Nations, may be an indication why there was no stronger
Security Council response. If the Council had decided,
for instance, to hold Libyan officials and soldiers
directly accountable for alleged war crimes against a
civilian population by referring the issue directly to
the International Criminal Court, what kind of a
precedent would that set, and what other political
leaders or soldiers responsible for civilian deaths
might face that same method of accountability? If the
Council had passed a resolution stating that top
officials of all governments and corporations who
provided weapons to the Libyan regime should be held
accountable for how those weapons are being used, what
precedent would that set for the powerful weapons-
exporting governments and corporations now arming
military forces where human rights violations and war
crimes are routine?

The UN Security Council should reconvene now to pass a
binding, enforceable resolution. It should demand an
immediate halt to the attacks, call for immediate
access for international humanitarian and human rights
workers, and refer the issue to the International Court
of Justice to initiate on an emergency basis a full
investigation and prosecution of those responsible,
making clear that not only top decision-makers but all
soldiers and mercenaries carrying out illegal orders
would be held to account. The resolution should require
that governments and corporations with ties to the
Libyan regime-especially those in Europe and the
U.S.-immediately sever all military ties, cancel
military contracts, and withdraw any military equipment
that may be in the pipeline.

Next Steps for the United States

There has been a growing demand, in the United Statea
from powerful neo-conservative war-mongers as well as
from some of the most progressive members of Congress,
to establish a no-fly zone in Libya. The call has also
come from former Libyan officials who have defected
from the regime. But at the moment I believe that would
be a mistake. There have been no reports of air strikes
since February 21; current assaults are relying on
heavy weapons on land. While it is certainly possible a
desperate Gaddafi could lash out once again by sending
his warplanes aloft to attack his own people, it isn't
clear he has loyal pilots left to answer his call. The
discussion of a no-fly zone in the Security Council
could well become the sole means of responding to the
Libyan crisis - even though it would likely have little
impact on the actual threats currently facing the
Libyan people, especially in and around the capitol,
and would be serve as a distraction from other actions
that might actually help.

The political cost of such a decision, given its likely
low protection value, must be weighed against the
lessons of the 1990s-era no-fly zone established in
Iraq by the U.S. and Britain, a unilaterally-imposed
no-fly zone which President Bill Clinton and other
officials often claimed, mendaciously, was authorized
by the United Nations, but which in fact was never
mentioned in any Security Council resolution. As
documented by the United Nations, enforcement of the
no-fly zone in Iraq resulted in the deaths of several
hundred Iraqi civilians. It is not clear that any
country other than the U.S. could carry out enforcement
of a no-fly zone in Libya (there are even questions
whether the U.S. military, already stretched in
illegitimate wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, could field
such an operation, let alone to be prepared to start
immediately). But giving a Security Council imprimatur
to the U.S. (or NATO, which would still be relying on
U.S. air power) to define, impose, determine violations
of, and carry out bombing raids in response to those
violations of, a Libyan no-fly zone, when it is
unlikely to actually protect Libyan civilians but could
well result in justifying a much longer-term U.S.
intervention than Council members anticipate, does not
pass the legitimacy test.

If the fighting in Libya continues or escalates, an
accountability-focused UN Security Council resolution
authorizing a Blue Helmet contingent of medical, other
humanitarian workers, human rights monitors, and
investigators from the International Criminal Court,
recruited from neighboring countries, sent with armed
escort if necessary, would likely be far more useful in
providing actual protection to Libyan civilians than
imposing a high-profile but likely low-impact and
dangerous no-fly zone.

While the Libyan leader escalates his threats, and
while the violence may continue for a bit longer, the
international standing of the Libyan regime has
collapsed. More importantly, the territory, cities, and
population still under the regime's domination are all
dwindling rapidly. Gaddafi is losing control. Democracy
is gaining.
_______________

Phyllis Bennis wrote this article for YES! Magazine, a
national, nonprofit media organization that fuses
powerful ideas with practical actions. She is a
fellow of the Institute for Policy Studies and the
Transnational Institute in Amsterdam. Her books include
Challenging Empire: How People, Governments and the UN
Defy U.S. Power.

___________________________________________

Portside aims to provide material of interest to people
on the left that will help them to interpret the world
and to change it.

Submit via email: [log in to unmask]

Submit via the Web: http://portside.org/submittous3

Frequently asked questions: http://portside.org/faq

Sub/Unsub: http://portside.org/subscribe-and-unsubscribe

Search Portside archives: http://portside.org/archive

Contribute to Portside: https://portside.org/donate