Financial Gazette (Harare)
Bornwell Chakaodza
21 April 2011
opinion
AN interesting debate is raging in the international arena on whether NATO-led bombardment of Libya conforms with the UN Security Council Resolution 1973 which stipulates that the intervention is solely for the protection of unarmed civilians. The bone of contention is whether the coalition forces, in carrying out their mandate as required under the resolution, are not also seeking a regime change or the ouster of Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi, which in terms of international law, is a prerogative of the Libyan people.
US President Barack Obama has been quoted, rather tongue-in-cheek, stating that it is in the interest of Libya and the international community for the Libyan strong man to go. Britain and France are saying the same thing.
However, under the same breath, we are told the current intervention by international forces is strictly to protect civilians, so that effectively, if Gaddafi falls in the process, this is a collateral bonus for those in whose interest his departure would be.
In fact, some members of NATO want a political rather than a military solution. Turkey and Germany for example are skeptical about military operations and want to give diplomacy a chance. Clearly not everyone is singing from the same song sheet.
Therein lies the confusion and cynicism of international politics. The tragic crisis in Libya is basically because of the refusal by Gaddafi to listen to the legitimate demands of his people. The fact that Gaddafi is using his security machinery to fight his own people to suppress their democratic aspirations and maintain his dictatorship is an acknowledged reality that is the main cause of the unrest in that troubled country.
The US and the European countries involved in the NATO initiative are painfully aware of this reality hence their participation. It is hardly surprising that after the Iraq experience in which what looked like a simple matter of dislodging a cruel dictator who was tormenting his people to create conditions where a democratic administration could be established turned into something of a complex political fiasco, the Americans and their allies are getting somewhat weary of getting involved in another conflict.
After the US invasion of Iraq, critics of the George Bush administration, which included our own President Robert Mugabe, ascribed imperialist designs and Iraq oil to the intervention citing the fact that no weapons of mass destruction, one of the reasons given for the invasion, were found in Iraq territory. In the end, the conclusion was drawn that the Iraq episode was yet another case of a powerful imperial aggressor bullying a weaker nation.
While I hold no brief for George Bush or the US government, I believe that another reality of the critics of America’s involvement in Iraq is the fact that under Saddam’s repressive regime, it was virtually impossible for opposition parties to organise themselves into a coherent government in waiting, a responsibility that was thrust upon them after Saddam’s ouster. This partly explains why it has been difficult for the American forces which filled the void left by the departure of Saddam to extricate themselves from the Iraq imbroglio.
It needs to be appreciated that dictatorships, by their nature, thrive on creating an oppressive environment characterised by fear, uncertainty and insecurity among citizens. Under these conditions, it becomes perilous for anyone to indulge in opposition politics, and those who do so risk being targeted for persecution, physical harm or imprisonment. Precisely because of that, countries ruled by dictators have weak or no opposition parties while individual citizens who dare to speak against the regime are branded enemies of the state.
It is particularly unrealistic to expect that where a dictatorship meets its demise under the circumstances such as those playing themselves out in Libya, there will be a ready opposition party or government-in-waiting to fill-in the vacuum that will inevitably be created by the departure of the dictatorship. As happened in Iraq, rebel forces in Libya may eventually drive out Gaddafi and his cohorts despite the current stalemate, but will they be able to automatically replace the Gaddafi regime? My own guess is most likely not.
I say this in order to expose the fallacy that intervention in a political conflict can be circumscribed to exclude the use of such intervention to help establish a new government because that is the prerogative of citizens. For the Libyan rebel forces, the fall of Gaddafi, difficult though it is, could eventually prove to be the easier part.
Their real challenge will be to pick up the pieces and establish democratic institutions that can support the creation of a functional government administration. That is far more difficult especially in a country where power was concentrated in one individual for more than four decades. My point here is that military action, controversial though it is, may not be enough. Democracy and capacity building and economic support in the aftermath of the fall of a tyrannical regime is equally if not more important.
Events in North Africa and the Middle East will redefine democratic governance in ways never before witnessed. Tunisia and Egypt, the two Afro-Arab countries where people power appears to have triumphed over entrenched dictatorships now face the daunting challenge of dismantling the autocratic legacy of their former rulers to replace with a new democratic order. The international community, under the aegis of the United Nations, has a crucial role to play in helping this process forward.
Conventional wisdom dictates that politics should be a process through which citizens of a country make collective decisions in a consensual manner. Where this process has been thoroughly subverted through systematic repression and autocratic governance, ordinary citizens find themselves hostages to systems in which they have little or no role to play. Citizens in such circumstances deserve as much protection from such systems as they do from the excesses of wicked dictators. In the wake of the current upheavals in North Africa and the Middle East, the world needs to take an unequivocal stand against obnoxious dictatorships wherever they exist.
The question, however, is how much more deeply the international community sho-uld get involved militarily in Libya? Foreigners will of course pursue their own national interests (oil in the case of Libya as it was in Iraqi) but given the resilience of the Gaddafi regime, is there no danger of military intervening forces prolonging the crisis leading to more deaths of the civilians whom they are seeking to protect?
Is it enough for international intervention in conflict situations to aim at only protecting civilians from attacks by armies in their countries? Is it necessary for the UN and any other force called upon to intervene to go all the way and ensure the source of the conflict is removed and the affected citizens are provided necessary assistance to reorganize their lives? For me, these are the major questions the whole world must face.
Some are saying: Get rid of Gaddafi and the Battle for Libya, as the media now calls it, will abruptly come to an end. But again the question is: Will the West not be accused of regime change? Yet others point out forcefully that democracy should not be imposed from outside. A good and valid point I think.
Given all these imponderables and dilemmas, how best can the world move forward on Libya, Yemen, Syria, Bahrain and other trouble spots? How far can international intervention go? These are the questions which we should all be grappling with.
AllAfrica – All the Time