A few months ago I did a piece on Gadafi titled IF GADDAFI FALLS. Then the uprising has just started and Gadafi and his family were pretty sure they will prevail and suppress the people of Libya like he is always done for 42 years .
The recent death of Colonel Gaddafi brings about a new dawn for Libya. However, as political unrest still wages, the future of the country has yet to be determined. Libyans first challenge was to usurp the dictatorial head of state, but the violence with which this aim was realised is far from the ideal beginning for a democracy hoping to uphold law and order.
The conditions making for external intervention in Africa are growing, not diminishing. The continent is today the site of a growing contention between dominant global powers and new challengers. The Chinese role on the continent has grown dramatically. Whether in Sudan and Zimbawe, or in Ethiopia, Kenya and Nigeria, that role is primarily economic, focused on two main activities: building infrastructure and extracting raw materials. For its part, the Indian state is content to support Indian mega-corporations; it has yet to develop a coherent state strategy. But the Indian focus too is mainly economic.
The contrast with Western powers, particularly the US and France, could not be sharper. The cutting edge of Western intervention is military. France's search for opportunities for military intervention, at first in Tunisia, then Cote d'Ivoire, and then Libya, has been above board and the subject of much discussion. Of greater significance is the growth of Africom, the institutional arm of US military intervention on the African continent.
This is the backdrop against which African strongmen and their respective oppositions today make their choices.Unlike in the Cold War, Africa's strongmen are weary of choosing sides in the new contention for Africa. Exemplified by President Museveni of Uganda, they seek to gain from multiple partnerships, welcoming the Chinese and the Indians on the economic plane, while at the same time seeking a strategic military presence with the US as it wages its War on Terror on the African continent.
In contrast, African oppositions tend to look mainly to the West for support, both financial and military. It is no secret that in just about every African country, the opposition is drooling at the prospect of Western intervention in the aftermath of the fall of Gaddafi.
Those with a historical bent may want to think of a time over a century ago, in the decade that followed the Berlin conference, when outside powers sliced up the continent. Our predicament today may give us a more realistic appreciation of the real choices faced and made by the generations that went before us. Could it have been that those who then welcomed external intervention did so because they saw it as the only way of getting rid of domestic oppression?
In the past decade, Western powers have created a political and legal infrastructure for intervention in otherwise independent countries. Key to that infrastructure are two institutions, the United Nations Security Council and the International Criminal Court. Both work politically, that is, selectively. To that extent, neither works in the interest of creating a rule of law.
Most people who benefited from him are sure going to miss him and where Libya will go from here is of more importance. The world is watching.
So far, international reactions to Gaddafi’s death have been triumphant and celebratory. US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, spiritedly stated: “we came, we saw, he died”. This sense of victory has dominated media reports and little attention has been paid to questions of the incident’s legitimacy.
The ambiguity surrounding Gaddafi’s death is not dissimilar to the defeat of Osama Bin Laden in late spring. In both the cases, seemingly vengeful actions have undermined the rule of law. Adherence to international law required Gaddafi to be taken to the International Criminal Court. Human rights groups deemed this a necessary course of action, but other analysts argued that such a move would have been difficult, especially considering potentially embarrassing implications.
The NTC has announced that a democratic election is expected in 2013. Between now and then, there is much work to be done before stability is secured in Libya; weaponry needs to be collected from civilians, an infrastructure for supplying electricity must be established, running water and medical supplies must exist within the state and a state police force will need to be reinstated to replace rebel factions.
Oil production is steadily increasing, but overall output is still comparatively low. Armed militant groups are known to be causing trouble at refineries; these will need to be disbanded in order to restore confidence in Libya’s oil industry. It is also likely that some workers will face harassment for supporting Gaddafi’s regime, and this intimidation must be kept at a minimum.
Labeling citizens as either pro or anti-Gaddafi serves to undermine state order and such distinctions must cease if Libya is to avoid civil unrest. While schools begin to reopen, issues of discrimination and a considered curriculum need to be addressed in order to secure a united and unbiased educational system. The path to democracy will be a long one for Libya, and its people must ensure that their euphoria does not interfere with the methods in which they reach their ultimate goal.
“Labeling citizens as either pro or anti-Gaddafi serves to undermine state order”
Gaddafi’s shooting was questionable, and the killing of 53 of his loyalists last week demonstrates that authorities need to swiftly push forward with implementing fair trials and sentencing in order for Libya to progress with a firmer awareness of human rights. At the very least, however, a foundation has been laid that promises the possibility for future change.
The contrast with Western powers, particularly the US and France, could not be sharper. The cutting edge of Western intervention is military. France's search for opportunities for military intervention, at first in Tunisia, then Cote d'Ivoire, and then Libya, has been above board and the subject of much discussion. Of greater significance is the growth of Africom, the institutional arm of US military intervention on the African continent.
This is the backdrop against which African strongmen and their respective oppositions today make their choices.Unlike in the Cold War, Africa's strongmen are weary of choosing sides in the new contention for Africa. Exemplified by President Museveni of Uganda, they seek to gain from multiple partnerships, welcoming the Chinese and the Indians on the economic plane, while at the same time seeking a strategic military presence with the US as it wages its War on Terror on the African continent.
In contrast, African oppositions tend to look mainly to the West for support, both financial and military. It is no secret that in just about every African country, the opposition is drooling at the prospect of Western intervention in the aftermath of the fall of Gaddafi.
Those with a historical bent may want to think of a time over a century ago, in the decade that followed the Berlin conference, when outside powers sliced up the continent. Our predicament today may give us a more realistic appreciation of the real choices faced and made by the generations that went before us. Could it have been that those who then welcomed external intervention did so because they saw it as the only way of getting rid of domestic oppression?
In the past decade, Western powers have created a political and legal infrastructure for intervention in otherwise independent countries. Key to that infrastructure are two institutions, the United Nations Security Council and the International Criminal Court. Both work politically, that is, selectively. To that extent, neither works in the interest of creating a rule of law.
Blogger Comment
Facebook Comment