It seems odd to be making decisions about a country’s future without the involvement of its current government, however despised that government may be, but the Libya crisis is packed full of such anachronisms. It’s a war of choice — except officially, according to the US and NATO, it’s an internal conflict. It’s about protecting civilians, the UN says, except the heavily armed “civilians” of Benghazi and eastern Libya are now marching on Tripoli. In theory it’s not about dethroning Muammar Qaddafi — but in reality it most certainly is.
Tuesday’s one-day international conference in London, dedicated to “a better future for the people of Libya,” was a heavyweight affair. British Prime Minister David Cameron’s guest list included US Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, leaders of the UN, Arab League and African Union, about 35 foreign ministers — and the rebels’ transitional council. Qaddafi and his representatives were not invited. That was because the Libyan leader’s rule has been deemed “wholly illegitimate” by Western leaders — another legal and political oddity.
A principal reason for this five-star turnout is a four-letter word hovering like a dread specter over the whole Libyan enterprise: Iraq.
“You may recall the last time the US and its allies used military force to overthrow a hated Arab dictator,” James Traub said in Foreign Policy. “The resulting vacuum was quickly filled by anarchic looting, murderous rivalries and, ultimately, civil war ... It’s a mistake we wouldn’t want to make again.”
If they agree on nothing else, conference participants agree on that.
However, how to define, and how to achieve, that “better future” for Libya, when the fighting is still in progress and the outcome deeply uncertain?
“No one can know what will come next, much less what will come after that,” Richard Haass of the US Council on Foreign Relations said.
Recent history in Afghanistan and Bosnia, as well as Iraq, suggests success, however defined, will be expensive and hard-won.
One possible scenario backed by Turkey — that Qaddafi agrees to a genuine ceasefire and negotiations, but remains in power (for now at least) — is a potential nightmare for Cameron, US President Barack Obama and French President Nicolas Sarkozy, the main Western protagonists. None of these leaders has spelled out what they would do in such circumstances, but UN resolution 1973 provides no basis to insist Qaddafi stand down and they have no direct means to compel him.
Italy, the former colonial power, is pushing a variant of this theme ahead of the London meeting, with possible backing from Germany. It proposes a political deal including a quick ceasefire, dialogue between rebels and tribal leaders, and voluntary exile for Qaddafi. This depends on Qaddafi doing the decent thing, an optimistic idea.
Another, more likely, scenario — that Qaddafi is toppled by his own people — raises a host of other unknowns, Jonathan Eyal of the Royal United Services Institute said.
“The Libyan intervention will not be deemed a success until Qaddafi has been overthrown by his own people, preferably with a minimum of violence,” he said.
However, Qaddafi is not one to flee into exile and in any case, his options are few.
“No country wants him. He’s a dictator with his back to the wall, with nothing more to lose. He’ll go down fighting,” Eyal said.
Little is known about the rebels’ transitional council and the people who might subsequently run Libya, both in terms of their politics and their Islamist and tribal leanings. Eyal warned that a possibly violent reckoning with pro-Qaddafi forces is all but inevitable, should the rebels enter Tripoli.
“We succeed in stopping one massacre [in Benghazi]. Now we may have to stop another,” he said.
The council contained a surprising number of “recycled democrats” with blood on their hands from their time spent serving Qaddafi, Eyal said.
“But the West will have to deal with them. It’s the same problem we had in Serbia after the fall of [Slobodan] Milosevic,” Eyal said.
Eyal said he does not believe a post-Qaddafi Libya will split apart or descend into internecine warfare. However, it will present costly, long-term security, humanitarian and diplomatic challenges for which Western countries are probably unprepared.
“A new Libyan government cannot be a centralized authority, power will have to be more devolved. It will be a more disjointed country altogether. And whatever happens, there will have to be a redistribution of oil revenues between East and West,” Eyal said.
Conference participants touched on some of these issues, but they did not resolve them. The key question remains: When can Western countries disengage? Now and for the foreseeable future, there is no answer.
Saudi Arabian largesse is flooding Egypt’s cultural scene, but the reception is mixed. Some welcome new “cooperation” between two regional powerhouses, while others fear a hostile takeover by Riyadh. In Cairo, historically the cultural capital of the Arab world, Egyptian Minister of Culture Nevine al-Kilany recently hosted Saudi Arabian General Entertainment Authority chairman Turki al-Sheikh. The deep-pocketed al-Sheikh has emerged as a Medici-like patron for Egypt’s cultural elite, courted by Cairo’s top talent to produce a slew of forthcoming films. A new three-way agreement between al-Sheikh, Kilany and United Media Services — a multi-media conglomerate linked to state intelligence that owns much of
The US and other countries should take concrete steps to confront the threats from Beijing to avoid war, US Representative Mario Diaz-Balart said in an interview with Voice of America on March 13. The US should use “every diplomatic economic tool at our disposal to treat China as what it is... to avoid war,” Diaz-Balart said. Giving an example of what the US could do, he said that it has to be more aggressive in its military sales to Taiwan. Actions by cross-party US lawmakers in the past few years such as meeting with Taiwanese officials in Washington and Taipei, and
The Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan has no official diplomatic allies in the EU. With the exception of the Vatican, it has no official allies in Europe at all. This does not prevent the ROC — Taiwan — from having close relations with EU member states and other European countries. The exact nature of the relationship does bear revisiting, if only to clarify what is a very complicated and sensitive idea, the details of which leave considerable room for misunderstanding, misrepresentation and disagreement. Only this week, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) received members of the European Parliament’s Delegation for Relations
Denmark’s “one China” policy more and more resembles Beijing’s “one China” principle. At least, this is how things appear. In recent interactions with the Danish state, such as applying for residency permits, a Taiwanese’s nationality would be listed as “China.” That designation occurs for a Taiwanese student coming to Denmark or a Danish citizen arriving in Denmark with, for example, their Taiwanese partner. Details of this were published on Sunday in an article in the Danish daily Berlingske written by Alexander Sjoberg and Tobias Reinwald. The pretext for this new practice is that Denmark does not recognize Taiwan as a state under