At last, some good news on Libya. France and Britain have changed their position on Colonel Muammar Gaddafi’s future and now say he can stay in the country if he decides to leave power. For the two Nato countries that did most to get the alliance to start bombing to produce regime change in Tripoli, the shift is enormous.
In late March, when Nato launched its no-fly zone ostensibly for humanitarian purposes, Paris and London hoped Gaddafi would be toppled within little more time than it took to remove Mubarak in Egypt. Now, the two governments have realised they need to think seriously about a negotiated rather than a military end to the war. They will have to tempt, not blast, Gaddafi out.
This puts them in line with the United Nations, whose tenacious mediator, Abdul Elah al-Khatib, was in the rebel-held city of Benghazi on Monday and moved to Tripoli yesterday in his latest round of shuttling. France and Britain are gradually getting in step with the African Union, whose efforts at taking a lead in ending the crisis through a ceasefire and talks have been marginalised by Nato.
The Franco-British shift is a big blow to Luis Moreno Ocampo, the impetuous prosecutor at the International Criminal Court, who rushed to seek the Libyan leader’s arrest only weeks after fighting erupted, a tactic that damaged the chances for negotiations.
Ocampo further sullied his reputation with claims of regime-ordered rape, which were strongly criticised by Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, which also interviewed victims. At the time, British foreign secretary William Hague had no doubts. The request for these warrants was a reminder to all in Gaddafi’s regime that crimes would not go unpunished and the reach of international justice would be long, he thundered.
Once issued, ICC arrest warrants cannot be withdrawn without undermining the court’s authority. But because Libya is not a signatory to the statute that created the court, an agreement on ending the fighting in Libya need not insist on his seizure. He will merely not be able to travel much abroad.
Alain Juppe, the French foreign minister, last week led the hawks’ change of mind. The Obama administration quickly followed. Gaddafi needed to remove himself from power and then it was up to the Libyan people to decide, said White House spokesperson Jay Carney.
Hague’s statement echoed that line, which was endorsed at the weekend by Mustafa Abdel Jalil, a leader of the rebels’ Transitional National Council (TNC).
The rebels have made important public relations gains in the past two weeks. The United States and the United Kingdom have recognised them as the legitimate representatives of the Libyan people. They have also received promises of cash and aid from doves, including Germany and Turkey, who were dubious about Nato’s military intervention.
On the battlefield, the news for the rebels has been less good. Almost six months into their uprising, the war remains deadlocked and with the fasting month of Ramadan due shortly, when fighting is bound to subside, no change can be expected. The front lines — in the east, around Misrata and in the Berber-populated mountains south of Tripoli — ripple like the edges of a carpet under which dogs are fighting. But Admiral Mike Mullen, the US chief of staff, was right on Monday when he said Nato had got itself into a stalemate.
In the US, there is little appetite for another war. This month, the House of Representatives passed an amendment blocking the Pentagon from arming the rebels. Italy, initially a Nato hawk, is reducing its military engagement on the grounds of cost. These pressures are likely to increase across Nato as the war eats into national budgets while people are asked to tighten their belts at home.
No wonder Western governments are having to review their strategy. The parameters of a settlement have been clear for some time. There must be a mutually agreed ceasefire both on the ground and for Nato’s bombs and missiles. This would allow internationally supervised access for humanitarian supplies to Tripoli and other government-held areas as well as rebel areas.
Talks need to accelerate, either through the UN mediator or between the government and TNC negotiators, on forming a power-sharing administration that can find a path to a new constitution and elections.
Gaddafi has indicated he does not want to be part of the talks. He will probably have to make it clear he will not be part of the next government either. Whether, after 42 years of power, any such promises would be delivered will be a thorny issue. The rebels already snort at it.
All now depends on the sequencing of the elements of a settlement. For the rebels to insist that Gaddafi stand down before talks start dooms everything. Ideally, the first step is a ceasefire. This would be the best way to protect civilians. UN secretary general Ban Ki-Moon called for an immediate ceasefire earlier this month. If Ban was a stronger figure, his call would have carried more weight. Nato hawks fear it would look defeatist, so they prefer to parrot the line that Gaddafi cannot be trusted and therefore a ceasefire would be worthless.
Privately, the rebels are divided. Some say a ceasefire deprives them of imminent victory. Others say a true ceasefire would spark an uprising by the people of Tripoli once they knew Gaddafi’s forces would not shoot them in the street.
Whether that speculation is right depends on complex factors. The mistake in most international crises is to over-personalise the issue by making a pariah of the wicked man and his corrupt family and thinking that once they go all problems will be solved. Gaddafi’s behaviour certainly encourages this view.
But the Libyan crisis is not a battle between a big man and the people. It is a complex struggle over modernity, constitutionalism and the equitable distribution of resources in which Libya’s regions, tribes and social classes all have different demands and stakes. Unless amnesty is part of any negotiated settlement, there are many people in Tripoli who will resist the rebels by force even if Gaddafi himself shows a readiness to step aside. Others fear instability or that they and their capital city will be punished if the rebels win outright.
The excessive deBaathification process in post-Saddam Iraq set a bad precedent.
It is better to resolve these issues through negotiation than to try to break Libya’s military stalemate with yet more war. Having shifted on the subject of Gaddafi’s future, the next step for France and Britain should be to persuade their rebel allies to accept the principle of an immediate ceasefire. Then give the word to the UN negotiator and let him work on getting a response from the government. Ramadan provides the incentive for an all-round military pause. With persistence it might even take permanent root. —