Libya: beware of the international community
Dubious Freedom
In August 2009, Scotland’s justice minister Kenny MacAskill addressed the international community from a press conference in Holyrood, Edinburgh. He described how he had made the personal decision to release Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi, the man convicted of bombing Pan Am Flight 103 in December 1988.
The grounds of this controversial determination were that Mr al-Megrahi had a matter of months to live and that given his illness he must be let free for compassionate reasons. Justice, according the MacAskill, could only be done if the Scottish Government allowed the Libyan his freedom in light of his being diagnosed with terminal cancer.
“In Scotland, we are a people who pride ourselves on our humanity. It is viewed as a defining characteristic of Scotland and the Scottish people,” he said.
He later added in conclusion of his statement, “Our beliefs dictate that justice be served, but mercy be shown.
“Compassion and mercy are about upholding the beliefs that we seek to live by, remaining true to our values as a people. No matter the severity of the provocation or the atrocity perpetrated.
“For these reasons – and these reasons alone – it is my decision that Mr Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi, convicted in 2001 for the Lockerbie bombing, now terminally ill with prostate cancer, be released on compassionate grounds and allowed to return to Libya to die.”1
It didn’t take long for an international controversy to unleash itself, and attention to focus on Scotland and its quaint system of law. Attention, it must be added, that the SNP and MacAskill in particular, appeared to revel in. What was before a devolved debating chamber with delusions of grandeur, was now the subject of New York Times column inches.
Amid the fallout of the decision, suspicions and question marks were raised about the procedure of the release. Many began to challenge MacAskill’s claims that his judgment had been one made between himself and the doctors at Greenock Prison.
Ten days after the release, The Times reported2 on a series of leaked letters between the UK government’s justice secretary Jack Straw, and MacAskill. The correspondence dates from 2007, and involves the discussion of a prisoner transfer agreement with Colonal Muammar Gaddafi. Straw was shown to have reversed his initial refusal to consider al-Megrahi for transfer after the Libyans used a fifteen billion pound oil and gas exploration deal with BP as a bargaining chip.
Above all else, the letters demonstrated that despite MacAskill’s initial claims as the sole authority behind the release of al-Megrahi, the pressure had indeed come from Westminster and that the inclusion of al-Megrahi in the transfer agreement was seen to be in the national interest.
There was no appeal to justice, the mercy of the people of Scotland or grounds for compassion. It was a political and economic decision. In a documentary a year later, MacAskill of course adamantly defended his decision, and the reasons for making it. However, the original narrative of his statement at the time was now shown to be untrue, or at best, only a fraction of the full story.
Current Conflict
Fast forward to February of this year, and what starts as a protest against the arrest of human rights activist Fethi Tabei, results in mass anti-Gaddafi riots in Libya and ultimately sparks a civil rebellion. Within weeks of the demonstrations, this had turned into widespread unrest, and eventually an uprising against Gaddafi himself.
There is much uncertainty among international players on how to respond the unfolding conflict. Italy is reluctant to get involved, however, France and Britain call for sanctions and airstrikes against Gaddafi in response to his treatment of the Libyan people.
In the USA, there is a characteristic arms-length approach whereby President Obama neither condemns Gaddafi nor defends the rebels. However, after the UN Security Council votes in favour of action against Gaddafi’s government, Obama is forced to take a stand alongside the European allies.
On March 19 NATO airstrikes hit Libya, with a view to damaging Gaddafi’s dominance. By May 15 the rebels have won a crucial victory in the seaside city of Misrata. Further victories include those in the western mountains reclaiming territory and power for the rebel forces.
As the conflict continues and the battle for control of Libya increases, with NATO forces bolstering the rebel’s struggle, the opposition groups quickly become an internationally recognized force. By July Gaddafi is on his way out, and it eventually becomes clear that a new Libyan state is on the cards. The National Transitional Council is recognised by both the USA and the UK as the legitimate political force in Libya. As far as regime change is concerned, it’s a question of when, not if. 3
A Scramble for North Africa?
It is now not unreasonable to hope that conflict will come to an end soon, following the recent rebel march on Tripoli. It is clear that the NTC is the favoured group to lead the country post-Gaddaffi. The alternative is the danger of civil war between the tribes of Cyrenaica and Tripolitania.
More conflict would obviously be a disaster to a country already suffering the humanitarian costs of the uprisings. However, the role of the international community must be kept under an eagle-eyed scrutiny. An article in the International Herald Tribune on Tuesday4 noted that around 80 per cent of Libyan oil goes to France and Italy. The country’s oil reserves amount to 44 billion barrels, making it Africa’s fourth largest oil producer.
The IHT also reported that diplomats from the US, France, Italy and the UK are already in Libya working with the NTC to ensure a stable transition of government. President Sarkozy has been reported as saying his country will “…stand at the side of the NTC and all Libyans to achieve the liberation of their country from oppression and dictatorship and help them realise their aspirations to liberty and dignity.”
A statement from 10 Downing Street in the UK said, “The prime minister reiterated that NATO would continue its mission to protect civilians until they are under no threat from Gaddafi.”
President Obama also told journalist that the American government would stand by the NTC to ensure a peaceful and stable resolution to the conflict.
The Guardian5 on Tuesday published an editorial warning against the dangers of liberal interventionism. However, the paper ultimately seems to advocate a western presence in post-Gaddafi Libya. In the previously mentioned IHT article, Jean-Yves Moisseron, an expert on Libyan affairs from the Research Institute for Development in France, is interviewed.
He is reported to have said that a return to oil production and financial development is crucial to the regeneration of Libya, as well as allowing the millions of foreign workers back into the country to re-boost the economy. “That requires a central state,” he said, “and it is a big challenge for France and Europe to help restore the country’s infrastructure.”
Given the wider context surrounding oil in Libya, it is difficult to accept that the international community’s concern for the country is rooted solely in a solidarity for the Libyan people. It might well be the best thing for the country, as The Guardian points out, for the Libyans to rely on their friendly coalition of allies to help rebuild their nation. However, it must be clear to all onlookers that the intentions of the Europeans and the USA are, and have always been, far from pure.
1Statement of release, The Times, August 2009 http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article6803849.ece
