Politics

Risks of a Libyan No-Fly Zone

RANIER FSADNI penned a brilliant article in today’s Times of Malta analysing the risks of a Libyan No-Fly Zone. He has kindly agreed for J’accuse to reproduce this article here as a Zolabyte:

As I write (Tuesday morning), Muammar Gaddafi is advancing east towards a showdown with Benghazi. Pressure is growing on the United Nations’ Security Council to approve the imposition of a no-fly zone in Libya.

The case is being made by the Libyan rebels as well as (most prominently) by France, the UK and the Arab League. The US has been troubled, however, by the consideration that military action could end up bolstering Libyan support for Col Gaddafi.

One can see why. At least three of the major assumptions behind the request are not as solid as they look.

First, it is assumed that the battle for Libya is a fight between the Libyan people, as a whole, and Col Gaddafi’s militias. However, there are important western centres that have conspicuously not committed themselves.

There is Tarhuna, with its major tribe, the Ferjan. There is Bani Walid, centre of the Warfalla, said to be a million strong. And there are the two major tribes of the south, the Magarha and the Awlad Suleiman. Between them, these tribes dominate large parts of Tripolitania, down to the south proper. If they take a stand, several smaller tribes are likely to join them.

All four have branches settled in Sirte and its hinterland, which means they are settled on the major boundary the rebel army in the east has to cross. And they are inter-married with Col Gaddafi’s tribe, the Gadadfa.

They have not taken a formal stand for Col Gaddafi. (However, on Tuesday, Libyan state TV announced a letter of support from a group of unnamed representatives of Tarhuna.) But neither have they taken an unequivocal stand with the rebels. Occasional reports concerning the Warfalla have come to nothing so far.

So, what would these tribes do in the face of the considerable military aggression needed to impose a no-fly zone? They all have a proud history of anti-colonial struggle. So do the tribes of the east but the imposition of a no-fly zone is more likely to afflict the western tribes with inevitable “collateral damage”, the accidental killing of civilian men, women and children.

I’m not sure anyone knows the answer to that question. But if Col Gaddafi persuades that the allied attacks constitute imperial aggression, the no-fly zone could end up sparking the civil war that has so far been avoided.

The second assumption is that the rebels do want a no-fly zone. They are, of course, explicitly requesting it and recognising that it would entail bludgeoning attacks on Libyan territory. But it is not clear their understanding of one of their key conditions – no foreign ground troops – is the same as that of, say, a supporter like US Senator John Kerry.

When one of the rebel leaders sought to illustrate what he meant, he said that, of course, if a foreign pilot’s plane was shot down, it would be all right if he parachuted himself down to Libyan territory – “he would be our guest”. It is indicative of how strictly the rebels reject the idea of foreign ground troops that it was thought worth pointing out that concession.

In any case, however, the likelihood is that a pilot would bail out far closer to Col Gaddafi’s forces.

And the record of the US and UK armies is that they send troops on helicopter gunships to rescue soldiers stranded behind enemy lines. Nor is it to be excluded (a notorious case arose in Afghanistan) that stranded soldiers may need to decide, at short notice, whether to kill civilians who have accidentally discovered their hideout.

In short, the distinction between a no-fly zone and ground troops could be messy in practice. Even if the rebel leaders relent on their current firm rejection of any foreign troops on Libyan soil, specific incidents may give them a difficult time with their own people. The third assumption is that regional Arab involvement in a no-fly zone unequivocally aids the effort. Not necessarily; it depends on whose narrative carries the day.

Libyan state TV is portraying the Arab League’s secretary general, Amre Moussa, as a munafiq (hypocrite, but with connotations of treachery in Islamic history), bribed with US support for his presidential candidacy in Egypt. News of Egypt resuming exports of gas to Israel has been given prominence. The narrative of US/Israeli control over oil supplies and the Arab world is being pushed.

It may gain currency if the US continues to take a meeker stance in response to state repression of protests in Bahrain and Saudi Arabia. A weak stance may indeed be the price the US has to pay for Saudi support in Libya. In that case, however, it would be easier for Col Gaddafi to portray US concerns over violence in Libya as a hypocritical pretext, with the real motive being control over oil.

Individually, each of these risks can be mitigated. In combination, they must feature prominently in the calculations of the US and Col Gaddafi as they assess what lies within grasp and what could be fatal overreach.

*****
Zolabytes is a rubrique on J’accuse – the name is a nod to the original J’accuser (Emile Zola) and a building block of the digital age (byte). Zolabytes is intended to be a collection of guest contributions in the spirit of discussion that has been promoted by J’accuse on the online Maltese political scene for 5 years.
Opinions expressed in zolabyte contributions are those of the author in question. Opinions appearing on zolabytes do not necessarily reflect the editorial line of J’accuse the blog.
***

Related articles
Enhanced by Zemanta

Overwhelming (In a world gone mad)

It’s been a difficult day for us expats. For starters we could not tune in to the parliamentary “debate” that preceded the vote on the wording of the referendum question so we had to rely on secondary sources. Then like the early tremors before the quake and storm it started to come across. The information seeped slowly at first until it built itself up into a tsunami, an orgy of inconsequential non-sequiturs, a glorification of partisan ignorance and a confirmation that it is reasonable for many of us to lose hope.

Why bother? As I sounded out friends by email and facebook I noticed that as the debate raged on many people who I like to consider intelligent were thinking of packing their bags and leaving the country. For yes, even though the debate and vote were simply about the phrasing of a consultative referendum question we we were getting a taster of what the real debate would be about. Ferraris, conscience, Jesus, stereotypically ignorant Irish and battered wives featured randomly in this tasteless spectacle.

Then came the vote. A vote, mind you, that was not tied to any government confidence vote, a simple vote that basically determined the format of the question in the consultative referendum. Those who liked the conditional question (or as Lawrence would have it – the “complicated” one) won the vote on the day. 36 -33 with JPO and Mugliett voting with the PL clan.

Then it all went haywire. The labour rent-a-crowd went ballistic. On facebook, Luciano Busuttil, the erudite constitutionalist, fed the faithful with the “GONZI HAS LOST HIS PARLIAMENTARY MAJORITY” (caps complimentary of labour newspeak). There you had it again. It was not about divorce after all. It was about Gonzi’s government. Little did it matter that this was an open vote, not tied to any government confidence. No. Busuttil would descend to the sublimely ridiculous when I would point out the legal inconsistency of his argument. Backed by his crowd of fawning lejberites he retorted: “Can you feel it Jacques? Power slipping from your hands?”

J’acccuse? Power. Ah the ignorance. Sublime. This is what you will get with PLPN style confrontation on a theme. This is what we get if we are unwitting accomplices to the programme for the introduction of divorce as conceived by the PLPN crowd. This is what we get when we give our consent to the idea of a consultative referendum to introduce a “minority right”.

How else can I write it? Let’s try bold.

Muscat’s Labour has NO POSITION on divorce. It has a position on a free vote. Gonzi’s PN has a position on divorce but it doesn’t count because the PN MPs will be given a free vote. SO WHAT THE FLYING SPAGHETTI MONSTER IS EVERYONE SO HAPPY ABOUT? A consultative referendum?

And then what? The people have spoken? We all know what that means to most MPs…. Vox Populi, Vox Xejn.

I don’t know what irritates me most: the hypocritical contradictions of a supposedly christian democrat party that abuses of the system or the unlimited opportunism of a pseudo-progressive party that doesn’t have the balls to take a clear lead on the issue that counts. No Luciano or Joseph – a lead does not mean asking the people… it means giving them the clear option by saying that a Labour MP means a YES vote for the divorce law.

But what am I saying? Balls? In today’s parties? That’s a good one. No wonder today’s activities have been overwhelming. It’s back to the trenches.

In un paese di coglioni, ci mancano le palle. – J’accuse 2011.

Tie Your Brother Down

“Nationalist MP Peter Micallef said yesterday that the result of the consultative referendum on divorce would in no way tie him down when the vote on the Divorce Bill was held.” The plot thickens.

Isn’t Peter right? It all boils down to the meaning of the vote that he exercises in parliament. Is it Peter‘s vote and his alone – making him free to tie it down with his heavy (or light, as the case may be) moral convictions? Does it belong to his constituency or the couple of thousand electors who rushed to casually elect  Peter to his cosy seat in parliament? Would a quick head count among his electors convince Peter to vote in accordance to their will?

On the other hand does his vote belong to the nationalist party that worked so hard for men like Peter to get to his p’mentary seat? In that case Peter could only follow the PN’s guidance and in the event of their “position” (we don’t like divorce but our MPs will have a free vote) he is granted a one off chance to use his vote according to his cerebral and spiritual likings.

So what of the people? Peter is not Muammar after all. He cannot say “they love me all” and he definitely knows where they can stick their collective advice in a consultative referendum. It is consultative after all and this particular MP has been admirably frank and open about his position as to how much he values the opinion of the people in this particular consultation.

But is Peter wrong? How can he be? This has become a free for all in lascivious political nonchalance. It is what happens when we cut ourselves loose from all the “lawyering” and “legal niceties” and “verbal somersaults”. Parties with no position except for the fact that they have unleashed a collective of pussyfooting MPs to do as they like. Disquistions on referendum questions that are ultimately purely consultative – and as such allow geezers like Pete to say “I won’t be tied by the people”.

Which is why J’accuse still insists that there is only one way divorce can and should be introduced. On a party manifesto that wins the election and introduces the right to remarry via a legislative motion in parliament. Business as usual in a normal world.

In un paese di coglioni ci mancano le palle. – J’accuse 2011.


 

Appeasement

At 8pm on the 27th September 1938, Neville Chamberlain, UK Prime Minister broadcast to the nation:

“How horrible, fantastic, incredible it is that we should be digging trenches and trying on gas-masks here because of a quarrel in a faraway country between people of whom we know nothing”.

The “people of whom we know nothing” were the Czechs, Slovaks and Germans in the Sudetenland. Chamberlain would go on to sign the Munich Agreement with “the German Chancellor Herr Hitler”. A year later he would be declaring war on Herr Hitler following the invasion of Poland.

Peace in our time? Go tell it to the rebels in Brega.

Reality Bites

The Times reports that Alex Vella Gera and Mark Camilleri, respectively the author and the editor in the Li Tkisser Sewwi saga, have been acquitted of publishing pornographic and obscene material. So much for “censorship” then. It’s not like the fuss was not necessary, it’s not like there was no need for a discussion as to why a University rector might feel the need to involve the boys in uniform because of his fears about the content of a piece of writing.

This is a huge wake up call to all those who have been yelling about fascist governments and censorship. J’accuse pointed out, time and time again, that the law is there to be applied and that we could not yell censorship unless the courts of law actually thought that the law on pornography applied to the content. We will have the fury of literati bearing down upon us again but the naked truth is now written in the court judgement handed down by Magistrate Audrey Demicoli. Stories like Li Tkisser Sewwi are not considered pornographic or obscene under Maltese law.

So what are we left with? An overzealous rector and a police force that once again gets trumped in court (pole dancers, obscenity and pornography – all in a days work). On the other hand there will be less excuses for the illuminati of this world to yell “censorship”, “oppression” or “fascism” at some trumped up ghost.

Ironic as it may seem* reality does bite every now and again.

*phrase sponsored by PG’s tips.

Also on the subject:
Mark Biwwa’s : Violence and Obscenity Maltese Style

Related articles
Enhanced by Zemanta

Speaking of Heroes

BBC news is reporting that Malta may be objecting to an EU decision to extend sanctions on Libya. As fighting in rebel held territories worsens with heavier attacks by Gaddafi’s forces Malta seems to be shuffling its feet when it notices that the sanctions might hurt its own pocket:

A European Union decision on whether to extend sanctions on Libya is being delayed by objections from Malta. BBC Europe business correspondent Nigel Cassidy understands that Malta fears further sanctions could damage some of its companies. Diplomats from the 27-nation EU bloc are discussing a freeze on dealings with the Libyan Investment Authority. – BBC news

While the local minded connoisseurs of international intrigue might be busy racking their brains trying to link Gaddafi to the Labour party (of course the safety of Libya’s insurgents depends on Labour’s kitty) our representatives in Brussels are hedging on the possibility of some effective action. J’accuse already warned that the façade of our “hero brigade” might melt away faster than butter in the August sun.

What use is it, really, that we tut-tut about financial comptrollers shifting Gaddafi’s money from beach to island when our own government is unable to get in line and squeeze the bastard’s finances dry?

Business I hear you say? It’s not just John Dalli who has those interests is it?