The Staggers

The New Statesman’s rolling politics blog

What next for Libya?

Despite the scenes of jubilation in Tripoli, there are more questions than answers about the next er

By Samira Shackle Published 22 August 2011 10:49

If reports are to be believed, the end of Muammar Gaddafi's 41 year rule of Libya is nigh, as rebels storm the heart of Tripoli. Such is the pace of events that it is impossible to know whether the regime will fall quickly, or whether the battle for Tripoli will be on-going for several days. Either way, it is difficult to see how even Gaddafi will retain his grasp on power for much longer.

Attention is now turning to what the next era will bring, and there are far more questions than answers. As we have seen in Afghanistan and Iraq, regime change is not an end in itself, and can lead either to deadlock, or to more extreme forces seizing the moment. While both Saddam Hussein and the Taliban were unpopular regimes, this did not mean that there was an opposition with the widespread support to replace them. In Iraq, the widescale purging of anyone liked to Saddam's Ba'ath party created a power vaccuum. The existing tension within the Libyan rebel ranks, between life-long opponents of Gaddafi and those who have recently defected, could foreshadow a similar disaster.

Currently, the Benghazi-based National Transitional Council (NTC) is recognised by 32 countries, including Britain, as the official government of Libya. This body will be tasked with bringing order to the post-war chaos. However, it is deeply divided, and remains without a cabinet. The last one was sacked by chairman Mustafa Abdul Jalil on 8 August, accusing it of failing to investigate the July murder of rebel military commander Abdul Fatah Younis. Questions remain over the role of Jalil's government in the murder, although Islamist forces have also come under suspicion.

According to reports, the NTC is too faction-riven to agree on who should form a new executive, which does not bode well before it has even taken power.

In today's Independent, Patrick Cockburn reports on the divisions amongst the rebel forces:

It is an extraordinary situation. The Transitional National Council (TNC) in Benghazi is now recognised by more than 30 foreign governments, including the US and Britain, as the government of Libya. But it is by no means clear that it is recognised as such by the rebel militiamen who are in the process of seizing the capital. The rebel fighters in Misrata, who fought so long to defend their city, say privately that they have no intention of obeying orders from the TNC. Their intransigence may not last but it is one sign that the insurgents are deeply divided.

A crucial difference to Iraq is that there are no US or Nato forces on the ground. It remains to be seen what role the west will play in the formation of a new government, but given the disastrous legacy of Iraq and Afghanistan, the indications are that Nato countries will encourage the Arab League and the African Union to take the lead. The neighbouring states have a clear interest in the country's stability.

Jalil, a former minister who resigned when violence was used against protesters in February, is still viewed with suspicion by many who do not want to retain any ties at all to the Gaddafi regime. At this stage, it is difficult to see how Jalil will manage to persuade different rebel factions to co-operate, incorporate existing state structures, and control the Islamist element, given that he has so far been unable to unite his own council.

Tags: Libya

More from Samira Shackle

View the discussion thread.

24 comments

Tue, 2011-08-23 19:41 — martybee (not verified)

Saudi Next...pfffffff

Mon, 2011-08-22 18:08 — charlesfrith

Appalled that the New Statesman didn't have the guts to call this bombing out for what it was. Oil and banking murder. Period.

Mon, 2011-08-22 18:18 — stuart (not verified)

when is this addiction from both labour and tory going to stop..from blair to cameron,its just been non stop war since i can remember,,watch iout syria you could be next on the warmongers list

Mon, 2011-08-22 19:10 — JJ (not verified)

What next for Libya? Western companies raping them for their oil,privatisation of their gas,electric and water and any other assets they have,plenty of poverty.You know the usual outcome of these Imperial wars.

Wed, 2011-08-24 00:24 — debtslayer (not verified)

I just said we are a fascist (By any definition of the word) state on all counts @Telegraph and my posts were deleted without trace.

'We have proved in Libya that intervention can still work'

Things are far worse than I thought.

Fascism:

http://www.jamesrmaclean.com/archives/archive_fascism_britt_1.html

Powerful and continuing expressions of nationalism.

Disdain for the importance of human rights.

Identification of enemies/scapegoats as a unifying cause.

The supremacy of the military/avid militarism.

A controlled mass media.

Obsession with national security.

Power of corporations protected.

Power of labor suppressed or eliminated.

Rampant cronyism and corruption.

We are in a fascist stage. We have killed 500,000 or more. In ten years. We must resist.

Mon, 2011-08-22 21:25 — Homo Sapiens

@Mr. Divine
Repeatedly, the government offered a cease-fire followed by UN-supervised elections. Each time this was rejected by NATO, who demanded surrender and regime change. By definition, democracy requires that it should be the electorate's privilege to "throw the rascals out", or not. By refusing open elections, NATO admits that Gaddafi might have won a fair election. By closing off that possibility, NATO have precluded a democratic outcome to the conflict.

Wed, 2011-08-24 02:20 — Gideon Polya

debtslayer makes a powerful point about the new fascism of the West. I refer readers to eminent Australian law scholar Professor George Venturini's scholarly account addressing the question "Is Australia Fascist?" (see: http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:LOr6ADyXbUMJ:www.countercurren... ).

Under-5 year old infant deaths in Occupied Iraq (1990-2011) and Occupied Afghanistan (2001-2011) now total 2.0 million and 2.7 million (90% avoidable and due to war-imposed deprivation from the war criminal US Alliance) and war-imposed deaths in general total 4.6 million and 5.0 million, respectively (see "Muslim Holocaust, Muslim Genocide": http://sites.google.com/site/muslimholocaustmuslimgenocide/ ).

Libya had a very low infant mortality rate before the 6 months of NATO-backed civil war and NATO bombing (18 deaths per 1,000 births versus 8 in the US) - avoidable deaths will inevitably rise in NATO -devastated Libya.

The question should now be what's next for any other country that the "democratic fascist" countries of the US Alliance chooses to bomb back to the Stone Age.

Of course those with a mild interest in history will remember the Libyan Genocide perpetrated by the Italian fascists under Mussolini in the 1920s and 1930s.

Democracy is clearly better than dictatorship - governments change peacefully without any bloodshed when the likes of Kingmaker Rupert Murdoch decide that governments should change in the democratic fascist Western Murdochracies and Lobbyocracies (ergo, Boycott Murdoch Media: http://sites.google.com/site/boycottmurdochmedia/ ).

In the new "democratic" Libya there will clearly be 2 groups - those who supported the "turkey shoot" mass killing of their fellow countrymen by the racist, war criminal, genocidal France-UK-US (FUKUS) Coalition and those who didn't.

Wed, 2011-08-24 03:09 — Gideon Polya

@ debtslayer re his identification of the new fascism of the endlessly invading, devastating and warmongering US Alliance countries (I call it "democratic fascism"): here is a workable link for that excellent article by eminent law scholar Professor Venturini entitled "Is Australia Fascist?": http://www.countercurrents.org/venturini100511.pdf .

Mon, 2011-08-22 23:03 — Eddy S (not verified)

cameron must be chuffed, the main reason libya was pursued was because of the close relationship between blair, brown and ... with the gaddafi's.

Wed, 2011-08-31 22:44 — Ivan Miletitch

...democracy....ah ah! The NTC just announced this they were talking to ...tribal leaders!!!! about getting into Syrte. Doesn't anybody realise you can't have democracy in a country where you 'negociate with tribal leaders' ?....

Tue, 2011-08-23 01:37 — Bill Peddie (not verified)

Since the rebels themselves are deeply divided - and killed their General on the grounds that he was not radical enough - and since Gaddafi had strong support from his own tribal area what makes anyone think a stable situation will now result?

Tue, 2011-08-23 05:07 — fern (not verified)

Freedom Fighter? Weren't the Taliban also called the same by that Lunatic Reagan? It all smells of oil to me and a staging for what could be next. Venezuela.

Tue, 2011-08-23 05:25 — Tom (not verified)

NATO declares Gadafi a "menace that has to go". They then start an air campaign and assist the rebels now in Tripoli. The UN agreement governing this says that "this shall be done with protecting civilians as much as possible. Also, no ground troops will be used." Apparently, CIA and MI6 don't count as "ground forces". This also violates intl. law.

Now, assume that the rebels do take over the country. Gadafi is either killed, exiled or tried by the ICC (along with his kids?). Which Western country then gets "exclusive rights" to Libyan oil?

Are you seriously going to tell me that oil had absolutely nothing to do with this?

Tue, 2011-08-23 10:16 — Drakula

Tom; Oil has everything to do with it
Gadaffi had the oil sewn up to finance, free education, free health, social services and he was trying to get the Africa bank going.

An independent bank from the Rothschild and US banks that have been milking Africa for decades.

In western eyes he was seen as the 'bad boy' because he was sympathetic to the Palestinian cause and rallied against the zionist government of Israel.

Then there was the Lockerby incedent that implicated Gadaffi. Was he just another scapegoat?

I believe he made a fatal error, open firing on protesters. Gadaffi could have turned the protests to his advantage and turned them against his adversories like Israel.

What will happen now in Libya is anyones guess but NATO will be barging it's way in to get a puppet government and it will be privatisations,'free'trade, union bashing and austerities.

They may end up exactly like the UK!!

Tue, 2011-08-23 11:21 — fairplay (not verified)

comments today in the financials say markets may be aided this week by availability of libyan oil.

sort of says it all really

Wed, 2011-08-24 13:47 — Bill Fraser (not verified)

Let them decide, they have just won their freedom from a loony left wing dictator... at great cost in terms of lives lost and those injured ...

The situation in Libya is still precarious, but they are tasting freedom for the first time in forty years!

Wed, 2011-08-24 14:18 — debtslayer (not verified)

'freedom'

NO. Democracy is control by money and media rather than the people.

Libya will be integrated into Western model of mass immigration, wars of aggression (however propaganded as 'humanitarian') and cheap oil.

Mon, 2011-08-22 10:55 — Mr. Divine (not verified)

Perhaps they can have an election for starters, something that the unelected dictator didn't allow.

Tue, 2011-08-23 14:38 — Ahmed Khan (not verified)

let's put a british/american muppet as it's leader and rob the Libyan people of it's oil. Once the Oil dry's up, let's just walk away. Simple as that!

Mon, 2011-08-22 11:58 — 1R4M

Pro democracy fighters
funny
considering the NTC hasn't been elected
from one dictator to another...

Mon, 2011-08-22 12:34 — Bill Fraser (not verified)

Now that the Freedom Fighters have made it into the heart of Tripoli... it should be left to them and the Libyan people to decide the future of their country.

However, it was interesting to see as the FF entered the city last night to welcoming crowds that the BBC News coverage was all doom and gloom compared to the other news channels...

BBC News has been negative about the efforts of the Libyan people to free their country from day one, while talking up the efforts of Gaddafi's loony left wing dictatorship to hold on to power.

Even today as the Libyan people celebrate the streets, the BBC are all doom and gloom about the future of Libya without the loony Gaddafi...

Mon, 2011-08-22 13:03 — mittfh

The intrinsic problem with any rebel movement whose sole focus is "Anyone but x" (where x is the current leader) is that once x has been removed from power, the rebels then start arguing over who should be in power / how the country should work.

When you've had a dictatorship for numerous years, once it's gone you need time for political factions to resolve themselves into parties and promote their viewpoint. The problems are, of course, that (a) it takes time, (b) the people are impatient for new leadership, (c) they can grow very impatient with an interim administration (c.f. Egypt).

Surely somebody can take a look at what's happened in the past when dictators have been deposed, and come up with some form of 'good practice guide'?

Mon, 2011-08-22 16:04 — fairplay (not verified)

what next for libya?

if they are lucky, the spoils of their oil reserves being used for the upliftment of their citizens. in reality, the theft of their assets by western companies. might be a few bricklaying and plastering jobs for the new US embassy in tripoli when it comes though.

illegal war again. backed by the west again. which will lead to many innocents being killed again.

where next???

Mon, 2011-08-22 16:04 — p j wall (not verified)

Everything will be ok now!!, peace, elections, democracy, all the tribal factions sharing the oil, and finally, the west leaving them alone with no influence whatsoever!!, all be a doddle now, just like Iraq!!, where they all speak with one voice, and live in peace and harmony!!, "Be careful what you wish for"....Poor old Flashman!, yet again, had to come home from one of his many holidays to do his man of the people speech!, what a guy!!,....Let`s get the OIL flowing!!!!!.