Watching Libya March 29, 2011

As the world powers meet in London today (March 29) to discuss Libya’s future, Arab observers warn that the Libyan opposition is not likely to meekly accept to be ‘nurtured’ by NATO, the US, Europe or anybody else with a view to presiding over a future pre-fabricated outside of the country. Al Jazeera’s senior political analyst Marwan Bishara – his views are avidly read and discussed in Libya’s liberated territories – rejected the world view underlying the Financial Times’ call to NATO to “swiftly identify and nurture a national opposition and plot the path for a post-conflict transition to democracy, probably under UN auspices" (FT, March 27), characterising it as predictable and reminiscent of recent involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan. Noting how “overreaching Europeans” are already attempting to edge the US to the sidelines by arguing that Libya belongs to the European sphere of influence, and how “the British, French and Italians still hope for influence over the next government”,  Bishara argues that Libya “isn't likely to emerge as a client state, or be led by client leadership, no matter how long the NATO bombardment goes on or how long Gaddafi holds onto power.”

The Financial Times – and the more significant powers – are aware that a credible Libyan opposition cannot be perceived by Libyans as having too narrow a geographical, tribal and social base. In fact, although it claims that the “only credible candidate is the interim national council based in Benghazi”, it is quick to warn that  “NATO should ensure that this is not an eastern clique, but a body that represents all segments of the population.” Of course, Bishara would object that it is not up to anyone outside Libya to decide who should rule a post-Gheddafi Libya nor to ensure who it should represent and that the role of protector or guarantor powers today is unacceptable to the populations of the countries whose sovereignty and democracy is meant to be protected or guaranteed.  The thrust of his argument, as we understand it, is that those foreign powers who are jostling for hegemony or at least influence over the populations of those Arab countries that did not wait for the west to bring them democracy – indeed they went for it at their own risk and peril when the outside world stood transfixed worrying about ‘regional stability’ and oil supplies –  are (quote) “incapable of conceiving the revolutionary transformations that swept through the region, especially those of Libya's neighbours”. ( http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/2011/03/2011328194855872276.html ).

It is relevant to this issue that British prime minister David Cameron, opening today’s London meeting, emphasised that today’s talks “should be about a new beginning for Libya - a future in which the people of Libya can determine their own destiny” (our own emphasis). Read Cameron’s speech at http://www.number10.gov.uk/news/speeches-and-transcripts/2011/03/pms-speech-at-london-conference-on-libya-62642 . The meeting is being attended by 35 foreign ministers (of which 7 Arab states) as well as the highest representatives of UN, NATO and the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC).  Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, the OIC’s secretary general, addressing the conference called “ upon the international community to fully commit to preserving the unity, territorial integrity and political independence of Libya” (for his the full speech, see http://www.oic-oci.org/topic_detail.asp?t_id=5115 ).

The newly appointed French ambassador to Benghazi, Antoine Sivan, the Arabic-speaking former French ambassador to Qatar, is reported to be on his way to the eastern Libyan city, seat of the Transitional National Council (TNC). There are reports that the US and Britain have also sent special envoys to Benghazi, but there is as yet no confirmation that this is the case. Italy and Turkey appear to have representatives on the ground but this too is not confirmed. There is certainly pressure on European governments from their business communities to establish contacts with the TNC. Cameron's reference in his speech today to the urgent task of "repairing the hospitals ruined by shells … rebuilding the homes demolished by Gheddafi” and “repairing physical infrastructure”, will – irrespective of his humanitarian and political  intentions – certainly have attracted the attention of international contractors eager to benefit from reconstruction.

US President Obama’s speech at National Defence University in Washington yesterday (March 28), said that as the bulk of the US military effort is accomplished, his country will now work with the international community to assist the Libyan people. He also said: “We will safeguard the more than $33 billion that was frozen from the Gheddafi regime so that it's available to rebuild Libya. After all, the money doesn't belong to Gheddafi or to us -- it belongs to the Libyan people. And we'll make sure they receive it."

Now, it is of course understandable and perfectly legitimate for international contractors to lobby for work in the new Libya. Reconstruction and, more importantly, new policies aimed at redressing the unbalanced  regional distribution of development investment promoted by the Gheddafi regime, will fuel Libya’s growth for decades to come and will require far more that the Gheddafi controlled assets frozen in the US and elsewhere. There is no doubt that a new Libyan government will not want to waste  Libya’s oil and gas revenues in unproductive foreign policy initiatives and in foreign investments that contribute little or nothing to the country’s own development needs. It is perfectly understandable and legitimate for international companies to seek to participate in this effort. Success will also depend, however, on a deeper understanding of the country, its people, their needs and sensitivities.