Libyan leader condemns 'crusader strategy' amid speculation that his foreign minister has defected
Share21
Ian Black in Tripoli
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 29 March 2011 21.18 BST
Article history
A rebel soldier in Bin Jawad urges people to flee shelling by Gaddafi’s forces. Photograph: Anja Niedringhaus/AP
Muammar Gaddafi told the London conference discussing Libya's future without him that there was no room for compromise with the Benghazi-based rebels, whom he described bluntly as al-Qaida terrorists supported by Nato and representing no one.
Far from showing any sign of bending to demands from Barack Obama, David Cameron and other world leaders that he step down, Gaddafi issued a characteristically defiant challenge to what he called a "new crusader strategy or imperialist plan".
But three powerful explosions that shook Tripoli in mid-afternoon – apparently the first daylight attack in 10 days of UN-mandated air strikes – seemed to presage a possible escalation of the conflict. Libyan officials made no comment.
In another dramatic development, there was speculation that Gaddafi's foreign minister, Mousa Kousa, might have defected during a visit to Tunisia.
The Libyan leader warned that the UN-imposed no-fly zone would turn north Africa into "a second Afghanistan" in an extraordinary letter sent to the European Parliament, the US Congress and "the Europeans" meeting in London.
"Stop your barbaric and unjust offensive against Libya," he wrote. "Leave Libya for the Libyans. You are carrying out an operation to exterminate a peaceful people and destroy a developing country. We are united behind the leadership of the revolution, facing the terrorism of al-Qaida on the one hand and on the other hand terrorism by Nato, which now directly supports al-Qaida."
The full text shows the Libyan leader to be baffled by the ingratitude of the world towards him after years of rapprochement and utterly dismissive of concerns about the use of violence against his own people.
Gaddafi argued that there was no need for foreign intervention, that Libya's "direct democracy" had no parallel and that its oil resources were the property of its people – a reference to the widespread perception among his supporters that the war is a conspiracy to divide the country and steal its natural resources.
Libya has made every effort to help solve global problems, abandoned its weapons of mass destruction, helped the international effort to fight "extremist terrorism", controlled illegal immigration to Europe and played a positive role in Africa. "There were no demonstrations in Libya or protests like in Tunisia and Egypt," he claimed.
"No one opened fire on demonstrators. No more than 150 people were killed and most of those were soldiers and policemen who were defending themselves." He attacked a "deliberately fabricated image" of Libya to justify the "second crusader war", accusing the coalition of committing "merciless massacres".
Kousa, intriguingly, chose the eve of the London conference to pay what was described as a private visit to neighbouring Tunisia, the country's nearest outlet to the outside world as the no-fly zone has closed all Libyan airports. Tunisian sources said Kousa had left later for an unknown destination. Kousa's status as veteran Gaddafi stalwart and former intelligence and security chief provoked immediate speculation that he may have followed diplomats who quit en masse in the first days of the uprising. If he has, it would be a grave blow to the regime – and vindication of claims in Washington and elsewhere that cracks are appearing in Gaddafi's inner circle.
Kousa's deputy, Khaled Kaim, accused the allies of seeking to partition Libya. "The tactic of the coalition is to lead to a stalemate to cut the country in two, which means the civil war is a continuous war, the start of a new Somalia, a very dangerous situation," he told Italy's Rai Uno TV channel.
"If we are led to a civil war, resolution 1973, which was meant to protect civilians, will on the contrary lead to the murder of civilians." UN resolution 1973, passed earlier this month, authorised "all necessary measures" to protect civilians.
State-run media are continuing to highlight the human toll of the allied attacks, including 12 the regime claims were killed in Sebha, on the edge of the Sahara, when Nato planes hit an ammunition dump. Airstrikes also hit what were described as "military and civilian targets" in the cities of Garyan and Mizda, 40 miles and 90 miles respectively from Tripoli.
Foreign journalists who were taken to Mizda were forced to flee when residents fired over their heads. It was unclear whether the violent protest was against the international media or their official government minders.
___________
Gaddafi's survival could end the Arab revolt
If the uprising in Libya is to succeed, then international effort, via the Arab League, must help the people to help themselves
Comments (99)
Simon Tisdall
guardian.co.uk, Friday 4 March 2011 17.11 GMT
Article history
Mourners carry the body of a victim of the violence during a funeral procession in Benghazi, Libya. Photograph: John Moore/Getty Images
The giddy prospect of a third "Facebook revolution" in the Middle East, with Libya swiftly following Tunisia and Egypt into a brave new post-autocratic era, is fading from view. The growing military and diplomatic stalemate, both inside and outside the country, suggests efforts to topple Muammar Gaddafi could fail, at least in the short term.
His survival may, in turn, mark the beginning of the end of the Arab world revolt.
Despite daily reports of aerial bombing and ground skirmishes, fighting between pro-Gaddafi forces and opposition groups remains sporadic and undirected. After the rebels' significant early successes in seizing control of Benghazi, most of eastern Libya and some towns closer to Tripoli, their uncoordinated advance has lost momentum and stalled. Talk of a grand march on the capital remains just that – talk.
Gaddafi is strengthening his grip on Tripoli, partly by terrorising its citizens. A new crackdown is expected after Friday prayers. But his efforts to take back opposition-held towns, notably Brega, have also been inconclusive. Regime air attacks, as reported by international media, appear curiously half-hearted and largely inaccurate. And thankfully, both sides' casualties in the most recent fighting seem to be relatively light, notwithstanding an emotive claim by Susan Rice, the US ambassador to the UN, that Gaddafi is "slaughtering his people".
The military stand-off inside Libya is matched by paralysis outside the country over military intervention. The Americans are hesitant in the extreme. Defence secretary Robert Gates has repeatedly highlighted the risks inherent in any attempt to impose a no-fly zone, as mooted by David Cameron and others. Gates says, rightly, that in order to create such a zone, the US and its allies would first have to destroy Gaddafi's air force and air defences – in effect, declare war.
These defences are formidable, posing on paper at least a far greater challenge than that presented by Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq, or the Serbian military in Bosnia – two recent cases where no-fly zones were imposed. They include an estimated 100 MiG-25s and 15 Mirage F-1s equipped with air-to-air missiles and numerous Russian-made Sam ground batteries. Gaddafi can also call on 30 or more Russian helicopter gunships and four Boeing Chinooks. Mostly these assets do not appear to have been deployed so far.
There's diplomatic stalemate, too. After keeping mum while the crisis unfolded, Barack Obama called on Thursday for Gaddafi to stand down. But the US president offered no clue as to whether he had a plan to force him out, or indeed any plan at all for Libya. At the same time, Washington is rubbishing efforts by its arch enemy, Hugo Chavez, the Venezuelan leader, to set up an international commission to mediate a peace deal.
"You don't need an international commission to tell Colonel Gaddafi what he needs to do for the good of his country and the good of his people," said the state department spokesman, PJ Crowley. "He should step aside, and for the good of his people, he should stop attacking them."
It's not just the Americans. Neither the UN security council nor the EU has much to offer in the way of diplomatic initiatives. Having condemned Gaddafi, imposed largely symbolic sanctions, and agreed how awful the situation is, they have become spectators.
Individual states such as Britain, France and Italy have launched laudable humanitarian relief operations. But these are stop-gap measures, not solutions. Likewise the Arab League and the African Union, who should be leading the way given their close structural relationship with Libya, issue statements and effectively do nothing. Perhaps, one day, the international criminal court will bring Gaddafi to justice. But don't hold your breath.
International impotence and division in the face of fast-moving political crises is nothing new. Direct intervention, as in Iraq in 2003 or Kosovo in 1999, is the exception, not the rule, and usually counter-productive. But there is no reason why the international community, including emerging powers such as China, India and Brazil, should not do more to help the Arabs help themselves. The proper channel for such engagement is via the Arab League, which says, for example, that it may impose its own no-fly zone on Libya but lacks capability and expertise.
If Arab reform is to succeed, it needs more victories – and more scalps. Protesters in Bahrain, Algeria, Yemen, Oman and elsewhere who, like the opposition to Gaddafi, are pitted against intransigent and occasionally brutal regimes, must be watching Libya's developing internal stalemate and the disjointed international response with dismay.
The longer Gaddafi hangs on, the faster momentum behind the revolt across the rest of the Arab world may be lost. The overthrow of Egypt's Hosni Mubarak raised great hopes for all. Gaddafi's survival could break their hearts.
No comments:
Post a Comment