Abdul Ati al-Obeidi's claim that Gaddafi's regime is prepared to hold free elections within six months is just designed to buy time
Share Comments (14)
Alaa al-Ameri
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 21 April 2011 12.48 BST
Article history
The Libyan foreign minister, Abdul Ati al-Obeidi, has said Libya could hold free elections within six months of the end of the conflict. Photograph: Mahmud Turkia/AFP/Getty Images
Muammar Gaddafi has remained in power for 42 years through tactful and respectful negotiation with those who disagree with him. He is adept at finding middle ground between opposing views and is known for encouraging reconciliation wherever it is possible. All those who have dealt with Gaddafi can testify that he is a reasonable, consistent, trustworthy humanitarian statesman whose word is his bond.
Are you cringing yet? Good. Then you'll know exactly how to receive the statement by Abdul Ati al-Obeidi, Gaddafi's foreign minister, that if the UN cancels the no-fly zone, and that if diplomatic and material support is withdrawn from the Libyan interim national council in Benghazi, Gaddafi and his hostage government will begin negotiations with the council that would lead to free elections within six months.
Obeidi has declared that discussions would include the issue of "whether the Leader [Gaddafi] should stay and in what role, and whether he should retire". This must have come as a shock to Gaddafi himself, who maintains that he has no position of authority from which to step down.
These false promises are purely for foreign consumption and cannot be given any credence. They are intended to buy time and place domestic political pressure on the Americans, British, French, Italians and other governments to soften their stance on the Gaddafi family, who they've all said must leave power in accordance with the demands of the Libyan people.
Obeidi claims that the only hindrance to peace is the Nato attacks on Gaddafi's forces. Soon after these claims were made, photojournalists Tim Hetherington and Chris Hondros were killed by an apparent rocket-propelled grenade attack in Mistarah while photographing residents of the town resisting Gaddafi's onslaught.
Hetherington's final Twitter message was: "In besieged Libyan city of Misrata. Indiscriminate shelling by Gaddafi forces. No sign of Nato."
The biggest mistake that can be made in dealing with the Gaddafi regime is to assume that it is a government with a coherent internal structure that is capable of consistent and reliable decision-making. This has never been the case. As people such as Libya's former foreign minister Abdel Rahman Shalgam can attest, all key decisions come from Gaddafi himself, despite his surreal claim that he has no authority and is simply a figurehead. Obeidi's words must therefore be seen in the context of the unchanging positions of Gaddafi and his son. In this light, his offer means nothing. He has no authority to make such promises.
Gaddafi's spokesmen have repeatedly announced fake ceasefires to the international press assembled at the Rixos hotel in Tripoli while his forces bombard cities such as Misrata with artillery and rocket fire. This has become routine.
A glance at the regime's television broadcasts, aimed at the Libyan people, however, shows a completely different face. In these, the revolutionaries remain "dogs, traitors and terrorists" who have "sold their country" and will soon be crushed.
Obeidi's apparently conciliatory moves therefore represent nothing new at all. The twisted position of the Gaddafis, repeatedly delivered without a hint of irony from day one, has been that if Libyans stop resisting Gaddafi's claims to authority over them, they can have democracy, but if they continue to demand that Gaddafi steps down, they can have war and destruction.
Nothing in Obeidi's words changes this position. Indeed, he states that by supporting the democracy movement, the US, UK and France are "making them more defiant".
If the Gaddafis are serious about a ceasefire they could implement one straight away. They could stop the bombardment of Libyan cities, withdraw their troops to their barracks and allow genuine freedom of expression in the areas they still control. They could allow people on to the streets without fear of attack or arrest to make their voices heard. They could release the tens of thousands of men and women who have been arrested for contacting the outside world, speaking to journalists or simply being suspected of sympathy with the democracy movement.
They could do all of this today if they were serious about a peaceful move to genuine democracy. But they are not. Instead they continue to hold an entire country to ransom in order to secure their own personal future.
No comments:
Post a Comment