Tag: United States
Rebuilding Libya
Ian Ramsey-North, a recent Haverford graduate in poli sci (old school tie binds!), reports on yesterday’s event at the National Press Club, “Rebuilding Libya: A Status Report on the Humanitarian Situation on the Ground.”
Co-sponsored by the Middle East Institute and International Relief and Development, the discussion concerned recent political, military, diplomatic and humanitarian developments in Libya and the process of stabilization and reconstruction moving forward. The event began with a keynote address by Gene Cretz, US Ambassador to Libya, and continued with a panel discussion between Mark Ward, Deputy Assistant Administrator for the Bureau of Democracy, Conflict, and Humanitarian Assistance at USAID, and Travis Gartner, Director of Community Stabilization, IRD.
Gene Cretz began by recounting the series of summits, contact group meetings, and international ministerial conferences that facilitated the international community’s increasing confidence in the Libyan Transitional National Council (TNC). These culminated in the most recent meeting last week in Paris, following the defeat of Qaddafi’s forces, which was marked by a sense of pride in the international community, TNC and the Libyan people. At the same time, participants were aware of the continuing threat posed by Qaddafi and the myriad challenges presented by Libya’s transition from autocratic rule to democratic governance.
The international community used the Paris meeting to call on:
- All nations to recognize the TNC.
- Meeting participants to unfreeze Libyan assets through the U.N.
- The TNC to honor its stated commitment to human rights, the proper treatment of prisoners and unification of Libya.
For their part, representatives of the TNC:
- Gave moving thanks to the international community.
- Restated their intention to respect human rights and the rights of prisoners.
- Stated that they do not need to be told what to do with respect to unifying their country.
- Claimed they have a clear sense of purpose and understand the problems they must confront.
- Emphasized that they will handle unfrozen funds and humanitarian assistance in a transparent and accountable manner, in accordance with international standards.
Cretz went on to stress that despite the success of the TNC, the NATO mission to protect civilians will continue. On the diplomatic front, efforts will continue to welcome Libya back into community of nations. The TNC will relocate to Tripoli and assume responsibility for national security and the humanitarian needs of the Libyan people “writ large.”
That said, the challenges facing Libya are considerable:
- The TNC must create a new country, not re-create pre-war Libya:
- Internal divisions are deep; Qaddafi took “divide and conquer” to unprecedented heights.
- New government and civil society institutions are needed.
- Previous contracts will be honored, but a process of review and rationalization will be necessary to assess which are really needed.
- The TNC is committed to a democracy:
- Libyans have a sense of what democracy is.
- Democratic practices and sentiments were evident from the early days of rebellion.
While all reconstruction efforts will be Libyan-led, the international community will remain engaged and support TNC efforts, as needed:
- Ian Martin is leading a UN assessment team on the ground right now.
- TNC and US State Department teams have already worked together on post-conflict planning efforts, filling in gaps in each other’s work.
- TNC is interested in training, expertise, and capacity-building, not massive funding handouts.
This process will be Libyan-led. The international community and America can be proud of the role it played in this and can look forward to a continuing role providing support, on Libyan terms.
Mark Ward emphasized that the situation in Libya has not been and is not today a humanitarian crisis. This is due to the exceptional coordination of humanitarian assistance by the Libyan people. The international community played a supporting role in this effort.
After assessing, USAID dispatched a DART to Benghazi. Medical needs were paramount so USAID’s primary focus was on stocking hospitals, medical clinics, and providing sanitation and hygiene kits to internally displaced persons. It also provided $15M in food assistance through the World Food Program and played a role in the evacuation and repatriation of migrants in Libya. NGO’s are now on the ground in Tripoli, monitoring the situation and preparing to meet any emerging humanitarian needs. In addition, the TNC has proved responsive to humanitarian needs, dispatching its own engineers to resolve a drinking water shortage in Tripoli.
The US role in Libya is now changing from one of humanitarian assistance to stabilization operations, including training for civil society, governance, and media. The TNC is particularly interested in capacity-building for transitional justice mechanisms and messaging/media relations.
Ward concluded by relating his own experience at the recent Paris meeting. It was partiucularly notable that in a donor meeting, a TNC official thanked the international community for freeing frozen assets and then clearly stated that Libya does not want the international community’s money, it only wants its expertise.
Travis Gartner related some of his own experiences working with IRD to provide humanitarian assistance early in the Libyan civil war. He reiterated Libyans’ incredible drive for self-sufficiency, noting that IRD was able to implement large projects in Libya with only one expatriate employee, 3-4 paid staff members, and a large number of community volunteers.
Future collaboration and assistance must incorporate community action, grass roots-level involvement, citizen involvement in decision-making, and capacity-building at the lowest possible level.
Looking forward, security is the most urgent priority:
- De-arming and de-militarizing militias
- Re-vamping military and police forces and getting them back on the streets as quickly as possible
- Addressing divisions
- East/West
- Civilian/Military
- Tribal
Other major concerns include:
- Perceptions of social exclusion
- Frustrated expectations for improvement
- Unemployment
Conclusion: All three participants emphasized a strong Libyan drive for self-sufficiency. Cretz focused on growing international confidence in the TNC during the last 6 months of international diplomatic activity. Ward and Gartner discussed Libyan management of humanitarian relief efforts during the conflict. All three emphasized that future international involvement will be determined by Libyans, with an emphasis on capacity-building and the provision of international expertise in order to fill gaps in Libyan capabilities.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Where is the Security Council?
Thursday’s meeting in Paris of 63 countries to launch the reconstruction phase of the Libyan revolution went well. Money is starting to flow (including a big shipment of Libyan cash) and the Transitional National Council (TNC) continues to say all the right things: no revenge, contracts will be respected, democracy and rule of law should prevail. Elections within 18 months, which is more reasonable than the 12 months previously mooted.
The trick now is implementation. Even at yesterday’s meeting, there was friction over contracts. The French foreign minister made it clear he thought Paris deserved a lion’s share because of its role in the NATO military action. This friction and many others will grow. It is important that too much money not flow too fast into Libya: I’ve never seen a post-war reconstruction effort that would not have benefitted from less funding, which forces decisions on priorities and gives decent people incentives to block corrupt practices.
What the international community needs is a common script: a United Nations Security Council resolution that sets out strategic goals for Libya, as defined by the Libyans and agreed with the international community. The ideal vehicle for this is the new resolution needed to lift sanctions. This should state the main goals, which I might summarize something like this: Libya will be a single, united country with its capital in Tripoli governed by democratic processes under the rule of law. It will use its natural resources transparently and accountably to benefit all its citizens, live in peace with its neighbors and fulfill its obligations under international agreements it has signed as well as the UN charter.
This would not eliminate all frictions in the international community: a country as rich as Libya is bound to create rivalries among oil and gas consumers as well as suppliers of good and services. But it would help to frame the international effort and provide some touchstones to guide reconstruction efforts.
Libya is not the only country needing a Security Council resolution. None has yet passed denouncing the regime’s violence against its citizens in Syria, because Moscow is blocking it. The Secretary of State rightly spent some time yesterday cajoling the Europeans to block oil and oil product imports from Syria, which would deprive Damascus of something like one quarter or one third of its normal revenue. But we should not lose sight of the need for the UNSC to speak up against the blatant violations of human rights Bashar al Assad is indulging in.
US Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice has done incredible things this year–Qaddafi would still be sitting pretty in Tripoli but for UN Security Council resolution 1973. She has also gotten the Human Rights Council, that much-criticized body, to play a positive role on Syria, denouncing the regime violence there. But there is no rest for the weary. A strong UNSC resolution is out of the question–there won’t be any authorization to use “all necessary means,” which is the kind of thing needed to implement military options. The Russians are nowhere near going along with it, because of their long friendship with Syria and their use of port facilities at Latakia.
But it is hard for me to believe that the UNSC can allow what Damascus is doing to pass in silence. The Russians should now be worried about their own long-term relationship with a regime that is looking shaky, even if no one expects it to fall soon. Bashar al Assad does not have a lot of friends left. Most of them are in Tehran, which has recently been urging Bashar to reform. Moscow also needs to make sure it is, as President Obama likes to put it, on the right side of history.
PS: The EU went ahead with the oil ban on Syria today. Bravo to both the Europeans and the Secretary of State, who pressed the case hard!
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Only time will tell
I’ve been busy lately reading articles about how dumb various (but mostly American) negotiators are. If only the diplomats would do some pretty simple things, serious conflicts would be readily resolved.
A former Iranian nuclear negotiator suggests the Americans and Iranians just have to put aside the threats and pressure, then talk nicer about issues of common interest and things will improve. Ahmed Rashid wants us to listen more carefully to Taliban leader Mullah Omar, who says he does not intend to monopolize power in Afghanistan. And we could achieve peace in Israel and Palestine if the Palestinians would just recognize Israel, and Israel would provide a few factories to the Palestinians.
This last one is the easiest to debunk. There hasn’t been a problem with Palestinian recognition of Israel since Arafat did it almost twenty years ago. The problem is that Israel is now demanding recognition as a Jewish state, something that the UN General Assembly already did in its partition resolution. And of course Israel has not recognized Palestine, or allowed it to establish clear borders. The notion that economic development will satisfy the Palestinians in the absence of a political solution is nonsense.
Listening carefully to Mullah Omar is a good idea, but I confess his Eid message did not fill me with hope. Here is what he actually says about negotiation:
The Islamic Emirate considers the presence of the foreign invading troops in the country; their blind-bombardment, night raids, their brutalities; tortures and tyranny as the main cause of the current imbroglio in the country. The issue would come to an end when the said brutalities are meted out. Similarly, IE [Islamic Emirate] considers [the] establishment of an independent Islamic regime as a conducive mechanism for sustainability of religious and worldly interests of the country and the countrymen. For this purpose, every legitimate option can be considered in order to reach this goal. The contacts which have been made with some parties for the release of prisoners can’t be called as a comprehensive negotiation for the solution of the current imbroglio of the country. However, the Islamic Emirate, as an efficient political and military entity, has a specific and independent agenda in this regard which has been elucidated time and again.
Yes, he leaves the door open to future talks, but he also goes on to make it clear that the Taliban will only stop fighting when the occupation has ended. We can be certain Mullah Omar’s message was carefully parsed inside the State Department and the U.S. intelligence community, where its ambiguous character will not have excited too much enthusiasm.
As for Iran, it makes sense to reduce the trash talking and to focus on issues where there may be some common interest, but the hard kernel of disagreement is over nuclear weapons. Making nice and solving some other issues isn’t going to make that one go away, and the time delay could even make it more difficult to solve.
So yes, we do need to make sure we understand our adversaries, deal in a pragmatic way with them and leave no stone unturned in the search for peaceful resolutions of these issues. But it is a whole lot easier to kibbitz from the sidelines than to play the game for real. When the guys calling for more stridency are also the people deciding your budget, there is an inclination to go strident. When the Taliban are as ambiguous as Mullah Omar in his Eid message, listening really does get hard. And when your critics are misunderstanding the problem, it is easy to write them off.
There is one sign of hope in all these cases: the Americans are maintaining radio silence. Iran guru Dennis Ross, Afghanistan lead Marc Grossman and whoever is acting in George Mitchell’s place (Hoff? Feltman?) on Israel/Palestine are suspiciously quiet. Maybe that’s because there is nothing to say. Or maybe it’s because negotiations are quietly producing fruit. Only time will tell.
PS: I’m not the only one less impressed with Mullah Omar’s message than Ahmed Rashid.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
So how is that revolution going?
Libya is more or less completing its first week since the Qaddafi boys and their father skedaddled to we not where, yet. How is the Transitional National Council (TNC) doing in stabilizing Tripoli and restoring basic services?
Only people “on the ground,” as we say in the conflict world, can answer this kind of question. NPR this morning reports that uniformed but unarmed police are back on the street in response to an appeal from the TNC, but water is still not flowing. The New York Times has a description of jockeying for position among rebel leaders, both in Tripoli and at the national level. Looting and other disorder has been reported, but it does not appear to have been widespread. It is hard to get too excited about the guys who stole Qaddafi’s golf cart, but attacks on government offices to destroy files would betray an organized resistance that poses more serious problems.
The main contestations among the rebels seems to be emerging along the Islamist/secularist and east/west fault lines, with Islamist forces from the west who played a major role in liberating Tripoli claiming they are entitled to a good share of the political spoils. War is about power, which abhors a vacuum even more than nature.
It is nice to have the traffic cops back on the street, so long as the local communities welcome them. But the NTC has a big challenge in consolidating the various militia that fought to liberate Libya into a single army answerable to civilian authority, while finding jobs in the police or elsewhere for enough of the excess personnel to prevent them from creating problems. Right now is when some of these militias will find themselves short of cash or food. They can become protection rackets and organized crime syndicates almost overnight.
The terms of art for dealing with this problem are DDR (demobilization, disarmament and reintegration) and SSR (security sector reform). More often than not, they have been treated as two separate processes, with DDR preceding SSR. That is a mistake. They are really two sides of the same coin, one that is supposed to buy the authorities a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence, which is one textbook definition of sovereignty.
If the NTC manages to get control of the militias and restore order in Tripoli, its future prospects will improve dramatically. The unseen hand that can help them are those shadowy foreigners–said to be British and French special forces as well as Qataris, and likely also some Americans–who assisted in the Libyan war. They will have enormous influence with the militias they assisted, and deep knowledge of who really did fight effectively. We all would like to see this revolution proceed with Libyan leadership, but that leadership is going to need foreign assistance in many different ways. Helping to unify the freedom fighters and getting them to respect civilian authority is, I am afraid, one of them.
Getting the water flowing again is more a Libyan responsibility. Qaddafi’s Great Manmade River, which supplies much of the country, is said to have been shut off at Sabha, a town south of Tripoli that is still in the hands of Qaddafi loyalists. The perils of a full-fledged military assault on Sebha and Sirte, Qaddafi’s home town, are serious, which is why the rebels have given the loyalists there until Saturday to surrender. Let’s hope they do, and that no serious damage has been done to the water equipment or supplies.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
The long diplomatic game in Syria
It is past time to take a look at the possibility that the protests in Syria will not bring down Bashar al Assad any time soon. While some of the opposition appears in frustration to be calling for violence on the part of the demonstrators, my inner voice tells me that would be a big mistake. Bashar has the advantage in use of force, and he has demonstrated willingness to use it.
There is no real possibility of external military action in support of a violent Syrian rebellion, which is what made the difference in Libya. The Arab League is far from advocating a UN Security Council resolution authorizing force. The Russians, who enjoy the use of the Syrian port at Latakia, would block it anyway–they haven’t even allowed a resolution condemning regime violence.
If the protesters take up arms, they will elicit a response in kind and drive the violence in Syria in the ethno-sectarian direction, which is precisely what Europe and the United States fear the most. Even Iran will agree: a Sunni-defined uprising against the Allawi regime would be particularly unwelcome in Tehran.
So the question becomes this: how can the protesters sustain their nonviolent efforts over the longer term, defined as months or even a year or two? Only if they are clearly able and willing to do so will Bashar yield. If he thinks he can outlast the demonstrators, why would he give in?
First, the international community needs to warn the protesters that there is no real alternative. There will be no external military action. Not even a “no fly zone,” which has become code for the kind of aggressive air campaign NATO conducted in Libya. Syria is not Libya. Damascus has strong backing from Tehran and Moscow. Ankara has talked tough but has not backed it up with action. Ditto the Arab countries, several of which have withdrawn their ambassadors but done little else.
Second, the international community needs to reward and encourage those among the protesters prepared to keep to nonviolence and maintain unity of purpose. Monday’s formation of the Syrian National Council (SNC), an analogue to the Transitional National Council that has become the post-Qaddafi governing structure in Libya, is a good development. It will need wholehearted moral and financial support from Europe and the United States, though at this stage formal recognition would be premature.
The SNC, led by a diaspora professor, will necessarily be an outside Syria affair for the most part, unless the protesters can somehow carve out some liberated space inside the country. They have tried to liberate particular cities several times, only to see the regime security forces eventually surround and retake them.
An alternative approach is to use cyberspace, as the Libyans also did, to publish their intentions and plans for post-Bashar Syria. This could include a constitutional charter or framework that projects the kind of Syria they would institute, including a roadmap for preparation of a new constitution as well as local and national elections. This would give the international community something to respond to and provide a blue print for future preparations and eventual implementation.
Third, the SNC will need to encourage defections from the military and business communities. This can be done by making it clear, as the Libyans have done, that contracts will be maintained, revenge avoided and continuity valued once Bashar is gone. There is time enough in the aftermath of a revolution to vet and re-vet government officials, military officers and crony businessmen. It need not be done immediately, or used as a threat against the regime. The trick is to get regime elements, especially the security forces, to turn on Bashar, which they will do if they believe it will help protect them after the regime falls.
Fourth, while the SNC figures out how to convey the impression of knowing what to do if Bashar steps down, the international community needs to give him a stronger shove in the right direction. Europe has still not blocked imports of oil and oil products from Syria. Over time, that would deprive the regime of at least some revenue (assuming Damascus sells the oil at a discount elsewhere) and signal to businesspeople that the European Union is serious about getting him to step aside. Secretary of State Clinton needs to spend some quality time beating up the Europeans on this subject when she sees them Thursday at the Libya contact group meeting in Paris.
Getting the Russians on board for a Security Council resolution, even a relatively weak one, would also be useful. At some point, Russia needs to begin worrying about making sure that any new regime is not going to throw its fleet out of Latakia. The SNC might start raising questions about the Russian presence there and suggesting that it could be sustained, but only if Moscow goes along with a resolution taking the regime to task for its treatment of the protesters.
What else can be done? It is better in my view to maintain the U.S. ambassador in Damascus rather than withdraw him. But he needs to continue his visits to demonstrators and do what he can in other ways to provide encouragement and succor. Also on the diplomatic front: we should of course be consulting constantly with Turkey and Lebanon, encouraging these frontline states to confront the regime as best they can. Turkey in particular could wield a bit more clout than has so far been apparent with Syria’s business elite.
Jordan has already spoken up against the Syrian regime, but Iraq Prime Minister Maliki has preferred to toe the Iranian line and suggest that the Arab spring can benefit no one except Israel. Apart from the patent inaccuracy of that allegation, Maliki’s attachment to Bashar, who spent years shipping terrorists into Iraq, is passing strange. Our man in Baghdad has presumably objected appropriately, but we need to do a bit more to ensure that Maliki is not actually helping Bashar, presumably on the theory that the enemy of my enemy (Saudi Arabia detests Maliki) is my friend.
Fifth, more unanimity against Bashar in the Arab League might help a good deal. The Secretary General of that august but ineffectual organization was supposed to visit Damascus earlier this week to plead for an end to violence and more reform, but the Syrians rejected his not too vigorous plan before he even arrived. Not clear to me whether he was able to make the trip. Iraq is not the only problem–Algeria is also Qaddafi-sympathetic and welcomed members of his family yesterday.
The Syrian regime will find it difficult to resist unanimity in the international community, if it can be achieved. When even Iran and Hizbollah are distancing themselves, you know you are in trouble. One of Qaddafi’s serious mistakes was to alienate Arab governments, two of which even joined in the NATO military action against him. But it will not be easy to get everyone aligned in the right direction. The diplomats have a big job to do.
PS: For a pessimistic view of the Syrian opposition, see Kinda Kanbar’s piece at Middle East Progress.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
What was it like 48 years ago?
Credit for this post, if credit is due, goes to Zaheer Ali, a New York City historian who asked in response to a tweet saying that I was at the March on Washington if I had ever written anything about it. No, I haven’t, until just now, when I should be working on a book proposal.
I remember as much about the circumstances as I do about the event. My aunt tried to convince my mother she shouldn’t let me go. I was 18, age of the immortals. Just graduated from high school, working in a factory for the summer before starting at Haverford. I was determined to march despite rumors of violence. I certainly did not want to take advice from my rascist aunt, who went livid. Fortunately a more liberal uncle weighed in on my side. Defiance proved unnecessary–my mother was a liberal and thought it natural that I wanted to go.
It’s all about witness, wanting to testify to your beliefs by moving your body to the right place at the right time. I’d been to Washington before, as a child and tourist. It was still a segregated city then, though as best I understand it more by tradition than by law. My parents would only eat in chain restaurants that had integrated. Returning by bus that August day of 1963 was a right of passage for me: a first opportunity to witness on my own.
What has become known as Martin Luther King’s greatest moment I thought of at the time as Bayard Rustin’s. No, I did not know he was gay, or even what gay was, but I knew he was the great organizer. He proved it that day, assembling an enormous mass of people, whites as well as people who then mostly still called themselves Negro. There was a long list of speakers. Martin Luther King was the climax, but I can assure you that many of the others stirred the crowd as well. I particularly remember being moved by A. Philip Randolph, but don’t ask me any longer what he said. And the music! Dylan, Baez, Peter, Paul and Mary: mostly white, but “radical” as it was known then.
I had to leave New Rochelle, where my family lived, early in the morning, around 4 am. I grabbed the brown bag from the fridge with what I thought was my lunch in it, only to discover as we arrived in DC that the smell of raw fish was coming from my brown bag in the overhead rack. I had to borrow a couple of dollars from a cousin to get a hot dog or two for lunch.
We marched from somewhere not too far–maybe Thomas Circle. Memory confuses this occasion with the several later occasions I joined antiwar marches in DC. The spirit was good, really good. Everyone singing, chatting, laughing. I don’t remember a moment of tension all day. I guess the segregationists decided the crowd was too big and stayed home. Certainly it was nothing like the venomous atmosphere I endured two years later demonstrating in Cambridge, Maryland, where the national guard fixed bayonets and gas masks to confront us in the main street.
The message of the day was integration. Those who cite MLK’s “little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls and walk together as sisters and brothers” have got it right. It is hard to appreciate today how much imagination was needed then to picture integration of blacks and whites in the United States. None of us were sure though at the time that MLK had quite risen to the occasion. Was his speech really eloquent enough? Did it rise to the occasion? Would anything make a real difference in a country that seemed hopelessly attached to segregation and racism?
We all think we know the answers to those question now, but at the time nothing was clear, except the day and the overwhelming power of that crowd of witnesses. These were people who really could sing “we shall overcome.” And they were determined to do it, though they had no idea how long it would take.
What does this have to do with peace and war? Everything: Tunisia, Egypt, Yemen and Syria have all trod the path of nonviolent witness, some more successfully than others. Even Libya did it briefly. Hesitatingly, sometimes inadequately but increasingly the United States has come out on the right side, witnessing for the world to see that it supports human dignity. There really is no other choice. Bashar al Assad and King Khalifa of Bahrain should take notice. Washington may hesitate, it may equivocate, but it will not fail in the end to support the radical proposition that all people are created equal and endowed with inalienable rights.
RSS - Posts
