The Libyan crisis is an African problem; one that the AU refused to solve. Undecided, without an early principled stand, without a clear decision to handle things autonomously and independently of foreign intervention, no not without their support and possible assistance, they let their right to right things be taken away from them.
When the Algerian and then the Egyptian protests began, most characterized the development as the dawn of a revolutionary democratic era. Indeed, most people still believe that these protests have these essential characteristics and I do. But as many commentaries have noted, revolutions are made up of a tangle of interests, some of which may not only be anti-people but in the end be very reactionary; also many new forces join and others opt out along the line.
When protests broke out in Lybia, it was considered part of the revolutionary movement that has gripped North Africa and the Middle East. True. But that does not imply that it did not have its contradictions, though it was difficult to see then. Fed up with long term oppressors and demagogues, most of us, desperate for change, almost any change, courted, praised, encouraged and supported the protests or the revolution –at least from far away behind our computers.
It's not difficult accepting that the Libyan protest perhaps began as a revolutionary movement for democracy. However, right now as we speak, it's no longer a protest – no longer the same protest. It's very doubtful that anyone can with a straight face characterise it as the same revolution that it was thought to be at the beginning. Or perhaps, its contradictions have surfaced. If anything, it is clear that a powerful foreign element, humanitarian in rhetoric and patently imperialist in intention and operation has cashed in - or crashed in. Imperialism saw its opportunity and took it. The opportunity came to them in Gaddafi's misconceived idea that he was unchallengeable, in our legitimate desire for change, in our call for the UN to intervene, in Africa's and AU's lack of purposive and decisive agency in the matter, and in the rebel's desire to align with any force, good or bad, as long as it is anti-Gaddafi, and increasingly, it seems, at whatever cost or damage to infrastructures and the prospect of future unity of the country.
Even though NATO is now at centre stage in how things play out in Libya, the problem still remains AU's or at least, AU and all of Africa should see it as our problem. Undeniably, it is now a much more complex one than when the protest began:
First, we have to maintain in view the legitimate democratic desire of the people expressed in their earlier self-directed protests – including serious ones breaking out in the capital, Tripoli. But we also must realize that this desire and the movement that began to work it into reality have since been largely hijacked or co-opted (some will say, tainted) by the NATO powers and their activities, and at the local level perhaps by tribalist, monarchist, and regionalist motivations. It is clear that the Europeans have used the UN mandate and the R2P doctrine as a cover for their largely selfish desires and egotism - desires that are possibly changing and clarifying by the minute.
Second, the problem of Gaddafi still remains. As many have noted, he is no better than other tyrants in the Middle East but possibly not worse than other sit-tight rulers in Africa. His independent mindednes, his anti-imperialism, his contradictory nationalist credentials, and his contradictory interventions and misadventures in sub-Sahara Africa, as appealing as they may be, can in no way be a legitimate substitute for a bottom up representative government in Libya. Whatever is the merit of his "popular people's government" and the good that he has done in Libya, especially compared to other bankrupt autocrats inAfrica, is overtaken and neutralized by the fact that it has resulted in a government that perpetuated him as a lifetime ruler and as well as resulted in undemocratically setting up Gaddafi's sons over the lives, the wealth and resources of the people of Libya. (This judgement, I believe in some measure, applies to Museveni too; and Museveni's anti-imperialist taking on Libya would have held muster with many, were the system of government he fashioned in Uganda not one that has similarly maintained him in power for over two decades.)
The other urgent problem that AU must be bold enough to confront is NATO: NATO intervention and the increasing assertion of imperialist interests, their increasing guidance and cultivation of the rebels, their destructions of the social and economic infrastructure of Libya – for which reconstruction they will be happy soon to start to offer crippling "aid". NATO's current intervention cannot solve the problem. It is not meant to solve the problem selflessly and to the best interest of Libya and of Africa. It may temporarily answer the rebel's immediate demand – but it will leave a fractured country much more prone to eternal intervention and plundering by foreign powers.
My submission is that these are three serious problems all with legitimate demands for solution. I believe that it is immoral to substitute one for the other or oppose one to the other, though strategically or tactically, they could be tackled within different times frames.
I believe that the AU still has the opportunity to demonstrate more informed and decisive agency that at the same time is anti-imperialistic and pro-people. I believe a fast and deft move now by the AU can checkmate NATO's imperialist overkill and colonialist plans. I believe it is now the time for Africa to cash in on NATO intervention to enforce a democratic process on Gaddafi that the rebels could and should embrace. The AU should set up a peace making or interventionist force to keep the two sides apart, announce a time table for the force to move in, and demand NATO to stop further military intervention as they move in to take positions. That NATO has flouted the UN mandate is enough justification to call them to order. Since NATO as keen as all progressive thinking people are in ensuring that the Libyan civilian populace be protected, they should equip the AU interventionist force with much of the equipment that they are now unilaterally unleashing on Libya and allow Africans to decide how and when to use them.
The Libyan rebels are seizing on the self interest, greed and desire of NATO to topple Gaddafi – understandable tactical move, but ultimately dangerous. Similar hopes of using imperialist forces to realize sectional interests have backfired in the past –Buganda, perhaps, being one during the 19th century European scramble for Africa. Should the rebels throw their support behind a principled AU midwifing of a democratic transition, they and Libya stand to gain more than if NATO were to be the midwife of the process. The rebels should note that NATO action so far already has weakened Gaddafi enough to make him listen to the AU, should the AU muster clout to take over control of affairs from this point. But it isn't until the AU stands up to NATO that the rebels will be made to accept a political solution. They have NATO's declared and undeclared self interest and strikes against Gaddafi to thank for this.
Imperialist imposition of a government formed by the rebels will not be popular. Libya is now much divided than it has ever been and simply replacing one unpopular government with another will forever continue the cycle of chaos that could be prevented. The AU should rise up, turn a new leaf in asserting its relevance in the global political process. Imperialism has always and will always take its chances. The rebels have taken their chances of using imperialism for what they consider to be their best interests. It is the turn of the AU to manipulate, divide, and penetrate imperialist ranks, seize the upper moral ground, announce it is forming an interventionist force, decide on a date to move quickly into different areas of Libya and ask that NATO cease their fire. The new AU charter has enough material to force both Gaddafi and the rebels to listen to them. The immoral flouting of the UN mandate in Libya by NATO, an excuse NATO often uses to justify their military intervention in weaker countries, is sufficient material for the AU to call out the imperialists.
Femi Kolapo
University of Guelph.
Ont. Canada
No comments:
Post a Comment