Libyan No-Fly Zone: Making the Decision

...is not easy, so we need to balance up all the factors.

The negative side is a longish list:

1. It requires first an attack on radar and Surface-to-Air missile stations. Some installations will probably  be in civilian areas, so it is likely that civilian women and children will be killed, either from stray/misdirected missiles, or because they live too close.
2. It requires attacks on pro-Gaddafi air force bases. More deaths.
3. It requires enforcement, which means a lot of flying over a very extensive border and land area.
4. There could be combat with Libyan jets, if any air bases were able to fly
5. There is no absolute certainty that Gaddafi would leave in a short time, although it is pretty certain that a NFZ would speed his departure.
6. It requires UNSC authority. Russia and China are not enthusiastic about a NFZ.
7. Interestingly, the Arab League does seem at present to be in favour of the NFZ.
8. If it is not made clear that the single exception to a NFZ would be a plane carrying Gaddafi into exile, it could make him even more likely to stay.
9. Here's STRATFOR identifying more difficulties.

Against this there are arguments in favour of a NFZ.

1. From reports in both mainstream and social media, it is pretty clear that while the Libyan revolutionaries are absolutely against an Iraq-style US invasion, reports do suggest that at least some of the rebels want a NFZ. This dates right back to the beginning of the rebellion, because Gaddafi was flying in mercenaries. In fact one airport at least was blocked by parking lorries on the runway (amazing how easy it is to disable an airstrip).
2. A NFZ would stop Gaddafi being able to bomb and strafe Libyan sites and forces. So far he has used his air force to attack demonstrators, and recently to attempt to bomb arms dumps held by rebels, although there is a tendency for his pilots to miss their targets accidentally on purpose.
3. A NFZ is also necessary for food aid to be brought in through a Turkish/Egyptian enforced NFZ.
4. In coming days, we could see the airforce used to attack rebel forces, and it is not impossible for Gaddafi to order bombing of whole towns. In that event, the pressure for a NFZ on humanitarian grounds would become intense.
5. There is a big strategic question. Dictators all over the world are watching developments closely. They have seen Bin Ali and Mubarak fall, and now we have a self-deluded dictator in Gaddafi who has chosen to stay and fight his own people. If Gaddafi succeeds, he will set a precedent for other dictators to use his strategy, which will mean immense suffering and protracted revolutions.
6. Using the criterion that we must weigh up the number of deaths caused by imposition of a NFZ against the number of deaths caused by not applying a NFZ, it is pretty clear that the NFZ would have an outcome of save a significant number of lives, arguably in Libya, but overwhelmingly in the long run as other dictators learn that Gaddafi's strategy fails.

Therefore, even though I am a Green and a Quaker, and would very much prefer not to "start from here", it seems to me that the Green Parties, and all other progressives and humanitarians of the world should back the NFZ under these following conditions:

1. Absolutely no US land invasion
2. NFZ to be requested by the provisional/transitional Libyan Government in Benghazi.
3. This request to be endorsed by a vote from the rebels themselves 
4. Arab League or other non-US/UK states to lead the NFZ (though it may be necessary to call on Western logistic and intelligence resources).
5. UNSC to authorise the action

This will of course take time, and it is of course infinitely preferable that while waiting, the Libyan people will be able to do the job by themselves without outside intervention. Which they might be able to do, especially if it is known in Tripoli that a NFZ is in the pipeline.

As ever, the international community is lagging behind events, responding  to them as they occur. The remedy for this is for the UN to develop a protocol that makes clear to all rulers exactly what UN action will follow from which actions.

The UN also needs a similar algorithm to  prevent the slide into dictatorship.

And it needs a Global Index of Human Rights to provide a continuous downwards pressure on human Rights abuses. So that eventually, we do not have to keep meeting situations that demand ugly decisions involving the use of force.

[updated 8th March]

Taleban's murder of Shahbaz Bhatti: what to do?

The murder by the Taleban of Shahbaz Bhatti calls for an intelligent and effective response by Asif Al Zardari, Pakistan's President, who happens to be the widower of Benazir Bhutto, also assassinated.

We should remember also Salman Tazeer, another reformist politician who was gunned down on January 4th 2011.

It is very clear that a culture of political assassination is taking hold in Pakistan. Unchecked, this culture will undermine Pakistan's fragile democracy, and could lead to the nightmare outcome of an Islamic Pakistan in posession of nuclear weaponry.

What can be done?


It is very clear that the best possible response would be for the Pakistan Government speedily to repeal its blasphemy laws, in honour of Shahbaz Bhatti's life and long campaign.

This would give a clear message to the Taleban that assassinations are counter-productive in terms of achieving their goals.

It would be a fitting memorial to a brave and dedicated man.

It would make clear that Pakistan is a modern state, with politics well separated from religion.

Of course, this would be politically difficult. But the argument for their action would be simple:

"The Taleban have discredited their own argument by using lethal force on politicians, just as Mubarak and Gaddafi have disqualified themselves as legitimate rulers by using lethal force on non-violent demonstrators. If you disagree, you are rewarding political murder, and that could spell the end of Pakistan as a functioning state".

This is based on sound psychological principles. Without a responsive appeal of the blasphemy laws, the Taleban will succeed in their aim of intimidating anyone from speaking in favour of repeal. With the repeal, they will realise that assassination is not a useful tool, especially if this measure is applied consistently with any future assassinations.

Arab Spring Uprisings: Revolution in 21 difficult steps

I don't know about you, but I have been getting a bit stressed out by Col Gaddafi. And Mubarak before him, and Bin Ali before him.

These dictators have to some, possibly measurable, extent, been pissing off the whole world.

It is developing into some kind of tragic, ritual game, played as follows:

1. Dictator suppresses free speech, uses media as personal megaphone
2. Locks up anyone who criticises without trial, but with secret police
3. Tortures people
4. Steals peoples' money and has $billion personal balances
   
5. After about a generation of this kind of thing, people gather in the streets and say "Enough!"
6. Dictator responds with riot police, teargas, water cannon and batons.
7. People persist in ever greater numbers.
8. Dictator opens prisons, pays released criminals, thugs and plainclothed police officers to attack people.
9. People beat off attacks
10. Dictator uses live rounds and people get killed.
11. When enough people have been killed, the world's media begins to take an interest.
12. Pressure builds up on the politicians to Do Something
13. A round of talks and meetings ensues
14. Condemnatory statements of increasing severity are read to the dictator.
15. Eventually his assets are frozen, travel bans issued (hopefully with exemptions for dictators fleeing into exile).
    
16. Demonstrators continue despite fatalities. 
17. Police stations & Government buildings will be set on fire, but still the demonstrations are otherwise non-violent.
18. Members of the police, armed forces, and Government begin to ally with the people.
19. Dictator makes speeches of defiance, promising to stay forever.
20. Dictator falls.
21. General rejoicing, laced with uncertainty as to what to do next.

The problem we have here is that we have (almost) three down, but a hell of a lot of other dictators to go.  The Index below shows 17 countries who are possible candidates.

Rather than play Tunisia, Egypt, and Libya out another 14 times, it would be nice to have an orderly transition.

The demonstration in numbers is a necessary human socio-political function. It is our equivalent of a swarm.

So, let's sketch out an alternative scenario:

1. After about a generation of political abuse, people gather in the streets and say "Enough!"
2. When the police judge that there are enough people there to be a bit of a problem for traffic &c, they introduce elected speakers for the swarm to members of government.
3. Talks about talks lead to talks themselves.
4. The process of negotiation is continued in the body of the crowd, being fully in the picture of what is being discussed.
5. An opening is made in Government to accept the speakers for the people (who can go home at any time of their choosing, continuing their participation online.
6. The speakers (suggested number: 3-8) negotiate directly with Government at Cabinet level.

OK so far?
Suggested negotiation aims:

1. Resignation of President, and selected members of the Cabinet. (aiming high here)
2. release of all political prisoners. 
3. Disbanding of secret police.
4. Free press and internet comms.
5. Elections as soon as possible.
6. Radical transition to a full employment, stable, sustainable economy.
7. &c

I know. You are thinking,  
"Nice idealistic idea, but no idea of the practicalities. It just ain't gonna happen".

OK. Not like that, directly. But we can have a think about what it would take to bring this about.

At the UN level, the changes required are relatively straightforward
The change would come at point 10 above:
10: Dictator uses live rounds and people get killed.

At this point the UN should automatically trigger meetings that have been in preparation since the demonstrations began. Meetings of the Regional Organisations, UNSC, UNHRC which will be able to order the deployment of some or all of these measures:

1. Immediate asset freeze, this having been warned of prior to the event.
2. Immediate travel ban on the dictator and high level associates except for purposes of exile.
3. Targeted sanctions on the regime, designed not to affect the people.
4. Plans and preparations for a no fly zone, should that be requested by the people, and any provisional government.

These measures to be put in place as disincentives to violence. At all times the dictator should have the opportunity for residence abroad in a country of his choice.

See also:
Preventing Dictatorships
Global Human Rights Index