I've just discovered that Nilesat has been ordered to take down Gaddafi's Libya State channels.
Good. This will greatly weaken the hold that Gaddafi has over Libya.
Libyans have been calling for this ever since the uprising began. HMG has been sympathetic to the call, but nothing has been done. In the end it was a private action in Egyptian courts that suceeded.
Which all goes to show that Governments are ready to go to war, but not willing to take effective non-violent action to bring dictators down.
The whole point of the Global Index of Human Rights is to prevent violence by using non-violent pressure on dictators. I proposed this refinement of the GLOHRI to Green Party Conference about three months before the Arab Spring kicked off. A queue formed to oppose it, arguing that it was not necessary &c.
Funny kinda business, politics.
Showing posts with label Libya. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Libya. Show all posts
Monday, July 18, 2011
Thursday, June 02, 2011
Non-violent interventions in Libya
I would like to outline a few issues relating to a speedy and successful resolution of the tragedy that is unfolding in Libya.
While the media coverage is obsessed with “mission creep” and military stalemate, it is vitally important that every possible non-violent means of success is deployed to bring the situation in Libya to a successful conclusion, allowing a healthy and prosperous democratic state to emerge. Libya, and indeed all of the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) stands at an historic watershed between the age of dictatorships and an incoming age of democratic development, and it is vital that non-violent means are maximised to bring about this change.
The Coalition Government shares our concerns about the propaganda issued from Gaddafi’s Al Jamahiriya 2 TV station. These broadcasts are an instrument of control for Gaddafi’s regime, and therefore work against the protection of the Libyan people. I appreciate the efforts made by HMG to persuade other elements in the Libya Contact Group to agree to bring pressure on Nilesat to withdraw their service to Libya. It is extraordinary that the profits of one corporation can be set against the interests of a whole nation, and I urge you to apply unrelenting pressure on Nilesat.
As well as blocking Al Jamahiriya 2, there are several other diplomatic avenues that need exploring, including the question of mercenaries, the question of recognition of the Transitional National Council and incentives for Gaddafi to leave Libya.
Some mercenaries are coming from lawless parts of the Sahel, but there are reports that others originate from as far away as Serbia. Can we be confident that sufficient pressure has been brought on all countries that have been sending mercenaries to Gaddafi? Have they at least been persuaded to cease sending more fighters? Have they taken whatever steps they can to recall their mercenaries from Libya? Is Government confident also that countries such as Israel and Algeria who are sending covert aid to Gaddafi are being challenged robustly about their position? It is reported that the Israeli companies have been recruiting for Gaddafi.
http://bit.ly/lbFihv
http://bit.ly/i0Y5b7 .
Regarding the matter of recognition of the TNC, HMG historically has recognised states, rather than regimes, and this position precludes recognition of the TNC until it controls the whole of Libya. However, historic positions must change when history changes. The post-2005 UN position of Responsibility to Protect has effectively replaced the concept of absolute sovereignty with sovereignty that is conditional on the regime acting in the interests of the people. This seismic shift must surely merit a reconsideration of the terms under which we recognise the TNC. To recognise them would be an enormous morale booster for this supremely courageous people, and would signify HMG’s commitment to bring the matter to a successful conclusion.
The International Criminal Court’s action in seeking the arrest of Gaddafi, although correct from a legal perspective, has the effect of increasing his motivation to stay in Libya. From a pragmatic point of view, in the interests of the security, if not the feelings, of the Libyan people, it would be helpful if Gaddafi were to be fully aware that HMG and the Allies will allow and facilitate his safe passage to a country outside of the jurisdiction of the ICC. Has this been made clear to Gaddafi?
In the longer term, there is a clear need to build on the foundations of Responsibility to Protect. Prevention is better than cure, and there is vital for the UN to set out a clear and consistent framework of norms and rules to nudge all governments in the direction of democracy and respect for human rights. The framework should provide incentives for any regime that makes progress towards democracy, and definite disincentives for any moves towards repression. At the present time, experience in Libya, Syria and Bahrain teaches us that a clear threshold is crossed when regimes use lethal force against peaceful demonstrators. Such actions should be met not merely with verbal condemnations, but with a set of targeted sanctions applied speedily and consistently in every case. The Contact Group has rightly been using asset freezes, travel bans and arms embargoes. These should be used consistently, without favour or bias that might tend to modify the reaction according to the strategic importance of the regime or any other considerations. It is well understood by psychologists that behaviour modification is successful when clear boundaries are set, and applied with 100% consistency.
In the longer term, it will be helpful if the UN would publish the human rights information that it gathers on its members in an easily digestible form. There is established academic work that can present this information in the form of ranked indices. Such a Global Index of Human Rights would provide a continuous, universal upward pressure for human and democratic development worldwide.
An important factor in the success of democratic change lies in the stance of the Army. The Egyptian Army refused to attack civilians, whereas the Syrian army seems to have no such scruples. We in the UK have an opportunity to set an example to other nations in the context of the military covenant that is being brought to Parliament. It would be right to bring a clause into legislation for the British Army to give an undertaking that in no circumstances will it obey any order to fire on unarmed civilians. I hope the Coalition Government will take this on board.
In summary, the events in MENA are of historic importance, a critical decision point between dictatorship, human rights abuses and violence, and the alternative of democracy and sustainability.
While the media coverage is obsessed with “mission creep” and military stalemate, it is vitally important that every possible non-violent means of success is deployed to bring the situation in Libya to a successful conclusion, allowing a healthy and prosperous democratic state to emerge. Libya, and indeed all of the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) stands at an historic watershed between the age of dictatorships and an incoming age of democratic development, and it is vital that non-violent means are maximised to bring about this change.
The Coalition Government shares our concerns about the propaganda issued from Gaddafi’s Al Jamahiriya 2 TV station. These broadcasts are an instrument of control for Gaddafi’s regime, and therefore work against the protection of the Libyan people. I appreciate the efforts made by HMG to persuade other elements in the Libya Contact Group to agree to bring pressure on Nilesat to withdraw their service to Libya. It is extraordinary that the profits of one corporation can be set against the interests of a whole nation, and I urge you to apply unrelenting pressure on Nilesat.
As well as blocking Al Jamahiriya 2, there are several other diplomatic avenues that need exploring, including the question of mercenaries, the question of recognition of the Transitional National Council and incentives for Gaddafi to leave Libya.
Some mercenaries are coming from lawless parts of the Sahel, but there are reports that others originate from as far away as Serbia. Can we be confident that sufficient pressure has been brought on all countries that have been sending mercenaries to Gaddafi? Have they at least been persuaded to cease sending more fighters? Have they taken whatever steps they can to recall their mercenaries from Libya? Is Government confident also that countries such as Israel and Algeria who are sending covert aid to Gaddafi are being challenged robustly about their position? It is reported that the Israeli companies have been recruiting for Gaddafi.
http://bit.ly/lbFihv
http://bit.ly/i0Y5b7 .
Regarding the matter of recognition of the TNC, HMG historically has recognised states, rather than regimes, and this position precludes recognition of the TNC until it controls the whole of Libya. However, historic positions must change when history changes. The post-2005 UN position of Responsibility to Protect has effectively replaced the concept of absolute sovereignty with sovereignty that is conditional on the regime acting in the interests of the people. This seismic shift must surely merit a reconsideration of the terms under which we recognise the TNC. To recognise them would be an enormous morale booster for this supremely courageous people, and would signify HMG’s commitment to bring the matter to a successful conclusion.
The International Criminal Court’s action in seeking the arrest of Gaddafi, although correct from a legal perspective, has the effect of increasing his motivation to stay in Libya. From a pragmatic point of view, in the interests of the security, if not the feelings, of the Libyan people, it would be helpful if Gaddafi were to be fully aware that HMG and the Allies will allow and facilitate his safe passage to a country outside of the jurisdiction of the ICC. Has this been made clear to Gaddafi?
In the longer term, there is a clear need to build on the foundations of Responsibility to Protect. Prevention is better than cure, and there is vital for the UN to set out a clear and consistent framework of norms and rules to nudge all governments in the direction of democracy and respect for human rights. The framework should provide incentives for any regime that makes progress towards democracy, and definite disincentives for any moves towards repression. At the present time, experience in Libya, Syria and Bahrain teaches us that a clear threshold is crossed when regimes use lethal force against peaceful demonstrators. Such actions should be met not merely with verbal condemnations, but with a set of targeted sanctions applied speedily and consistently in every case. The Contact Group has rightly been using asset freezes, travel bans and arms embargoes. These should be used consistently, without favour or bias that might tend to modify the reaction according to the strategic importance of the regime or any other considerations. It is well understood by psychologists that behaviour modification is successful when clear boundaries are set, and applied with 100% consistency.
In the longer term, it will be helpful if the UN would publish the human rights information that it gathers on its members in an easily digestible form. There is established academic work that can present this information in the form of ranked indices. Such a Global Index of Human Rights would provide a continuous, universal upward pressure for human and democratic development worldwide.
An important factor in the success of democratic change lies in the stance of the Army. The Egyptian Army refused to attack civilians, whereas the Syrian army seems to have no such scruples. We in the UK have an opportunity to set an example to other nations in the context of the military covenant that is being brought to Parliament. It would be right to bring a clause into legislation for the British Army to give an undertaking that in no circumstances will it obey any order to fire on unarmed civilians. I hope the Coalition Government will take this on board.
In summary, the events in MENA are of historic importance, a critical decision point between dictatorship, human rights abuses and violence, and the alternative of democracy and sustainability.
Wednesday, April 06, 2011
Half Hearted Defence of Libyan People = no Exit Strategy for NATO
Journalists have been asking about the exit strategy from the UN R2P engagement in Libya ever since it started.
The answeris that the exit is bound up in the success of the mission.
The success of the mission depends on several factors - political actions such as blocking Libya State TV and recalling the mercenaries, and then military factors.
The fact is that NATO is sucking its thumb. Tanks and artillery have been pounding Libyas third largest city, Miserata, for many days. They are in the open, able to be hit, but only in the last 2 days has action been taken.
This half hearted action reflects a shade of opinion within NATO that actually sympathises with Gaddafi. Turkey is the main purveyor of this view within NATO, but there is also an unholy alliance in the commentariat between far right and far left, both of whom would prefer a laissez faire policy to human rights abuses.
Either the Allies pull their fingers out, or we are in for a long, bloody, drawn out human tragedy in Libya.
The answeris that the exit is bound up in the success of the mission.
The success of the mission depends on several factors - political actions such as blocking Libya State TV and recalling the mercenaries, and then military factors.
The fact is that NATO is sucking its thumb. Tanks and artillery have been pounding Libyas third largest city, Miserata, for many days. They are in the open, able to be hit, but only in the last 2 days has action been taken.
This half hearted action reflects a shade of opinion within NATO that actually sympathises with Gaddafi. Turkey is the main purveyor of this view within NATO, but there is also an unholy alliance in the commentariat between far right and far left, both of whom would prefer a laissez faire policy to human rights abuses.
Either the Allies pull their fingers out, or we are in for a long, bloody, drawn out human tragedy in Libya.
Tuesday, April 05, 2011
Why no action from Coalition on Libya State TV?
Following on from this letter, I have just written again to my MP, John Penrose (WSM, Con) on the subject of Libya State TV. I would ask everyone who wishes to see a swift end to Gaddafi's regime to copy, customise and send to their own MP. Use www.writethem.com if you do not have th eMP's direct email address.
Dear John
I am writing to express my astonishment and frustration that Gol Gaddafi's Libya State TV propaganda machine is still spreading his distorted view of reality across Libya.
A week has passed since the following exchange was recorded in Hansard:
I have heard no substantive arguments against this line of action, though I imagine there may be some kind of gentleman’s agreement among governments along the lines of “I will not jam your signal if you will not jam mine”. Clearly this convention no longer holds now that Ghaddafi is subject to a UN R2P action and no longer seen as a legitimate ruler.
Could it be that the Government is unwilling to transgress into the liberty of Nilesat to make a profit? If so, this reason should be tested in the court of public opinion. The people might take a different view of the balance of private profit and the importance of defeating Gaddafi.
Please take this matter up with the PM, the Defence Secretary and the Foreign Secretary as a matter of urgency.
Sincerely
Dear John
I am writing to express my astonishment and frustration that Gol Gaddafi's Libya State TV propaganda machine is still spreading his distorted view of reality across Libya.
A week has passed since the following exchange was recorded in Hansard:
---
Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD): It is not just tanks and planes that Gaddafi uses against his own people but the poisonous propaganda on Libyan state TV carried on NileSat, which threatens to undermine hopes for future peace in that country. What can be done to ensure that all Libyans, especially those in Tripoli, can access independent media on which to base their understanding of current events?
Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD): It is not just tanks and planes that Gaddafi uses against his own people but the poisonous propaganda on Libyan state TV carried on NileSat, which threatens to undermine hopes for future peace in that country. What can be done to ensure that all Libyans, especially those in Tripoli, can access independent media on which to base their understanding of current events?
The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman makes a vitally important point. We want to do everything we can to try to make sure that people can access independent media, which have had a huge impact on these events. But also, frankly, we should take a tougher approach to Libyan state television, which, as far as I can see, is actually working on behalf of the regime that is terrorising and brutalising its own civilians. The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point that we should pursue urgently.
---
A week later, nothing has happened. How urgent is urgent?
We can be sure that if Churchill had been offered the chance of stopping Goebbel's propaganda it would have happened the next day.
Everyone is feeling anxiety and doubt about our involvement in Libya. Journalists are obsessing about the exit strategy. The fact is that the exit strategy is implicit in the success of the campaign. Blocking Libya State TV is an effective, cost-free, non-violent means of assisting this success. It is extraordinary that the thorny question of arming the rebels is under discussion while the matter of shutting down Gaddafi's propaganda machine is on the back burner, as indeed are other diplomatic means. There is the question of countries who are sending mercenaries, and also now we learn that Chadian regulars are in the country. Has anyone taken this up with Chad in any way?
Could it be that the Government is unwilling to transgress into the liberty of Nilesat to make a profit? If so, this reason should be tested in the court of public opinion. The people might take a different view of the balance of private profit and the importance of defeating Gaddafi.
Please take this matter up with the PM, the Defence Secretary and the Foreign Secretary as a matter of urgency.
Sincerely
Wednesday, March 30, 2011
Should the Allies work within the letter or the spirit of UNSC 1973?
The commentators are agonising over the legal terms of UNSC 1973, which underpins the terms of the UN intervention in Libya.
Jonathan Freedland in the Guardian argues that the Allies should stop when Gaddafi's forces should not be attacked unless they are actively threatening the people.
This is a recipe for Gaddafi to play a cat and mouse game, stopping until the Allies stand down, then starting again, provoking more Allied action, then stopping, over and over. This is clearly impractical, but consistent with a literal reading of 1973.
Clearly, the intent of the resolution is to stop all threat to the Libyan population. If Gaddafi were to be left in power over Libya, the people would be at risk from his revenge. If Libya should be partitioned, the revolutionaries in his Western portion would suffer.
Therefore the intent of 1973 will only be implemented if Gaddafi leaves Libya. Which means that the Allies must enable the revolutionaries to win.
One powerful tool to this end that has not yet been deployed is for us to block Gaddafi's TV transmission.
The second is to facilitate the exile of Gaddafi, his family and friends to Uganda or somewhere.
Unfortunately, the third tool is to give arms (specifically, anti-tank missiles) to the rebels. This sticks in my craw, but it follows logically from the general argument, that Gaddafi must go.
Jonathan Freedland in the Guardian argues that the Allies should stop when Gaddafi's forces should not be attacked unless they are actively threatening the people.
This is a recipe for Gaddafi to play a cat and mouse game, stopping until the Allies stand down, then starting again, provoking more Allied action, then stopping, over and over. This is clearly impractical, but consistent with a literal reading of 1973.
Clearly, the intent of the resolution is to stop all threat to the Libyan population. If Gaddafi were to be left in power over Libya, the people would be at risk from his revenge. If Libya should be partitioned, the revolutionaries in his Western portion would suffer.
Therefore the intent of 1973 will only be implemented if Gaddafi leaves Libya. Which means that the Allies must enable the revolutionaries to win.
One powerful tool to this end that has not yet been deployed is for us to block Gaddafi's TV transmission.
The second is to facilitate the exile of Gaddafi, his family and friends to Uganda or somewhere.
Unfortunately, the third tool is to give arms (specifically, anti-tank missiles) to the rebels. This sticks in my craw, but it follows logically from the general argument, that Gaddafi must go.
Campaign to close Gaddafi propaganda machine
Campaigners are pressing for the closure of Gaddafi’s propaganda channel, Libya State TV as a non-violent complement to the effort to protect the Libyan people.
The remit of the Allies is to protect the people. The effect of the Allied action is to produce a level playing field by removing Ghaddafi’s heavy weapons. The Allies are overlooking one heavy weapon that Gaddafi has in use on a daily basis: his TV station Al Jamahira 2 State TV.
Gaddafi uses his TV station to project his delusions to his supporters, to influence and control the thoughts and opinions of his supporters. It is clearly inappropriate for a deluded individual who is declared to have lost his legitimacy as a ruler to be permitted to spread his delusions through a TV station, especially when they result in delaying the successful end of the Libyan crisis.
Nilesat is Ghaddafi’s main TV service provider. They are located in Egypt. It would simply take a certain amount of diplomatic pressure to get them agree to deny service to him. There would not be any need to bomb transmission masts.
The importance of Ghaddafi’s broadcasts to his war effort should not be under-estimated. We have seen the blatant misinformation that his ministers put out with regard to a “ceasefire”. Recent examples of Libya State TV misinformation is that the huge demonstration in London on March 26th was not against Osborne’s cuts, but against the UN intervention in Libya. They also described Eman al-Obeidy, the lawyer who was dragged out of the reporters’ hotel, as a prostitute, drunk and thief.
Libyans are subjected to this propaganda every time they turn on the TV. He maintains his supporters’ morale with his TV broadcasts, and affects their cognitive framework with misinformation.
If his broadcasts were stopped, it is reasonable to expect that support for Ghaddafi would diminish among the Libyan people. If families of loyalist soldiers no longer express enthusiasm for Ghaddafi, morale among his soldiers will be reduced. Blank TV screens would be a symbol to loyalists that Ghaddafi is losing control. There would also be a positive net effect on world opinion, since some broadcasters are using Libyan State TV as if it were a reliable news source.
It might even be possible for the Allies to use Nilesat, Gaddafi’s transmitter, to broadcast accurate information to all Libyan people.
In summary, this is an action that is non-violent, cost-free and can reasonably be expected to help to shorten the length of our engagement in Libya.
I have heard no substantive arguments against this line of action, though I imagine there may be some kind of gentleman’s agreement among governments along the lines of “I will not jam your signal if you will not jam mine”. Clearly this convention no longer holds now that Ghaddafi is subject to a UN R2P action and no longer seen as a legitimate ruler.
There is a 533 member Facebook group campaigning to get Nilesat to withdraw service.
[Update: Hansard on Monday 28 March:
Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD): It is not just tanks and planes that Gaddafi uses against his own people but the poisonous propaganda on Libyan state TV carried on NileSat, which threatens to undermine hopes for future peace in that country. What can be done to ensure that all Libyans, especially those in Tripoli, can access independent media on which to base their understanding of current events?
The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman makes a vitally important point. We want to do everything we can to try to make sure that people can access independent media, which have had a huge impact on these events. But also, frankly, we should take a tougher approach to Libyan state television, which, as far as I can see, is actually working on behalf of the regime that is terrorising and brutalising its own civilians. The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point that we should pursue urgently.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
