Peacebuilding in Libya

This is an excerpt from an essay I have wrote for one of my classes.  I shall put up the whole essay in a month or so, but this is the most important part of the essay.  This expert examines the peace operations in Libya. .. If anything does not make sense, you are probably lacking context so read the full essay when it's up :p .

 Libya is an interesting case because it is often hailed as a successful peace operation in the media. As you will see below, I agree with this point even though there are still a lot of uncertainties when it comes to Libya's case. P.S. I'll fix the footnotes in a week or so :P And sorry... this is going to be very dry, but in my defense it's an excerpt from an essay and its very hard to make academic writing fun :P .

Image taken from UNSMIL website

The Case of Libya

Peacebuilding

National Transitional Council has been established and recognized as legitimate government by 30 countries even before the end of the war.  Following the declaration of liberation in October 2011, NTC organized a national election of General National Congress on July 7^th, 2012. In October 2012, the GNC elected Ali Zeidan who became the country’s Prime Minister in charge of creating transition coalition government.[1] He chose his government representatives from two biggest blocs in the Congress the Alliance of National Forces, led and the Muslim Brotherhood's Justice and Construction Party. [2] In addition, the GNC will create “constitutional assembly to draft a new constitution which will be submitted to a referendum in 2013.”[3]

Although there have been protests about the make-up of the cabinet, they should be viewed as an acceptable form of voicing ones discontent with political or social issues. The reconstruction of the Libyan political system has been largely positive. Indeed, it met three of the aforementioned requirements of the peacebuilding process: transitional government, elections and elected government. Moreover, there is a lot of internal political support in favour of current political change. For example, the Benghazi part of the February 17^th Coalition, which was part of revolution from the first protest, has decided to dissolve because of “their desire to submit to a single legitimate authority which the NTC represented”.[4] The Coalition refuses to take position of “revolutionary command council”, because they believe that “resort to ‘revolutionary legitimacy’ [might threaten] stability and democratic transformation.”[5] In addition, the Libyan Brotherhood has expressed their support for civil state, democracy or ‘moderate’ Islamic state and civil society. [6] Even the some of the radicals are supporting the regime change. The leader of the Libyan Fighting Group, Bilhaj, has expressed “on numerous political occasions and media appearances his commitment to the establishment of a democratic state, he has recently announced the establishment of the Islamic Movement for Change” that has publicly defended the national political agenda.[7]

 However, it should be noted that security sector reform component of peacebuilding is still incomplete. The NTC had issues imposing its political will because it lacks legitimacy, and therefore it is unable to back its will by force.[8] This will likely change with the newly elected government, but it is too early to say so definitively. Similarly, institutional reform in army, police and judicial sectors in order to achieve “a functioning law enforcement apparatus” has not been yet been achieved for the same reason.

The key issue in security sector is the militias. The local councils that are in charge of administrating cities have military components to them but they do not have full control of those components.[9]  Thus militias are controlling the streets, while not under the control of the government. Indeed, militias never combined into one united force during, or after the conflict, and are now ruling over their own sections of territory thus undermining the authority of the elected government.[10] In addition, the previously mentioned Islamic Movement for Change “has been busy arming itself and forming loyal armed brigades”, while giving a supporting political rhetoric in favour of the regime.[11] Indeed, the security sector disorder has manifested itself in the attack on the US embassy in September, with a result of 4 deaths - one of which was the US ambassador. However, there is hope that with time the elected government will acquire more power and will be able to get the security sector under its control. Indeed, the Libyan people are tired of fighting and want security, which has been demonstrated by the revolt against militias in response to attacks on US embassy.[12] This has given the government the opportunity to “take more concentrated action to consolidate military forces under its command.”[13] One of the ways suggested of reintegrating militias into society is with “a combination of financial rewards, promise of adequate social standing, and above all, assurances that laying down their arms will not jeopardize their safety or that of their community.”[14] However, this can only be done by the elected legitimate government. Indeed, even though there is also still a lot of peacebuilding to be done in economic development, social rehabilitation and regulatory reform, it should be done by the elected government rather than outside forces or foreign diplomats. Otherwise, the process will not to be deemed legitimate and acceptable by the local people.

Currently, UN peacebuilding mission is headed by UN Support Mission in Libya that was created in order to “assist the Libyan authorities to define national needs and priorities throughout Libya, and to match these with offers of strategic and technical advice where appropriate.”[15] It is meant to provide support in the following areas: democratic transition, Rule of Law & Human Right, Security Sector Reform, International Assistance Coordination and countering of illicit proliferation of arms. If UNSMIL follows its mandate closely, then it will be a positive force in Libya. However, it must be careful not to highjack the transition and state-building process from the Libyan people and government in order to install the Western values. If the Libyan people believe that changes in their political system are coming from outside, then they will be less likely to trust it and more likely to rebel against it.

---

[1] World Bank, Libya Overview, Sep. 2012, 10 Dec.2012 <http://www.worldbank.org/en/country/libya/overview>.

[2] BBC News, Libyan Parliament Approves New Government, 13 Oct.2012, 10 Dec.2012 <http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-20152538>.

[3] World Bank, Libya Overview, Sep. 2012, 10 Dec.2012, <http://www.worldbank.org/en/country/libya/overview>.

[4] Ibid. 17.

[5] Ibid. 17.

[6] Ibid. 17.

[7] Ibid. 19.

[8] Youssef Mohammad Sawani, “Post-Qadhafi Libya: Interactive Dynamics and the Political Future,” Contemporary Arab Affairs, 5:1 (2012): 9.

[9] Ibid. 16.

[10] Christopher S. Chivvis, Keith Crane, Peter Mandaville, Jeffrey Martini, “Libya’s Post- Qaddafi Transition: The Nation-Building Challenge,” RAND Corporation (2012): 4.

[11] Ibid. 19.

[12] Ibid. 3.

[13] Ibid. 5.

[14] Ibid. 6.

[15] UNSMIL, UNSMIL Mandate, 10 Dec.2012 <http://unsmil.unmissions.org/Default.aspx?tabid=3544&language=en-US>.

Thoughts on trade between Canada and China

In continuation with my apparent fascination with authoritarian governments, I decided it's time to explore our growing trade relationship with China. The theme of this relationship comes down to: we don't like you, but we need you. This comes as no surprise for after the global financial crisis, we are running out of the countries to trade with! Europe seems to be going down the drain, while USA is still struggling. Therefore, we find ourselves looking at CHINA!

Trading with China is tricky because it's politically sticky; and yet, it is financially smart. Therefore, true to our Canadian values, Harper snubbed Chinese government for the beginning of his term as Prime Minister. As most of us still do, Harper had a huge issue with creating a close trade relationship with a country that had a long record of human right violations. He agitated China by awarding honorary Canadian citizenship to the Dalai Lama, criticizing China's human rights record, accusing China of commercial espionage, delaying a meeting between foreign ministers, and making overtures toward Taiwan. He also did not attend the opening ceremonies of Beijing Olympics.  However, in recent years, the relations have improved.  Again, this is largely due to the fact that Harper's other two major partners, Europe and US, are having major economic issues, while China’s economy is still robust.  Thus Harper made a visit to China in 2009 to meet with the President to discuss their trade opportunities. In 2010, the President Hu Jintao made an official visit to Canada. In 2012, Harper went back to China to sign Foreign Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement.  The main purpose of the agreement is “ensure greater protection to foreign investors against discriminatory and wholly arbitrary practices, to provide adequate and prompt compensation in the event of an expropriation and to enhance predictability of the policy framework affecting foreign investors and their investments.” It is clear that the trade between these two countries will greatly increase in the coming years.

However, Final Environmental Assessment of the Canada-China Foreign Investment Protection Agreement (FIPA) states “FIPA does not impose new market access obligations or liberalize existing investment restrictions. Companies and individual investors determine risks through independent economic and political assessments, and determine their willingness to accept those risks and invest in a given market. It cannot directly facilitate new investments or directly create new opportunities for investment.” Thus there are likely to be a lot of new policies that facilitate new investments and liberalize existing investments restrictions. But, is this growing relationship for the best or for the worst?

There is a great need for increased clarity, efficiency and predictability in the context of direct investments for these countries.  There is a fear that the Chinese might “spy” via their enterprises on the Canadian government or on Canadians. There is also a fear that they might not to conform to Canada’s environment standards. Thus it is necessary to create policies that will Chinese companies to full disclose their activities to the government. Regulatory agencies should be created to review on bi-annual basis that these Chinese companies are complying with all the Canadian regulations.  There should be a policy that lays out the standards each company has to meet before the directly invest into Canada. 

Trade aside, Chinese human rights record is still an issue. I think Canada should take a stand towards China’s human rights record, otherwise Canada’s record of being a peaceful and liberal country will be tarnished. However, it is easier to influence friends than enemies. Thus Canada should explore incremental ways that China can improve its human rights record. It should probably promote discuss of change in the areas where change is easiest to make and will not cost money to China (because let's be serious, its all about money).  Canada should strongly suggest these changes to China, but without making any ultimatums. Just the act of trying to improve their human rights record will help Canada save face when dealing with someone who has such terrible record. In the end, the more China becomes dependent on its trade with Canada, the more Canada will have to bargain with in  improving Chinese human rights record. 

Check out the video below : Why China Cannot Rise Peacefully - John Mearsheimer

Thoughts on Greece

If you decided to travel to Europe right now, I am sure that all you would hear about is the situation in Greece. The situation is dire, but Greek government itself is largely to blame. When Greece entered the Eurozone, it spent lavishly so much that the salaries in public sector have raised by 50% from 1999 to 2007. This spending coupled with the fact with massive tax evasion made the government's treasure run dry before even the crisis hit in 2008. This is the reason why Greece has been affected the worst by the crisis out of all the Europe.( Eurozone crisis explained ) .

To remedy the situation, Greece was given 240bn euros of loans and the debt write-off, but most fear it won't be enough. Now the troika (the European commission, European Central Bank, and International Monetary Fund) demands certain austerity measures to be implemented in order to secure bail out and remain in Eurozone. The latest of the austerity measures is 6 day work week. The earlier bailout demands have worsened the Greek economy, thus Greece is will not be eager to implement the coming austerity measures.

One of the two options going forward is likely. Either the week countries like Greece, Italy and Spain leave EU or are kicked out, which can potentially unravel all of the EU. Otherwise, there is a possibility of closer European fiscal union developing, which means fiscal policy will be coordinated at the continent level as well as monetary policy, bringing the E.U. closer to being a sovereign state.

The second option is much more appealing, however tricky. The nations are not quite ready to give up their independence to that level, but it would make EU more competitive with the growing markets of China, India, Brazil and etc. Perhaps the time has come for the EU to either work closer as a team.  One thing is certain, if EU does develop closer fiscal union it will likely be a force not to be reckoned .

Syria - Their point of view

Today, the UN General Assembly met to discuss the draft resolution that is meant to prevent armed conflict in Syria . Watch the video here :   http://bcove.me/wm846nfs

At around 26 mins mark ( up to 42mins) , the Syrian representative Bashar Ja'afari spoke before the vote on the resolution in order to defend the current government. I found his points very persuasive and valid, so I decided to make note of them on my blog in order to shine some light on the Syrian situation as it is viewed in the eyes of those that the West opposes. Here is the point form paraphrased summary.

• Ironic Paradox: The states sponsoring this resolution are submitting it under item 34, the prevention of armed conflict. These same states play a major role in sponsoring the rebels with arms, as was acknowledged by foreign minister of France.  Arms come from Qatar and Saudi Arabia and other states through Turkey. American arms also are coming in through Turkey.
• These states provide financial support to the media and intelligence campaign against the current government.
• The focus of these states is to support the the rebels and unilateral sanctions rather than providing humanitarian assistance, which in itself is a breach of six point plan.
• No humanitarian aid has been seen on the ground
• This Saudi draft resolution, which is on one side is sponsored by Saudi and Qattar and Bahrain, which are one of the world's worst human rights offenders and on the other side is sponsored by the states that continually disregard UN resolutions themselves and mold the resolutions to their advantage in order to military intervene in the affairs of other sovereign nations under pretense of WMD removal or the giving of humanitarian aid.
• The actions of these states in Iraq, Libya and some African countries have contributed to the weakening of  Rule of Law at international level.
• Assad government have caught rebels that are associated with Al-Qaeda, which means that the countries that are supporting the rebels cause are indirectly supporting Al-Qaeda at the time that they continue their rhetoric against terrorist around the world.

Of course, this speech is biased. However, it definitely brings out some interesting points to think about .  One point we should agree on with Syrian government is the delivery of humanitarian aid to the Syrian people, while largely staying away from involvement in the armed conflict. At this time, we are left to wonder as to why we are supporting the rebel forces if they can't even make a united front on the matter. If Assad is beaten, the country is most likely to to be divided in fractions that fight against each other. This is a worse fate than  than having one "dictator". Assad was in power for years before the backlash from his people, which should be noted started with peaceful protests. Mass atrocities are not usually defied with peaceful protests,  thus there is a possibility that there weren't such major mass atrocities or the people would uproar in a much different manner. In any case, the living situation for average Syrian was better under Assad's government, than the current living situation where the whole economy of Syria came to a screeching halt.  Plus the rebels have done many questionable actions since the upraising and still do not have a united front against Assad, so what makes them a more viable form of government exactly? Perhaps without Assad, the civil war will just turn into sectarian battles for power and territories. Before we try to throw out Assad, we need to make sure there is a better option for Syrian people and at this time, the divided rebel groups cannot prove that they are it.

must see video : CBC's The Turning Point :Syria