Posted by: theoptimisticconservative | March 25, 2011

Libya: Time for the Jaw, Jaw (Or, African Union to the Rescue)

It would be fascinating if it didn’t involve US troops and America’s reputation. Almost unnoticed by the US media, players in the Eastern hemisphere are actively planning to enliven the Libya situation with negotiations, which we can assume will quickly be dubbed “peace talks.”

The African Union has been maneuvering to gets talks going since Saturday, the first day of coalition air strikes. AU members are solidly opposed to the intervention in Libya and hope to end it with a brokered solution to the civil war. Their plan is to launch negotiations on Friday in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia (where the AU headquarters is hosted) and bring together representatives of Qaddafi’s government and the self-proclaimed Transitional Government of the rebels. Other nations’ representatives are thought to be invited; presumably the US will have at least a routine diplomatic presence.

UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon seems to think representatives of Qaddafi and the opposition intend to be at this AU-sponsored meeting.

France and Britain, meanwhile, which urged implementation of the no-fly zone and ponied up the first forces for it, are now proposing to hold talks in London with representatives of the US and Arab, African, and European nations. This proposal is to produce a conference that starts on Tuesday, 29 March. The London conclave may not technically be the “steering committee” proposed by Nicolas Sarkozy for the direction of the military operations, but it is sure to be the focus of Western political decision-making about what this whole Libya thing really means.

(Note:  I just heard Hillary Clinton state her intention of attending the London conference.)

Winston Churchill, who gave us the aphorism that “Jaw, jaw is better than war, war,” might or might not approve.  The multi-venue approach is certainly disjointed – and reminiscent of the rival attempts by the West, the Communist bloc, and the Non-Aligned Movement to negotiate the same international problems back in the 1960s and ‘70s.

The London gathering seems fated to have difficulty getting things done; the AU meet in Addis Ababa is less predictable.  The threat of Tuesday’s conference may put a fire under Qaddafi to work with the AU and achieve some kind of agreement with the opposition. It will clearly matter how the rebels are represented, and I would give the AU an edge over Western governments in knowing which opposition figures to cultivate for a successful outcome.

The AU wants to establish that Africa can police its own; there may be a particular advantage in the AU’s activism as well: the growing disenchantment of its members with the posture of Iran in Africa. Most AU governments tend to look with disfavor on transnational Islamism of any stripe, Sunni or Shi’a.  That could well color their approach to the different groups represented in the Libyan insurgency, and with positive results.

It remains to be seen if the AU can either induce Qaddafi to go, or gain Western governments’ consent to his staying on a set of conditions. The AU’s incentive is strong to present a fait accompli to the West.

On the other hand, it’s not as clear that the attendees of the London conference have pressing incentives to secure a solution. Launching a military operation was, in a way, almost too easy for the various governments involved. Regarding “kinetic military action” as a routine thing – almost as a small thing – makes it less likely that these governments will feel urgency about bringing it to an end.

I wouldn’t count the AU out.  It would be a significant diplomatic coup for it to trump the London conference with an executable solution.  Qaddafi has a long history with the AU and a lot of friends in it; the Libyan opposition’s representatives may prefer to have a ceasefire and transition brokered by their choice of AU governments, rather than wait to see what the London conference does.  The next few days will be worth sticking around for.

J.E. Dyer blogs at Hot Air’s Green Room and Commentary’s “contentions.”  She writes a weekly column for Patheos.


Responses

  1. […] Libya: Time for the Jaw, Jaw (Or, African Union to the Rescue) (via Theoptimisticconservative’s Blog) It would be fascinating if it didn’t involve US troops and America’s reputation. Almost unnoticed by the US media, players in the Eastern hemisphere are actively planning to enliven the Libya situation with negotiations, which we can assume will quickly be dubbed “peace talks.” The African Union has been maneuvering to gets talks going since Saturday, the first day of coalition air strikes. AU members are solidly opposed to the intervention in Li … Read More […]

  2. Secretary Gates’ opinion (very obvious) was not to get involved. He was correct. There ARE American boots on the ground painting targets. There will be more. Bet on it.
    What are our interests in Libya? I doubt very seriously The Founding Fathers have been reconstituted in the rebel camp.
    The Libyan Dictator is a very bad guy. Did that just come to light in the last few weeks?
    This operation has the patina of a local casino. Join In /pay the admission/pick and choose from the dinner buffet/gamble a bit/quit and go home.

  3. The African Union (and UN) has been totally ineffective in getting Gbagbo to peacefully transfer power after he lost a free and fair election in Ivory Coast. Now there is a civil war, the UN blue hats are barely able to defend themselves, and the UN reports one million people are displaced/refugees, but there will be no outside intervention, not even from the IC neighbors.

    How on earth would they be more effective with the self-anointed King of Kings of Africa?

    Also, Egypt and Algeria know the Libyan tribal whatever best.

    way too optimistic! and, a bit too convinced that radical Islamists maybe dominate Libya’s opposition.

  4. K2K — certainly the efficacy of the AU meeting depended on getting representation from the Libyan opposition, and there doesn’t seem to have been any. Reports over the weekend indicate Ban Ki-Moon’s understanding on that was, as we say, “improperly briefed.”

    The AU and Qaddafi’s reps did hammer out a “roadmap” to reconciliation and national elections. It’s understandable that the rebels, seeing NATO step up to the plate and racking up their territorial “victories” (which are victories for nothing more than coalition airpower, since it’s causing Qaddafi’s forces to simply abandon their arms and flee), want to make what they can of this opportunity. Their interest in negotiating with Qaddafi would be low at this point.

    There was no clarity on the direction of these developments on Friday afternoon. It may be too early for an alternative body like the AU to achieve a diplomatic coup, but that time is coming. Complacency about the world’s “need” for the US and NATO is not in order: our mere existence isn’t enough to organize everyone else from sheer respect or even inertia. We have to actually be effective and useful to justify our political importance. But NATO has already begun to fracture, with Germany — NATO’s second-biggest nation and economy — resistant to the Libya operation, and Turkey switching overnight from resistance to the aggressive search for a leadership role.

    I haven’t said anywhere that Libya’s opposition is or must be dominated by Islamists. But the difference between dominated and not-dominated in that regard is one we should be trying to help make. We are doing no such thing — but we can’t count on others (e.g., Turkey, the MB) to be so reticent.

    The Mediterranean, Europe, North Africa, and the Middle East will not settle back into the parameters of the Pax Americana on their own. We shouldn’t try to force them to revert to the status quo ante 2011, but volunteering to relinquish leadership means others will try to remake the status quo to suit their preferences — and if we object at all, as we are likely to do, we will be playing catch-up, and will have to put out four times as much effort to secure our interests as we would have to today.

    It is complacency of the most deluded order to suppose that nothing very much will change. The change has already started.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Categories

%d bloggers like this: