Background: This is a commentary issued today on the future of Libya by Foreign Reports Inc. , one of Washington DC's oldest political analysis firms.
May 24, 2011
PLANNING FOR POST-WAR LIBYA
Addressing reporters in London yesterday with her British counterpart, Foreign Secretary William Hague, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton spoke of a “new Libya” that is ready to move forward.
“We do believe that time is working against Qaddafi, that he cannot reestablish control over the country. The opposition has organized a legitimate and credible interim council that is committed to democratic principles. Their military forces are improving. And when Qaddafi inevitably leaves, a new Libya stands ready to move forward,” Secretary Clinton said.
After she spoke, NATO staged its heaviest bombing raids yet against Qaddafi command centers in Tripoli. French Defense Minister Gerard Longuet said France was deploying its Tigre attack helicopters, while British Armed Forces Minister Nick Harvey told the Parliament that the UK was considering committing its Apache helicopters. Opposition MPs complained that these moves amounted to “mission creep” and that the NATO operation is now seeking to overthrow Qaddafi rather than simply protect civilians.
Never Too Early
No one can say how long Qaddafi can last, especially if he is hiding among his Qaddaf al-Dam tribal supporters in the southern desert areas. But it is never too early to begin planning for post-war Libya, both in terms of reconstruction and assisting in the establishment of viable political institutions.
For the Obama Administration, the U.S. experience in Iraq and Afghanistan has contributed to its decision not to play a leading military role in NATO’s Libyan campaign. But certainly the U.S. experience in Iraq became exponentially more difficult and costly than the invasion itself because of a lack of clear post-war planning.
The Obama Administration doesn’t have to do its own intensive post-war planning to make a “new Libya” stand ready to move forward. On the reconstruction side, the institutional expertise on post-war planning resides in the World Bank, established in 1944, originally as the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development for post-war Europe and Japan. The Bank will not advocate a role for itself in Libya, but will take on the task willingly if its shareholders so direct. It played a key role in assisting post-Communist Eastern European countries emerge into functioning market economies.
At some point, even with Qaddafi holed up in some desert redoubt, it is likely that the government structure in Tripoli will collapse from within. The current opposition based in Benghazi is likely then to have a legitimate claim to govern the vast majority of Libyan territory and population and thus qualify as the legitimate successor government, entitled to control the assets of the Qaddafi government which have been frozen in the U.S. and elsewhere.
Financial Resources
The U.S. has frozen some $33 billion in Libyan assets, out of a world-wide total estimated as high as $165 billion. Custody of that amount of money would challenge the integrity of any new, fledgling government. The World Bank has handled many a fund of that size with an enviable record of integrity and efficiency.
The UN’s History in Libya
When the U.S., Britain, and France took over control of the Italian colony of Libya after routing Rommel’s army in 1943 as occupying powers, they turned to the United Nations in the post-war period to work with a large swathe of prominent Libyans to form a new constitution, which was eventually hammered out before Libya became an independent state at the end of 1951 under a UN Resolution.
Unless there is a role for the UN as an impartial mediator and as an advocate for the creation of new and stable political institutions, the baser forms of human nature may well be at work among the various leaders of the current Transitional Council as they jostle for personal power. It may be popular in some quarters to malign the UN and its bureaucracy, but helping a fledgling government set up lasting and judiciously-framed institutions is one thing it does know how to do, without the inherently mercantile instincts of individual EU states who might seek to stake a claim to “mentor” the new Libya in proportion to their contribution to the NATO campaign.
Regional Side-Effects
One ancillary benefit of getting post-war Libya right, rather than wrong, is the beneficial effect success would bring to its Tunisian and Egyptian neighbors—two countries suffering from widespread unemployment. Before fighting broke out in February, there were more than 1.5 million Egyptian workers in Libya. U.S. proposals for debt forgiveness for Egypt or incentives for private investment there will not come close to making a significant difference for Egypt’s now thoroughly endangered economy; job opportunities, new exports and commercial contacts for Egyptians in Libya would.
The perils of getting post-war Libya wrong abound, with the most extreme case of Libya becoming a failed state like Somalia on the Mediterranean.
Getting post-war Libya right will not be rocket science. In their darkest hours, opposition leaders found true friends in the GCC and in the U.S. Qatar has been their most outspoken champion. When they asked Kuwait for a loan of $300 million, they were given a $500 million grant. Saudi Arabia used its clout in the Arab League to make the NATO mission politically possible. The UAE has been stalwart.
The institutional frameworks that the World Bank and the UN can provide to the “new Libya” exist and are ready to be tapped. All it will take is some prudent post-war planning.
May 24, 2011
PLANNING FOR POST-WAR LIBYA
Addressing reporters in London yesterday with her British counterpart, Foreign Secretary William Hague, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton spoke of a “new Libya” that is ready to move forward.
“We do believe that time is working against Qaddafi, that he cannot reestablish control over the country. The opposition has organized a legitimate and credible interim council that is committed to democratic principles. Their military forces are improving. And when Qaddafi inevitably leaves, a new Libya stands ready to move forward,” Secretary Clinton said.
After she spoke, NATO staged its heaviest bombing raids yet against Qaddafi command centers in Tripoli. French Defense Minister Gerard Longuet said France was deploying its Tigre attack helicopters, while British Armed Forces Minister Nick Harvey told the Parliament that the UK was considering committing its Apache helicopters. Opposition MPs complained that these moves amounted to “mission creep” and that the NATO operation is now seeking to overthrow Qaddafi rather than simply protect civilians.
Never Too Early
No one can say how long Qaddafi can last, especially if he is hiding among his Qaddaf al-Dam tribal supporters in the southern desert areas. But it is never too early to begin planning for post-war Libya, both in terms of reconstruction and assisting in the establishment of viable political institutions.
For the Obama Administration, the U.S. experience in Iraq and Afghanistan has contributed to its decision not to play a leading military role in NATO’s Libyan campaign. But certainly the U.S. experience in Iraq became exponentially more difficult and costly than the invasion itself because of a lack of clear post-war planning.
The Obama Administration doesn’t have to do its own intensive post-war planning to make a “new Libya” stand ready to move forward. On the reconstruction side, the institutional expertise on post-war planning resides in the World Bank, established in 1944, originally as the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development for post-war Europe and Japan. The Bank will not advocate a role for itself in Libya, but will take on the task willingly if its shareholders so direct. It played a key role in assisting post-Communist Eastern European countries emerge into functioning market economies.
At some point, even with Qaddafi holed up in some desert redoubt, it is likely that the government structure in Tripoli will collapse from within. The current opposition based in Benghazi is likely then to have a legitimate claim to govern the vast majority of Libyan territory and population and thus qualify as the legitimate successor government, entitled to control the assets of the Qaddafi government which have been frozen in the U.S. and elsewhere.
Financial Resources
The U.S. has frozen some $33 billion in Libyan assets, out of a world-wide total estimated as high as $165 billion. Custody of that amount of money would challenge the integrity of any new, fledgling government. The World Bank has handled many a fund of that size with an enviable record of integrity and efficiency.
The UN’s History in Libya
When the U.S., Britain, and France took over control of the Italian colony of Libya after routing Rommel’s army in 1943 as occupying powers, they turned to the United Nations in the post-war period to work with a large swathe of prominent Libyans to form a new constitution, which was eventually hammered out before Libya became an independent state at the end of 1951 under a UN Resolution.
Unless there is a role for the UN as an impartial mediator and as an advocate for the creation of new and stable political institutions, the baser forms of human nature may well be at work among the various leaders of the current Transitional Council as they jostle for personal power. It may be popular in some quarters to malign the UN and its bureaucracy, but helping a fledgling government set up lasting and judiciously-framed institutions is one thing it does know how to do, without the inherently mercantile instincts of individual EU states who might seek to stake a claim to “mentor” the new Libya in proportion to their contribution to the NATO campaign.
Regional Side-Effects
One ancillary benefit of getting post-war Libya right, rather than wrong, is the beneficial effect success would bring to its Tunisian and Egyptian neighbors—two countries suffering from widespread unemployment. Before fighting broke out in February, there were more than 1.5 million Egyptian workers in Libya. U.S. proposals for debt forgiveness for Egypt or incentives for private investment there will not come close to making a significant difference for Egypt’s now thoroughly endangered economy; job opportunities, new exports and commercial contacts for Egyptians in Libya would.
The perils of getting post-war Libya wrong abound, with the most extreme case of Libya becoming a failed state like Somalia on the Mediterranean.
Getting post-war Libya right will not be rocket science. In their darkest hours, opposition leaders found true friends in the GCC and in the U.S. Qatar has been their most outspoken champion. When they asked Kuwait for a loan of $300 million, they were given a $500 million grant. Saudi Arabia used its clout in the Arab League to make the NATO mission politically possible. The UAE has been stalwart.
The institutional frameworks that the World Bank and the UN can provide to the “new Libya” exist and are ready to be tapped. All it will take is some prudent post-war planning.
Re Post-War Libya: I agree with you that it is vital for Libya to seek the help the World Bank and UN in terms of help in building political structure and long term economic plan. I hope Mahmoud Jibreel's suggestion of Marshall plan is similar to your view and as you mentioned UN custody of the frozen funds will challenge any effort to take over power and minimize chances of corruption. My question to you is it too late for Libya to follow the world bank plan that you and Tarik Yousef discussed in the World Bank event Libya: Development Prospects and Challenges?
ReplyDelete