Gaddafi’s fate: Meltdown or come-back?

1. Regime meltdown

Gaddafi is toppled by a rapid advance of  rebel forces as the regime implodes amidst defection and popular rebellion.

This scenario seemed likelier last week when the oil rich eastern half of the country but also coastal cities in the west like Misurata and Zawya fell to the rebels.

The resignation of senior ambassadors to the United Nations and the United States well as the defection of Justice Minister Mustafa Mohamed Abud Al Jeleil and Interior Minister  Abdul Fattah Younis suggested that the regime had reached melting point.

But the momentum of the uprising has been interrupted by Gaddafi’s defiance as he holds on to power in Tripoli while launching counterattacks not only on the western part of the country but also on eastern cities like Brega.

Still  mounting pressure arising from the imposition of sanctions and the freezing of the Gaddafi family’s assets could still erode the regime’s  grip.

So could fear among the regime’s henchmen of losing their impunity following the announcement of impending proceedings in the International Criminal Court, the Gaddafi regime could simply implode at any moment.

Much depends on whether Gaddafi’s hold on the western part of the country is due to fear of brutal repression or some latent level of support among the population.

But a drop in oil revenues may well diminish the regime’s ability to dig in its pockets to buy the peace while food shortages in the capital may well  result in a situation were people there have nothing to lose.

For Malta the quick fall of the regime would be the most desirable outcome, for this is would make a return to normal relations with a neighbour.

But  this scenario is not devoid of pitfalls. While the regime could fall, its loyalists could go underground and remain a destabilising force for years to come.

And it is not clear what kind of democracy Libya could adapt after 42 years of despotic rule based on fear. It is also not clear whether a democratic Libya will be more or less accommodating to foreign companies investing in the country. 

An encouraging sign is that Libyans in Benghazi have so far shown a sense of boisterous creativity in creating national institutions and a new sense of national identity symbolised by the pre Gaddafi flag.  Still reports of systematic violence against African migrants accused of being mercenaries could be indicative that brutality is not the sole prerogative of the despised regime.

2. A protracted civil war

Gaddafi consolidates his power base around Tripoli as the country drifts in to a protracted civil war which could see Gaddafi recovering some if not all the  territory lost in the past days. 

The prospect of Gaddafi surviving the current storm as Saddam Hussein did after the gulf war in 1991 when he crushed a Kurdish and Shiite revolt, does not only depend on the support he may still enjoy among part of the population but also on sheer military might.

This was the case in many African civil wars-like that in Sierra Leone which  sponsored by the Gaddafi regime - where civilians have no voice  in the face of the brutality of thugs and mercenaries.

Gaddafi’s  18,000-strong air force which includes 227 aircraft  with its 13 bases gives him a natural military  advantage over the rebels even if there are doubts on its reliability and prowess. 

Even more crucial in a scenario of street fighting are his 35 attack helicopter squadron  which gives him an ability to move reinforcements rapidly around the vast country.

Gaddafi can also rely on 2205 battle tanks and even two submarines. But  years of sanctions and neglect have left their toll on the quality of this equipment.

What is sure is that defections from his army will not necessarily result in Gaddafi’s exit as was the case with Egyptian President Mubarak and Tunisian President Ben Ali.

The 50,000-strong Libyan army most of whom are conscripts, does not represent the backbone of a regime which has created a  20,000 strong paramilitary force consisting of well-armed and trained tribesmen loyal to their clan and supplemented by paid mercenaries from Chad and Niger. 

Gaddafi’s military arsenal may well prove to be an insurmountable obstacle for a rebel march on Tripoli which will firs have to conquer Sirte-a loyalist bedrock and Gaddafi’s birthplace.

In the absence of outside intervention, the tide may well turn against the rebels.

In this scenario Malta would be faced with the troublesome scenario of living next to a destabilised neighbour with all the problems associated with failed states; namely terrorism, immigration flows and a constant demand for weapons and mercenaries.  Protracted civil war may also result in a radicalisation of the opposition.

But even more dangerous would be  the prospect of Gaddafi winning a bloody civil war after being relegated again to the status of an unredeemable pariah.

EU states have already declared that Gaddafi is no longer an interlocutor.

An resentful Gaddafi who might feel betrayed by the west which was so quick to rehabilitate him in the past decade despite his abysmal track record on human rights, would not be an easy neighbour to live next to.

Gaddafi has already proved that he is a great survivor.  He has survived sanctions, air-strikes and accusations of funding and supporting terrorism before being granted redemption by the west.

Yet a second rehabilitation seems extremely unlikely especially if Gaddafi is indicted to face charges for crimes against humanity in front of the International Criminal Court.  For EU member states like Malta restoring political and economic relations with such a regime is simply unthinkable.

3. Foreign intervention

NATO intervenes to provide air cover for the advancing rebels to quicken the demise of the regime or simply to protect civilians from further brutality.

It will be very difficult for the international community to look the other way if Gaddafi launches further air-strikes on civilians in the newly liberated areas.

Failure to act would bring  memories of Rwanda and Bosnia when the world looked on while genocide was being committed.

“Libya may became a test of how seriously the international community takes the idea of a responsibility to protect people from their rulers,” Peter Singer one of the leading international authorities on public ethics and past critic of the Iraq war notes. 

One of the solutions proposed is a no fly zone through which the civilian population is given air cover and protection from these aerial attacks.

At this point the Libyan opposition seems opposed  to the use of force by foreigners as evidenced by one of the most prominent banners in liberated Benghazi saying “No Foreign Intervention. Libyan people can manage it alone."

But if the opposition starts losing strategic towns and an onslaught on Benghazi becomes imminent, they may change tack.

A further concern for the opposition is that any attempt it makes to move its own forces along the 1,000km coast road to Tripoli from its stronghold in Benghazi will be highly vulnerable to air attack. 

A no fly zone could thus make the conflict more even than it presently is, by removing Gaddafi’s air superiority.

But despite initial enthusiasm for a no fly zone especially by the British government and some elements in the Libyan opposition, US Defence Secretary Robert Gates expressed caution.  While the Obama administration says all options are on the table, Washington may be reluctant to initiate military action as it grapples with the financial and human costs of two long, bloody wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Another point made clear by the US is that implementing a no fly zone would require bombardments of anti aircraft position,  thus raising the prospect of civilian casualties, actions which could unite Libyans against the foreign intruder.

As Peter Singer observes the test case for the validity of any foreign intervention is ensuring that the “consequences of action are not worse than the consequences of inaction”.

US  experience in Iraq has shown a no-fly zone is not  easy to implement even  if this was crucial in preventing Saddam from attacking the Kurdish population for an entire decade.

Finally if a no-fly zone over Libya is to be established, it  will probably lack the blessing of a UN Security Council resolution which would probably be opposed by both Russia and China-countries which have used brutal repression against rebels in their own territories.

Certainly the “no fly zone” would increase military activity around the island, possibly  with a greater number of warships calling on our ports.

But the US already has well-positioned US Naval Air Station at Sigonella in Sicily and  Souda Bay in Crete and does not need military bases in Malta.  Still logistical support for any such operations could clash with Malta’s neutrality which could be questioned both locally and internationally by advocates of humanitarian interventionism.