The Libyan Revolution was a conflict that began in early-2011 and consisted of the government against anti-Gaddafi and anti-government rebel groups. Gaddafi was captured and killed shortly thereafter. The National Transitional Council (NTC) declared Libya free and began the transition to a pluralist democratic state. They had their first fair elections in July of 2012. Two years later, the state is still volatile and a cause for concern highlighted in the recent, albeit brief, abduction of Prime Minister Ali Zeidan from his hotel in Tripoli, the nations capitol. Perhaps, this is to be expected as they have an extremely weak central government mixed with the various rebel and extremist groups. They are essentially trying to build a country from scratch. Zeidan asserts that the country needs "wisdom... not escalation" to rebuild the nation. In Benghazi, the second-largest city in Libya, "radical militias and regular forces have fought a tit-for-tat war," according to this article. Fighting in Benghazi has been vicious and omnipresent in the last few weeks.
I will argue the Libyan case from the two following and differing motifs we have discussed in class: civil war and economic sanctions. Civil wars persist today due to economic grievances. The Libyan economic situation is dire as their weak government deters foreign investors. Additional, there is "an oil blockade that is being imposed on key refineries from disgruntled workers and militias." (00:03:36) This leads to citizens in a dire situation of uncertainty, poverty, and a lack of incentives not to fight the state-supported military. It would be important to add here that although Libya is not technically in a current civil war, the fragility and fighting occurring in the state is enough to claim that there is widespread civil unrest. Civil wars, as discussed in class, persist longest when a contraband group of rebels are fighting the government. The breadth of this interstate conflict can be seen as potentially wide and foreboding as Libya remains an unstable state. Notwithstanding this, the Department of Treasury decided to lift most sanctions that were put in place during the heat of the conflict in 2011. It is important to point out that they lifted these sanctions around 2011-2012. This unilateral sanction between the US and Libya hurt their economy, especially with the oil market. As we learned in class, unilateral sanctions might be more effective in changing the states behavior. So, my question to you all is as follows: did the sanction imposed by the United States on Libya have any effect on their civil unrest? Why or why not?
I would first like to note that what going on in Libya right now is a perfect example of how reintegration is the hardest part in the long process of resolving conflicts like these. According to the video found in the link "oil blockade", the government is offering former militia members the opportunity to work for a peace force or national army. Said former militia members are hesitant to accept the offering because of uncertainty in the governments intentions.
ReplyDeleteTo answer your question, I do think that the sanctions imposed on Libya affected civil unrest. As we have talked about in class, when one part intervenes in a conflict is can sometimes alter the balance of power. When the United States imposed sanctions on Libya in 2011, there was some speculation that that is what lead to a temporary cease fire called on by the government. So to conclude, the sanctions imposed by the US could have had some hand in extending the conflict.
I enjoyed reading this comment because it clarifyed my point- reintegration IS the most difficult and lengthy part of conflict resolution. The brief abduction of the PM Zeidan and subsequent comments made by him were small incidences that highlight the unrest and uncertainty of the state. The moments after civil unrest are continually volatile and take years and decades to repair. The sanctions imposed by the United States made a small impact. I think the U.S needs to sit back and let Libya grow, develop, fail, and succeed all by itself. We use sanctions for this purpose. As Mark Twain famously said, "We should be careful to get out of an experience only the wisdom that is in it and stop there, lest we be like the cat that sits down on a hot stove lid. She will never sit down on a hot stove lid again and that is well but also she will never sit down on a cold one anymore." The U.S needs to let these failed states (Iran, Libya, Syria) work themselves out and provide disincentives to promote our policies. A military intervention would be sitting on another hot lid.
DeleteI agree with the above statement and the one made in your article about economic grievences causing or prolonging civil war. I believe most definitely that the sanctions affected the state as a whole and had an outcome on the conflict. These economic hardships have been known to increase the duration of conflicts and I believe it was a mistake on the U.S.'s end to place these sanctions.
ReplyDeleteTo continue the question the senior auditor posed to the class today (11/6): are sanctions morally right or wrong? Use Libya to explain why or why not.
ReplyDelete