by Isaac Bigio
Análisis Global
Currently, most of the Western press is celebrating what is perceived as a victory of their Libyan allies before the ’42 years of Gadafi’s tyranny’. Nevertheless, the realty is much more complex.
Mixed reports
The fact that pro-NATO Libyan forces have managed to enter different points of Tripoli and that they even claim to control most of the capital, doesn’t assure victory.
Moreover, some of the opposition’s optimisms are being carefully treated by Western media. BBC reports that it’s not true that the “rebels” control 90 per cent of the capital (as it has been claimed), that they are not allowed to enter certain parts or that they are being gunshot, and some ‘insurgents’ talk about withdrawing from it, where they don’t feel safe anymore. One of Gadafi’s sons, who was believed to be in prison, is free, just as the dictator and most of his ministers, family and men of trust.
The national transition government that most European and North American powers recognize as the legitimate government of Libya, remains in Bengazi and has not yet been moved to Tripoli.
It is a mystery what has happened with several elite battalions of the regime that were supposed to protect Tripoli. Now massive defections have been informed and it can’t be disregarded that Gadafi himself has allowed his enemies to reach the city, in order to ambush them, as it initially happened in Baghdad 2003.
Troops in Tripoli
Gadafi maintains his forces in the city where he was born (Sirte) and others in the central zone of Libya, which is the base of the tribe (as Sabha) and it is being said that his forces can arrive to Tripoli from Zlitan.
On the other hand, it is not clear what will happen in case Gadafi is defeated. NATO wants the country to be ruled by the national transition government led by top officials who served until half a year ago, who call the insurgents not to take revenge on the officers of the dictatorship.
However, that coalition is very unstable and heterogeneous. Three weeks ago, it began to explode in the wake of general Younis’ murder, Gadafi’s ex number two, who controlled the rebels’ troops.
The weight of several mosques is noteworthy, which have contributed to organize the insurgence in Tripoli, whereas the social networks, which supported the uprisings in Tunisia or Egypt or the British riots, have been limited or suppressed by Gadafi.
Libya has never had a multiparty democracy in place. In the two world wars period, the country went from being a province of the despotic Ottoman Empire to a colony of the Italian monarchy and fascism. After a brief ally rule in the postwar, in 1951 it became one of the first African nations to decolonize, but since then until 1969 it was ruled by an autocratic monarchy, which until today granted 42 years of absolute power to Gadafi. The Arabic countries that support the “rebels” aren’t the most democratic ones, but several petro-monarchies from the Persian Gulf.
David Cameron has implied that the allies have learnt several lessons from what has happened before in Afghanistan and Iraq. His intervention hasn’t goneagainst the UN nor has it given rise to a major international opposition or within its nations. They haven’t sent troops, in order not to provide Gadafi with reasons to claim to unite the nation against foreign forces. They haven’t been divided, as in 2003 when France and Germany opposed to bomb Baghdad. They say that, differently from Iraq, they have a backup plan.
However, Gadafi has proven to be able to confront them during half a year (a bigger span than the resistance offered by the Taliban and Hussein), and there is a risk of a prolonged armed resistance in Libya (in Afghanistan the Taliban continue to increase 10 years after the beginning of the war) and that the anti-Gadafi coalition can be disintegrated further than is being now.
