Libya offers “verifiable” ceasefire, U.N.-supervised elections

[Prometheus Bound]

Source: The Hindu, Washington Post, Reuters

Libya offers “verifiable” ceasefire, U.N.-supervised elections
LONDON, April 20, 2011

Libya’s Foreign Minister Abdul Ati al-Obeidi on Wednesday offered a “properly verifiable” ceasefire supervised by foreign observers to pave the way for talks which could cover “any issue” including, he implied, the future of Colonel Muammar Qadhafi.

He proposed a six-month transition period to be followed by elections under U.N. supervision as proposed by the African Union.

British Government dismissed the offer saying. “We need actions, not words from Qadhafi’s regime.”
http://www.thehindu.com/news/international/article1712559.ece

Libya says it is prepared for free elections, leader’s role negotiable
By Simon Denyer, Wednesday, April 20, 6:55 AM

TRIPOLI, Libya — The Libyan government says it is prepared to hold free elections under international supervision after a transitional period of around six months, with the role of Moammar Gaddafi open for discussion.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/libyan-government-prepared-for-free-elections-leaders-role-negotiable/2011/04/20/AFnZVhAE_story.html

Libya foreign min suggests elections if bombs stop
Wed Apr 20, 2011
LONDON (Reuters) - Libya's government could hold elections, including on the future of leader Muammar Gaddafi, if Western air strikes stopped, the BBC quoted Foreign Minister Abdul Ati al Obeidi as saying.

"If the bombing stopped, al Obeidi said, after six months there could be an election supervised by the U.N.," BBC radio reported on Wednesday.

"The foreign minister said the election could cover any issue raised by all Libyans, anything could go on the table, including, he implied, the future of Gaddafi as leader."
http://af.reuters.com/article/topNews/idAFJOE73J09B20110420

Read more: http://www.thehindu.com/news/international/article1712559.ece

---

The only reaction so far: The British Government dismissed the offer.

Al-Obeidi's response:

"The US, Britain and France – sometimes those countries contradict themselves. They talk about democracy but when it comes to Libya, they say he should leave. It should be up to the Libyan people. This should not be dictated from any other head of state. It is against the principle of democracy."
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/libya-elections-2011-4#ixzz1K5bR0GbC

[xchrom]

1. fingers crossed and gaddafi goes.

good, bad or indifferent -- the forces there now have to figure it out for them selves.

[David__77]

2. I doubt that the West would be OK with pro-Gaddafi candidates running.

At least some of the them would certainly be elected. It would be a mistake to underestimate the level of support among some Libyans for Gaddafi.

[Iterate]

5. I'm interested as to what % of support you think that might be.

I've looked for some time and have not found anything definitive.

[Fool Count]

11. That's very easy to find out - just hold the damn elections

and let the people of Libya have their say. That should be the goal of UN and NATO,
not unconditional surrender and departure of Qaddafi. If he is so universally hated,
as the Western propaganda claims they should get their wish anyway. NATO's inevitable
rejection of this proposal is all I need to know to pick a side in this conflict.

[Iterate]

15. Sorry, I don't think you have the slightest idea of what you're talking about.

This is a war against dissent, any dissent. Elections are all about dissent. It is a capitol offense in Libya to join or advocate for a political party.

By numerous accounts, there are tens of thousands who have been disappeared, and if you really want me to find it, I'll give you accounts by Libyans telling about how they dare not even ask about their missing loved ones for fear of joining them.

Here's what happened today, just after a local Tripoli cleric made a recommendation similar to what you might advocate:

LPC #Tripoli: #Gaddafi forces arrested approx. 50 ppl from #Tajoura after SheikhGheriany speech#Libya #Feb17
about 5 hours ago
http://audioboo.fm/boos/336745-lpc-tripoli-gaddafi-forces-arrested-approx-50-ppl-from-tajoura-after-sheikhgheriany-speech-libya-feb17

One small protest in Tripoli yesterday was the death-defying act of making little flags and scattering them around the city. Video available upon request.

Not even the street dogs get a reprieve. One tweet from today:
@Elleebi Libyano Tripoliano
#Tripoli: 30 dogs wrapped in Gaddafi's green flag released in Fashloom district. G forces chasing and shooting them 19 Apr. via web

Turn off your teevee; listen to the people of Libya.

[Fool Count]

16. Sorry, but you are just making excuses exactly not

to "listen to the people of Libya". Who are those "people of Libya" you suggest I must listen to? And how am I supposed to do that even if I find them
somewhere? The only way to "listen to the people of Libya", or of any other country for that matter, is a democratic election. There is simply no other
way to do that ever invented, not just no better way. They may have a thousand different opinions and only a few of them can be on TV - and in this
case only one actually is. Am I supposed to trust few hundred "little flags" scattered here and there or a few tweets from who knows who over a
legitimate national election?
What you say is a meaningless tautology - every war is a "war against dissent", people don't usually fight when they agree
on everything. And in no country in the world all people agree on everything - that's why they have elections - to decide what to do without having
a war. What would be so wrong with holding a democratic election in Libya? Except for interfering with this NATO's little regime change exercise?
Everyone who says that fighting a war is better than having an election is a war monger hiding his real agenda. Simple as that. And don't give me
the crap about how Qaddafi is going to fix that election. There is nothing easier that to hold a clean UN-supervised election in Libya. The whole
population of that country is just 6 million, with only about half of them being of the voting age and with 90% of those concentrated in relatively
small area along the coastline. The whole election, including vote counting, could be conducted entirely by forces of about 500 UN personnel. Make
it a 1000 and it becomes fast and easy. What excuse does UN and NATO have to reject this proposal? None, except for the fear of Qaddafi's victory.
Why not call him on his offer, if they believe their own propaganda? If they reject the election proposal, it will be clear to everybody what a bunch
of war mongering liars they are.

[Iterate]

19. I'm not sure if that's laughable or just plain tragic.

I gave you a few links and voices so that you could come to understand that any non-approved political exercise, even trivial ones, is currently, by their understanding (and I think they know him best), a dangerous and probably lethal exercise. Shall we hand out some leaflets?

Simply put, he kills his opposition. Do you want to run for office against his guy in the General People's Congress? Bad career move for you, bad for your family as well. I think I sense an expat in the making.

Speaking of offices, do you keep the same political office structure, or not? New constitution, or not? Better find a new place to meet though, because it was such a hated building that, along with the Tripoli police station and the justice ministry, it was burned early on, much like the NDP headquarters in Cairo.

The ICC is a few weeks away from its findings, one of which will likely be that the act of opening fire on unarmed and peaceful protesters was planned weeks, if not months, before the protests themselves were even contemplated. Shall we have a campaign rally?

All telephone lines, up until recently, ran through the state security apparatus in Tripoli. People dare not talk freely in that part of the nation. Shall we call our friends and urge them to vote for our guy?

It would be nice though to engage in all of that healthy debate, just like on DU, except that all, and I do mean all, of DU would be in prison. Well, almost all. But we could always watch it on tv, the one channel, Libyan State TV, with it's personally selected anchors. I'm sure they'd be fair.

The TNC has consistently said elections would be held, but not with the Gaddafi family still in power. Is that the part you object to?

[Fool Count]

22. Yeah, sure, make more excuses against peaceful

democratic process. Who needs peace, if we can have war? All the questions you ask can be addressed and solved by negotiations between
Qaddafi and his opponents. Explain to me again what would be so wrong if Qaddafi is deposed via a democratic UN-supervised election?
So he is a bad guy who did bad things. How does that make killing people better than holding an election? Who will be in power, when
TNC-promised elections are held? TNC, I presume? Would pro-Qaddafi candidates be allowed to run in those elections? Would Qaddafi himself?
Right on, that's exactly what I object to. For all I know, Qaddafi has support of majority of Libyans and will easily trounce any TNC opponent.
Why the hell should he step down? If Libyans want Qaddafi, let them have Qaddafi, I have no problem with that. But there is only one way to
find out. What does NATO have to lose by taking him up on his offer? So he may be lying or stalling or delaying, whatever. So you lose a couple
of weeks of bombing, it's not like it's gonna end any time soon anyway. Isn't saving thousands of people and billions of dollars worth at least
an attempt at a peaceful resolution? The proponents of war and "regime change" have no leg to stand on. There is simply no coherent good
faith argument against the peaceful solution. The only impression the opponents of a clean UN-supervised election leave is that they are
afraid of losing it to pro-Qaddafi forces, which only means that they don't believe their own claims of representing all people of Libya.

[Iterate]

25. An election would not be "wrong",

but it would simply be naive, unrealistic, and lethal as long as Gaddafi is in power. Besides, he'll have war crimes charges against him by the time any election could be held, but not that it would matter. Get him out and elections can happen quickly. Leave him in and it's just not going to happen except in the east. He doesn't work that way, and no one trusts him, Libyans don't trust him, regardless of what he says, and that's probably the only part of the election question that matters. If nothing else, history has proven him a master manipulator in a power struggle.

I'm pretty sure I know your argument well enough by now to expect the "UN-supervision" part is screaming at you and has your brain on fire. I don't think your "numbers needed" are even within an order of magnitude. And I don't expect it's reasonable for each of them to be so well versed in Libyan culture that they could fend off and protect people from the insidious human rights violations at every turn. Libyans have to be able to do that for themselves; it's a core part of democracy itself.

What few observers I've seen who would hazard a guess (and that's about all they can do is posit an educated guess) put the anti-Gaddafi support at around 80%-90%, the 90% being from a HRW researcher. The lowest I've seen was 75%, and that was from a Libyan sociology grad student who put some time into his estimate. Not good. That's why I asked the original question, because I'm always looking for a good estimate. You could go door-to-door and ask, but I don't think that would be a good idea right now.

The reason you don't have a good idea of the amount and depth of support for the pro-democracy, anti-Gaddafi side is that free and fair elections without vote rigging and intimidation have not occurred since he took power. What we can say for certain is that large, mass demonstrations took place against him in every city and town at the same time except for Sirte and Sabha, and every time the tanks leave they flair up again, in spite of the danger.

You might ask yourself as to why the pro-Gaddafi demonstrations (unpaid please, no astroturfing) don't flair up in the same fashion. It's not like the pro-democracy folks have really been all that intimidating, and you've got a big bad tank watching your back.

Just put yourself in the pro-democracy shoes for a moment. What would it take for you to leave school, or your job at the cement plant, or your profession as an engineer, and drive out into the desert with a gun you don't know how to use looking for trouble and "freedom" (their word, not mine)? Just how bad would it have to be for you to do that? Answer it honestly, and that's how bad it is for them.

Finally, really finally, last word. A short silent Libyan video with English translations of the first protest placards and graffiti, early on, from the first day of protest in the small town of Zintan. Zintan is getting the shit kicked out of it tonight: tanks, artillery shelling, poisoned wells, the works.

Mind you, this was right before the shooting began. They didn't know the consequences when they made their signs. I don't see anything to object to. I don't see anything that wouldn't show up at a DU rally. I certainly don't see anything so bad that it's worth the life of the town:

NO JUSTICE …… NO PEACE - 23 Feb 2011
http://www.youtube.com/user/zintan2011#p/u/146/Y7csw57ooN8

[Fool Count]

31. 90%, 75%, whatever, any number is nothing but

an instance of wishful thinking sucked out of a finger by some Qaddafi opponent. It may be correct, it may be incorrect, it does not matter, there is no
way of knowing without holding a real election anyway. So why waste time and breath even mentioning those "numbers", except to propagate the
same Qaddafi-evil-dictator-who-kills-his-own-people-who-all-hate-him meme on which this whole charade is based? Of course, they all fight for
"freedom", show me anyone whose ideal is slavery. I am sure Qaddafi supporters also fight for "freedom" - from foreign occupation, from islamic fundamentalism,
from transnational business interests. Do you think they are risking their lives so that Saif Qaddafi can buy even more Brioni suits? By the way, why don't we see a single
Qaddafi supporter interviewed on television? Are those so hard to find in Tripoli? Do they hide them from foreign journalists? They are just not interested in hearing
their side, that's why. How am I supposed to know that no pro-Qaddafi demonstrations flair up in the same fashion? Are they going to show them to me even if
they did take place? Of course not, that would throw their whole war-mongering narrative off. I've seen it all before, first the lies, then the bombings, then the
regime change, then more lies - in Kosovo, in Iraq, in Afghanistan, now in Libya. After all that, I am supposed to believe anything they say? Do they think we all are
stupid? As to putting myself in the pro-democracy shoes for a moment, I don't know, it looks like a pretty good gig to me right now, frankly. The whole world is
on my side, Qaddafi's being bombed and with coming ground invasion his days are surely numbered, you drive your pick-up truck for a few miles, let go off a few
rounds into the air, have a picnic, claim your Qaddafi-fighting cred and go back to Benghazi. Doesn't look too dangerous really. For Qaddafi supporters it's another
story entirely - one must really believe in his cause to fight against the entire world. You can quotation-mark UN-supervision all you want, but that can be done and was
done many times before, what's so unrealistic about it? You don't like my numbers, fine, use as many as it takes. You can always resume bombing, if you don't like
how Qaddafi conducted himself, so at the worst you get a couple months of peace, would it be so terrible? I know what you and all others who reject this proposal
are afraid of - that Qaddafi will win those free and fair elections handily and that will shoot your whole pre-packaged worldview right out of the water. And being right
is more important for your kind than anything.

[Fool Count]

10. Yeah, god forbid, the Libyans might elect someone they

really support. What the hell those savages know about their own good?

[joshcryer]

28. Mubarak offered to hold elections, much of DU was against that.

It is quite telling how people have changed their tune on this.

[classysassy]

3. When will the West

stop meddling in Africa's affairs and tend to their own backyard?We have millions of homeless and hungry citizens but we continue to aide and abet the foreign investors in Africa and the Arab world.We wonder why we are hated all over the world,America open your collective eyes,the rest of the world see us as bullies protecting our friends while harming them.

[AllTooEasy]

7. So we should ignor what Qaddafi is doing to people in his country?

[Fool Count]

12. There is the whole range of options between "ignore" and

"bomb and occupy a country". Just pointing out the obvious.

[AllTooEasy]

21. Trusting Qaddifi is not a logical option. Just pointing out the obvious

[Fool Count]

24. What does "trusting Qaddafi" has to do with anything?

Doesn't NATO have all the means it needs to verify everything and punish any non-compliance? Is it not in everybody's interest to save
human lives and treasure if possible? Why would UN-supervised election need to rely on "trusting Qaddafi". Even if it did, how is it
"obvious" that trusting Qaddafi is "not a logical option"? I would certainly trust Qaddafi over lying NATO governments any day, simply
based on their historical record of deception and dishonesty. His current proposal is certainly more reasonable and practical than
anything Sarkozy/Cameron/Obama have in mind. By the way, what is their plan exactly? Other than the "Qaddafi must leave" mantra,
which is not really a plan.

[joshcryer]

29. Who is occupying?

[pampango]

9. Of course this intervention is sanctioned by the UN.

If you're believe the world should not "meddle in Africa's affairs", you're entitled to your opinion. The UN should not have adopted R2P if there was not actual intent to intervene to protect civilians. Of course, the UN has implemented R2P in 12 countries now - some in Africa, some elsewhere.

[DetlefK]

4. Old Gaddafi-tactic: lying, negotiating, gambling.

It was approx. 5 years ago, when he declared that foreign nurses and doctors working in Lybia had infested children with AIDS. He took them hostage and demanded a ransom / a penalty for their crimes. He got paid. They got free.

Or take take the beginning of the NATO-intervention:
His son declares that the rebels will be crushed before the UN reaches a resolution.
The bombing starts.
With the rebels still on the run, Gaddafi calls for cease-fire, while keeping shooting at the same time.

Or take the peace-proposal of the African Union:
Gaddafi's buddies at the AU, to which he is a major financial contributor, offer a peace proposal, that would leave Gaddafi in power.
Gaddafi agrees to peace.
Of course, the rebels object.
Gaddafi can pretend, that the other side are warmongers.

Or reports by BBC that Gaddafi's army has press-ganged teenagers into frontline duty? "It's just a military field exercise, I swear."





Take the humanitarian convoy scheduled for Misrata. Do you really think, Gaddafi's soldiers wouldn't take those aid-workers hostage, if they could?

[EFerrari]

6. All governments lie, negotiate and gamble. n/t

[AllTooEasy]

8. and it's another delay tactic.

[Fool Count]

13. Yeah, sure, nothing justifies attempting a peaceful and reasonable

resolution when we can bomb and kill the hell out of them for ten years to come.
And we must forgo all that fun for some election proposal from a crazy guy?
Who does he think he is, Gandi?

[AllTooEasy]

20. Qaddafi is doing %99 of the bombing of innocent people.

When NATO(proven to be useless without the US) kills innocents/rebels, it's an accident. Qaddafi is killing innocents intentially. This proposal is a 6 month delay tactic. By then, he figures that he would have routed any opposition that could vote him out.

[Fool Count]

23. Even in the most obviously biased and one-sided

coverage by the Western media I did not see a single shred of evidence or even a claim that "Qaddafi is killing innocents intentionally". Where do you get it from?
Ultimately, does it matter who is killing who to know that not killing is still better? What "6 month delay tactic"? Doesn't NATO have various means, like rockets
and warplanes, to make sure the agreed conditions are adhered to by all sides? So what if Qaddafi's ultimate departure from power is delayed by 6 months or
even a year? What the hell is the rush here? It's not like he is going away any time soon even under NATO bombardment anyway. I don't buy all those excuses
for war, they are just self-serving and insincere drivel.

[joshcryer]

30. You don't put snipers on rooftops and use cluster munitions thinking they're only going to kill...

...bad guys. OK, maybe the US might think that somehow magically a sniper a few hundred yards away can distinguish a civilian from a rebel and maybe the US thinks its "smart" cluster munitions can somehow magically kill only bad guys (yes they actually did argue that 'smart sublets munitions' can be made).

I don't buy it and neither should you.

[Fool Count]

32. Well, I don't know, NATO seems to think that it should be

possible to only kill bad guys. Should I not buy that either? Am I supposed to blame Qaddafi for "intentionally targeting civilians" because he cannot afford to use
laser-guided munitions? Or because his snipers are inadequately trained? No, "intentionally target civilians" means intentionally target civilians. Do words suddenly
lose their meaning when applied to our villain-of-the-day?

[Baclava]

14. You can't run a war by committee - - - so bomb the piss out of Tripoli then send in the Marines.

It's the only way to be sure, eh.

You know that's what will happen 6 months from now anyway, right? Just get it over with.

Then start ending the other wars. Quit fucking around already, we can't afford this shit. Have you seen the gold prices lately?

This country is about to tank from all these bullshit fucking war-zones. Get out NOW! Cut the military payroll in half, close 50 bases in Europe and around the world and save us a whole bunch of money - the fat times for the generals should be over with already.


Or...

With all the extra bling we can then afford to invade Saudi, take over all their oil wells and dare anyone to stop us.

Make me President and I'll guarantee the nation $1.00 gasoline prices at the pump for the next decade.


Write me in.

[Fool Count]

17. Too late, Donald Trump already patented this program.

[Baclava]

18. Ferengi Rules of Acquisition .....#76

"Every once in a while, declare peace. It confuses the hell out of your enemies"


Nobody listens

[daleo]

26. Rule #77 - "Don't take yes for an answer"

That's an old Bush ploy - I guess they had some Ferengi in them.

[Turborama]

27. If anyone believes this won't occur during the 6 months prior to the election that "could" happen...

... I can give you a discount of 25% on my farm in Zimbabwe that's up for sale.

There will certainly be widespread torture and mass executions to "purify Libya" of any dissenters.

If anyone really thinks Gaddafi and his sons can be trusted to seek a "peaceful resolution" which doesn't ultimately include putting the constant fear of imminent torture and/or death back into the population's hearts to eliminate any thoughts of politically campaigning against them (or trying a revolution again), a scanned - but watermarked - copy of the deeds are available on request.

(Screenshots from clips of his speech which are in http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x571643">this documentary)