The Future of Libyan Foreign Relations

Cross-posted from my work blog, which I'll post the link to some other time - we're just getting up and running right now, sort of a work in progress.

**************************************

On May 12, the day that David Cameron invited Libya’s rebel leaders to set up a formal office in London, National Transitional Council Chairman Mustafa Abdul Jalil made a number of statements at a press conference at the FCO which, reading between the lines, could suggest that some of Libya’s trade agreements with Russia may be at risk in the future if the NTC’s forces manage to take power.

Russia has long seen Gaddafi as a key ally in the Arab world. In 2008, then-President Vladimir Putin visited Tripoli and announced that $4.5bn in Libyan debt would be cancelled in exchange for major contracts for Russian energy and construction firms, including an exploration and extraction deal for the state-owned Gazprom and the construction of a $13bn pipeline through Algeria and Niger. The debt deal also included a multi-billion dollar contract for Russian Railways, and, in January last year, Putin announced a $1.8bn arms deal, which reportedly included a fighter aircraft and tanks.

Though Russia abstained from the March 17 UN Security Council vote authorising the enforcement of the no-fly zone in Libya, Prime Minister Putin was later quoted comparing the resolution to a ‘medieval call to crusade’. Moscow has since criticised NATO forces for overstepping their mandate and called for negotiations between the rebels and Muammar Gaddafi, in contrast to the view espoused by most western politicians that there is no room for Gaddafi in the future Libyan state.

When asked about Russia, Jalil commented that Russia has made it clear that it supports Gaddafi, and that while the NTC respects Moscow’s decision and would continue to honour legal agreements between Russia and Libya ‘when’ they are victorious, Russia’s continued support for Gaddafi and failure to establish any relationship with the NTC could have an impact on relations in the future.

The real keyword here, though, is ‘legal’. Earlier in the press conference, Jalil made sure to distinguish between ‘legal’ agreements and treaties, which he said Libya would honour with all states, and those that were clearly made as a result of ‘obvious financial corruption’. With Russia and Libya ranked 2.1 and 2.2 respectively on last year’s Transparency International Corruption Perceptions Index (on a scale of 0 to 10, 0 being the worst and anything under 3 being considered highly corrupt), it’s not a massive stretch to imagine that, in the event of an NTC victory in Libya, some of those oil investments and lucrative arms deals with Russia may be more thoroughly examined and found wanting.

Meanwhile, Jalil refused to be drawn on either the possible partition of Libya or the NTC’s views on relations with Israel. In fact, he initially refused to answer questions on either from BBC Arabic’s correspondent, calling them ‘provocative’. Eventually, he relented to say that Libya was indivisible, that the state the NTC sees itself representing is and always will be unified.

As for Israel, Jalil said simply that it would be ‘another matter to consider when victory is achieved.’ I’m not sure what, if anything, can be drawn from this latter response. To be honest, the NTC has enough to deal with right now without embroiling itself in a debate on Israel and angering either its Western or Arab allies in the process. Though Kuwait, Qatar and the UAE are the only Arab governments to have officially recognised the NTC, the revolution is highly popular on the Arab street and the NTC has been somewhat recognised by the Arab League. This position isn’t worth risking over a hypothetical discussion on Israel, and nor can UK and US support be jeopardised by coming out against Israel.

It’s worth considering that, while it’s unlikely that the NTC’s position on Israel will be a central issue any time soon – at the very least not until they are actually in control of the country – its policy may be shaped by other factors liable to come to the fore in the meantime. Before any new Libyan government comes to power or has a chance to formulate foreign policy, it will have time to observe the decisions (and subsequent consequences) of its Egyptian counterparts in the Supreme Military Council. Egypt’s relationship with Israel is, of course, more complicated, but the NATO involvement in Libya may mean that the West has more influence over the NTC than it does the SMC, or at least that the NTC might care what the West thinks a bit more. With the recent reconciliation between Fatah and Hamas in the Palestinian Territories and the Quartet’s September 2 deadline for a two-state solution looming, it’s also possible that, by the time the NTC has a chance to worry about its Israel policy, the situation on the ground will have changed.

On a final note – after all of the debate over the purpose of UK foreign policy and the motives behind taking action in Libya and not in other states where it may be equally warranted (Syria, Bahrain), it struck a slightly odd chord to see Jalil at pains to thank the UK government for taking a ‘moral stand’ based on humanity and not self-interest or future considerations. I attended a discussion on Libya at the Frontline Club back in March, in the early days of the Libyan revolution but before the UN Security Council had approved military intervention, where former UK Ambassador to Libya Richard Dalton advocated for a British foreign policy that is first and foremost self-interested; British policy toward Libya should be (and, Dalton argued, is) based primarily on what is in the long-term best interests of the UK.

The idea that none of the countries involved in Libya went in without considering the potential consequences for political relations, trade and migration is naive and, if true, would indicate a dearth of intelligence in the respective foreign offices. Not even the FCO would argue that British foreign policy is based solely on morality or humanity. In a July 2010 speech, the first of four setting out the UK’s new approach to foreign policy, Foreign Secretary William Hague spoke of policies that extend British ‘global reach and influence’ and use ‘diplomacy to secure our prosperity’. He also focused on the need to protect UK security in an increasingly globalised world. The fact that Jalil’s gratitude for Britain’s ‘moral stand’ followed directly after his discussion of illegal immigration into Libya and on into southern Europe suggests his statement is borne out of something more than naivety. So I can only guess at Jalil’s reasons for making a statement that is just so clearly untrue; was it just a soundbite that his UK hosts can use to defend intervention against critics who say they have no business interfering in Libya, to prove that NATO forces are wanted and respected by the Libyan rebels? Or perhaps an attempt at cosying up further to the UK government, which, despite authorising a UK office for the NTC has not yet officially recognised them as more than ‘legitimate interlocutors’?

RIP

The New York Times has put together some galleries of gorgeous photos taken by Tim Heatherington and Chris Hondros, who were both killed in Libya yesterday.

I think the danger that journalists face is something that is easily forgotten when we get wrapped up in domestic news and when international coverage is filtered through to us in terms of safe-looking stand ups on TV. Depending on the source, between 44 and 110 journalists were killed last year. The number being killed in war zones is falling, but the number of journalists being threatened, kidnapped and/or killed by repressive elements, be it governments or gangs, is on the rise. Check out annual reports from the Committee to Protect Journalists (44), Reporters Without Borders (57), the International Federation of Journalists (94) and the Press Emblem Campaign (110) for more information.

The Acceptable Face of Dictatorships

Back from the Frontline Club - really, really enjoyed tonight's discussion. The panel was fantastic - LSE Professor David Held, Al Jazeera reporter Marwan Bishara, former UK ambassador to Libya Richard Dalton and former Libyan jihadist/current Quilliam analyst Noman Benotman, chaired by BBC presenter Mishal Husein.

The discussion was focused on Libya but fairly wide-ranging and really fast-paced; a lot of time with Q&A type events, audience members can be a bit...long-winded with their questions, spending a lot of time setting them up by outlining their own opinion/experiences. Tonight, though, the questions were very quick, sharp and interesting - none of the soft touch stuff about the role of Twitter.

Anyone who follows me on Twitter has probably already been subjected to my live-tweeting of the event (sorry, work), so I won't re-cap it. But I was very interested in the stuff that came up about Muammar Gaddafi's son, Saif al Islam Gaddafi. I think Saif represents everything that is uncomfortable about Libya for western countries. He was a well-educated, charitable and relatively liberal man who seemed genuinely interested in reform in his country. He was, on the surface, a respectable person to do business with, to accept money from, to partner with. Except, then he wasn't.

This has been the narrative of our political class as well. After Libya dismantled its nuclear programme in 2003/2004, it became acceptable to do business with Muammar Gadaffi again, to pointedly ignore the lack of democracy and the human rights abuses in the country. Sure, Gaddafi was seen as a bit of a nut, but he was endured. Libya was even elected to the UN Human Rights Council just last April. Libya was alright, all things considered, until, of course, it wasn't.

The panel tonight had some polarised views on Saif. David Held opened by explaining his relationship with Said; they had worked quite closely together in the partnerships LSE had with Saif's charitable foundation, and Held said he was appalled by Saif's February 20 speech and shocked by how little it turned out he knew of him. But he also said that Saif had been genuine about the reforms he was trying to implement - that, essentially, it had come down to choosing between his father and everyone else, and he had chosen his father. Richard Dalton said much the same thing - from a British foreign policy perspective, Saif was ideal to deal with and used his foundation to support real issues aimed at genuine change.

Benotman took a less kind but still fairly moderate view, which was a bit surprising for someone who was once actively involved in trying to bring down the Gaddafi regime. He, too, felt that the reforms Saif had been interested in were genuine, but pointed out that they were still meant to be implemented in the context of the Gaddafi regime. Improving democracy or human rights would not, in Saif's view, have in any way involved removing his father from power or giving up control. Benotman said Saif had a choice between the new and the old way, and that he had chosen - historically - to side not just with his father but with the entire old power structure and way of viewing the country, something much more significant than simple family loyalty.

Bishara, though, had the most scathing words for Saif Gaddafi and they really made me think about the way the media portrayed him. He said Saif was a playboy - cosmopolitan, well-traveled, well-educated, yes, but all this and 'charitable' with money that was not his. "He charmed the west at the expense of the Libyan people," Bishara said. There is nothing good or moral about a playboy, and Saif proved in the end that he is his father's son - nothing but the son of a dictator and a thug. Telling here is the fact that I've never in mainstream media heard Saif described this way (well, those exact words I wouldn't expect in an objective article anyway); he's always been seen as the acceptable public face of the Gaddafi regime, as a somewhat liberal, reform type - the way Held and Dalton described him. There's always been talk of his foundation, his charity, and never questions about where that money comes from. After all, what has Saif al Islam Gaddafi ever done to earn the millions he uses to fund projects and aid flotillas, to study at top universities? It was maybe always assumed as obvious that the money came from his father, but never pointed out that Muammar Gaddafi was not from a wealthy family, that the only access to wealth came from his access to the wealth of the state. Like the political class, the western media has now turned on Saif, but at some point it should examine why it was so easy to go along with the acceptable face he presented without question.

On a lighter note, Bishara did compare the Gaddafi family to the Kardashians, saying that he had seen their TV show and saw similarities between the sponging, drunken, playboy brother and Saif - meaning for years the Arab world had been "Keeping up with the Gaddafians".

Strangeness of TV news

Off to the Frontline Club again tonight - hoping to hear some fascinating views on Libya from Noman Benotman, former Libyan jihadist leader, and Al Jazeera's Marwan Bishara.

A quick point on a very odd tactic used, badly, by the BBC and Sky News this afternoon. Prime Minister's Questions happened to coincide with Muammar Gaddafi's latest address in Tripoli. Even though Gaddafi's ranting is ridiculous and usually hard to listen to anyway because of the translation, both networks seemed reluctant to leave their live broadcast of it. Solution? Split screen. On the left, silent, was Gaddafi and his crowd. On the right, David Cameron and Ed Miliband battling it out on PMQs.

The effect was strange and generally terrible. Split screens usually imply that one has something to do with the other. We were watching Sky, and the screen didn't even try to explain why both were up there. The result was that it looked as if the crowds listening to Gaddafi were reacting to Dave's jibes - one man looked particularly uncomfortable when Cameron took a shot at Nottingham Council. When Gaddafi was on screen, you couldn't help but somehow look for comparisons with whoever was speaking on the right - not exactly the effect they were hoping for, I'm sure.

What were they thinking? And why did it continue for the duration of PMQs?

Media and Social Media

I'm slowly and reluctantly coming to terms with the existence of Twitter and the role it has to play in journalism.

Up until a few months ago, I didn't really have a Twitter account. I mean, I did, but I opened it because a particularly funny friend of mine was on Twitter and I wanted to read the things he posted, but his Tweets were protected so I had to get an account to read them. I posted maybe five things in over a year, until I realised everyone at work had it and they started hounding me to use mine. So I've embraced it. And in doing so, I've come to see that it can be a lot more than just another narcissistic forum for people who think everyone cares about what they think a lot more than anyone does.

Since everyone and their dog is now on Twitter, it can be a great resource for finding out about events and stories, for following what's going on as people live-tweet events, and as I hardly feel needs saying at this point, for finding out what's happening in places that are closed to traditional media. This became increasingly obvious as governments took measures against press freedom in Egypt, Bahrain and Libya in recent weeks. It's hard to find fault with using social media in these situations, for organising, for sources, for spreading word between journalists. I would caution, though, about completely overstating the importance of social media in these situations - several journalists who were on the ground in Egypt have since pointed out that when the internet was shut down around January 27, the presence on the street actually increased because people had no way of finding out what was going on and had to head to the streets to find out. But still, it's clear that in places like Libya, where press freedom was non-existent and the regime was doing everything it could to keep journalists out and deny violence against protesters, the fact that people had any way at all to get information to the rest of the world was absolutely crucial to understanding what was happening there.

So in these situations, I can absolutely see the merit of the kind of amalgamation of journalism and social media that we've seen in recent weeks. Where I do have a massive problem with it is in modern more domestic journalism, where getting opinions from Twitter and Facebook has become standard practice, and where posts themselves suddenly become news just because everyone can see them and decide to be outraged. Reporters regularly include 'reaction' from people who purport to care about an event in their stories - that is, they post a couple of choice tweets that come up when you search for the relevant trending topic or hashtag. Is this the same as getting an informed opinion from an expert, as we might have done in the past, or the same as actually attending an event, understanding the atmosphere, and getting an opinion from someone who was there when it happened and is reacting in that context? I don't think it necessarily is. There's no way of verifying sources on Twitter - it's somehow just assumed that anyone posting a comment on something is the same kind of person you might have otherwise sought out for comment in the pre-Twitter days. Likewise, it is now common practice when a person dies to report on what messages 'friends' have posted on their Facebook page. Is this the same as a journalist getting an emotional interview with the person's family or friends at a memorial service?

I also think there's a very real danger of becoming lazy because everything seems to be on hand, and of journalistic laziness being potentially dangerous. An example. When I was in j-school, I got a phone call from a classmate who was then doing some work for a national newspaper. He asked me if I knew a Jason Smith (not his real name), because Jason's last tagged photos on Facebook were in an album of mine. I didn't know him - he was the flatmate of an acquaintance, and had come along to a j-school event I'd organised and subsequently been tagged in the photos by his flatmate. Why? Well it turns out someone with Jason's name, who was or had been studying at our school, who was from Toronto, had just been charged with murdering a disabled woman in Toronto. Jason's Facebook profile fit the bill, and his profile picture was dark, with a baseball hat obscuring his face, so it was hard to tell if he fit the alleged murderer's description. I said I didn't know him, but was pretty sure he was living in Ottawa and not a murderer. When I got home, I had a Facebook message from another reporter, and could see from Jason's profile that some of his other friends had been contacted as well. Of course, it turned out to be a different person with the same name - but how many of Jason's friends were contacted to find out if he had killed someone, and what is the danger there? Were there more safeguards against this kind of mistaken identity when people charged with crimes were tracked down by the details available from police, courts, and public records (date of birth, address, listed phone numbers, etc)?

I guess what I'm really saying is that social media is a great tool for leads, a good source of information when nothing else is available and a dynamic way to see how stories move forward- but it cannot and should not replace real journalism. Research, context and verification have become more important, not less, as so much information is available to media consumers, and it seems to me that these are the first things to go when people start depending on social media for news, and, worse, when journalists start depending on it in lieu of doing the kind of work they have done in the past and should still be doing now.