As the conflict in Libya headed towards stalemate this week, attempts have been continuing to find a negotiated settlement to the crisis, writes David Tresilian in Paris With the conflict in Libya heading towards stalemate this week as pro-Gaddafi forces continued to bear down on rebels in the east of the country, attempts have been continuing to find a negotiated settlement to the crisis that could involve Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi stepping down from power. Following last week's London conference that brought together representatives from some 40 countries to discuss the Libyan crisis, conference chair British Foreign Secretary William Hague said in a statement that there was a need for all Libyans, "including the Interim Transitional Council, tribal leaders and others, to come together to begin an inclusive political process, consistent with the relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions, through which they can choose their own future." This political process got underway this week, with members of the coalition brought together to enforce the no-fly zone over Libya and protect civilians caught up in the conflict becoming increasingly uneasy about the possibility of a long-term commitment to policing the Libyan crisis and intensifying efforts to find a negotiated solution. Responsibility for enforcing the no-fly zone over Libya, mandated by UN Security Council Resolution 1973, and for coordinating coalition airstrikes against pro- Gaddafi military installations and forces was officially transferred to NATO last Thursday after an announcement made shortly before the London conference. At the same time, the United States, which has carried out the vast majority of the coalition airstrikes against pro-Gaddafi forces, announced its intention of scaling back its military involvement in policing the Libyan crisis, US President Barack Obama emphasising in a speech on 28 March that the US did not intend to play more than "a supporting role" in future NATO-led military actions in Libya. With criticisms from US congressmen in mind, many of whom have questioned the Obama administration's apparent readiness to become involved in another foreign conflict, Obama reminded his listeners that "I said that America's role would be limited; that we would not put ground troops into Libya; that we would focus our unique capabilities on the front end of the operation and that we would transfer responsibility to our allies and partners." However, despite the desire of the US and its NATO-led coalition partners to avoid getting sucked into a long-haul conflict in Libya, with the legal and other difficulties that this could entail, attempts to end the crisis through negotiation have thus far yielded ambiguous results. While the defection of Libyan foreign minister Moussa Koussa last week was greeted as a sign that key personnel were abandoning the regime and thereby weakening Gaddafi's rule, Koussa arriving in London from Tunisia, his flight was later dismissed by a Libyan government spokesman in Tripoli who claimed that Koussa had merely been granted "sick leave." Reports on Sunday that Libyan deputy foreign minister Abdel-Ati Al-Obeidi had also left Tripoli, this time on a flight to Athens apparently bearing a message offering to negotiate from the Libyan government, were also scrutinised earlier this week for signs that the Gaddafi regime might be looking for a way out of the conflict. Greek Foreign Minister Dimitris Droustas said on Sunday that Al-Obeidi had put forward proposals for ending the crisis, possibly including Gaddafi's stepping down from power and transferring responsibility for political transition in Libya to one of his sons. The proposals appeared to echo those contained in reports coming out of Libya at the end of last week that suggested that Gaddafi himself had offered to transfer power to one of his sons, variously cited as either Seif Al-Islam, Saadi, or Mutassim, during a transitional period that would see "drastic political changes" and function as a way out of the crisis. Another sign that the Libyan regime may be willing to negotiate a political way out of the crisis came in the form of a New York Times article on Sunday that claimed that "at least two sons of Colonel Muammar el-Qaddafi are proposing a resolution to the Libyan conflict that would entail pushing their father aside to make way for a transition to a constitutional democracy under the direction of his son Seif al-Islam el-Qaddafi." The article, which did not give the names of the Libyan sources or interview either Gaddafi or his sons, claimed that "one person close to the sons" had said that Gaddafi himself was "willing to go along" with the plan. However, aside from media reports of this sort there have been few unambiguous signs that the Gaddafi regime is indeed crumbling from within. With rebel forces on the defensive against better-trained and equipped Gaddafi forces in both the east and the west of the country and able to continue operations only with the help of coalition air power, it seems that the Libyan conflict may have reached a stalemate. As a result, the NATO-led coalition forces now find themselves with a set of unappealing choices, any one of which could help to break the stalemate but are far from guaranteed to do so. While the coalition forces could intervene further to assist the rebels, thereby helping to bring down the Gaddafi regime by military means, this could be difficult to justify under UN Security Council Resolution 1973. This authorises "all necessary measures to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, including Benghazi, while excluding a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of the Libyan territory." It does not appear to authorise direct intervention on behalf of the rebels or against the Gaddafi regime. Following last week's London conference US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton nevertheless suggested that the US could start arming the rebels in order to tip the balance in their favour, something that she claimed could be legal even under the terms of the existing UN Resolutions. It later emerged that US CIA agents and British special forces were already working on the ground in Libya to aid the coalition airstrikes and assist the rebels, Obama reportedly having authorised the secret operations some weeks ago. According to a report in the New York Times last Wednesday, "while president Obama has insisted that no American military ground troops participate in the Libyan campaign, small groups of CIA operatives have been working in Libya for several weeks as part of a shadow force of westerners that the Obama administration hopes can help bleed Colonel Qaddafi's military." A second strategy aiming to break the stalemate could be to encourage further defections from the Gaddafi regime, either by suggesting that those who defect will thereby avoid the possibility of eventual prosecution or by threatening regime die-hards with prosecution on charges of crimes against humanity or for other crimes. Under the terms of UN Security Resolution 1970, adopted on 26 February 2011, an arms embargo was imposed on Libya together with an international asset freeze, and the situation in the country was referred to the International Criminal Court (ICC) for investigation, opening up the possibility of prosecution of key figures in the regime. Following Koussa's defection last week, both Britain and France seemed to be following this second strategy, Hague telling the British parliament on Tuesday that Libyan officials breaking with the regime would be "treated with respect" should they wish to defect to Britain, though this could not interfere with any eventual ICC proceedings against them. For his part, French President Nicolas Sarkozy commented enigmatically last week that "if Gaddafi's sons abandon their father, there is no reason why this could not be considered to be a gesture of good faith on their part." A final possibility would be to assist the rebels in ways short of giving military or other help that could be difficult to justify under the terms of the existing UN Resolutions. Reports last week indicated that plans to sell oil on behalf of the rebels had been agreed with Qatar, the money raised being used to buy arms and other supplies and acting as a significant source of revenue for rebel militias fighting better-equipped pro-Gaddafi forces. While most Arab states have chosen to keep out of the on-going conflict in Libya, with neither Egypt nor Saudi Arabia showing up at last week's London conference, Qatar has adopted a contrasting position, its prime minister, Hamad bin Jassem, being the most senior Arab figure at the London conference and Qatar the only Arab state to have recognised the Libyan Interim Transitional Council. Nevertheless, while the Qatari actions will be welcome to the cash-starved rebels, who now control significant oil-producing areas of the country, money and weapons alone may not be enough to tip the balance in their favour. Despite the early formation of a rebel-controlled Interim Transitional Council in the eastern city of Benghazi, the Libyan rebels have not yet been able to form a national organisation able to lead opposition to the Gaddafi regime. While money raised from the sale of oil will come as a boost to the morale of rebel forces, especially if this can be used to circumvent UN Resolution 1970 and purchase arms, US defense secretary Robert Gates made clear in comments reported last week that what the rebels really need is neither arms nor money but training and this would require "advisors on the ground." American CIA and British special forces already operating in Libya could give such training, though their position is ambiguous under the terms of existing UN Resolutions. However, the rebel forces may not be able to count on further US assistance. According to reports this weekend, the US intends to "significantly ramp down" its activities in Libya, including withdrawing much of its airpower. Over the first two weeks of coalition military action in Libya the US spent some $550 million. According to US defense department figures, over the next three weeks it intends to reduce this to $40 million, with neither Britain nor France necessarily able to make up the difference.
