• by Analysis by Thandi Winston (cape town)
• Wednesday, March 23, 2011
• Inter Press Service

On Saturday, the U.S., France and the UK launched attacks on Libya’s air defences and other targets following U.N. Resolution 1973. The three African members of the Security Council voted for the resolution, but a chorus of criticism has greeted the airstrikes.

Before the Mar. 17 resolution establishing a no-fly zone over Libya was passed, the African Union was conspicuous by its silence on the uprising against Muammar Gaddafi which began a month ago. Gaddafi's forces are accused of indiscriminate attacks on civilians that have claimed hundreds of lives.

But in a statement released Mar. 20, the day after international military action began, the ad-hoc High Level AU Panel on Libya said it opposed any foreign military intervention in Libya.

'Our desire is that Libya’s unity and territorial integrity be respected as well as the rejection of any kind of foreign military intervention,' the panel said following a meeting in the Mauritanian capital, Nouakchott.

The panel was formed at the last meeting of the AU's Peace and Security Council in Addis Ababa, and includes Mauritania, South Africa, Mali and Congo and Uganda. 'The situation in North Africa demands urgent action so that an African solution can be found,' said Mauritanian president Ould Abdel Azia.

Dubbed Operation Odyssey, the military assault has also drawn criticism from Russia and Turkey and even from the initially supportive Arab League as going beyond the scope of the U.N. resolution to implement a no-fly zone.

Dr Paul-Simon Handy, Director of Research at the Pretoria-based Institute for Security Studies says the AU criticism 'reflects confusion and shows how they are dragging their feet'. 'Sometimes the expectation of the AU is too high,' he says. 'The body relies on regional bodies to inform its action.'

Handy says where there is no strong voice from a relevant regional body, it is difficult for the AU to take a firm position. 'In the case of Côte d’Ivoire, the body relied on the Economic Community of West African States for decisive action and leadership. We are not hearing that from North Africa.'

Kenyan political analyst and blogger Onyango Oloo is less generous. 'The AU is only as good as its membership and for us to expect a progressive response from it is... ambitious,' he told IPS over the phone from Nairobi.

'I am not surprised by the AU but disappointed.' Oloo says the air strikes are killing and maiming innocent civilians and Africa should be unequivocal in its condemnation of it. 'This is an oil-driven invasion.' He insists there are alternatives to air strikes.

Writing for the online newspaper Modern Ghana, Dr Michael J. Bokor, was also frankly critical of the U.N.-endorsed action. 'The AU opposed any military operation by foreign forces in Libya. Unfortunately, however, the AU's voice was not heard. Libya is now a sad case of a still-born diplomacy,' he wrote.

© Inter Press Service (2011) — All Rights Reserved. Original source: Inter Press Service

Where next?

Advertisement