Rebels will not pursue Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi over crimes they say he has committed if he steps down from his post in the next 72 hours, the head of the rebel National Libyan Council has told Al Jazeera.
"If he leaves Libya immediately, during 72 hours, and stops the bombardment, we as Libyans will step back from pursuing him for crimes," Mustafa Abdel Jalil, head of the opposition National Council, told Al Jazeera on Tuesday.
He said the deadline would not be extended beyond 72 hours.
"Based on our love for our country we have proposed to the [Gaddafi's] indirect negotiators that a solution can be reached," Jalil told Al Jazeera.
"Conditions are that firstly he stops all combat in the fields, secondly that his departure is within 72 hours; thirdly we may waive our right of domestic prosecution ... for the crimes of oppression, persecution, starvation and massacres.
"We will have to wait and see what the regime's response is."
Libyan state television on Tuesday denied reports that the Libyan leader tried to strike a deal with opposition forces seeking his removal. An official from the Libyan foreign ministry described the reports as "absolute nonsense".
However, a spokesman for the opposition National Council in the eastern rebel stronghold of Benghazi confirmed that a representative had sought to negotiate Gaddafi's exit.
Gaddafi was reported to have sent a representative to Benghazi on Sunday night to discuss a conditional plan to step down, Al Jazeera learned. The offer was provided on the condition that Gaddafi would be able to keep his assets and avoid prosecution.
| LIVE BLOG |
 |
The Libyan leader is said to be willing to step down in return for dropping war crimes charges against him and guaranteeing a safe exit for him and his family. He also reportedly wants guarantees from the UN that he will be allowed to keep his money.
However, Hoda Abdel-Hamid, Al Jazeera's correspondent in Benghazi, said she was hearing conflicting accounts of what happened.
"The head of the national opposition council says there were indirect talks with people from Tripoli, who were given the green light from the regime," she said.
"But the spokesman for the opposition council denies any of that. He says no one can bargain for the blood spilt during the 42 years of Gaddafi's leadership or the money that is owed to the Libyan people.
"There is a very chaotic picture coming out here and it could backfire in the face of the opposition council."
She also said there was no optimism there following news of the ultimatum from the rebels.
"There is no more euphoria of a revolution," she said.
"People are worried it will move towards civil war which will continue for months on end. There is a realisation that there is no institution in this country - that you have to avoid chaos.
"It's a matter of waiting and seeing. Military commanders are continuing on their mission to get military structure to the group of volunteers [fighters] who are very disorganised."
Intense fighting
Security forces loyal to Gaddafi have strengthened their military position in the last few days, squeezing rebel-held towns in the west and checking the advance of rebel militias westwards towards the capital, Tripoli.
On Tuesday Gaddafi forces used tanks and aircraft to attack the town of Az Zawiyah, 50 km west of Tripoli, but rebels
say they still control the town centre.
Al Jazeera heard reports that Gaddafi snipers were on rooftops shooting randomly from the main square and that they are storming houses in some neighbourhoods and killing residents.
 |
| Read more of our Libya coverage |
Families residing there began heading eastward in an apparent attempt to flee the fighting in that strategic port town, our correspondent there said. Several people were reported to have been killed in battles a day earlier, including a family trying to flee the fighting.
Gaddafi supporters are moving eastward in an effort to push the rebels back and recapture fallen towns, with reports emerging on Monday that they took control of the central Libyan town of Bin Jawad.
There was also fierce fighting in the eastern city of Misurata, located between Tripoli and Gaddafi's hometown Sirte, with reports of at least 18 people killed on Monday.
No-fly zone
The rebel forces say they will be outgunned if the government continues to unleash its air attacks on them and are pleading for the international community to impose a no-fly zone to prevent this.
"We don't want a foreign military intervention, but we do want a no-fly zone," rebel fighter Ali Suleiman told AP news agency.
"We are all waiting for one,'' he said. The rebels can take on "the rockets and the tanks, but not Gaddafi's air force''.
William Hague, the UK foreign minister, said on Tuesday that a no-fly zone over Libya was a practical possibility but it would need a clear legal basis.
"It is a realistic possibility and it is a practical possibility," Hague said. "It has to have a clear legal base, it has to have the necessary international support, broad support in the region itself."
The six US-allied Gulf Arab nations on Monday said they back a UN-enforced no-fly zone over Libya to protect civilians. The Gulf states also condemned the killings by pro-government forces in Libya as "massacres".
And Arab foreign ministers are to hold crisis talks on Friday to discuss imposing the no-fly zone, Arab League
officials said.
The US president said on Monday that the US and its NATO allies were still considering a military response to the violence.
Barack Obama said the US will stand with the Libyan people as they face "unacceptable'' violence. He also sent a strong message to Gaddafi, saying he and his supporters will be held responsible for the violence there.
Hundreds if not thousands of people have died since Libya's uprising began on February 14 in an effort to end Gaddafi's more than 41-year rule, although tight restrictions on media make it near impossible to get an accurate number.
The number of people who have fled the violence in Libya since last month has passed 215,000 according to the International Organisation for Migration, most of them are foreign workers. The exodus is creating a humanitarian crisis across the border with Tunisia.
The UN refugee agency warned on Tuesday that there was a critical shortage of long haul flights to evacuate foreign migrants who have fled Libya to their home countries in Asia and Africa.
We face two questions. First, does the United States have a compelling interest in the removal of Gaddafi? Second, if we do, what are the most appropriate means? I believe that the answer as to interests is "yes." The public statements of President Obama, repeated daily by Secretary Clinton, that Gaddafi "must go," have staked America's credibility on the opposition's success -- a credibility made fragile by our letting expedient considerations trump our supposed commitment to democracy in the past. Great powers don't have the privilege of declaring a situation intolerable and then doing nothing to rectify it when they in fact have the power to do so. In addition, as others have pointed out, if our failure to act were to lead to a resurgent Gaddafi exacting a heavy toll in blood, it would send a chilling message to peoples across the region who are putting themselves at risk for the sake of dignity and a measure of freedom. Already, the Bahrain opposition has expressed its bitterness about Washington's siding with the Khalifa monarchy for the sake of its security ties with the Gulf states. Our current position in Bahrain is a close facsimile to that of the British from 1926 until their departure in the 1960s. They feared an Iranian challenge to their dominant political position, moved in to suppress a Shi'ite uprising, and did so due to strategic and economic interests in the Gulf region that it deemed of critical importance. The British installed Lord Belgrave as pro consul who ran the place for 30 years. A similar option does not appear to be open to us.
As to the legitimacy of an intervention, it would have to be approved by the United Nations Security Council under Chapter VII of the Charter. That means dealing with Russia and China, who have no enthusiasm for these ventures. A regional collective security body like the African Union may have some derivative authority to sanction an intervention. Unfortunately, its members right now are having a tough enough time holding onto downtown Mogadishu. Egypt is the exception in terms of military capabilities, but they are otherwise occupied.
As to the means, I defer to those better versed in these military matters. (Sanctions are but a symbolic gesture that could only harm the innocent.) One thought is worth noting. Any intervention that might entail the use of airpower runs into the extreme risk aversion that guides Pentagon thinking, as F.B. Ali points out. Focused attacks on critical military assets including ground troops might well be both necessary and could be decisive in themselves. But all recent experience tells us that the U.S. Air Force will not take to the air without prior suppression of all air defenses, communications centers and auxiliary facilities. Secretary Gates made that perfectly clear last week in pouring cold water on the more modest idea of an enforced "no fly zone" over Libya. Let's bear in mind that Mr. Obama is also an extremely risk-averse president. His cautious instincts are especially pronounced now that he is preoccupied with his re-election, which overshadows all policy decisions. Military action carrying possible consequences that he could not easily spin are seen as a mortal danger to his reelection hopes. So if he does agree to airstrikes in Libya, they are all the more likely to be of the massive kind that minimize chances of a losing a pilot or two. He should consider, though, the collateral physical and political damage that may ensue before committing himself to that course.
No comments:
Post a Comment