The warrants of arrest issued against Col. Muammar Gaddafi, his son and his intelligence chief by the International Criminal Court raise two very important concerns. In the first place, how does the ICC follow through on its move since the Libyan leader is yet in charge in Tripoli and predictably will not give himself up? In the second, the ICC warrant creates a condition from which there is now a point of no return, either for Gaddafi or his pursuers. The stalemate which has lately seized Libya will now be prolonged, with a desperate regime ferociously trying to cling to power.
There is little question that Gaddafi and his associates are guilty of presiding over the widespread violence that has claimed the lives of thousands of Libyans in these past few months. Gaddafi, whose loyalists have been defecting in droves, ought to have followed the course taken by Tunisia's Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali and Egypt's Hosni Mubarak. He did not. That complicated the situation, which was then made worse by NATO's move to bomb Libya in support of anti-Gaddafi forces. In a sense, both Gaddafi's desperation and NATO's increasing involvement in Libya have created a civil war-like situation, if not exactly a civil war. Sorties by NATO jets have left unarmed civilians dead. At the same time, with the rebels in control of Benghazi and Gaddafi forces holding on to Tripoli, it is in effect a fractured Libya the world faces today. Nothing could be worse for a people whose simple demand is for a decent change in politics.
The question now is whether the ICC can carry out the job of actually arresting Gaddafi. Its previous warrant against Sudan's Omar el Bashir failed to nab Khartoum's dictator. Given the new situation vis-à-vis Libya, one wonders if the African Union, in the formation of which the Libyan leader played a prominent part, can now have a role in defusing the crisis by persuading Gaddafi to relinquish power. Obviously, Gaddafi's refusal to go will leave his country battered beyond imagination. The regional as also global repercussions of the situation can easily be surmised.
Local poll violence
Sporadic, yet why?
The country is approaching the final phase of local polls. People with hopes and aspirations are casting ballots in various unions of the country to choose their representatives. While we take pride in the election processes at the grassroots, we can't help feel sad about the violence that has marred these elections in certain pockets.
So far 19 people have been killed and scores injured at various places since the second phase of polling started on May 31. On an average, everyday fifty persons are wounded in poll related clashes. Violence mainly takes place after the polls are held or when the vote counting is on.
Usually local government polls are given to a degree of violence because of clash of interests between localized groups. But clearly the level of violence is already a matter of concern and must be addressed with due seriousness.
In most of the places, generally Awami League backed candidates who are defeated in the polls allegedly resort to violence. Curiously, one person has died following a clash between two losing AL backed candidates.
The perturbing part is, the nature and intensity of violence is getting bigger. From stray incidents these are fairly spread out now. The incidents are put down to lack of vigil and control of the local law enforcing agencies.
It is time, the Elections Commission, local administration and law enforcing agencies; devise effective methods to prevent violence occurring by timely intervention. The most important part however would have to be played by the political parties to discourage violence by the candidates they support.
We must try and guard against violence in the forthcoming phase of local polls which ends on July 5.
0 comments:
Post a Comment