Why the rebels rejected the AU ceasefire.

Benghazi, Libya—Earlier this week, a delegation from the African Union (AU), composed of 53 African states, shuttled between the Libyan capital of Tripoli and the rebel stronghold of Benghazi, seeking to end the fighting that has been peppered with airstrikes by the NATO against Muammar Qaddafi’s forces. Qaddafi accepted an AU-backed ceasefire plan, but the initiative to halt the seven-week-long violence in Libya faltered Monday, when leaders of the opposition rejected it.



Presidents from Congo, Mali, Mauritania, Uganda, and South Africa proposed a five-point plan that includes an immediate ceasefire, negotiation between the two sides, and an end to the NATO bombing campaign. Qaddafi embraced the initiative, though his forces continued to shell the western city of Misrata and clashed with rebels outside of Ajdabiya, roughly 100 miles from the rebel capital. (He has twice before agreed to ceasefires, but never followed through.) The rebel-led Transitional National Council (TNC), however, rejected the plan, believing it to be a mere ruse to prolong Qaddafi’s leadership. After meeting with AU leaders Monday for four hours, TNC Chairman Mustafa Abd Al Jalil told journalists, “The initiative which was presented today is not outdated. The people want Muammar Qaddafi and his sons to leave. Every initiative that does not take into account this demand is not dignified to be considered.”

The TNC felt itself pigeonholed by popular sentiment: It is under intense pressure from Libyans in rebel-controlled territory to reject any deal that does not include Qaddafi’s departure. Outside the Tibesti Hotel in Benghazi, where TNC members huddled with the AU presidents, hundreds of people shouted, “No, no, we don’t want Muammar and his children!” Each day, Benghazi residents chant similar refrains outside the local courthouse where they gather in the evenings to wave Libyan flags and study pictures of those still missing from the early days of fighting in February.



But the TNC’s dismissal of the deal makes sense for an additional reason: Qaddafi’s relationship with the AU. Qaddafi has cultivated ties with African nations since he spurned the Arab world for its refusal to vociferously condemn United Nations (U.N.) sanctions imposed against Libya for its involvement in downing a 1988 American airliner over the United Kingdom. The AU was born out of Qaddafi’s speech during a 1999 African summit where he pledged to create a “United States of Africa” modeled on the European Union (EU). He followed up by providing $1 million in seed money to incubate the proposed federation. Later, in March 2001, Qaddafi declared that he planned to “throw in his lot with Africa” and backed up his words by lavishing his country’s oil wealth on the continent’s impoverished nations. He built close ties with Zimbabwe and Robert Mugabe, whom he bailed out of a financial crisis with $100 million about a decade ago, and, in 2001, he hand-delivered 1,000 tons of aid to drought plagued Kenya.

Today, Qaddafi’s African largesse has paid off. While the U.N. and EU have imposed sanctions on Libya, and the Arab League has suspended its membership and supported a no-fly zone, the AU has refused to follow suit. On March 10, the AU’s Peace and Security Council issued a statement rejecting “any foreign military intervention” in Libya as a slap in the face of NATO airstrikes.