Monday, August 24, 2020

The Humanitarian Cost of Libyan Civil War

This article is by

Share this article

Article Contributor(s)

Vanshita Banuana

Article Title

The Humanitarian Cost of Libyan Civil War

Publisher

Global Views 360

Publication Date

August 24, 2020

URL

Anti-Gaddafi rebels near Ras Lanuf, Libya March 8, 2011

Anti-Gaddafi rebels near Ras Lanuf, Libya March 8, 2011 | Source: BRQ Network, via Flickr

Ever since the people of Libya toppled the long reigning dictator Muammar Gaddafi in 2011 during the Arab spring, the country is going through internal turmoil and civil wars. The ongoing power struggle between two major factions: the UN-backed General National Accord (GNA) government and the Libyan National Army (LNA) and its associated House of Representatives is the face of the current phase of Libyan civil war.

A man who recently entered into Tunisia from Libya is given food at a transit camp on March 01, 2011 in Ras Jdir, Tunisia | Source: BRQ Network, via Flickr

Libya has become a pawn in a great power game in which many Middle-Eastern and Western countries have put their resources behind different factions of civil war. These countries have poured in military hardware, mercenaries and diplomatic support to “internationalize” the tribal and political conflict of Libya.


Libyan men walk by burned vehicles while visiting the stormed al-Katiba base in Benghazi, Libya | Source: BRQ Network, via Flickr

France and Italy have seen an opening to assert their colonial-era influence which was on the wane after Colonel Gaddafi took the reign of the country. UAE, Turkey, and Russia on the other hand are trying to fish in the trouble waters of Libya by actively aiding in the armed conflict. The European Union has allied with Libyan coast guard to intercept migrants trying to sail for Europe and also funding prison camps for refugees to prevent them from reaching Europe through Libya.

The UNHCR reported that it registered almost 50,000 migrants in Libya in 2019. The World Food Programme estimates that over four hundred thousand people got displaced and also lost their sources of income due the ongoing conflict. The proportion of people with access to electricity has been steadily declining, and as little as 26.11% has access to basic and safe sanitation services. There are almost 3 million vulnerable people, which includes 55% women and children need “some form of humanitarian assistance.”

In January 2020 the United Nations released a statement particularly concerning the “dire situation” in Libya for tens of thousands of children. This includes those internally displaced after fleeing their homes, hundreds of thousands of children facing school shutdowns, and refugee and migrant children especially those being held in detention centres. The statement also points out that attacks on essential health facilities as well as water and waste management systems have “limited access to protection and essential services.”

The lifeline of Libyan economy is its oil industry which has taken a major hit during the civil war. It is estimated that Libya has lost more than $502 million in just 10-day period in January 2020 when major oil fields and production facilities were shut down due to the ongoing conflict. Most of the other business sectors are barely functioning in Libya.

The healthcare infrastructure of Libya was nearly destroyed during the last ten years and is staring at near-certain doom due to the prevalence of COVID-19 pandemic. The risk of community outbreaks and the inability of the healthcare system to handle this inevitability is a major risk for the country. Refugee camps and detention centers are more prone to the spread of pandemic as it is nearly impossible to maintain basic hygiene and social distancing over there.

While the warring sides in the civil wars have announced curfews and closures of restaurants, no official ceasefire has been announced, despite requests of the UN for the same. In fact, fighting has been documented to have continued well into March 2020 and April 2020 in which densely populated civilian areas, as well as health facilities have been targeted.

For the people of Libya, this has meant going from living under the stable but dictatorial rule of Colonel Gaddafi which provided a fairly decent civic infrastructure to being caught in brutal crossfire between a recognised government and a renegade military commander, which has destroyed the social and civic infrastructure of the country and impoverished the citizens.

Support us to bring the world closer

To keep our content accessible we don't charge anything from our readers and rely on donations to continue working. Your support is critical in keeping Global Views 360 independent and helps us to present a well-rounded world view on different international issues for you. Every contribution, however big or small, is valuable for us to keep on delivering in future as well.

Support Us

Share this article

Read More

February 4, 2021 4:57 PM

India’s Transgender (Protection of Rights) Act: Why the activists are opposing it?

On July 13, 2020 the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment of India notified the release of draft Rules for the much-disputed Transgender (Protection of Rights) Act 2019, and has given citizens 30 days to submit suggestions and objections.

The Ministry first published the draft Rules on April 18, 2020 and asked for comments by April 30, later extended to May 18. Based on the central government’s consideration of the submitted feedback, the updated Rules were once again opened to critique.

As summarised in this analysis by PRS Legislative Research, the Rules lay out the detailed process regarding issuance of Certificate of Identity, and welfare measures, medical facilities and such for transgender people. It also specifies that the National Institute of Social Defence will act as secretariat for the National Council for Transgender Persons.

Analysis

  1. The Act is infamous for claiming to confer the right to self-perceived gender identity, which is also enshrined in the National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) vs. Union of India judgement, but continuously neglecting this right thereby going against both a Supreme Court judgement and its own statement.
  2. This manifested once again in Rule 4 of the first draft of Rules which required a psychologist’s report— while paradoxically insisting that it requires “no medical examination”— as part of the application process. This requirement was removed from the recent draft of the Rules after backlash.
  3. Also, as stated in the Act, it is the District Magistrate who will determine the final “correctness” of the application, essentially stripping transgender people of any supposed right to self determination. It is worth noting that this places the District Magistrate, an executive figure, in a judicial position, one of ‘judging’ the ‘authenticity’ of a person’s gender identity.
  4. The above mentioned application will only provide a Certificate of Identity that states a person’s gender identity as transgender. To be able to apply for a revised Certificate of Identity to change one’s gender to male/female as per Rule 6, a person must undergo gender reassignment surgery and on top of that provide a certificate stating this from the Medical Superintendent or Chief Medical Officer from the medical institution which facilitates the surgery.
  5. This is problematic for a large multitude of reasons, including but not limited to: many transgender people not feeling the need for medical or surgical intervention, the policing of transgender people’s identity as only being ‘valid’ if they undergo surgery, and the sky-high costs of surgery contrasted with large numbers of transgender people living in unsupportive environments and/or being unable to finance their surgery.
  6. The right to self-identification continues to be blatantly violated in Rule 8, under which a District Magistrate can reject an application, following which the applicant has a right to appeal the rejection only within 60 days of intimation of the same, as stated in Rule 9.
  7. The right to self-determination was also thrown out the window when the first draft Rules imposed a penalty on “false” applications, once again referring to the arbitrary power of the District Magistrate. This has also been removed following strongly negative reactions.

It is important to compare the two versions of the Rules despite the second one being arguably better and cognizant of some of the demands made by the citizens and other stakeholders.

The first version of the Rules quite clearly depicted the narrowly cisnormative perspective through which transgender lives are seen by the people in power. Despite the many changes as a result of relentless protests, the Act is nowhere near to truly respecting and empowering transgender people.

The decision to give the final say to the District Magistrate- which some argue made the process harder than it used to be before the Act- and the refusal to provide affirmative action or reservations to ensure representation in positions of authority that transgender people have historically been denied access to.

It also does little to counter discrimination, as is seen most clearly in the punishment of sexual assault and rape being much less than for the rape of a cisgender woman. It advocates for plenty of measures but does pitifully little to ensure or enable these changes.  

History of the Act

The history of the Act is a turbulent one. The 2016 Transgender (Protection of Rights) Bill, was almost immediately slammed by activists, NGOs, other human rights organisations, and citizens, for multiple reasons.

The most derided was the provision to set up a ‘District Screening Committee’ which included the District Magistrate, a chief medical officer and a psychiatrist among others, for the sole purpose of scrutinising a transgender person’s body and identity. It also criminalised organised begging, an activity specifically common among the Hijra community.

The Lower House of the Parliament, the Lok Sabha, rejected all the proposed changes by the parliamentary standing committee along with the demands of the transgender community, and passed the bill with some amendments in 2018. A short-lived victory came in the form of the lapse of the bill due to the 2019 general elections.

However, as soon as the NDA government was re-elected, the bill was reintroduced in the Parliament with some more changes, particularly the removal of the section on District Screening Committees, but was still unsatisfactory.

The full text of this bill was not released when it was approved by the Union Cabinet on July 10, 2019, but on the morning that it was tabled in the Lok Sabha, garnering another consecutive year of protest since it was first introduced.

This is the bill as it exists today, having been passed by the Lok Sabha on August 5, 2019. When the motion to refer it to a select committee failed in the Rajya Sabha, it was passed on November 26, 2019, and received presidential assent on December 5, 2019. Recent developments include a writ petition in the Supreme Court challenging the validity of the Act.

Despite it becoming the law of the land, transgender citizens and activists such as Esvi Anbu Kothazam and Kanmani Ray continue to criticse it and the insidious transphobic thinking that has always guided it.

Read More