PRESENTACION DE LOS RESULTADOS DEL SUPUESTO CUATRO

The basic arguments of the conflict theorists could be summarily itemized in the following manner:

1. Variation in class, status, power, wealth and high emotional involvement in group relationship cause conflict.

2. Human relationships are characterized by competition over the scarce resources.

3. Class consciousness of deprivation due to exploitation creates class conflict.

4. Violent conflict is an outcome of a deep emotional involvement with a threatened group.

5. Inequalities in power and reward are built into all social structures, while individuals and groups who benefit from the structures struggle to maintain them and those who do not benefit strive for a change.

6. Non-material needs of the people like identity, security and personal development also cause conflict if not met.

7. The failure of modern state systems to meet basic human needs is the primary sources of modern ethno-nationalist struggles in the society.

8. Conflict is caused by unmet psychological and physiological human needs not only by conflicting interests.

the insurgents. The internal order degenerated to disorder and struggle for power reigned between Muammar Gaddafi and his supporters on one hand, and the National Transition Council (NTC) on the other hand. The crisis was internally caused by the struggle for power as a means for survival, security, recognition, identity, wealth and personality development of those who felt neglected by the government of Muammar Gaddafi‘ regime especially people of Benghazi areas who compare their social conditions with that of those close to Gaddafi regime. On the side of Muammar Gaddafi and his supporters, the need to retain state power, status, prestige and security were the desired variables which the regime fought to keep. The opposition group fought to regain their rights as bonafide citizens of Libya after a long period of humiliation, deprivation, intimidation and threats from the regime while the regime struggle to retain power in order to secure those principle, structures and systems it has built over the years.

This struggle, at a point, took international dimension when Gaddafi‘s increased abuse of human right attracted the attentions of the African Union (AU), United Nations (UN), North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO), Arab League and other international interests. AU‘s political diplomacy to the crisis could not achieve an amicable end to the crisis mainly because, as realist theory of power emphasises, states in the international system who were the major decision makers in the crisis considered their national interests first in their behaviour to the crisis. This primacy of national interest over other considerations explains the behaviours of members of the African Union as well as those of NATO, UN and Arab League. Contestation of power among states in the anarchic international environment determined the nature and outcome of the AU‘s response to that crisis. It explains the reason why AU member states were not able to speak in one voice as each considered its own national interest first. The

resultant effect was AU‘s inability to decisively resolve the crisis. AU members followed what suited their individual interests and left AU with unfulfiled attempt to resolve the crisis in Libya.

In what was called ―Responsibility to Protect‖ and humanitarian intervention, the UN passed resolutions 1970 and 1973 for no-fly-zone and foreign intervention in Libya respectively. The situation created opportunity for economically and politically motivated NATO states to intervene in what Huntington (1996) calls ―Clash of Civilizations‖ the clash between the socialist oriented Libyan Arab Jamahiriya orderof Muammar Gaddafi regime and capitalist oriented liberal democracy propagated by capitalist NATO countries.

While Gaddafi regime wanted socialist order, the NATO led capitalist countries wanted the imposition of liberal democracy in Libya as a way of creating conducive environment for expansion and consolidation of western multinational corporations and political control of Libya in what the US calls Middle East Transition (MET). Internal causes of the crisis and the resultant resistance waged by the NTC were the issues that ignited the burst of an age long hostility between Gaddafi regime and western capitalism – thus the clash.

These two internal factors gave NATO countries the impetus to ―intervene or interfere‖ in the crisis and by extension joined in the struggle for Libyan state power.

NATO‘s overt and covert manoeuvres, disappointment and disagreement with the AU overwhelmed, side-lined and undermined the AU‘s diplomatic approach and this gave rise to the argument over the strength and weaknesses of the AU and factors responsible for AU‘s failure. The theory, therefore, helps us to present and analyse the nature of AU‘s intervention and challenges that accounted for its failure in Libyan revolution.