VIEW POINT: Intervention in Libya

As UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon came out of a meeting with the Arab League chief Amr Mousa on Monday, angry Egyptians tried to block his way protesting Western intervention in Libya. They protested not for lack of sympathy for the Libyans fighting for democratic rights, but concern about the intentions behind the UNSC-sanctioned air strikes.
The concern is shared by many outside the Arab world. Some also think this would set a bad precedence for military intervention in other countries. What Colonel Qadhafi initially faced was not an armed rebellion, but pro-democracy protests by unarmed civilians. He responded by unleashing his military might, subjecting his own people to aerial bombings. The situation kept getting bloodier and uglier, with the toll of civilian deaths mounting. This set the scene for outside intervention.
The UNCS adopted resolution 1973, by a vote of 10 in favour, authorising member states to take necessary measures to protect civilians under threat of attack in Libya, including the rebel-controlled Benghazi. Five members - China, Brazil, Germany, India, and the Russian Federation - abstained, but none cast a negative vote. Which shows it was not a simple issue of black and white. The resolution contained two important points: one an immediate cease-fire, and second imposition of a no-fly zone on the country to stop attacks that might constitute "crimes against humanity".
This is not the first time that the world community has made an international humanitarian intervention in another country. Two important examples are those of Bosnia and Kosovo. Barring Serbia's traditional friends, especially Russia, almost everyone applauded the action to stop the blood-letting of the Bosnian and Kosovar Muslims. It can be argued though that the motives behind those interventions were not just humanitarian considerations, but some strategic interests. The argument gains strength from the fact that the UNSC members kept sitting on their hands for 100 long days in 1994, when modern history's worst massacre took place in Rwanda, leaving nearly 800,000 people dead. Rwanda, of course, held neither strategic interests nor the lure of oil. It is simply unacceptable to let people become victims of sustained violent campaigns in the name of otherwise important notions of sovereignty and independence.
Considering the extreme nature of the brutalities, governments and ethnic/other groups are capable of committing against helpless people, it is difficult to quarrel with the principle of humanitarian intercession. The problem in the present situation is that the US, Britain and France, the countries playing a key role in enforcing the no-fly zone over Libya, have overstepped their mandate. First of all, it needs to be noted that the Qadhafi government had announced compliance with the cease-fire call, given both by the UNSC and the African Union. Still the air strikes continued. Secondly, and more importantly, the no-fly enforcers have been hitting not only Libya's air force facilities, but also a wide range of targets, including Colonel Qadhafi's residential compound. This they have been doing while claiming that a regime change is not part of the plan.
Taking out the 'mad dog of the Middle East' is an American desire which goes back a long time, all the way to the time of Ronald Reagan, who had ordered the bombing of the Libyan leader's residence, which ended in an embarrassing failure for the superpower. The American bombers managed to kill only Qadhafi's adopted little girl.
Unlike the other authoritarian rulers dominating the Arab countries, Qadhafi has been a thorn in the side of the US, always defiant and supporting one anti-American cause or another with his petro-dollars. He may be a madman or an eccentric, as the Western media like to describe him, but he also happens to possess strong survival instincts, making radical compromises when the going gets tough. One major example is that of his nuclear programme. When he saw his Western foes could use force, as they did with Saddam Hussain, to take out not only his nuclear facilities, but the regime itself, he gave up the entire programme, handing over its components to them, along with some vital information. It needs to be noted also that when the US was gearing up to invade and occupy Iraq, Qadhafi had advised Saddam to do as told, so as to survive to fight another day.
While Western air strikes continue in places other than the air force facilities, they will certainly try to get him if they can, and pretend later that this was a mere accident. Their target though is used to dodging such attempts. He is said never to sleep in one place on two consecutive nights. Besides, most of his military commanders are still loyal to him, and have remained so in the face of fierce domestic resistance and outside pressure.
The US and its European allies have at least three strong reasons not to try an overt military adventure in that country. One, of course, is that after what happened in Iraq and Afghanistan, they can ill-afford to get involved in another war in yet another country. Secondly, it would discredit the Libyan opposition, thus weakening any chances of its success in ousting Qadhafi. Thirdly, the UNSC resolution expressly forbids any such move, saying if any of the members see a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory, they should immediately inform the Secretary-General. The last point has special significance in view of the fact that soon after the unrest began and the rebels took control of Benghazi, a British helicopter had landed there(confusing the rebels who grounded it and arrested its passengers, releasing them after two, three days) carrying intelligence men to inquire what help could be offered them. It would not be surprising if they are secretly supplying weapons to the rebels.
As things stand, Qadhafi remains defiant, and in control of some of the cities his forces had wrested back from the rebels. His march on the rebel-held Benghazi has stopped. Libya, right now, is a divided country. Reports indicate third party mediation might take place soon. In fact, when the public-government confrontation heated up first, as per a Latin American proposal, the much respected, former Brazilian president Lula da Silva and Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez were willing to mediate between the two sides. The opposition rejected the offer thinking that Gaddafi had lost the game, while the US discouraged the initiative talking of taking the Colonel to the International Criminal Court (a body the US itself refuses to endorse). Reports now indicate fresh efforts are underway towards a negotiated peace. Hopefully, they will work. If the Tunisian and Egyptian dictators could get a safe passage, perhaps Colonel Gaddafi's fate should not be any different, especially if that helps returning the country to peace and a democratic future.
[email protected]