It was announced on Friday that NATO has taken over the task of enforcing the “No fly zone” over Libya, which was initiated by a coalition led by the US, Britain and France. The stated objective of the military action was that of protecting civilians from attacks by the forces of Muammar Gaddafi.
The Libyan leader’s 40 year dictatorship has been under siege since demonstrations demanding his departure started in mid February. Since the coalition’s air strikes meant to destroy Gaddafi’s air defence system started a week ago, Libyan authorities claimed that over 100 civilians have been killed. At the same time a French military spokesman told a press conference that “there was no collateral damage.”
 |
| A US F18 plane takes off the Aviano base on March 20.AFP |
The strikes on Libya have revealed the devastating military capabilities of the big powers. Just as the untrained and poorly armed rebels are no match for the state military apparatus mobilized by Gaddafi, the Libyan military with its outdated equipment will be no match for this sophisticated onslaught. It looks like a case of using the proverbial sledgehammer to kill the insect.
The Arab League’s Secretary General Amr Moussa protested after the initial missile attacks that what they asked for was “protection of civilians, not more bombing of civilians.” The Arab League had earlier asked for the No fly zone, in solidarity with the Libyan people who were under attack.
Arab support is needed to give a show of legitimacy to the UN Security Council resolution that authorized the No fly zone, along with “all necessary measures to protect civilians under threat of attack in the country” that the resolution sanctioned. But regional support for the military action appears to be lukewarm. So far only Qatar and the UAE have offered a few planes.
Russia and China did not use their veto during the UNSC vote and chose to abstain along with Brazil, India and Germany. After the strikes Russia’s Prime Minister Vladimir Putin likened the action to a “call to the crusades,” and charged that the UN mandate had been exceeded.
The handover to NATO was itself hastened by US unwillingness from the outset to play a ‘pre-eminent role’ in the operation. The US does not want to be seen going to war against another Muslim country, bogged down as it is in Iraq and Afghanistan. The takeover did not even have unanimous support among NATO members. Turkey which is a Muslim country and a member of NATO, opposed the move (“NATO forces shouldn’t endanger civilians for the sake of oil”) while France opposed it for fear it would alienate Arab states. Germany which had expressed strong reservations about military action from the start pulled its forces out of the Mediterranean.
It is not clear how a compromise was reached, but the position seems to be that while NATO coordinates the military operation, political control will remain in the hands of the western led coalition. Still the command structure is not clear. The whole situation gives rise to worrying questions as to the direction and end game in the saga unfolding in Libya before the eyes of television viewers across the world.
US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in a statement announcing the NATO handover said that “Qadhafi’s air force and air defences have been rendered largely ineffective, and the coalition is in control of the skies above Libya.” In other words, the No-fly zone is now effective. The US and Britain say Gaddafi’s forces have been successfully pushed back. Then what is the further need for military action?
There is much ambiguity as to what is intended in Libya, and uncertainty as to where this campaign will lead. Bringing about regime change was not part of the UN mandate. Gaddafi himself is ‘not a target’ according to military spokespersons, although his compound was bombed. Questioned by journalists they refuse to commit themselves to a timeframe to end the operation. There is speculation as to whether the next step will be attacks on the ground.
Is the coalition simply making up the rules as it goes along? Is NATO being thrust into the role of ‘international policeman?’ There are many who do not believe the motive for this intervention was “because Gaddafi is killing his own people.” The uprising had barely got off the ground when Britain made a botched attempt to send in spies to make contact with the rebel forces. It ended in high farce when their crack SAS team was arrested by a group of farmers who questioned their unauthorized presence on Libyan soil. France for its part leaped to recognize the rebels’ interim administration before all others. Why this indecent haste on the part of these western powers to embroil themselves, one might ask. Is it coincidental that Libya is situated in a region strategically vital to them? And that it has the biggest oil reserves in Africa?
The concept of ‘Responsibility to Protect’ (or ‘R2P’) was invoked by some who advocated the intervention in Libya. If it is claimed that this is an issue of protecting the defenceless from their own evil rulers, it would seem relevant to ask why similar action would be unthinkable in Bahrain for example, where a similar crackdown is taking place on a largely Shiite population that has been demonstrating against its Sunni rulers. Bahrain is home to the US’ fifth fleet and one of its strategic partners. The prospect of Shiite dominance here gives rise to western fears of a power shift in the direction of Iran. It would also be relevant to ask why the game will certainly be played differently in Yemen, which US Defence Secretary Robert Gates described as “the most dangerous of Al Qaeda’s franchises.”
And what about that favourite buzz word, “Accountability?” Is there any likelihood the western powers that supplied weapons and military training to the armies of Arab despots across the region over the years will hold themselves “accountable” for the mess in North Africa that has resulted in so much violence being inflicted on civilians? As the Libyan crisis unfolds, the British Prime Minister ratchets up the rhetoric on ‘crimes against humanity’ that ‘must not go unpunished.’ Simultaneously we hear reports of the US Defence Secretary visiting Afghanistan to apologise to furious Afghans for the bombing of civilians including children. “Accountability” too is selective business, it appears.
The writer is a senior freelance journalist
|
E-mail