It’s a time of reckoning for those who endorsed the air strikes against Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi’s forces. It looks as if the western nations among them can no longer disguise their motives as they flex their military muscle in this particular country. Despite assertions to the contrary, it becomes increasingly clear that the big powers calling the shots in the alliance are indeed ‘taking sides’ in this fight – something that was not authorized by the UN Security Council Resolution 1973 intended to protect civilians.
There is no clarity as to where the military operation is heading, and the consensus that characterized the Resolution seems to be disappearing. The Arab League and African Union who should have been key players in resolving the conflict seem to have taken a back seat. Amidst reports of rising civilian casualties, Sri Lanka has joined countries such as Russia, India and China in condemning the military assault.
 |
| A Libyan rebel looks up at smoke trails of coalition planes near the oil town of Brega. AFP |
After two weeks of air strikes by the ‘coalition’ led by the US, Britain and France, and with the operation now taken over by NATO, there is no sign of the defiant Libyan dictator backing down. Gaddafi appears to have more support within his military than his opponents bargained for.
The rag-tag army of fighters is now on the retreat, being pushed back eastward towards Benghazi from where they set out. To complicate matters, it has now been hinted – by none other than NATO officials – that there might be al Qaeda elements among the rebels. The US has admitted it knew little about those in charge of the uprising, whom initial media reports described as pro-democracy forces.
To add to the confusion, there are contradictory assertions by the countries leading the military intervention about what they are trying to do. The US and Britain both say that ‘regime change’ is not their objective. How does this statement square with their vigorous assertions that “Gaddafi must go?” Britain initially refused to rule out ‘regime change’ and only latterly toned down its rhetoric, possibly because such an admission would appear to violate the UN resolution. While the western powers state publicly that their objective is not to overthrow Gaddafi, other signals indicate that this is in fact what they want. They had been hoping the air attacks would have strengthened the rebels’ hand and allowed them to ‘finish the job,’ but that has not been the case.
Some coalition members now want to supply weapons to the militants. But NATO’s chief Anders Fogh Rasmussen, warning that this would violate the UN resolution, has said NATO’s role ‘across the board’ is to protect civilians from attack from ‘both sides. Whether his words will be heeded is moot, since it is by no means clear who makes the rules in this game. In any case, as analysts point out, the usefulness of weapons to those untrained in their use remains doubtful.
It has further come to light that both US and British spies have been in Libya for several weeks. The involvement of Britain’s Special Air Services (SAS) was exposed in the media when one of their teams was unceremoniously captured and sent home by a group of Libyan farmers who were among the rebel force. More recently the New York Times (March 30) reported that US President Barack Obama had signed a secret order authorising covert help. The report said small groups of CIA agents have been working in Libya for several weeks “to gather intelligence for military air strikes and to contact and vet the beleaguered rebels … ” It would seem that these activities had been taking place before the March 17 UN resolution. In the light of these developments it seems relevant to ask, are UN resolutions being used as a cover by western powers to secure their own interests?
Many would agree that the democratic aspirations of the Libyan people and their revolt against dictatorship are deserving of empathy. At one point Gaddafi had reportedly threatened to ‘search every house’ of his opponents and to ‘show no mercy.’ It was very likely the fear of an imminent massacre that prompted the unanimous support of members of the UN Security Council for a No-fly zone and other measures to protect civilians. However the over-eagerness of some coalition members – notably Britain and France - to support the rebels gives rise to suspicions that their motives go beyond that of ‘protection of civilians.’ It looks more as though the European powers are keen to ‘get onto the good side’ of those they think are likely to head a new Libyan regime, to secure their oil and gas contracts for the future and cultivate a dependable partner on the strategically sensitive Mediterranean coastline.
The latest development has been the high profile defection to Britain of Libyan Foreign Minister Moussa Koussa, who had been part of Gaddafi’s inner circle. This again leaves some questions unanswered. The BBC reported that he arrived “unexpectedly” in Britain. This does not quite fit with the BBC’s later report that said he is believed to have travelled not on a commercial flight but on a British military plane. The British Foreign Office said “He travelled here under his own free will.” It turns out that, oddly, Mr Koussa’s name was not on the list of persons under a travel ban imposed on key figures in the Libyan regime, in UN Security Council resolution 1970.
These discrepancies have led to speculation that Koussa’s defection was possibly ‘facilitated’ if not engineered by British intelligence agencies and was not, as Foreign Secretary William Hague has suggested, an indication that the Libyan regime was “crumbling from within.” Italy’s Foreign Minister has reportedly said that defections, rather than military action, will bring an end to the Libyan conflict.
With a military operation that has failed to achieve either the overt or covert objectives of the main protagonists, it appears that those who launched the mission are being drawn into a quagmire from which they will find it increasingly difficult to extricate themselves. The ultimate victims as usual will be the hapless civilian population at the site of the conflict.
The writer is a senior freelance journalist
|
E-mail