Resolution 1973 has offered a legal base for the until-recently dithering West to choose a side in the ongoing Libyan conflict. Vague enough and faced with suspicion from some of the big players in the UN it did however pass. The big players have been caught off guard by these sweeping social revolutions. This wasn’t the case with the Arab and Muslim nations for they call their collective will, call it Islam if you please, the sleeping or at worst the chained giant.
The declared aim is to save the lives of civilians from the despot Muammar Gaddafi's thugs. Whether Gaddafi was to see through his threat or not, that question seemed to Britain, France and other leading enthusiasts a risk too 'unethical' to bear in mind. Thus the 3 months that took the international invasive action in Kosovo in 1997 was reduced now to 3 weeks in Libya. This was impressive but a quick look at the normal pace of decision taking within UN leaves one rather cynical and it is too un-bureaucratic to be true.
Britain in particular sought to establish the legality of this mission and insisted on it – perhaps this is Tony Blair's greatest world legacy. Also it was quick at tightening the rope on Amr Moussa when he ambivalently questioned the legality of bombing Libya instead of stopping Gaddafi's air-assault on civilian; he was brought back to 'consensus' and William Hague swiftly gave reassurance to the public of the unprecedented unanimity of the world on this action.
As days passed and with the persistence of the Obama administration that the Arabs should take an active role, Qatar and UEA reluctantly joined in with a few fighter jets and it all seems fine with the official Arabs leaders for now. This persistence is not only because the NATO and USA lacked resources but to further the involvement of the Arab league and cut the road on any conspiratorial interpretation of the war on Gaddafi regime, namely Al-Qaeda, to free Libya and bring pave the road for democracy.
This mission has somewhat clear objectives, well clear enough. The obvious intention is that the coalition forces are trying to win the hearts and the minds of their un-consulted nations and perhaps more importantly of the Arab nations. They are trying very hard to again cut the road on Al-Qaeda which as ever would capitalise on such foreign-led 'ethical' actions and rally their troops for another holly frontier. If this shows anything it shows our governments' myopic understanding of Islamic extremism as a political ideology.
It is farcical to ignore the fact that, at the time of backing this decision, more than 98 per cent of countries in the Arab league are dictatorships themselves. They do not reflect the political will of their people. Similar but theoretical case could be made for the nations of the coalition forces regarding this war. It would not however hold water; their governments are democratically elected, at least in principle. Collective governance or decision-making, as Gaddafi invented in Libya, can only work in societies that do not hold election every four years and are not pragmatic.
It might seem getting too deep into the legal niceties. Well, so far everything single gesture, meeting and political discussion involving the coalition forces has been given a moral dimension. This moral obesity is particularly pertinent when you contemplate what has yet to come, arming the rebels and fearing to give platform to extremists.
A no-fly zone has been in effect for a week or so yet the rebels did not achieve much on ground and the cat-mouse battle is simply taking too long and rebels appear be losing momentum. Other Arab revolutions in Yemen and Syria are keeping hopeful eyes and waiting for world’s attention to shift from Libya to them as it did after Tunisia in Egypt.
Subsequently, ‘all necessary measures should be taken to protect civilians in Libya’ seems to mean more than destroying Gaddafi’s air capability and equally does not preclude arming the yet un-unified ill-equipped bunch of anti-Gaddafi fighters. Some of these fighters were pro Gaddafi a few weeks ago but the comradeship spirits of the rebels seem to be forgiving and giving an unconditional amnesty to all. Well, forgiving enough till Moussa kussa arrived in UK last Wednesday.
Whether it is the Blair-bush legacy in Iraq or the arming of the Taliban against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan or the guilt preying on today’s noble politicians’ conscious for not taking action against Pol Pot, realpolitik is yet to be put on the agenda.
When asked whether Gaddafi is a legitimate target, Sir David Richards gave an emphatic ‘No’ defying comments made earlier by Liam Fox, the Defence Secretary. The isolation by a new package of embargos placed on the regime and the impoundment of three Libyan money-loaded ships by the British navy did not work. The implicit aim of the coalition forces and nations is to topple Gaddafi. This is chiefly because he, as Obama and Camron repeatedly claimed, has lost legitimacy, as if he ever had.
Whist it is true that doing something is better than doing nothing at all, it is rather pathetic to try to convince the public that after all it is not too bad to outsource the ousting of Gaddafi. If the West can’t biologically give birth to democracy in Libya, it comes under ‘dong-something about-it’ to exercise surrogate fatherhood and hire a bunch of civilians, similar to security contractors in Iraq, to get the job done for us.
Why not checkmate Muammar Gaddafi and let the rest for the details for rebels? Why after a prolonged sabre-rattling go half way and stop? Recent attempts of shoving democracy into people’ political throats and regime change, according to westerner standards, have spectacularly failed. The Iraqi sectarian and Lebanese examples
Comments