To intervene or not to intervene
That’s the question today. With Muammar Gaddafi striking out in several directions with superior fire power and aircraft against the Libyan rebels, at least some of the rebel leadership in the east is talking about the need for foreign military intervention, including a No Fly Zone (NFZ), possibly bombing of Gaddafi’s amply hardened bunkers, and weapons. Secretary of Defense Gates has already said “no.” American assets are tied up elsewhere and there is no telling where it will end once we start.
He has a point. The Libyans should take care of Gaddafi on their own. With no clearly and legally constituted Libyan authority to ask for help, it is unlikely that the Russians and Chinese are going to go along with a UN Security Council resolution authorizing even the NFZ, never mind broader use of force. For the U.S. to intervene unilaterally in Libya at this point would be seen as injudicious, even criminal, by a large part of the world. And even with UNSC authorization, it is arguable that we just don’t have the capacity to handle another mess.
But failing to act and watching Gaddafi reestablish control over Tripoli, if not of the rest of the country, is also not an acceptable option. It would prolong the agony, including the agony to the rest of the world of soaring oil prices that threaten to stall the global economic recovery. It would open the possibility of Libya becoming a fragmented and failed state like Somalia, one in which international terrorists might well find comfort and haven. And it would leave Libyans at the mercy of a homicidal non-maniac, one who has long used murder and mayhem purposefully to ensure control.
So what do we do? I find myself sympathetic with former National Security Advisor Steve Hadley, who argued last night on CNN for a more intense diplomatic effort. I’m not really sure what he had in mind, but in my book that would mean in the first instance making sure Gaddafi’s sources of financing are completely closed off. Is oil still being exported? Where are the payments being deposited? Are all those accounts frozen? The U.S. Treasury has likely done its job well, but have the Italians, the Germans, the Maltese, the Cypriots and the Greeks?
I think we also need to talk in the UNSC about a new resolution that would authorize arms exports to the Libyan rebels. Paul Wolfowitz argues that it was a mistake to impose a blanket embargo, thus punishing the rebels as well as Gaddafi, who is already well-armed (and his suppliers won’t balk at violating the embargo). He is right, but it is a mistake that can and should be fixed as soon as possible with some diplomatic exertion, by opening an exception to the embargo for the anti-Gaddafi forces.
I continue to be hesitant about the NFZ, largely because of the difficulty and expense of implementing it. It would be far easier, as I’ve already said, to nail anything Gaddafi flies to the tarmac even before it takes off. In lieu of that, our diplomats should be talking with the Russians, Serbs and Czechs about ending any supplies or technical assistance they might still be providing to Gaddafi’s air force, which they have amply assisted in the past.
None of this can substitute for indigenous efforts to get rid of Gaddafi. Tough as it is to assemble and protest, Friday should not pass without a clear show from the demonstrators in Tripoli that they want him gone.
It would also greatly improve the situation if the Libyans could organize to speak with one voice. It is not yet clear that any of the committees in Benghazi and other cities is more than a local phenomenon. Despite the difficult circumstances, Libyans need to do now what Gaddafi has prevented them from doing for more than 40 years: organize a national institution that can speak legitimately for the Jamahiriya. That may require some international assistance in linking up the various rebel cities in a more coherent way.
If none of this diplomatic effort works, we’ll have to revisit the essential question over the weekend, which means putting the assets needed into place right away.
One intervention needs to start now: relief for the more or less 150,000 non-Libyan refugees who have fled Libya and accumulated on the border with Tunisia, as well as assistance to the many internally displaced Libyans. This will not be easy, but providing food, water, sanitation and shelter to these people is vital if we are to avoid a massive humanitarian catastrophe.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
3 thoughts on “To intervene or not to intervene”
Comments are closed.
RSS - Posts
The embargo extended to the rebels?? Good grief, doesn’t anybody remember Bosnia, where the Serbs – with their arms and munitions factories and the Bosnians – with their police revolvers and hunting rifles – were both prohibited from importing weapons? I begin to understand why the Chinese and Russians went along with the idea.
Another idea to consider at some point is provision for some form of international action against governments that flood other countries with innocent civilians simply needing food, shelter, and medical attention, and if the problem persists, jobs, integration into foreign societies … As it is, rulers more interested in their own survival than their people’s happiness can simply suggest, as some Chinese official did recently, that they are prepared to open their borders and let the world deal with the consequences.
On another note, has there been any evidence of the Czechs dealing with Qaddafi? There is a report in one of the Belgrade papers about Serb mercenaries operating in Libya – their Minister of Defense denied that any current or retired Serb military were active there, but it’s the old Red Berets that people are wondering about. And the Russians of course will be playing their own game. But the Czechs? I know Havel is no longer president, but collaborating with Qaddafi seems pretty far out there.
I wonder how much longer we will be able to sit on the sidelines and watch a bloody civil war unfold in Libya – a Mediterranean country with oil – on the West’s very doorstep? The UN Charter provides the tools for a Chapter 7 intervention to stop the violence. NATO has the airpower – or at least it should as we have been paying a lot for it – to at least ensure Gaddafi cannot bomb his people from the air. If the international community – including the US and our military – cannot do this, what are we good for?
So far there’s been no clear call for intervention by the Libyan rebels. The losses they’ve been taking seem to be fairly modest, and if they are in fact able to force Qaddafi out on their own, it will be better for them and for us. It will be especially good for the future of the country if the armed forces can be induced to turn against Qaddafi en masse.
It’s just as well to have the forces necessary to do more in place, in case the rebels are in danger of been wiped out, but starting to bomb a country’s air defenses without at least tacit international approval may only make things worse in the future. Just letting the opposition forces know we’ve got their back may be enough to help them attract other players. If the Libyans don’t see Qaddafi’s overthrow as a Libyan project, we may be left with the situation we have in Serbia today, where the 78 days of “bombing the country back to the Stone Age” is still held not only against the US and its “American hegemony” but their own liberal politicians as well.
The last Freedom House report on freedom in the world was pretty bleak reading, what with the number of countries slipping back into non-free status. And then one young man decides to make what had to seem like a futile gesture – setting himself on fire – and look at the world a few weeks later. Something like this – some unpredictable, random act – may be all we can hope for in Bosnia, where the distasteful Dodik just keeps on going.