Day: March 17, 2011
Even good resolutions don’t suffice
The Libya Security Council resolution no. 1973 that passed this evening looks very good to me, though I confess I failed to notice that the arms embargo applied to the rebels when the last one passed (and I don’t think this one fixes that problem). I guess the Egyptians are fixing it. I would also note that a cease-fire in place really favors Gaddafi’s forces, but I have my doubts it will take effect any time soon.
The important thing is that this resolution authorizes all necessary means, short of an occupation, to protect civilians. It also tightens the arms embargo as well as the financial and other sanctions. It passed, with five abstentions, including China, Russia, Brazil, India and Germany. That is a remarkable achievement, and my hat is off to US Permanent Representative Ambassador Susan Rice.
The key thing now is implementation. The Srebrenica UNSC resolution (no. 819 of 1993) looked pretty good to a lot of people too, and its purpose was remarkably similar to this one: to protect civilians from murderous thugs. But Colum Lynch listed it last year as among the 10 worse UN Security Council resolutions ever.
The difference, if there is to be one, has to come from implementation. The problem with the resolution declaring Srebrenica a “safe area” was not the objective–it was the lack of ways and means to achieve the objective. When the U.S. did eventually seek to protect the UN safe areas in Bosnia by bombing the Serb forces in response to an attack on Sarajevo, it quickly shifted the tide of war and led to a very rapid advance by the Croat and Bosniak forces.
Precious little has been said so far about implementation of no. 1973. There are rumors the French will begin acting tonight, but there are also rumors that NATO is not yet ready. Some Arab countries are said to be willing to participate in military action, but that is not confirmed. It is not clear whether the U.S. will participate, or whether it will do so in stand-off fashion with cruise missiles and the like.
So the Benghazis do well to celebrate, but this fight isn’t over yet, and its outcome is still very much in doubt.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Libya is turning into a long term problem
Steve Metz in a piece published yesterday in The New Republic looks at scenarios for Libya, assuming a protracted struggle between a continuing rebellion and a regime that fails to fully suppress it. None of the scenarios are attractive: his models are northern and southern Iraq under Saddam Hussein, Afghanistan and Somalia. All are expensive, one way or another, to American interests and ultimately to our bank accounts.
Of course it is also possible that Gaddafi will succeed in repressing the rebellion. That too would be a long-term mess: the US and Europe at the least would maintain sanctions, even as some of the Europeans (Italy in particular) try to bypass them. China would also certainly be tempted to return to business as usual and gain an upper hand on Libya’s oil supplies. Libya might not want to return to its terrorist or WMD past, but it could certainly be tempted to return to making trouble in its neighborhood, which includes Chad and Sudan.
Secretary of State Clinton this morning on NPR was at pains to emphasize that the only viable way of taking action on Libya is with multilateral support. This is certainly preferable, but what if it isn’t available, or isn’t available in a time frame that would enable it to be effective?
The usual American approach to defending its interests is “multilaterally when we can, unilaterally when we must.” Taking the option of unilateral action off the table is not wise–several UN Security Council members will lean heavily in the direction of authorizing stronger action if they believe it will prevent the Americans from acting on their own.
That said, should we? If we consider American interests pre-rebellion in Libya, they don’t look substantial enough to warrant the more vigorous types of military intervention. But we are not going to be able to return to the status quo ante in Libya. If Steve Metz’s scenarios, or a complete victory for Gaddafi, are in the cards, we certainly need to consider whether some of the less costly, non-military options, non-military options not yet being pursued are worthwhile.
On the military options, no fly zone (NFZ) advocates haven’t convinced me that it is worth the considerable enforcement burden it imposes on the United States. Destroying Gaddafi’s air force on the ground would be easier, cheaper and send a stronger message. The Administration is said this morning to be considering a “no drive” option for Gaddafi’s tanks and other heavy weapons. Something along those lines is likely needed if Benghazi is to be saved from Gaddafi’s revenge. More vigorous enforcement of existing sanctions, including by naval blockade, should certainly be on the agenda.
Not doing anything more is also an option, one we have so far adopted. It too has consequences. It looks as if they include a messy and expensive outcome in Libya, one that will keep us busy for years to come. I hope those who have advocated for it will be ready and willing to pay its costs when the time comes.
RSS - Posts
