Tag: United States
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.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
US and UN too slow, Benghazi at risk
Since Saif al Islam is predicting the fall of Benghzai within 48 hours, it seems a good time to put up this rap, courtesy of the Russian channel RT:
Senator Kerry said today at the Carnegie Endowment that international efforts to oust Gaddafi will not end even if he represses the rebellion and that his survival will not reverse the tide of democratci change sweeping the Middle East. I trust he is correct, but Saddam Hussein survived sanctions for a long time, which gave heart to many of his fellow dictators around the world.
Remember Machiavelli? He wrote on this very subject in Chapter 3 of The Prince (Wooton translation):
Of course it is true that, after a ruler has regained power in rebel teritories, he is much more likely to hang on to it. For the rebellion gives him an excuse, and he is able to take firmer measures to secure his position, punishing delinquents, checking up on suspects, and taking precautions where needed. So, if the first time the King of France lost Milan all that was needed to throw him out was Duke Ludovico growling on his borders, to throw him out a second time it took the whole world united against him…
To the Senator’s credit, he too noted that if Gaddafi stayed on it might cost us more in the end than if we acted now.
Kerry also made it clear that he thought the U.S. and the UN were acting too slowly on Libya. There was little hint he expected any acceleration. It would be nice to think that Saif will have to eat his words come Friday, but I doubt it. Wishing won’t make it so.
On Bahrain and I think Yemen (I confess my live-tweeting got in the way of my hearing), Kerry advocated dialogue. Morocco and Jordan he thought were adopting reasonable reform measures. He had harsh words for Iran, but thought the U.S. had not been sufficiently responsive to measures Syria has taken.
Kerry’s main point in today’s talk was the need for a substantial new political and economic aid program for Egypt, Tunisia and other countries trying to establish democracy, akin to the successful SEED program for Eastern Europe after the fall of the Berlin Wall. This is a fine idea, if its backers (Kerry/McCain/Lieberman) can get it past the House Tea Party.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Bad gets worse
Think things couldn’t get worse? Think again:
- One or more of Japan’s nuclear plants now looks sure to melt down, with at least one breaching the reactor containment vessel and spewing radioactive material. How much attention do we think Arab revolutions will get after that happens?
- Gaddafi’s forces are at the outskirts of Benghazi. We can hope that the rebels will succeed in cutting his now long supply lines, but I wouldn’t bet on it.
- The crackdown has gotten brutal in Bahrain, with the Saudi and UAE forces seeming to remain in the background guarding the royals while the King’s forces enforce martial law with tanks and machine guns.
- Yemen is at least as bad, with firing on demonstrators and no sign of serious negotiations yet.
Yes, they are still discussing a no fly zone at the Security Council, thus preventing anything else meaningful from getting through that august body.
Also notable: the European Union, freshly equipped with reforms that were supposed to unify its foreign policy, has rarely sounded less coherent or less effective: UK and France want a no fly zone, Germany doesn’t and Italy does and doesn’t.
Nor are the Americans sounding much more coherent and effective. Still in listening mode, which means not ready to do anything.
Don’t forget: Egypt votes on constitutional amendments Saturday. If they approve, a good deal of the old regime can hope to survive; if they don’t, things will again be up in the air. I might vote for up in the air, but I don’t live in Cairo.
I know you all prefer it when I post those funny videos, but this morning is hard to take lightly. I’ll look for some this afternoon.
PS: I should have mentioned it earlier but forgot: one of the consequences of Saudi/UAE intervention in Bahrain is a sharp rise in sectarian tensions, reflected in statements by Iraq’s Prime Minister Maliki and Grand Ayatollah Sistani but also felt in Iran. That does not bode well.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Doom and gloom
A world that was looking hopeful two weeks ago has taken a sharp turn southwards:
- The earthquake in Japan has not only caused upwards of 10,000 deaths and untold destruction, it has also put in doubt nuclear programs worldwide, not to mention what the prospect of further radiation leaks will do to stock markets today and the economic recovery in the future.
- Counter revolution is on the march in Libya, Bahrain and Yemen–in all three countries repression is winning the day, with the help of hesitation in Europe and the U.S. and Saudi and UAE security forces in Manama.
- Egypt votes in a constitutional referendum Saturday to either approve amendments prepared behind closed doors that would leave its regime largely intact, or disapprove, sending the country into uncertainty once again.
- Violence in Sudan is rising, with local south/south conflicts and tension in Abyei overshadowed for the moment by the Sudan Peoples’ Liberation Movement claim that the north is planning a coup intended to prevent independence in July.
- Iran is succeeding in repressing its Green Movement opposition and in neutering anyone else who might dare to challenge President Ahmedinejad.
- Kurdish and Arab leaders in Iraq are competing to see who can claim Kirkuk is their Jerusalem most convincingly, while their respective military forces face off in the contested town.
It is telling that today’s testimony in Congress by General Petraeus on the situation in Afghanistan, which is expected to be relatively upbeat, is the only good news, though experienced wags will see it as just the latest in a long string of turning points in a war that has never turned.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Meltdowns, nuclear and economic
We are going to be hearing a lot about nuclear meltdowns in the next few days. Here courtesy of Reuters is a decently comprehensible explanation of what may have happened at the Fukushima nuclear power plant:
Nuclear power plants cannot explode the way a nuclear weapon does. But they can spew a lot of dangerous radioactive material if the containment is breached (this has not happened so far). That could make things a lot worse. Check here for more on this and other nuclear issues.
At the very least, we are looking at colossal economic losses due to the earthquake in Japan. The reactors alone cost on the order of $10 billion each, and that is small in the context of the other physical damage done in Japan. But the really big impact is likely to come from increased energy costs worldwide–uncertainty about whether nuclear reactors are safe will drive up electricity and other energy bills, which are already soaring due to Middle East uncertainties.
So…anyone who thought our budget problems might ease in a year when the economy is recovering, as I did, will have to reevaluate. Whatever budget constraints we were feeling before the earthquake, they are going to get a good deal tighter now. This unquestionably affects the way we think about war and peace, in particular how much we are willing to pay for either one. Tea partiers were already prepared to cancel funding for peace, and they were looking shaky on support for war too. How about the rest of us?
RSS - Posts
