Not really facing any alternative, Libya announced a cease-fire after the U.N. Security Council authorized the use of force against their armed forces:
The announcement came after the Security Council on Thursday evening authorized the use of “all necessary measures” to protect civilians in Libya, paving the way for air and naval attacks against Gaddafi’s forces as he vowed to level Benghazi, the rebel’s main stronghold and Libya’s second-largest city.
But let there be no doubt that a cease-fire is not the true aim of this resolution. While everyone is pretending that this is about protecting the “democrats” of Benghazi, or innocent civilians, the truth is that the aim is regime change.
François Baroin, a French government spokesman, had told RTL radio that airstrikes would come “rapidly,” perhaps within hours, after the United Nations resolution late Thursday authorizing “all necessary measures” to impose a no-flight zone.
But he insisted the military action “is not an occupation of Libyan territory.” Rather, it was designed to protect the Libyan people and “allow them to go all the way in their drive, which means bringing down the Qaddafi regime.”
Let’s make sure we’re clear about this. The language of the resolution lifts the arms embargo (for the rebels) and prohibits foreign ground troops.
It authorises UN member states “to take all necessary measures [notwithstanding the previous arms embargo] to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, including Benghazi, while excluding a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory”
So, what we have is a commitment to overthrow the Gaddafi regime, notwithstanding any cease-fire on their part, through the arming of the opposition which was on its last legs and within weeks of being crushed. To do this, we are not allowed to insert occupying troops, however you want to interpret that. But the rebels can expect foreign air forces to join them in battle.
It’s all an elaborate obfuscation. Look at this:
Amr Moussa, the Secretary General of the Arab League, which had supported the idea of a no-flight zone, told Reuters on Friday: “‘The goal is to protect civilians first of all, and not to invade or occupy.”
And this:
Lebanon’s U.N. ambassador, Nawaf Salam, provided no details on what role Arab countries would play in the military operation, saying that participants would make their own announcements. But he insisted that “there would be no forces on the ground in any form or in any part of Libya.”
And this:
British Prime Minister David Cameron said Britain would judge Col Gaddafi “by his actions not his words” after Libya said it was declaring a ceasefire to comply with the resolution.
“What is absolutely clear is the UN Security Council resolution said he must stop what he is doing, brutalising his people. If not, all necessary measures can follow to make him stop,” he told the BBC.
“That is what we agreed last night, that is what we are preparing for and we’ll judge him by what he does.”
They are trying to convince us that this is all about protecting civilians and that Libya’s sovereignty will be respected, but, again, the goal is regime change.
“There is no justification for [Gaddafi’s] continued leadership now,” Ambassador Susan E. Rice said after casting the U.S. vote in favor of the resolution. Russia, China, Germany, Brazil and India — all of whom expressed reservations about the move — abstained.
Obviously, I am conflicted about this. I would like to see Gaddafi driven from power. I definitely do not want to see him massacre the Libyan opposition. But I also do not want to get involved in a civil war in Libya, especially on the weaker side, and I don’t want to cause a massive amount of bloodshed by arming a disorganized, ill-led opposition and giving them just enough power to fight but not enough power to win. And I don’t want to occupy Libya or take responsibility for the governance of their country. So, difficult choices, indeed.
Obama has not yet authorized the use of our forces in or over Libya, and I am grateful to see the French and British taking the lead-role. That is one of the things I have been insistent about, that European powers take on the risks, costs, and responsibilities of any military action. While there will be some angst domestically about seeing other powers usurp our traditional role as the U.N.’s enforcer, power sharing is key if the United Nations is going to have any teeth and we are going to avoid bankruptcy.
This means that it will be the prestige of France and Britain that is on the line if Gaddafi doesn’t willingly step down or succumb to the opposition forces. This is important. I agree with what Sen. Dick Lugar had to say yesterday:
“Clearly, the United States should be engaged with allies on how to oppose the Qaddafi regime and support the aspirations of the Libyan people,” said Sen. Richard Lugar (R-IN) at the start of the committee’s Thursday morning hearing on the Middle East. “But given the costs of a no-fly zone, the risks that our involvement would escalate, the uncertain reception in the Arab street of any American intervention in an Arab country, the potential for civilian deaths, the unpredictability of the endgame in a civil war, the strains on our military, and other factors, I am doubtful that U.S. interests would be served by imposing a no-fly zone over Libya.”
That is what I have been saying all along. However, France and Britain have different interests. If they are willing to take on the responsibility and the United Nations has authorized it, then I can sign off on that. But I still think they’re going about it all wrong. The policy is regime change. All diplomatic niceties aside, Gaddafi can’t come out of this clinging to power in any part of Libya. Since we know this, why make this a painful, prolonged process where the international community is relying on a ragtag, ill-equipped, ill-led, ill-defined opposition? Why not get it over quickly by landing forces in Tripoli and uprooting all vestiges of Gaddafi’s power?
It will come to that eventually, most likely, unless Gaddafi is offered some kind of sanctuary. Gaddafi responded to the passage of the resolution by immediately announcing a cessation of hostilities, but that only puts the lie to the intent of the resolution. No one cares whether he fights or not, so long as he is forced from power. Pretending otherwise is just going to get a lot of people needlessly killed and leave a war-torn country to rebuild.
Better to treat this as a band-aid. Rip it right off.
Why not do it quickly?
You’re forgetting the role of the Arab League in all of this. Excepting Egypt, they all have quite an interest in wringing their hands and seeing this drag out a bit.
Let Qaddafi be a nice specter haunting the region, drawing a clean line between the “good” regimes of the Arab League and his wholly “unique” brand of evil. And let the West and the media put all eyes on Libya, instead of the ongoing developments on the Arabian Peninsula.
True.
All I know is that every day Gaddafi remains in power will be a humiliation to the United Nations, and by extension, the powers enforcing the resolution.
Therefore, this will escalate quickly or be a maddening bloodbath.
Sorry Boo – but you’re looking for quick fixes again. Some things take time. Also you think the solution is an almost entirely a military one, when the big problem is that there is almost no civil society or state infrastructure that can take over the running of what has become a largely family run fiefdom.
A stalemate where there is a de facto ceasefire is by no means a humiliation for the UN or the European powers. It may be the best we can hope for in the short term. Of course we would all like to see Gaddafi gone tomorrow – but not at the cost of replacing him with something worse – a completely lawless situation where roving bands of armed bandits are running the show. An occupation force could quickly accomplish what no one wants – Unite Libyans against them – as is happening in Afghanistan and Iraq.
So the opposition have to get their act together and show their competence and good faith. All virtue is not concentrated on one side any more than all evil on the other. Of course the UN will be forced to act further if the no fly zone fails to enforce peace, but hopefully most of any fighting which must take place can be accomplished by a rearmed and re-organised opposition.
Over time it may dawn on the Gaddafi clan that the best they can hope for is to escape with some of their loot – but that could just leave all of their loyalists at the mercy of the opposition.
Hopefully a lot of background conversations are taking place across enemy lines – across tribal, regional and social boundaries and people will realise they have more in common than separates them and that they need to agree a leadership structure and democratic governance process all can unite around.
Shooting everyone “on the other side” is not a recipe for a lasting peace. Be patient. Perhaps Libyans have more wisdom than you credit them with, and if not, coming in with large ground forces isn’t necessarily going to teach them that wisdom.
First of all, I am not advocating the invasion of Tripoli. I am only saying it is preferable to arming this opposition and then hoping that they prevail in a civil war. You seem to have bought into the idea that there will be some kind of sustained cease-fire. That would be wholly unsatisfactory to the United States, the European powers, the opposition, and most everyone else.
That’s the point of this post. The policy is regime change, i.e., the forcible removal of Gaddafi from power. That is what was voted for; it was just couched in diplomatic and face-saving language. So, how to accomplish that with this particular army and a prohibition of even military advisers to teach them how to use their fancy new weapons?
A lot of the army seem to be crossing over to the “revolutionary” side together with increasing amounts of heavy weaponry, so regime change may already be happening. The situation is so unstable, fluid and fast changing, it is difficult to predict tomorrow’s events, never mind next week. There is no long term solution which includes Gaddafi, but there are any number of ways by which that may come about – and a direct ground assault on Tripoli by outside forces should be the very last resort.
The only way this works is an internal coup or asylum (if he’ll accept it).
He can stop fighting completely and we’ll just pretend he hasn’t stopped. As Clinton said, he has to go and that’s the policy. If he doesn’t, we’re committed to fighting a civil war on behalf of the weaker side and without any real military expertise. We’ll be giving sophisticated heavy weapons to teenage punks who don’t know how to care for an AK-47.
Whatever. I hope it works out.
Booman Tribune ~ A Progressive Community
Booman Tribune ~ Comments ~ On the United Nations and Libya
I find these statements difficult to reconcile
It’s not that hard to grasp. For the United Nations to achieve the implied goals of its resolutions concerning Libya, they might just as well put some troops in and take Qadhafi out. Otherwise, you’re looking at Iraq post 1991.
Regime change seems to be the goal. No-fly zones don’t really change the facts on the ground unless you’re willing to escalate.
I can say all this and still retain the belief that we shouldn’t intervene in a civil war other than calling for sanctions and an end to hostilities.
They shouldn’t be when you consider that I’ve opposed U.S. involvement in Libya all along and that I am only advocating the invasion of Tripoli is the sense that it is preferable to arming the opposition and setting off an escalated civil war.
My position is that if the policy is that Gaddafi must go then the people responsible for making that happen should do it themselves and spare the opposition their casualties, hard-feelings, time, and destruction of their country. And it would avoid leaving the country littered with weapons.
Let’s not pretend that we have a different policy.
But if it were up to me, the U.S. would have zero involvement in any of this. None. I don’t consider it our responsibility to protect the people of Libya when they are in a state of rebellion against their government. Sometimes people lose in war.
And I don’t have confidence that the killing will stop when Gaddafi is forced from power. Creating a power vacuum isn’t humanitarian. We saw that in Iraq.
It is the responsibility of the UN, and particularly of the Security Council Members, to prevent genocides and gross violations of human rights. Governments don’t have the right to kill civilians or exact revenge on those on the losing side of a civil war. That applies to both Gaddafi and Transitional Governmental Council.
So the US does have a responsibility, under international law by virtue of Treaties it has signed, to act to protect endangered civilians, and the resolution just passed is a fair reflection of that.
That duty and right does not extend as far as invading a sovereign country for the sole purpose of regime change. So the diplomatic niceties you decry in fact make an important distinction.
The US (and most of us) would love to see Gaddafi go quickly, but the process by which that happens IS important. If he violates the ceasefire, he makes himself a legitimate target. If he doesn’t, he risks slowly losing his country town by town as his people realise he has been dehorned and that the basis of his power has gone.
I have no doubt UN forces will turn a blind eye to rebel advances whilst acting against any Gaddafi army/airforce attacks. Slowly his own commanders will realise they are in a no-win situation, and that he has become a gross liability. Those who are smart will swap sides. It’s a process that will take time. There may be a de facto partition between pro-and anti Gaddafi areas for a time.
But the reality is the die are cast and he has nowhere to go. Libya could become a model for how these crises should be handled. The bigger question is – will the Saudis get the message? Or the Israelis? (attacking civilian vessels in international waters is a war crime under international law)
The problem with International law is that it applies to you and your allies as well.
It’s not that clear.
If one wanted to play devil’s advocate, one could argue that a government has the inherent right to maintain order within their own sovereign territory and that an armed rebellion can be put down with force. When does that legitimate right dissolve? Is it when innocent people are targeted? Peaceful protesters? Because, while an armed rebellion is going on it seems like peaceful protests are a bit of a sideshow.
The UN certainly hasn’t taken the position that rulers who are not democratically elected have no right to maintain order or put down rebellion.
What’s gone on here is that Gaddafi has no friends. And there is an expectation that he will go much further than merely restoring order.
We have an obligation to prevent a massacre of innocent civilians, but not an obligation to take sides in a civil war. Admittedly, that puts is in a bit of a bind, but this sort of thing happens all the time in places like Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, Myanmar, and Iran without the UN passing any resolutions authorizing outside force to protect people.
This is largely about Gaddafi’s unique unpopularity and partly about oil. It’s not about civilians, really.
“will the Saudis get the message? Or the Israelis? (attacking civilian vessels in international waters is a war crime under international law)“
But Frank, the message is not intended for the Saudis, and it is definitely not intended for the Israelis, and they know it. I am struck very strongly by the contrast between the reaction to Gaddafi’s violent reaction to an attempt to overthrow the government, and the reactions to Israel’s horrifically deadly and destructive attacks on Lebanon, 2006, and Gaza, 2008-09. Not to defend Gaddafi, but what he is doing is very much what governments do when citizens try to overthrow them. Look at horrors the United States government committed when some states tried to secede. They slaughtered plenty of “their own people” on and off the battlefield, and laid waste to much of the South. Israel, on the other hand, laid waste to much of Lebanon, and Gaza, and clearly targeted civilian infrastructure, as well as civilian lives, yet all we heard there was the nauseating mantra that “Israel has a right to defend itself”.
And why are we not hearing our President and Secretary of State saying a word about the slaughter and repression that is going on in Bahrayn and The Yemen? Are innocent Yemeni and Bahrayni lives not as important as innocent Libyan lives? Are not Yemenis and Bahraynis every bit as entitled to determine their own form of government as are Libyans? And why not a word about the fact that the Bahrayn monarchy has brought in troops from Sa`udia against the protestors?
The message is clearly only meant for those for whom the United States does not have a good use.
“Creating a power vacuum isn’t humanitarian. We saw that in Iraq. “
Nothing the United States has ever done in Iraq was intended to be humanitarian. In any case, “humanitarian war” is an oxymoron.
And what civil society there is is confined to the operation of the Libyan National Council in Benghazi.
The rapidity with which the folks in Benghazi moved to establish some civil governance makes me wonder whether Gaddafi’s Potemkin Jamahariya did not inadvertably wind up training ordinary people in the technocratic routine running of civil institutions.
Apparently the quality of health and educational facilities has much declined under Gaddafi rule – as his Sons siphoned off Billions to fund their lifestyle and external assets. It is easy to understand why the Libyan middle class revolted, less easy to understand their capabilities in providing a modern governance infrastructure to replace Gaddafi’s henchmen – although almost anything would be an improvement..
Look at Egypt. The figurehead is gone but the institutions of government are intact, no? The situation has not degenerated into anarchy.
I don’t think Libya would be all that different. One of the biggest mistakes we made in Iraq was de-baathification. There had to be a better way to deal with existing institutions in the aftermath of regime change.
You’re seeing in Egypt now successful attempts to get rid of oppressive parts of government like the internal security service. But they’re working with what is already there.
Yes and no. Yes, work with what is there, which is why we shouldn’t support pogroms by the Transitional Governing Council against former Gaddafi supporters after their victory.
No – insofar as I understand there is no comparison between the relatively sophisticated economic and Governmental infrastructure of Egypt and a Libya which has been reduced to a private fiefdom of a tyrant who has systematically destroyed the institutions of civil society which he saw as competitors to his absolute rule.
I have been to Egypt, not to Libya. So perhaps it depends on which sources you believe.
Egypt is still in the process of change. It is not clear yet how it will turn out, but the indications are positive:
There is a long way to go before one can render a verdict on Egypt. But no doubt the folks who were in Tahrir Square for 18 days are watching.
The most pressing issue right now isn’t the threat of humiliation, but the rank hypocrisy given the latest Yemen pivot.
Don’t get bogged down in hypocrisy. In world affairs some degree of hypocrisy is unavoidable. And, besides, don’t kid yourself that the Yemeni opposition is going to be an improvement for anyone except themselves. When you apples and oranges, charges of hypocrisy can be deceptively convincing.
Nice apologetics for standard-issue American hypocrisy.
Which recent Yemen pivot. The administration has been consistently calling for restraint and a reduction of violence. They are doing the same in Bahrain. No one knows what the administration is saying to Saleh and the Khalifas in those direct confirmations. This is one of those cases to remember that those who know aren’t telling and those who are telling don’t know. At least not yet. And most of the the “behind the scenes” reports are self-interested attempts to influence policy.
And neither Yemen nor Bahrain has gotten as violent and repressive as Gaddafi’s reaction yet. There are still lots of opportunities for the issues there to be settled internally through politics. Saleh is rapidly losing legitimacy in his own party and with various tribes. The Khalifas bought some time by allowing peaceful protest in the Pearl Roundabout for three weeks.
One thing we need to remember is that the US does not have to tell autocrats to repress dissent; they do that by habit. When they don’t or don’t immediately, one can suspect some outside interest is restraining them.
Why not both?
I guess if France and the UK want to have an african adventure, ok, but all the same questions apply to their involvement as they would to america’s. Why is Kaddafi now persona non-grata and his continued regime is intolerable? Why should the US care about the humiliation of the UN when it brazenly humiliates the UN whenever it pleases? The only thing that changed is that there were some protests and some disorganized fighting. But even if there were a defensible reason to forcefully remove him, no one can pretend that outside powers can impose a stable and friendly regime. That’s cloud cuckoo land. What shred of evidence is there that outside intervention will positively effect the situation in the long run?
The US should care because if it’s not the US doing the humiliating to the UN, then a humiliation of the UN hurts the US.
Gotta agree with you on everything, especially that there is no evidence that outside intervention will positively affect the situation. On the contrary, there is abundant evidence that it is far more likely to have a negative effect.
The resolution is a tactic, not a strategy. As we have learned over and over to our dismay, tactics don’t win conflicts, only strategies do.
Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
The sense of the international community, including Russia, China, Brazil, India, and Germany, is that the Libyan people want regime changed just like the Tunisian and Libyan people did. The UN Security Council resolution from three weeks ago called for Gaddafi to step down after he killed peaceful protesters in Green Square in Tripoli by having mercenaries fire anti-aircraft weapons at pointblank range. In the wake of this, the Libyan ambassador the the UN changed sides and asked the UN Security Council to do something. That produced the first resolution, which imposed sanctions against the Gaddafi family and some key aides, froze assets, and referred Gaddafi to the International Criminal Court for crimes against humanity.
Events are moving so fast that depending on the New York Times is too slow and too much driven by the Village narrative to know what is going on. The ceasefire was broken the moment it was announced, just as Mubarak’s thugs hit the streets immediately after Mubarak’s speech that he was not stepping down.
The actual UN resolution is more limited than what a lot of hardcore anti-war folks are arguing. The resolution adds to the list of people who are on no-fly lists and have their assets frozen; the total is now 21. It authorizes a the protection of civilians by necessary means, but constrains it by insisting on the territorial integrity of Libya and prohibiting foreign troops on the ground. I suspect that after Iraq and Afghanistan the US, UK and other countries that accept implementation responsibilities will be scrupulous about conforming to those constraints. They understand the risks of the Arab street thinking that this is another imperialist action, and Gaddafi will be playing that tune and will be helped by his few allies in the world, Chavez being the main one. And progressive media that pick up information from media sympathetic to Chavez and Gaddafi’s revolutions will likely express those points of view.
But with what is happening in the Middle East, it is time not to adopt knee-jerk reactions cultivated during the Bush regime. The US is a reluctant actor in this operation; the French and Portuguese are the ones who did the heavy lifting of convincing the UN Security Council on this vote.
I read that Italy is sending a ship there. Interesting.
Italy, as of last night, was allowing the US Sixth Fleet to provision in Naples, had permitted air bases in Italy to be used in the operations, and had authorized fly-over of Italian air space.
we don’t need to be there. period. this is not our job. let the Arabs and EU do it.
When is the resolution coming on Yemen? Pretty big massacre their yesterday on top of a few others and a civil war. Exactly the same as Libya except the Yemeni dictator is a darling of the west
My question exactly. And what about Bahrayn, too? Interesting, isn’t it, how the U.S. rushed to defend Iraqi Shi`as against the evil minority Sunnis, but they don’t seem to care so much for the Shi`a majority in Bahrayn, do they.