The air strikes against Muammar Gaddafi’s regime in , sanctioned by United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973, are fully justified, legal and have effectively decimated the Libyan air force and air defence systems. Gaddafi’s ability to kill civilians and retake lost territory has been severely curtailed and a bloodbath in Benghazi has been prevented.
The UN Security Council is to be commended for imposing a no-fly zone over Libya and for authorising member states to “take all necessary measures to protect civilians under threat of attack”.
French President Nicolas Sarkozy and British Prime Minister David Cameron in particular deserve credit for their leadership during this crisis and for putting together a broad-based coalition, including the Arab League, in support of military intervention in Libya .
The fact that Russia and China chose not to veto Resolution 1973, by abstaining, is encouraging. Why India, Brazil, and especially Germany chose to abstain is disappointing. However, not one member of the Security Council voted against the no-fly zone resolution, and that is quite an accomplishment for the UN and for the concept of collective action against regimes that commit crimes against humanity.
Malta has so far chosen not to allow its sole civilian airport to be used for the UN-approved military strikes against Libya, although it fully supports Resolution 1973. This probably makes sense in the present circumstances, but it does not mean the situation can’t be reviewed in a different scenario.
The air strikes and missile attacks in Libya have so far been conducted by the US, Britain and France, although a number of other countries, both Nato and Arab League members, have pledged to also participate in the enforcement of the no-fly zone. An agreement has now been reached, after some initial opposition from France and Turkey, for Nato to assume command of enforcing the no-fly zone over Libya.
The US, which has been particularly keen to hand over military operations in Libya to Nato, was happy to see the British and French take the initiative in calling for a no-fly zone over Libya. This is understandable, considering its involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan. President Barack Obama did not want this war to be seen as another US-led war in a Muslim country, which it isn’t.
However, one certainly cannot underestimate the contribution of the US during this whole crisis. It must have played an important behind-the-scenes role in getting the approval of a no-fly zone by the Security Council and in convincing the Arab League to support action against Gaddafi.
In addition, the US Navy is enforcing the arms embargo against the Libyan regime and President Obama made it clear that the US will offer its “unique capabilities” during this conflict. On the first day of military operations, for example, the US fired over 100 Tomahawk cruise missiles against Libyan military targets and US jets have played a major role in destroying Libya’s military infrastructure.
What is the next step in Libya? Gaddafi is still in power and the rebels are poorly trained, they lack firepower and a proper command structure, and have failed to retake any towns controlled by government forces. However, the present status quo, where Gaddafi is now incapable of winning back territory controlled by the opposition, means that both the international community as well as the rebels have time to formulate a new strategy in this conflict.
The worst case scenario in Libya now is its de facto partition, which is clearly undesirable because it means Gaddafi would remain in control of half the country, and that means the no-fly zone would have to be maintained indefinitely. This would come at a huge economic cost – the no-fly zone in Iraq was enforced for 10 years – and international public opinion for this would be eroded.
In the days ahead it is important that international support for the no-fly zone is strengthened and that as many Arab and Muslim countries as possible are encouraged to participate in its enforcement (so far Qatar and the UAE have promised their participation).
Furthermore, with the no-fly zone in place, the air forces of the countries implementing the UN resolution can direct their attacks against the regime’s supply lines and troop movements on the ground if these are deemed to be a threat to civilians. This will prevent attacks on opposition-held towns and perhaps convince the Libyan military to rethink its loyalty to Gaddafi.
Another possibility is to supply the opposition forces with arms and to send a limited number of special forces to help the rebels.
The UN arms embargo is targeted against the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, which is Gaddafi’s regime, and not the opposition, so one can make a case for supplying the rebels with arms.
In addition, although the Security Council resolution excludes “a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory”, it does not prohibit the sending of a few troops (certainly not an occupation force) to help eliminate Libyan army snipers who are indiscriminately shooting at civilians in opposition-held areas.
There is no quick end to this conflict, but the coalition has acted correctly in Libya and has prevented further massacres by the Gaddafi regime.
The West must now be patient, it must do all it can to strengthen international support for Resolution 1973 and it must continue to assist the Libyan opposition and warn members of the regime that they will be held accountable for their actions.
In the end it must be the Libyan people who topple Gaddafi, perhaps as a result of further army desertions, and the coalition must do whatever it can to help them.