Libya intervention threatens the Arab spring
Despite its official UN-granted legality, the credibility of Western military
action in Libya is rapidly dwindling.
Phyllis Bennis Last Modified: 22 Mar 2011 10:19
Within just 48 hours of the start of the bombing campaign, the US and its
allies have lost the support of
the Arab League [AFP]
Western air and naval strikes against Libya are threatening the Arab Spring.
Ironically, one of the reasons many people supported the call for a no-fly zone
was the fear that if Gaddafi managed to crush the Libyan people''s uprising and
remain in power, it would send a devastating message to other Arab dictators:
Use enough military force and you will keep your job.
Instead, it turns out that just the opposite may be the result: It was after
the UN passed its no-fly zone and use-of-force resolution, and just as US,
British, French and other warplanes and warships launched their attacks against
Libya, that other Arab regimes escalated their crack-down on their own
democratic movements.
In Yemen, 52 unarmed protesters were killed and more than 200 wounded on Friday
by forces of the US-backed and US-armed government of Ali Abdullah Saleh. It
was the bloodiest day of the month-long Yemeni uprising. President Obama
"strongly condemned" the attacks and called on Saleh to "allow demonstrations
to take place peacefully".
But while a number of Saleh''s government officials resigned in protest, there
was no talk from Saleh''s US backers of real accountability, of a travel ban or
asset freeze, not even of slowing the financial and military aid flowing into
Yemen in the name of fighting terrorism.
Similarly in US-allied Bahrain, home of the US Navy''s Fifth Fleet, at least 13
civilians have been killed by government forces. Since the March 15 arrival of
1,500 foreign troops from Saudi Arabia and the UAE, brought in to protect the
absolute power of the king of Bahrain, 63 people have been reported missing.
Hillary Clinton, the US secretary of state, said: "We have made clear that
security alone cannot resolve the challenges facing Bahrain. Violence is not
the answer, a political process is."
But she never demanded that foreign troops leave Bahrain, let alone threatened
a no-fly zone or targeted air strikes to stop their attacks.
Legality vs. legitimacy
Despite its official UN-granted legality, the credibility and legitimacy of
Western military action is dwindling rapidly, even in key diplomatic circles.
For the Western alliance, and most especially for the Obama administration,
support from the Arab League was a critical prerequisite to approving the
military intervention in Libya.
The League''s actual resolution, passed just a couple of days before the UN
Security Council vote, approved a far narrower military option - essentially
only a no-fly zone, with a number of stated cautions against any direct foreign
intervention.
Of course, a no-fly zone is foreign intervention, whether one wants to
acknowledge it or not, but it is not surprising that the Arab League''s
approval was hesitant - it is, after all, composed of the exact same leaders
who are facing inchoate or massive challenges to their ruling power at home.
Supporting the attack on a fellow dictator - oops, sorry, a fellow Arab ruler -
was never going to be easy.
And as soon as the air strikes began in Libya, Arab League chief Amr Moussa
immediately criticised the Western military assault. Some commentators noted
the likelihood that Arab governments were pressuring Moussa out of fear of
Libyan terror attacks in their country; I believe it is more likely that Arab
leaders fear popular opposition, already challenging their rule, will escalate
as Libyan deaths rise.
Overlooking the African Union
Early on, the US had also identified support from the African Union (AU) as a
critical component. But as it became clear that the AU would not sign on to the
kind of attack on Libya contemplated in the UN resolution, the need for that
support (indeed the AU itself) disappeared from Western discourse on the issue.
Shortly after the bombing began, the five-member AU committee on the Libya
crisis called for an "immediate stop" to all the attacks and "restraint" from
the international community.
It went further, calling for the protection of foreign workers with a
particular reference to African expatriates in Libya (responding to reports of
attacks on African workers by opposition forces), as well as "necessary
political reforms to eliminate the cause of the present crisis".
So within 48 hours of the bombing campaign''s opening salvos, the US and its
allies have lost the support of the Arab and African institutions the Obama
administration had identified as crucial for going ahead.
Other countries turned against the attacks as well; the Indian government,
which had abstained on the Security Council vote, toughened its stance, saying
that it "regrets the air strikes that are taking place" and that implementation
of the UN resolution "should mitigate and not exacerbate an already difficult
situation for the people of Libya".
The question remains, what is the end game? The UN resolution says force may
only be used to protect Libyan civilians, but top US, British and French
officials have stated repeatedly that "Gaddafi must go" and that he has "lost
legitimacy to rule". They clearly want regime change.
The military commanders insist that regime change is not on their military
agenda, that Gaddafi is not "on a target list," but there is a wink-and-a-nod
at ''what if'' questions about a possible bombing "if he is inspecting a
surface-to-air missile site, and we do not have any idea if he is there or not".
What you ask for ain''t always what you get
There is no question Libya''s opposition, like most of the democratic movements
shaping this year''s Arab Spring, wants an end to the dictatorial regime in
their country.
Unlike the democratic movements in neighbouring countries, the Libyan movement
is fighting an armed military battle, something approaching a civil war,
against the regime''s forces.
That movement, facing a ruthless military assault, has paid a far higher price
in lost and broken lives than the non-violent activists in the other democratic
uprisings, and even with components of the military joining them, they were
out-gunned and desperate. So it is not surprising that they pleaded for
international support from the powerful countries and institutions most able to
provide immediate military aid, even if that aid ultimately threatened their
own independence.
But, what they got was probably way more than even the Libyan opposition itself
anticipated. And despite the exultation over the first downed tanks, questions
loom.
What if some kind of stalemate leaves Libya divided and military attacks
continuing? What if the opposition realises that negotiations (perhaps under
the auspices of newly democratising Egypt and Tunisia) are urgently needed, but
cannot be convened because the US and French presidents have announced that the
Libyan leader has no legitimacy and cannot be trusted?
And what if, as earlier US-imposed no-fly zones (both unilateral and
UN-endorsed) have experienced, the attack leads to rising numbers of civilian
casualties, killed by Western coalition bombs and an escalating, rather than
diminishing, civil war? What then?
The UN resolution clearly is looking ahead to just such an eventuality. It
calls on the secretary-general to inform the UN Security Council of all
military actions, instructing him to "report to the Council within seven days
and every month thereafter".
The UN, at least, seems to be preparing for another long war - that could last
far longer than this year''s Arab spring.
Phyllis Bennis is a Fellow of the Institute for Policy Studies and the
Transnational Institute in Amsterdam. Her books include Calling the Shots: How
Washington Dominates Today''s UN.
The views expressed in this article are the author''s own and do not
necessarily reflect Al Jazeera''s editorial policy.
Source:
Al Jazeera
Content on this website is for general information purposes only. Your comments
are provided by your own free will and you take sole responsibility for any
direct or indirect liability. You hereby provide us with an irrevocable,
unlimited, and global license for no consideration to use, reuse, delete or
publish comments, in accordance with Community Rules & Guidelines and Terms and
Conditions.
Disqus could not be loaded because it is not being loaded from a trusted domain.
------------------------------------
Post message: [email protected]
Subscribe : [email protected]
Unsubscribe : [email protected]
List owner : [email protected]
Homepage : http://proletar.8m.com/Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/proletar/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/proletar/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
[email protected]
[email protected]
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
