At the turn of the year, something remarkable swept through North Africa with successful demonstrations in Tunisia and Egypt. The Arab spring as it came to be known also affected Libya. Unlike the other two countries the situation quickly escalated from demonstrations to a country at war with itself, the UN had to act, and did, just in time to save Benghazi from Colonel Gaddafi's forces. Several months on since the passing of resolution 1973, I would like if I may, to set out my thoughts on Libya.
I did not, and do not oppose as the resolution puts it 'protecting civilians'. This is after all one of the vital roles of the United Nations, and a more muscular UN on issues of basic Human Rights sounds appealing (although the realpolitiks of the UN makes that unlikely). I am also glad that a multilateral coalition of nations was formed to take part in the operations in Libya. A lesson obviously learnt from Iraq, and I hope one that won't be forgotten.
All of this being said, I have grave concerns with operations currently undertaken in Libya. Firstly it seems that our mandate to act in Libya is based on 'the protection of civilians' as I said earlier a mandate I agree with. However that is not what we are doing per say. Instead we have taken a side in a Civil War. Indeed we have taken the side of previously untrained soldiers, who like it or not are likely to cause some 'collateral damage' the cost of this is always felt by civilians. Whether it is the destruction of a house or some more horrific actions the consequence of taking a side in a civil war is having to live with those actions. This is not to suggest that it is a deliberate policy of either the international coalition or the opposition groups in Libya, but as history tells us untrained soldiers commit atrocities. It does not seem logical then that we can both protect civilians and take a side.
It also seems that we are escalating the campaign against Gaddafi. We were told that the no fly zone would be the limit. It would then be down to the rebels to shape their history so to speak. Perhaps inevitably in reality we have seen a slow escalation of the conflict from strictly a no-fly zone, to 'special' advisors on the ground to now sending in apache helicopters to provide low flying support for the 'rebels'. My fear is that as this conflict unfolds and political success at home becomes more and more entangled with a military success in Libya, we will see more and more 'final' acts, until we are in a situation where we have some form of army on the ground.
This fear is compounded by my final concern. Former general turned Conservative advisor Richard Dannat said about a month ago 'they are looking to set up a democracy of sorts, not as we know it'. This has not been the impression given by the media or government sources who have repeatedly shown the conflict as a struggle for 'western' democracy. Of course democracy is different everywhere and should be allowed to evolve organically, but I have to say 'democracy of sorts' does not sound like what we in the west have been promised.
So we are by implication aiding a group of people more and more every week, who are untrained and do not even necessarily want democracy 'as we know it'. To me this does not comply with resolution 1973, because we have taken a side rather than attempted to protect civilians. International lawyers and politicians may say that relative to allowing Gaddafi to cling to power, supporting an untrained rabble is protecting civilians. I just hope those people will equally accept some responsibility if -heaven forbid- an atrocity is committed by rebel soldiers.
No comments:
Post a Comment