Stairway to Libya

On March 19, 2011, the West led by France, the United Kingdom and the United States launched Operation Odyssey Dawn. In contrast to the invasion of Iraq in 2003, which violated International Law and public opinion, the military operation in Libya grounds its legitimacy in the United Nations Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 1973, “demanding an immediate ceasefire in Libya, including an end to the current attacks against civilians, which it said might constitute “crimes against humanity,” the Security Council this evening imposed a ban on all flights in the country’s airspace — a no-fly zone — and tightened sanctions on the Qaddafi regime and its supporters.” The UNSCR 1973 was adopted by a vote of 10 members in favor and 5 abstentions (Brazil, China, Germany, India and the Russian Federation), making it a ‘just war’ in legal terms. Several days later, Canada, Italy, and Qatar joined forces in this new military chapter. The bombings by naval and air power of Libyan ground-to-air missile capabilities, tanks, armored vehicles and some government buildings are the clear application of the UNSCR and implementation of a no-fly zone over Libya.

Even though this military endeavor has UN legitimacy, I cannot undermine my concerns about it. Yes it is legal and ethical, but there is something odd about this war. I fully agree with the need to support Libyan civilians and the necessity to stop Colonel Qaddafi in his ‘madness’ in order to maintain his authority over Libya at any cost, however I remain extremely skeptical on the ‘undisclosed’ reasons of western governments. The fact that the world has clear evidence, not constructed this time, of the violence orchestrated on the ground by Qaddafi and his troops against civilians is an important basis for assistance and intervention. The international community cannot let civilians being massacred as it did in the early 90s in Rwanda, in Darfur, and in the Balkans. This argument is so strong and these examples have stained the collective memory of the international community for so long that nobody can really argue against it. The primacy of human rights is such that as underlined by US President Obama, it is not a Western value, but a universal one. In that sense, I understand the necessity to intervene in Libya.

However, there are too many unknowns behind the coalitions’ decisions. External to the normative and ethical components, which are not often present in foreign policy, the motivation of Western governments is very doubtful. Invasions and military attacks have often occurred in regions rich in natural resources and geopolitically strategic, not others like Rwanda for example. The energetic variable in Libya is too big to be removed from the equation. Major European energy firms such as Shell, BP, Total, Eni have too much interests in there and too much power/leverage on governments’ decisions that anyone can make the connection. This economic dimension has not been part of the official narratives, and will not as usual.

Then, if one remembers, Colonel Qaddafi was invited in a European tour a year ago. President Sarkozy of France hosted him for almost a week at the Elyssée Palace. I cannot admit that back then President Sarkozy believed in Qaddafi’s morality and considered him as one of France’s reliable partners. For over four decades, France-Libya relations have been extremely chaotic and tenebrous. The reality is that since the beginning of the 21^st century, France has emphasized on diversifying its energy supply, and Libya has been one of the French alternatives.

Another concern can be summarized by the French expression: ‘grandeur nationale.’ France foreign policy touched rock-bottom after its lack of anticipation and adaptation to the events in Tunisia and Egypt earlier this year. By leading the international community to agree on the UNSCR 1973, France is reestablishing itself as one of the leading diplomatic powers. By leading the international community in this endeavor through the use of institutions and multilateralism, President Sarkozy has accomplished another personal success on the international stage comparable to the one after the invasion of Georgia by Russia.

The question of ‘exit strategy’ is an additional problem. History has proven that military interventions are always so easy to start but always so difficult to end. Two serious questions have not been addressed yet: first, ‘what will success look like in Libya?’ and second, ‘will it be with or without Qaddafi?’ The only valid answer so far is: ‘only time will tell us.’

And last point, in this globalized world, one cannot undermine the power of domestic politics. Since the financial crisis, the middle class in Europe and the US has had to sweep the cost of revamping the ‘too big too fail’ financial institutions. Social, education programs, the welfare state at large have been slashed in the name of financial and economic rigor. But it is always very interesting that ‘going to war,’ an extremely costly process with considerable human, emotional, material and economic sacrifices, does not fall under the same criteria. The fuelling of another war is difficult to admit in this period of painful economic recovery.