Tag Archives: NATO

A Whole New World (of Problems)

The emblem of the National Transitional Council (and a pretty damn cool one at that) of Libya. The NTC claims to represent rebels across the country, but do they have the influence to really unite Libya's opposition? (Source: Wikimedia Commons)

As Colonel Moammar Qaddafi’s days become more and more numbered, the question of Libya’s new leadership is coming to the front of international leaders’ minds, and of course is a topic of paramount importance to Libyans themselves.

Little sidenote here – it seems that Moammar Qaddafi’s son and heir-apparent, Saif al-Islam Qaddafi, has either escaped rebel custody or was never captured in the first place. Rebels had reported that Saif was captured, and would be handed over to the International Criminal Court, but it seems that won’t be happening until he’s actually, well, captured. Just a little update!

Control of Libya seems to be moving safely into rebel hands; at least, the general momentum of the conflict is in the rebels’ favor for now. The probable outcome is an entirely different story, and one I won’t dive into here, except to say that I’m generally optimistic for the rebels. Let’s be generous to the rebels and the National Transitional Council and assume that they’ll soon take power.

The new leadership will face many challenges and problems as they take over Tripoli. The first, and perhaps most important of these is figuring out who the new leadership actually is. Like so many revolutionary movements, the rebellion in Libya is made up of a complicated fabric of different tribes, factions, and interest groups, a fabric that is difficult to tease apart. While the NTC (National Transitional Council, the de jure leadership of the Libyan rebels) is technically in charge, there are so many different groups represented in the rebellion that it will be a major challenge just to bring everyone under a single banner.

And beyond the already daunting task of uniting the rebel forces is the challenge of holding back the tide of anger, resentment, and vengeance that is likely to be brought to bear against Qaddafi supporters by rebels after the tyrant falls. The last thing post-Qaddafi Libya needs is an Iraq-esqe chaos-state (catchy huh?) where violence is the only law people obey.

On top of all this, there’s the ever-present risk of another dictator rising from the ashes of the Colonel’s regime, an outcome which is not entirely unlikely, and one which would render the entire revolution moot and make the international community that facilitated the change seem rather moronic.

The stakes are high in Tripoli and across Libya. The people of the country certainly don’t lack resolve and bravery, traits which they’ve demonstrated throughout the revolution. But because Libya has been in Moammar Qaddafi’s headlock for the past 42 years, the country has few political institutions, and the young people who are largely responsible for the rebellion don’t have any experience leading large political groups, much less governments. During his lengthy rule, Qaddafi made a point of splitting up tribes, organizations, political groups and movements, and any other form of organization that he could get his hands on. This simple yet effective dictatorial tactic will make it trickier for the Libyan people to form the political groups they need to and to build a stable state.

This state will need to hit the ground running in order to keep up with the constant demands of a divided and conflict-ridden country like Libya. Besides managing infrastructure issues like water supply, electricity, and the many other things Qaddafi promised the rebels would cut off if allowed to come to power, the NTC and other leaders will still need to manage the winding down of a civil war. Even after Qaddafi’s death or capture, the country will remain divided, and it could take quite a long time to bring things back together.

To achieve these and other goals, the new government will not only need to act fast and think faster, but will also, in all likelihood, require a bit more international nudging. The NATO air campaign has helped the rebels enormously, but the majority of Libya’s problems can’t be solved by aerial bombardment. If security is a major issue in the weeks and months after regime change, it may be necessary for peacekeeping forces (who should be from a variety of contributors, not just the US) to step onto the streets of Tripoli until things can be calmed down. Once some democratic institutions have been set up (and this process is already underway in Benghazi and across the country) and the NTC has found its footing, the international community can pull out and declare Libya a job well done.

There are of course many more issues and challenges that I may have overlooked or airbrushed in the course of writing this, but the Libyan rebels seem to be on the right side of history in this conflict. If their determination can bring about democracy and revolution gives way to freedom and security, then the story of the rebels who stood up to Moammar Qaddafi’s violence and repression will be a refreshing revival of the Arab Spring and a powerful reminder to tyrants across the Middle East and the world at large that violence and rage can’t stop a people who will give anything to win back their country.

Advertisements

Leave a comment

Filed under International Focus, Politics & Power, Revolutions & Revolts, War & Peace

Global Community, Global Responsibility (Part 2)

The international community has a responsibility to end state-condoned atrocities in other countries. (Source: Middle-East-Info.org)

This is part 2 of a multi-part post on international responsibility. Part 1 can be found here.

The answer to this question is an unfortunately simple one: Because no one stopped it.

The international community is understandably hesitant to become involved in foreign conflicts and complications. Becoming tangled in another country’s conflict can be costly and often pointless, as the United States has seen in recent years in Afghanistan and, to a certain extent, Iraq. Sorting out other countries’ issues is difficult work.

But other nations must sometimes become involved in a country’s private affairs, even if it’s not very advantageous for the intervening country. I would consider these “private affairs” to be any act of atrocity that is committed, condoned, or simply overlooked by the ruling government. US Vice President Joe Biden had this to say about the actions of Moammar Qaddafi in Libya: “When a State engages in atrocity, it forfeits its sovereignty.”

Sovereignty is a very important concept in international relations. Simply put, it’s the quality of having supreme authority over an area of land and its inhabitants. But a state must earn this authority by being a responsible caretaker and lawmaker for its people. And when a state does not perform this duty, other nations may have to step in to force the issue.

Let me rephrase that: The international community may have to step in (yes, I know I’ve said the words “international community” far too many times!). Just as it is crucial for a country to be personally responsible to have a part on the international stage, it’s important that all countries are collectively responsible for keeping the world a safe place. I ought to say though, that I’m not endorsing a kind of world police, at least not one run by any one country (least not the United States). But perhaps we do need a world interventionary force, to prevent atrocities from being committed.

This force would be multilateral and international, so as not to skew power in any country’s direction too far. It would need to be much quicker to act than organizations like NATO or the UN though, and would probably work best when independent of these organizations. Unfortunately, the United Nations simply represents too many conflicting interests, and takes far too long to come to decisions; it took nearly a million deaths before the UN did anything in Rwanda, and by then it was too late. So perhaps willing and able parties of the international community should form a more fast-acting organization, to quickly strike against state-committed or -sponsored violence.

In fact, NATO did a fairly good job of this recently, in its response to the violence of Qaddafi against his own people in Libya. Even then though, it took far too long for the UN and NATO to step in, and there’s still more that should be done, such as the placement of peacekeeping troops or delivery of additional medical supplies.

If there were to be an independent, international coalition specifically set up to counteract state atrocities, mass violence could be stopped much sooner and more effectively. Assuming that specific guidelines were set in place, and all participating nations agreed on which actions constitute atrocity, this peacekeeping force might have the power to stop many humanitarian crises. The key to this would be fast, decisive action against state atrocities; dictators tend to commit these violences on their own people after the international community does nothing to stop earlier offenses.

Looks like this post is going on to a third part! Check back soon for part 3!

Leave a comment

Filed under Human Rights, International Focus, Politics & Power

Global Community, Global Responsibility (Part 1)

The international community is continually becoming more tightly-knit, but that comes with a great deal of responsibility. (Source: icicp.blogspot.com/www.icicp.org)

Our world is growing increasingly global and interconnected. Countless alliances, agreements, treaties, and organizations bind together countries and peoples all around the planet. Many companies are turning abroad to emerging markets to expand their business. It’s now almost commonplace for a student to spend months or even years studying abroad.

The degree to which the many diverse groups of people around the world are connected is astounding. We’ve managed to cross many lingual, social, religious, and cultural barriers as the world continues to become more globalized, or as Thomas Friedman might say, flat.

Globalization brings with it a plethora of advantages and advances that not only offer more opportunity to those in emerging countries but give us a chance to understand each other more. Perhaps more importantly, it has allowed many countries around the world to move past dangerous nationalism and allowed international cooperation where it hasn’t existed before.

I’m majoring in International Studies at my university, so I believe that an examination of these changes is critical, not only for gaining a better understanding of the politics and economics of the world, but for understanding the people of it. And though I’m nowhere near graduation or a full knowledge of international relations, I feel that I’m beginning to realize something about our trend towards the global.

As nations continue to draw more connections to one another, they become beholden to an increasingly high standard of responsibility and accountability. As a nation moves outside of itself and reaches out or is reached out to by other parts of the world, its standards must be carefully examined. The more involved a country is on the international stage, the higher its national credibility must be. Once a nation becomes globally active, it can no longer make decisions based entirely on its own needs and desires, nor can it expect to avoid all international scrutiny.

Yet many members of the international community are not living up to the standards that they should be expected to adhere to if they want to receive recognition from other countries. In a way, these governments – such as those of North Korea, Rwanda and Serbia in the 1990s, Sudan, and Libya, as well as countless others – want to have their cake and eat it too, so to speak. They want or wanted to have a presence on the international level (and have that), but are or were unwilling to live up to the standards that such nations must hold.

The nations I listed above have had in the past or currently have grievous human rights violations staining their records. But in each of these circumstances, the international community either spent weeks, months, or years deliberating about what to do, or is still doing nothing. Why is this? Why were 800,000 Tutsi people killed in Rwanda before anyone put a stop to the violence? Why was Slobodan Milošević allowed to stay in power in Serbia after massacres of Bosnian Muslims, when 3 weeks of NATO bombing stopped him later? Why are people still being killed in Darfur?

I’ve decided to split this post into multiple parts, as it seems likely to become rather lengthy, and I haven’t published in some time. Check back soon for part 2!

Leave a comment

Filed under Human Rights, International Focus, Politics & Power

How Should the US Handle Libya?

A bomb crashes into the once-rebel-held town of Ras Lanuf.

As the situation grows more and more chaotic in Libya, pressure is growing on other nations, particularly those who are NATO members, to put their money where their mouths are regarding Libya’s rebel movement.

The calls for international assistance and support for the rebellion have, for the most part, fallen on deaf ears or been met with confused world leaders’ vacillating words of encouragement.

The United States has been desperately scrambling to formulate some official stance to take. But there’s a lot of uncertainty and disagreement over the right course of action. President Obama has decided to exercise restraint as a general principle in the Middle East, as the situation over there has been an extremely sticky one politically.

But is this the right course of action (or inaction) regarding Libya? Obama’s been forced into a corner on this one, as so many presidents have been. When a humanitarian crisis emerges in a country whose interests aren’t very closely associated with those of America, as happened in Rwanda in 1994, it’s difficult to find the right way to go forward. Things become even more difficult when one takes into account the fact that more and more people are dying every day deliberation goes on. Because of this, the president has unfortunately found himself trapped in an uncomfortable in-between, where he’s likely to face criticism and backlash no matter which decision he makes (but isn’t that just politics?).

So what decision should he make? Should the US intervene in a country whose national security is only tangentially related to our own, at best? While Libya is a significant supplier of oil to European countries (most notably Italy), it seems that America would be relatively unshaken, whichever way events turn out, so there’s not a lot of economic or security concerns on the line. Besides that, the US has seen all too clearly how difficult and unpleasant over-involvement in other countries can be, time and time again, and of course most prominently in Iraq and Afghanistan. In fact, the rebel leadership has said that they don’t want the US to become involved on the ground, but simply to have a no-fly zone enforced.

There are a lot of good reasons to remain distant from this conflict. But is it really right? I mentioned Rwanda earlier, and America did not intervene in the events there. 800,000 people died in that genocide, and while losses in Libya are unlikely to be quite so staggering, do we want to be a nation that stood back wringing its hands while a dictator steam-rolled his own people?

This isn’t an issue of national pride, mind you. It’s an issue of human rights, and the defense of people who may not be able to do enough for themselves. Col. Qaddafi has proven himself to be utterly ruthless in ending this rebellion, and has had a number of significant victories over the rebels, pushing them back along the east coast. Chances are, with Qaddafi’s superior firepower and funding, the revolution won’t be able to stand up much longer. If our country and our leadership really support the democratic rights of others, shouldn’t we show that to Qaddafi in more ways than just telling him to leave? I don’t know if full military intervention would be the right pursuit in Libya. But I believe that it’s imperative to show the rebel movement that we’re behind them with more than words.

Leave a comment

Filed under Revolutions & Revolts, War & Peace

Ever-Rising Tension in Libya

A rebel burns Green Books, a relic of Qaddafi's past military revolution.

The situation in Libya, which didn’t have a particularly pleasant start, seems to be continually deteriorating. Both sides, neither particularly well-organized or seeming to possess much of a plan, are arming themselves and drawing up plans that seem destined to lock them in an ever more-violent civil war.

This violence is even more striking when one considers the direction that the other prominent uprisings have taken as compared to this one. While protestors in Egypt and Tunisia managed to topple their governments with relatively little violence, and now are taking leaps and bounds toward progress, the revolts in Libya have quickly turned into a revolution, and again morphed into an outright violent rebellion.

I can hardly blame them for reacting this way. The protests began with peaceful sit-ins, but after Col. Qaddafi brutally attacked peaceful protestors in Tripoli, a stunned and appalled population turned against him, determined to have justice in the most expedient way possible. After taking much of the eastern part of the country (see map), the rebels have been gearing up for war. After a pro-Qaddafi attack on Zawiyah and rallies for the same in Tripoli, the tyrannical leader has shown that he really meant what he said about not letting go of power, claiming he would die as a martyr before he would “give up on his country.”

Yet even while Qaddafi tries to solidify his power and give the world the impression that the situation is under his control, the rebellion has become more and more defiant and determined. In fact, the political face and governing body (or the closest thing to a governing body) for the rebellion, the National Transitional Council, announced yesterday that it considered itself the “sole representative all over Libya.” As you can see, both sides seem determined to hold onto the power they have (and take more of it) until the bitter end.

Now, correct me if I’m wrong, but the events of this rebellion seem strikingly similar to the events of the French Revolution, back at the turn of the 19th century. In both this rebellion and what I see as its French predecessor (in spirit at least), a group of revolutionaries unilaterally named themselves the sole government body that possessed any governing power, and grew increasingly resistant to an increasingly oppressive regime. There are, of course, key differences. First, the French version was very much focused in Paris, with the city being torn apart by conflict and drawn-out strife. In Libya, the factions have taken power in separate areas of the country, and both are gearing up for further struggle. Second, there is much more international involvement in Libya than there ever was in France, which could help things from becoming too excessively violent as they did in France. Finally, there will be a much different impact of this revolution than the one in France. In Libya, the largest impact on the international community, at least as I see it, is likely to be on the price of the oil we’ve become so dependent on.

No matter what similarities or differences there are between this revolution and the French one, I think that the rebellion in Libya is unlikely to have a resolution soon, in either direction. Both sides have become too stubborn and immovable to give any ground at this point. But with almost the entire international community on the side of the protestors, and with the UN and NATO considering further sanctions against Qaddafi, my vote is going to be cast in favor of the rebels. Even if Qaddafi manages to violently quash the growing rebellion, it would be impossible for him to reconstruct the country and the government in a way that would serve his interests. Too much of the country has turned against him, and he faces too much international pressure to keep holding on. While the rebels want no foreign military intervention, they seem to welcome the sanctions, asset freezes, and condemnations being directed at Qaddafi.

So! While I can’t be sure how things will end, I’m feeling optimistic for the rebels and their cause. With the back-up of the United Nations, a rising number of military defectors to their cause, and the power of having already caused irreversible change in their country, the Libyan Peoples’ Army and the rebels of Libya will seize the day eventually. The only question is, what will Libya become once they do?

Leave a comment

Filed under Revolutions & Revolts, War & Peace