RSS

March 15, 2011

Rachid Rachid ELAÏDI, rtyui, (3)

First of all, the situation in Libya is critical(many civilians peoples killed by Gaddafi and spécially by upper weapons and may-be by chemical weapon) then the first public thing is to save libyan people . N.A.T.O. or ( french and british can to do this job) and without conditions as a "ponctual" hit(une frappe ponctuelle) ,it is a question of democratic aid to libyan people who suffer under bombs. Yes, it's crime against humanity. Erdogane isn't agree for this hit ,N.AT.O. must find the path against libyan fighters planes . Whow ?!

March 15, 2011

Felix F. Seidler, Atlantische Initiative, Platinum Contributor (329)

After following the media reports today, I think, by now, a no fly zone is not a promising option, because Gaddafi´s ground troops are moving constantly forward. NATO fighters, should a no fly zone ever be imposed, will only watch the rebels´ defeat on the ground. Surely, NATO will achieve air supremacy and destroy the Libyan air defense, including attacks on ground targets like command posts and “surface to air” missile facilities, but tanks and even Helicopters cannot be stopped by a no fly zone, as US NATO Ambassador Ivo Daalder and several military officers said.

Therefore, your first question is absolutely right. There is no plan B. After a no fly zone´s failure the only two options left would be to keep watching or to carry out a full airstrike against Gaddafi´s ground forces. But the last one would never receive a UN mandate due Russian and Chinese vetos. So what to do thereafter? After NATO went in, however, "keep watching" is no ethical option. Nevertheless, a full airstrike without UN mandate, NATO´s second after Kosovo, would the UN Security Council´s bankruptcy. All other states could say, thenceforth, NATO intervened twice without a UN mandate, now everyone else can do it as well.

According to your questions 3+4, form political, military and budgetary side NATO just cannot sustain an increasing number of interventions. The alliance would become overstretched not only due military spending cuts. Furthermore, one has to keep in mind the possible public reactions on more interventions in Islamic countries by, of course mostly US, NATO forces? "Collateral damage" always happens and how will the global and Islamic public react after seeing the reports about it on Al Jazeera? And will NATO states´ publics accept more out of area operations including fallen soldiers?

Whatever military actions the alliance might choose, states have to realize that NATO and its member states take on a long term commitment to Libya; facing all political, military and budgetary consequences. The alliance went into Afghanistan without a defined status it wanted to achieve. Hence, the lesson must be, before intervening in Libya, states have to define a concrete status they seek to achieve.

March 15, 2011

David Cook, New York University, (7)

In my opinion, a NATO imposed no-fly zone would be ill advised at this time. The only real legitimacy behind any NATO intervention would be under the responsibility to protect against genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing, and crimes against humanity. The precedent for such an intervention was set in the NATO bombing campaign in the former Yugoslavia. While the response of Qaddafi to the peaceful protests of his people has been despicable, this conflict does not fall into any of these categories. There are no real differences to the many other conflicts that have occurred (and are still occurring) around the world. Why should we stand back and allow a dictator to refuse to leave office in the Ivory Coast when his opponent clearly defeated him in recent elections? Laurent Gbagbo is also using military force to quell peaceful protests, but there are no calls for a similar NATO intervention. Similarly, there were no calls to forcibly remove Robert Mugabe when he stole the most recent elections in Zimbabwe.

It may be the case that many people see this as “business as usual’ for sub-Saharan Africa. We’re used to hearing about long drawn-out civil wars in this region, and the west has become accustomed to turning a blind eye. The Arab world seems to be of more strategic interest to Western nations and, hence, elicits far stronger opinions. The problem may be that many expected Libya to play out in the same way as Egypt and Tunisia – a few weeks of (mostly) peaceful protests before the eventual ousting of the president. Qaddafi has clearly shown that he is not going to follow this script. Any western military intervention at this stage would be likely to make the situation worse. There is no reason to suppose that this would turn out any better than Iraq or Afghanistan. The U.S. and its NATO allies cannot afford to get involved in a long, drawn-out civil war that they do not fully understand. It does not make sense strategically and the hypocrisy on display would do further harm to the already fragile U.S. image in the region. The only path left is for the international community to apply diplomatic pressure and impose economic sanctions. This may sound like too weak of a response, but may be the only realistic course of action at this stage.

March 15, 2011

Jeremy Wysakowski-Walters, University of Łódź, Gold Contributor (84)

Hello Celine,

While you have highlighted important operational considerations I must take issue with your opening paragraph and especially the line: "It would be certainly hypocritical to pretend that the number of casualties and level of atrocities are the core issue here. If so, we would have difficulty explaining why such intervention was not considered in Darfur, Rwanda or elsewhere." Were you right then it would be extremely sad for the human race. You pre-suppose that people, and or society, can not learn from the past. Both Rwanda and Sudan were terrible instances of neglect by the International Community (IC), but that does not mean that to do something now would be hypocritical; merely that we would have learnt from our mistakes and inaction

You continue in the same vain: "Hence, before being about an international sense of morality, interventionism is about political considerations, which are generally the result of public opinion, foreign policy, national security, and operational considerations." This placement, although perhaps representing the norm does paint a sickening picture of humanity. By placing material issues above ethical, and thus intervention, you are arguing against the solidarity of humanity. Such arguments kept the USA out of the Second World War for over two years and arguably increased the carnage of the war in Europe.

Turning now to your points regarding intervention; you seem to suppose that intervention means support of the rebels, yet surely a no-fly zone is primarily meant to protect civilians and thus has a neutral stance as concerns the fighting parties. I accept that such a zone would have a debilitating effect on Qaddafi's forces as they would not be able to use their best weapons. Yet as Felix commented above, this is perhaps now academic.

March 16, 2011

Member deleted

Question number four in the article "United Nations Reforms and New World Order",

If the UN itself should have an arm of peace keeping missions, under whose rules and regulations it should function, who should fund the project, should it be built from existing organization(s), such as NATO and etc. ?

(http://transpacificthinktanks.blogspot.com/2011/03/united-nations-r...)

March 17, 2011

Celine Touboul, Resarch Fellow, NATO Defense College, Bronze Contributor (23)

Hi Jeremy,
Many thanks for your comment. I agree with you that lessons could have been learnt from the situation in Rwanda and proper conclusions should have been applied in Sudan in order to avoid the atrocities of Darfur. But although many civilians are killed in Libya, this is not ethnic cleansing. I do not dismiss the tragedy of these killings but to me the distinction is important. So I persist to find hypocretical to explain the possibility of military intervention by the killing of civilians. This may lead NATO to intervene in more than half of the world.
Mostly, I do not believe that an international show of force will result in greater stability (due to the operational question marks I raised). I am not saying that the international community should remain silent or passive. There are other tools to be explored and better used. One should not dismiss the effect of diplomatic isolation (mainly when it is also applied by regional players, i.e. the Arab League), which should be combined with massive humanitarian assistance to the civilians. You may not find these measures harsh enough but I found them wiser in the long term.

March 17, 2011

Bernhard Lucke, University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, Platinum Contributor (503)

Thank you for this important article. I oppose the engagements in Iraq and Afghanistan, but in Libya, things are different. And I really wonder how we change sides: some of those who support the mission in Afghanistan now are against a no-fly zone in Libya, while I think, now finally there is a real occasion where military power has to be used!

I don't want to talk about success chances and strategic interests in the first place, but about NATO's moral obligation. To make this clear, I am not proposing an invasion of Libya according to the Iraqi example, nor "nation-builiding" according to the occupation-styled egagement we are currently conducting in Afghanistan. But I propose that there must be limited, quick, and decisive actions against Gaddafi's air force.

Yes, maybe we will only watch how he will mass kill his people without aircraft. In that case, so be it. And yes, in that case he will probably only sell oil to China or Russia or whoever did not dare to oppose it. Again: so be it. But at least, we did something - and did not look away like immoral cowards.

In the first place, this is a matter of self-respect and identity. Are we serious about our ideal of freedom and human rights? Now there is a real chance to prove it - one which in its legal and moral setting is very, very different from Iraq and Afghanistan. The more likely the possibility that we might have to pay a price, e.g. in form of higher oil prices, the better, because it gives us an opportunity to prove that we are not only worshipping money.

Certainly, it should be asked in which conflicts NATO should engage militarily. We can't fix the troubles of the whole world, and we are currently stiftling the Afghanistan issue, being unable to admit that our mission failed. Why did it fail? Because we acted against the people - even if we intended to help them. While we are all too willing to deal with the autocrats and dictators, be their name Gaddafi, Mubarak, or Karzai.

That we deal with those is perhaps a matter of comfort. It's just so much easier if only one man has to be asked, or to be bribed, and not the law. And in the end, that guy might even do some dirty torture jobs for us so we don't have to do it on our own soil. And yes, we don't trust anyone who is Muslim, better have one ugly but strong guy who will suppress any 'terrorists'.

Much of the instability in the Middle East is due to large parts of the population unable to participate, is because of the widespread corruption, is connected with the dictators. Yes, we said very often that they must engage in dialogue with their people. But when these finally would have forced Gaddafi, risiking their lives in demonstrations, he decided to brutally suppress his own people, annihilating everybody that opposes his way.

This is breeding extremism, this is the real danger to our security, not a short rise in oil prices or a failed military engagement. We must engage in Libya, and be it only to rescue what is left of the eroded moral values of the west. Or was all we did was all only because of the oil? I am convinced, then we will pay the price that collaborators of corruption and injustice will always pay at some point of their lives.

March 17, 2011

Jeremy Wysakowski-Walters, University of Łódź, Gold Contributor (84)

Hello Celine,

thank you for your response.

Your stated that : "... although many civilians are killed in Libya, this is not ethnic cleansing. I do not dismiss the tragedy of these killings but to me the distinction is important."

The prevention of ethnic cleansing is of course not the only reason for military intervention. You seem to be focusing on a narrow definition of intervention. The UN's Responsibility to Protect framework gives four instances where intervention is warranted: cases of genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. The targeting of centres of civilian population is outlawed under Article 25 of the 1899 Hague Convention and as such represents a war crime. To my knowledge Gaddafi's forces have indiscriminately attacked rebel held areas with disproportionate force and thus committed a war crime.

R2P is therefore relevant here and thus intervention is warranted; although I agree the practical aspects could be a tad tricky.

March 18, 2011

Stanley R. Sloan, Atlantic Community Initiative, Platinum Contributor (201)

Now that there is a UN mandate -- and for more than a NFZ -- I would hope that NATO would be used to coordinate the military action. Sensible military planners would not send British and French aircraft over Libya without NATO and the United States providing infrastructure and coordination. I expect US missiles will also come into play. I am wondering whether Germany would block the use of NATO, having abstained on the UN resolution. This is an unfortunate split in the alliance, suggesting a major division not only among NATO members but, perhaps more telling, among EU members.

March 18, 2011

Claudiu Dan Degeratu, EURISC Foundation, Silver Contributor (64)

By debating at the political level the prudent planning, NATO de facto is already involved and sooner or later Germany will accept that the security of the Southern flank depends not only on NATO presence in maritime area (Active Endeavour NATO Operation) but also in the Northern Africa.

March 18, 2011

Bernhard Lucke, University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, Platinum Contributor (503)

I'm very happy that the security council concluded the no-fly zone in Libya. Hopefully it was not too late - now Gaddafi might have to negotiate and withdraw his mercenaries. I hope very much that there will be a change towards more democracy in Libya.

Probably the best comparative event was the uprising in Iraq in 1991. Unfortunately the U.S. did not support the uprising, due to fears of Iran and insufficient knowledge about the protesters, but certainly also because the allied regimes feared that a change in Iraq might trigger change in their own countries, too.

The Iraqis and the U.S. paid a very high price for this hesitation. At least one Iraqi generation lost their perspectives, and the third gulf war with all its collateral damage might never have happend. And this war and the following occupation of Iraq were very detrimental for the reputation of the U.S. - a wrong strategy from the beginning, because it is not possible to 'impose' freedom.

But in Libya the time seems ripe - the limited engagement could in fact trigger the change most Libyans yearn for. I am happy that the western alliance took the ride side (shame on Germany for containing its vote). Knowing the struggle of people in the Near East very well, the fight in Libya moves me strongly. I am deeply convinced that France and the U.S. this time do the right thing.

March 18, 2011

Jeremy Wysakowski-Walters, University of Łódź, Gold Contributor (84)

Hello Bernhard,

Er don't you mean France and the UK? It will be British pilots in action, not American.

March 19, 2011

Stanley R. Sloan, Atlantic Community Initiative, Platinum Contributor (201)

Jeremy,

You are correct to say that France and the UK apparently are providing the lead units, but they will be accompanied by some other units, including Canadian and Arab. This operation could not be conducted successfully without the United States providing the support that it is providing to ensure effective coordination, electronic suppression, intelligence, sea-based missile resources, etc. So, it is a unique operation, satisfying the French and British desire to act decisively and the American desire not to be out in front in another attack on a Muslim nation. Stan

March 20, 2011

Jeremy Wysakowski-Walters, University of Łódź, Gold Contributor (84)

Hello Stan, yes of course you are right and I was not questioning the logistical and operational side of the situation. Call it latent patriotism or a spirit of bothers-in-arms, but I was just responding to Bernhard's dismissal of the fact that it was the UK, not the US, that was pro this from the start and the US was actually dragging its feet a bit over the issue; although obviously not in the same league as Germany. The fact that Germany voted against this shows a trend in German strategic policy. Left to fester unattended Libya has the potential of developing into a ongoing civil war akin to sub-Saharan Africa. Were this to be the case them rebel units would involve neighbouring countries, using them for supply routes and bases. I have of course left out the pure humanitarian need for intervention,

March 20, 2011

Jeremy Wysakowski-Walters, University of Łódź, Gold Contributor (84)

Correction: Germany abstained, they did not vote against.

March 21, 2011

Member deleted

Apparently, the big picture is revealing itself perhaps in consideration of the following strategic aspects, and/or beyond, namely :

(1) Politically, integration of EU, ME (Middle East), and A (Africa) - NA (North Africa) in particular, the immediate neighbors, preferably through democratic institutions among them.

(2) Economically, targeted areas for expansion of EU single market into in the future, that is, ME and Africa, eying energy security as well.

(3) W.r.t. security, an arm of peace keeping mission(s) is needed, whether through UN, regional organization(s) or individual nation(s), albeit democracies seldom war with one another.

There are voices in America that US should take the leadership role(s) or participate in one or more of these issues and developments, as a reminder.

March 23, 2011

Mohammed Humaid, Yemen

one may argue that in action on the part of the international community in Rawanda, for example, does not necessary give an excuse for a similar failure to act in Libya and other parts of the world. In the same vein, one can also agree and disagree with Celine's statement that the number the casualties and level of atrocities are the core issues. They are in important issue but only one of many. As Celine rightly mentioned public opinion, foreign policy, national security and operational considerations are important. I wish to add to those elements the chances of a decisive success. An intervention that drags and fails to attain its objective swiftly will ultimately lose public support and also the political risks it holds for the decision makers.
A decision to intervene depends on case by case basis with all the above factors weighed and considered.
The campaign to protect the Libyan people and to impose a no-fly zone enjoys wide public backing in the Arab world. This is an important issue considering that this is one of the rare occasions that public opinion in the Arab world is in favor of military intervention. One also must consider that this is also the first time that the Arab league has openly and unanimously backed military intervention from the UN. The security council has also given a mandate to protect the Libyan civilians.
In response to the queries posed by the article;
First: the fly-zone shall provide cover for the fighters and would boost their morale. It is most likely that al-Gaddafi forces will deflect or crumble. If they keep killing civilians, the western countries should arm and train rebels to fight Gaddafi forces.
Second: if the West fail to end Gaddafi regime, the consequences would not be dire. The assumption is that the rebels have the will and desire to end Gaddafi regime. They may need help to take out heavy ground forces or need to be better arms and training. In the worst case scenario where Gaddafi is not toppled, experience has shown that Gaddafi will be willing to negotiate. In fact, all the concessions he has given have been prompted by fear.
Third: instituting a democratic government would work better for the Libyan people and the west. The Arab world is replacing dictators with democracies. This already apparent in the case of Tunisia and Egypt.
Fourth: it is very difficult to talk about the implications of NATO engagement regarding possible scenarios in Algeria, Yemen and Saudi Arabia because each case will be dealt with separately in its own context.

March 23, 2011

Michael Schütte

As in all decision making processes one needs to outline all options and the most realistic outcomes. Had the West not engaged Gaddafi would have sustained. In the genereal "Arab tyrant league" he is neither top nor bottom. He is entertaining, outright ridiculous but not overly dangerous.
Now part of the West did engage. There probably still is a 30% chance that Gadaffi will survive. This will be a lot worse for his people.
There is at least a 40% chance of a drawn out civil war costing a lot of lives. And there is of course a 30% chance of a regime change. To the better? Think again!
The West has failed in Iraq and Afghanistan. And so far "an incorruptable Muslim Arab leader respecting human rights" is an double-oxymoron. Why should Libya be any different?
It is a bad idea to "help" the Arab Muslims!

March 23, 2011

Member deleted

According to Itar-Tass, "France, US agree on NATO Command role in Libya op's";

http://www.itar-tass.com/eng/level2.html?NewsID=16078173&PageNum=0

March 23, 2011

Lawrence Efana

Though known for making long comments, I go it short this time! Celine, your article is indeed interesting, shown among others by the types of question you raised, asking perhaps for one or the other form of answers. Concretely, parts of the questions that would seem to capture the attention of many, are particularly those underlying opinions across Darfur and Rwanda, but above all, scopes of implication. The comments so far, tend to show that you have more or less approximately relevant, though varied values explained as answers to the opinions underlying the questions.
However, let me add that in a rapidly changing world of our time, the need to learn and react quickly and appropriately is increasingly edging over precedents and history. We have seen Kosovo and Jugoslavia, etc., the United Nations cum NATO, and duly raised many pertinent questions, which is not to say questions are not raised also about situations elsewhere. The fact therefore is LIBYA seems not to make it easy. At the same time, in this rapidly changing world where precedents and history have to be transcended - for the good and progress of man, some of the lessons to be learned become "chase-board" in character! That is, to be humans in our world, things are looked at and assessed as puzzle-bits, and yet we must be grateful that the fast changing situations inducing humans thus, also have a force on their mindsets, hopefully making them say "do as I say, not as I do"!
Permit me to say that I take the world of Obama's era and the new NATO secretary general - a Scandinavian], with delight and hope. I do not know if others see the moral endeavors they try to make, wake-up and up-hold, in the face of immeasurable challenges? UN-mandate with regards to no-fly zone over Libya, took time, working earnestly to earn consensus of Russia, China, the Arab League and I suppose even the AU-African Union. Its military consequences were well debated - coupled with informal and perhaps formal contacts with the Libyan Head of State, for him to take time to truly understand and indeed appreciate the type of world and people now unfolding. Is this not all the work of nature too?
Earthquakes and tsunamis are not the only works of nature at this time of world history. It is regrettable that Colonel Qaddafi failed to learn and take heed hence now negates most of the reputations he struggled to amass after previous eras' tribulations in his continental and 'international' politics. Regrettable indeed that he allows fixation in politics and power ruin his country and his achievements. Think of, if He could say, perhaps I now understand this puzzle-bit and therefore I bow out - vacate the podium when I still have applauds!. He makes it now look like the story "those who carry the sword will perish by the sword". It ought not be so if he could see and redefine the culture of reigning liberally in democratic sense.
That should be clear to him, hoping that he believes in the new world of change and order: on in which democracy and democratization (both) are not as enforced and manipulated as of old. Now it seems things are happening by themselves and one has to conclude that it is so because the world is seeking the-for-long "missed order". There lies the delight with a UN and a NATO and the notion of change and global future. It is painful to see the Colonel sacrifice his regional reputation - one he took pains to build with his neighbors North and South, but sticking to the podium even when things do not look promising to hold on to political power. If he really loves his people and nation, it should be time to say I abdicate for your sake!
Lastly on the scope of implications across the Arab world and indeed elsewhere, let us just hope that the thesis of learning, change and new world is sinking in, which should mean: to struggle to make sense for peace and understanding, more-so, now that the pursuit of democracy and democratization is relatively very much more normal that used to be. We used to think that the new world order was to be handed over to us from a supreme nation and not a thing to happen in us and from us individually, until the collectivity is fully encompassed. We have agitated for a new diplomacy along this line, and it does seem gradually - though many think it slow, nature is leading us to how the things take shape for the eventual fulfillment. Peace is open to us but we must work hard for it, with Libya an example of the new era spirit, relatively interesting from the point of view of Egypt and Tunisia.

May 3, 2011

Michael D Baer, NYU, Bronze Contributor (17)

NATO intervened in the Libyan crisis as there are strategic interests with Libya as an oil state. I was more surprised that from the historical ties that France has with Cote d'Ivoire, that their government didn't push for an intervention from NATO. Cote d'Ivoire has been an ongoing conflict for decades with the underlying ethnic issues still unresolved.

I also feel that NATO intervened in Libya and not Cote d'Ivoire as the UN had a mission in Corte d'Ivoire before the conflict (during the elections) and it was not clear at the time of the beginning of the Libyan conflict if it would ignite into full scale war when military intervention ultimately was needed to increase the pressure on the Libyan government to stop the internal violence.