Better for Libya to liberate itself
By Gideon Rachman
“Never again” is the phrase that is always uttered after an international atrocity. It is what is said every time there is an event to commemorate the Holocaust. It was what was said after the Rwandan genocide of 1994 and after the Srebrenica massacre of 1995. And yet the Libyan regime is killing its people in the streets, without much prospect of effective international intervention to stop the bloodshed. Libya is not so much a case of “never again” as “oh no, not again”.
It is not that the world has done nothing. Over the weekend, the UN passed a unanimous resolution that included a travel ban for senior Libyan officials and asset seizures. There was also a rare referral to the International Criminal Court. By the standards of the UN, this was fairly tough stuff.
And yet, watching the proceedings in New York, what is striking is not so much the power of the international community as its impotence. Susan Rice, the US ambassador to the UN, said that the resolution was intended to “stop the violence against innocent civilians”. But with Muammer Gaddafi facing the prospect of defeat and death, it seems unlikely that the closure of bank accounts or a distant threat of prosecution will deter him.
So the American and British governments are now openly floating the idea of direct military intervention against the Gaddafi regime, with the imposition of a “no-fly zone” as a possible first option. Such action would be an exercise of the doctrine of the “responsibility to protect”. The idea behind R2P (the notion is now so much part of international debate that it has been awarded its own acronym) is that the world can no longer tolerate mass atrocities simply because they are taking place within national boundaries. At a certain point, international intervention – even armed intervention – is justified.
Gareth Evans, a former Australian foreign minister and one of the intellectual godfathers of R2P, made his case in Monday’s Financial Times. He argued that, with a bloodbath threatened in Libya, “the need for decisive action is overwhelming”. Acknowledging, with regret, that it would be “desperately difficult” to get international agreement to send ground troops into Libya, Mr Evans argued instead for the imposition of a “no-fly zone” – which might involve shooting down the Libyan air force.
But, for the moment, all this is still in the planning stage. Why is it that the doctrine of the responsibility to protect is treated so gingerly, even when blood is being shed by the archetypal crazed dictator?
A few of the problems are practical. Some military observers say that a no-fly zone would be of limited use in Libya, since Col Gaddafi seems to be mainly relying on ground forces. It is also probable that China or Russia would veto any UN resolution that prepared the way for the use of force. But the US and the Europeans should also have their own justified reservations about armed intervention.
The problem is that the Libyan crisis confronts two sorts of “never agains”. There is the “never again” to mass atrocities and war crimes that came out of experiences such as Rwanda and Srebrenica – and which led to the birth of R2P. And there is the “never again” to armed western intervention to overthrow an Arab dictator that came out of the Iraq war. At the moment, the Iraq experience is proving more powerful. And, as events unfold in Libya, that is still the right call.
The bloodshed in Libya is appalling – but it is not yet comparable to the Rwandan genocide, where 800,000 died. If the levels of violence in Libya increase sharply, outsiders may yet feel compelled to intervene. A no-fly zone would be a first step, although it might be largely symbolic. But, as the situation stands, foreigners are right to hang back from sending in ground troops. There is still a strong chance that the Libyans themselves will get rid of their own dictator.
The contrast with Iraq would be enormous and beneficial. Saddam Hussein was, if possible, an even crueller dictator than Col Gaddafi. Few people, outside his own tribe, mourned his passing. But the fact that Saddam’s downfall was caused by an American-led invasion, which lacked proper UN backing, damaged the internal and external legitimacy of the new Iraq. The US and its allies were blamed for the bloodshed and chaos that followed the fall of Saddam and still feel a responsibility to try to put things right.
By contrast, the current popular uprisings in the Middle East derive their power and legitimacy from the fact that they are home-grown. These are societies and populations regaining control of their own destinies. By doing so, they are refuting two lies. The first is that there is something in the Arab character that prefers autocracy and dictatorship. The second is that all big events in the Middle East are the result of the nefarious schemes of outside powers.
If and when the Libyans succeed in overthrowing Col Gaddafi they will need all sorts of outside support – financial aid, humanitarian assistance, help in constructing a court system and in running elections. But outside military intervention now could be a mistake. It might save some lives in the short term. But, in the long run, it would damage the only real chance for lasting peace and stability in the region – the hope that the future of the Middle East will now be determined by ordinary citizens, rather than by local dictators or outside powers.
No comments:
Post a Comment