Intervention

Life After Gaddafi – The Future of Foreign Intervention

Posted by

0

In this article, the author assesses the precedent of Libya in foreign intervention after the death of Muammar Gaddafi. In a world in which there are now increased calls for intervention and isolationism the case of Libya is being presented as both an example of a successful intrusion and a reason to reform the UN Security Council. Military capabilities and the tensions within NATO may act as a check to the boisterous rhetoric in the wake of Gaddafi’s death but the key lesson may be the message it has sent to those who are still clinging to power.

By Jack Hamilton, 23 Oct, 2011

Today the Libyan transnational government has declared national liberation before a triumphant crowd in Benghazi, the city where the fight against Gaddafi began.

There are scenes of jubilation in Libya and NATO offices around the world.  Muammar Gaddafi is dead and attentions are now turning to the future of the Maghreb state and the implications of NATO’s intervention in the broader Arab Spring.  In such a celebratory atmosphere what will be the future response to rebellious populations rising up against murderous rulers?

Libya and the Future of Intervention

Nicolas Sarkozy has already made a direct comparison between the conflict in Libya and the plight of the people of Syria in facing down the armies of Bashar al-Assad.  He mused that “The best thing I can do is dedicate our visit to Tripoli to those who hope that Syria can one day also be a free country”.  The Obama Administration has toed a similar line in their policy of ‘Leading from Behind’ by touting the example of Libya as a framework for future interventions.

Deputy National Security Advisor for Communications Ben Rhodes stated that the Libya experience would provide the basis for future interventions with emphasis placed on the need for regime change to be based upon “indigenous political movements” rather than the ambitions of the United States and the importance of “burden sharing” amongst other nations.  The problem is that this does not fit into the model for preventing atrocities which the United States advocated so heavily in the 1990s.  In London and Paris there is talk of prevention and the need to take the lead while the US, perhaps due to domestic constraints, is taking up a more isolationist tone.  The question must therefore be asked if the example of Libya may hinder rather than assist future responses.

Military Capability

The first issue that must be addressed is military capability.  Don’t be distracted by the rhetoric of ‘no boots on the ground’, Libya was a huge military intervention.  The British and the French with help from the Norwegians and Danes, carried out the bulk of the airstrikes and provided the machinery to carry out the naval blockade.  This does not mean that the US should be discounted.  It was American air and sea forces that opened the intervention with decisive attacks on Libyan air bases allowing the European forces to act with greater freedom.  Specific American military capabilities in intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance were key to the success to say nothing of the supplies of munitions that were supplied to the European forces.  The lasting images of the war will be of the final rebel push on Tripoli but it is the heavy NATO influence which will resonate in international relations.

A Frayed Alliance

The second impact is the increased tensions between the NATO powers.  Germany’s foreign minister hinted at an early stage that the country would refuse to take sides and eventually abstained from the vote on Security Council Resolution 1973.  The French have long advocated a reform of NATO and the obvious north/south European divide in capabilities has intensified this call.  Whether the military alliance is now in a position to oversee another campaign is debatable.

‘You Break It, You Own It’

NATO leaders have frequently referenced the ‘lessons of Iraq’ when discussing Libya.  The opposition of the National Transitional Council to any foreign troops in a post-war Libya has been welcomed by Western powers hesitant to adopt an increased military role in a time of economic uncertainty.  In this sense there has been a strong adherence to Colin Powell’s Pottery Barn mantra: ‘You Break It, You Own It’.

The Future of Intervention

So what will the lasting impact of the Libyan intervention be?  Crucially, both Britain and France seem to perceive the situation to have been an anomaly.  A nation with a small population and a weak military on the doorstep of Europe with regional actors who were unlikely to support the dictator.  It was seen as an easy case.  Additionally, the Western powers insisted on gaining the support of both the Arab League and the Security Council before intervening.  It is difficult to see such a situation emerging elsewhere in the Arab Spring and Russia has already blocked tentative discussions regarding Syria.

The question of Syria has been largely ignored in Washington.  Syrian opposition is increasingly turning to armed response with army defections burgeoning and calls for international intervention increasing.  People are being gunned down in the streets as the ‘liberators’ of Libya struggle to find the words to escape the precedent they have set.  It is unimaginable that international forces would enter Syria for a variety of reasons.  For that reason Libya must be viewed as an anomaly, not a precedent.

Reforming the Security Council?

Another impact of the intervention has been the rallying of non-interventionist states.  China, Brazil, South Africa and India have not been slow to point out the hypocrisy of the Security Council in elevating its own role while using the mandate of protecting civilians.  Perhaps the lasting message of Libya in international relations will be the claim these nations have demanded for many years: a reform of the Security Council.

Bloody Sheet, Noose, Cage or Condo?

The final message of the conflict in Libya is to those clinging to power in other nations.  It is a message to the Assads and Salehs of the world.  Like Gaddafi or Hussein they can go out on a bloody sheet or at the end of a rope.  Mubarak and Milosevic wound up in cages.  Ben Ali stepped aside amid violent persuasion and now resides comfortably in a condo in Saudi Arabia.  The bloody sheet, the rope, the cage or the condo?

A Nobel Intervention?

Posted by

0

Why did the Nobel Committee Award the Peace Prize to Liberian President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf one week before the Presidential election?

Victory Assured?

By Jack Hamilton, 7 Oct, 2011

Today’s award of the Nobel Peace Prize to Liberian President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf has stirred controversy.  The ‘Iron Lady’ said this morning that she is humbled by the award and has stated that it is an award for the people of Liberia.  However, the timing of the award, coming one week before the Presidential elections in Liberia, has brought forth claims of the Norwegian-based Nobel Committee interfering in the internal politics of the West African state.

President Sirleaf’s main rival in next weeks’ election, Winston Tubman, has lambasted the decision of the Nobel Committee instead declaring that “She brought war here, she is a warmonger” to the BBC Voice on Africa programme.

Such vitriol is nothing new to the first elected female leader in Africa having risen to prominence in 2005 following a civil war that left a quarter of a million people dead and the Liberian economy in tatters.  This is not the issue.  Rather it is the question of the timing of the award in such close proximity to the election.

Nobel Committee Chairman Thorbjoern Jagland has told reporters today that the committee does not consider domestic politics in its selection process and the spokesperson for the Liberian National Election Commission, Nathan Mulbah, has already stated that the election will go ahead as planned on October 11, four days from the award of the Nobel Peace Prize.

Peace by ‘Peace’

The Nobel Committee is no stranger to controversial timing.  Awarding the prize to Barack Obama was seen by many as an over-zealous attempt by the organisation to garner attention by affixing itself to a popular President who had achieved little in the way of international peace at the time of the presentation (aside from the snide observation that he may have won due to the simple fact that he was not George W Bush).  That has since been described as an incentive for the President to foster peace and security throughout the globe.  This function of the peace prize should not be overlooked.

In 1998 David Trimble and John Hume were awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for their roles in facilitating the Good Friday Agreement and ushering in a more peaceful era in Northern Ireland.  This was by no means a solid peace deal.  Similar agreements had been reached at Sunningdale in 1973 and at Hillsborough in 1985 but failed spectacularly.  The prize was a recognition of the start of a process and acted as a lightning rod for the global attention at a time when atrocities in were being carried out in the Balkans and al-Qaeda had struck in Nairobi.

While the Peace Prize did not create the peace in Northern Ireland it associated the terms of ‘Northern Ireland’ and ‘peace’ at a global level which certainly acted as a catalyst to maintain some semblance of dialogue. It is difficult to ascertain the motives of the Committee with any great deal of certainty but one assume that they are attempting to bring the world together piece by piece: peace by ‘peace’.

Ballots not Bullets

This brings me back to Liberia.  The elections will take place in a few days and there is no doubting that the Nobel Peace Prize has again drawn attention to an ongoing peace process.  The Committee is surely aware that their award will have an impact on the election.  Is it so wrong that they have chosen a woman who so clearly embodies the values the Nobel Committee stand for?  Sirleaf has been instrumental in transforming Liberia from a post-conflict country to a developing one.  Under her the economy has grown by 6.5%, free and compulsory primary education has been introduced, and doctors’ salaries have doubled.  Furthermore, the election has so far been described by the electoral observers of the Carter Center as “peaceful” and “fair” as healthy competition remains between the two frontrunners, Sirleaf and Tubman.

The timing of the decision will be used by the opponents of Sirleaf to frame her as a puppet of foreign interests but it was not her choice.  However it was Sirleaf’s actions led to her accolade and these actions will surely prove to be more influential come October 11.  Neither Sirleaf nor the people of Liberia are the puppets of foreign intervention and such a claim devalues the progress that has been made in the past six years.

Today’s award is recognition of those achievements as well as an incentive to continue the difficult rebuilding process, whatever the outcome of the election.  However with the objectives of the Nobel Committee being repeatedly questioned, the jury is out on the future of the prize.

Jack Hamilton can be followed on Twitter @jmhamilton