With the US, France and Britain getting ready for military action against the regime of Col. Muammar Gaddafi in Libya, the prospect of stability in West Asia, which had been thrown into uncertainty for the past three months on account of anti-regime popular upheavals in several Arab countries, has nose-dived. Thursday’s vote in the UN Security Council to sanction the imposing of a no-fly zone against Libya was worded broadly at the instance of the Americans to allow for “all necessary measures” against the Gaddafi regime, which is euphemism for military attack.
The 10-5 vote in the Council largely came about when it became clear that the Arab League was in favour of a no-fly zone. However, the Arab League is not gung-ho about military action. India did well to abstain on the vote along with Russia, China, Brazil and Germany. The way the politics of key Western bloc countries were moving, it was apparent that the authorisation of a no-fly limitation would, in effect, mean military assault. Germany considered this dangerous and imbued with risks. This is a fair assessment. The other countries that chose to abstain too are likely to have thought along similar lines. India, in particular, also gave due consideration to the mixed record of no-fly zones, whose enforcement often ends up hurting the populace, rather than the regime being targeted.
US President Barack Obama has gone on record to say that American ground troops would not take part in any action against Libya. Direct combat responsibilities are likely to devolve on the British and the French who have avidly stepped forward to do war. Even so, there is no getting away from the fact that America would be seen as being at war in three Islamic countries simultaneously — earlier Afghanistan and Iraq, and now Libya, when led by a President who is Nobel peace laureate. The Air Force of the UAEs is also expected to come into play, and material help is anticipated from others in the Gulf, besides Jordan. Saudi Arabia is also against the Libyan regime. Nevertheless, there appears to be a division in the Arab world. Egypt, although it itself witnessed the ouster of an authoritarian ruler, had reportedly been lukewarm even toward the idea of a no-fly zone.
In order to retain the right to rule, Col. Gaddafi has unconscionably unleashed air power and artillery against his own people. Should the outside world respond with the use of military force to oust such a ruler? In America, the opinion appears to be sharply divided. The defence secretary, the national security adviser, and the counter-terrorism chief are reportedly not enthusiastic about the course of action the President has green-lighted after being persuaded by secretary of state Hillary Clinton, among others. An important consideration for the pragmatists was that Libya is not vital to American security and its core interests. Few would recommend committing military power in such circumstances. Besides, it is not clear what the political objectives of armed intervention are in the circumstances. The extent of the opposition to the Gaddafi regime, and its nature, are apparently not clear even to those who have called for military confrontation. Is the purpose of the Western intervention, backed by some Arabs, to replace Colonel Gaddafi (which is likely), or to sharpen a civil war and truncate Libya? Basically, it is not clear what political objectives the proposed military offensive is intended to subserve. All things considered, the advisability of the action of the US and its allies will confound many.