The Civil War in Libya
- Thread starter solarz
- Start date
It seems I am the only one still looking at the Libyan war. In Asia Times on line I found this article by Sreeram Chaulia
( Professor and Vice Dean of the Jindal School of International Affairs in Sonipat, India, and the author of the new book International Organizations and Civilian Protection: Power, Ideas and Humanitarian Aid in Conflict Zones (I B Tauris, London)):
.
He considers it stupid for the leaders of European countries to waste money on the war against Libya while neglecting the problems in their own countries.
I also just heard on a commentator on Dutch radio who said: It is certain that Gaddaffi will lose this war even if it costs a year.So we can negotiate with him, if we continue the war and he is not threatened by the court in The Hague.
( Professor and Vice Dean of the Jindal School of International Affairs in Sonipat, India, and the author of the new book International Organizations and Civilian Protection: Power, Ideas and Humanitarian Aid in Conflict Zones (I B Tauris, London)):
.
He considers it stupid for the leaders of European countries to waste money on the war against Libya while neglecting the problems in their own countries.
I also just heard on a commentator on Dutch radio who said: It is certain that Gaddaffi will lose this war even if it costs a year.So we can negotiate with him, if we continue the war and he is not threatened by the court in The Hague.
plawolf
Lieutenant General
Does not appear to be the case since the ICC has just issued an arrest warrant for Qaddaffi.
Yet more empty posturing in the end, and ultimately counterproductive, as all this ICC nonsense has made it impossible that Qaddaffi will leave Libya and so he will fight to the death if it came down to it, and will drag so many more people down with him. And that is IF he losses the war.
The problem with the west is that they seem to think everyone is stupid.
Look at Egypt, Mubarak left power somewhat voluntarily, in that he could have put up a far tougher fight and probably got a hell of a lot more people killed if he went as extreme as Qaddaffi.
Even if there was no actual agreement, most of the world would think that he would have gotten assurances that they would not 'go after him' after he left power. But look where that got him.
Libya gave up its nuclear programme voluntarily and made a huge effort to conform to the west, and boy does Qaddaffi regret that decision now.
What kind of a message is that sending to the other dictators around the world do you think?
Are they more or less likely to pursue their own nuclear programmes now? If trouble flares up in their countries, are they more or less likely to conclude they might end up like Mubarak and decide to make a fight out of it instead of standing aside thinking they have nothing to loose?
Sometimes I really wonder if western leaders have any vision beyond the next election or make any decisions purely (or even mainly) for the national and international good instead of how it will affect their opinion poll ratings. But I digress.
I think you are missing the perfect storm of reasons why the UK and France (with significant US support, unclear whether reluctant or not) spearheaded this intervention in Libya with regime change as the clear goal.
1) Russia has been riding a wave of high energy prices to support its regional resurgence, including negotiating tough deals in both the economic and political arenas. Together with other developments this has exacerbated strategic differences between Germany vs. the UK and France, especially with regards to NATO policy. Getting a compliant energy supplier in the form of Libya with a new government affords the UK and France leverage in dealing with Germany and Russia.
2) China has been making significant investment deals with Qaddafi's Libya and nothing puts a dent in that like taking out the signer of the contract.
3) Despite Qaddafi's major compromises to cozy up to the West, it is at best only to the level of being a business partner. Considering the long history of colonialist/anti-colonialist antagonism between Qaddafi and the West in Africa, France and the UK might as well go for broke when they see an opening to just get rid of him.
4) The one capability that the Western powers have that other countries don't is expeditionary military force and the willingness to use it. Given the loss of credibility of Western powers and elites in the ongoing international financial crisis and lack of clear direction within NATO, there's nothing like a foreign intervention to restore their reputations and show everyone who's the boss. Already the usual followers of the three have fallen in line in supporting the intervention.
So the UK, France, and the US are making a risky gamble but a calculated one with significant potential payoff.
AssassinsMace
Lieutenant General
Yeah, this is the part Hillary Clinton talked about charging China is a negative force on the world. Pretty loaded but that's in part of desperation. It use to be the West can isolate countries at their will because they were only ones who really could buy resources like oil from countries in need of money. They could dictate terms and a country had two choices to either obey or get nothing. Now China is an alternative. Europe needs a pro-West regime in Libya purely out of desperation. That's why they acted against Libya in the same way. There was that article when all this started that said Russia and China stand to benefit the most if a pro-West regime isn't installed. China would get the oil and Russia will be able to sell arms and on top of that Europe would be more dependent than ever on Russia for their energy needs.
solarz
Brigadier
If that was true, then why did China abstain from vetoing the UN resolution?
You're also ignoring the fact that nothing we've seen of the rebels indicated that they would be more pro-West than Qaddafi.
plawolf
Lieutenant General
Do not know enough about it to make any conclusions
Except Europe and America actually needs Chinese capital and companies to help with reconstruction after the war.
The rebels would be stupid to go back on any oil deals struck with China while honoring those with other countries, such as UK and France, as that is a clearing making an enemy of China, and to do that for no good reason other than greed is the height of stupidity and ultimately will almost certainly end up cost Libya far more in the long term.
Even if we ignore all the massive negative political consequences such a move would trigger, purely from a business stand point, it makes no sense to royally cheese off one of the worlds largest consumers of your country's chief export product.
The rebels may try to negotiate some sort of sweetener deal to get some Chinese aid in exchange for honoring the old contracts, but that will not set China back much.
And military intervention is supposed to help ease this long history of colonialist/anti-colonialist tensions between Libya and the the west? And I used Libya because it would be a mistake to think only Qaddaffi held such views regarding the west's past colonial role.
Well that is one the points I was making before in that I do not think the west actually has the willingness to use its expeditionary military might in a decisive manner.
As I pointed out before, the general public won't give enough of a damn if no, or few western lives are lost in foreign military adventures, but this is also a major constraint on how effectively the west can apply its military might.
Had there been the political will to stomach even modest casualties, a small expeditionary ground force with the air support already in place could easily have decisively and irreversibly turned the tide of war in favor of the rebels.
The rebels were too ill-disciplined and poorly organized to make much of the shock and confusion that seized the Qaddaffi forces when air strikes first started. His entire front line collapsed almost over night. Had there been even a small professional, well equipped force on the ground to spearhead and lead the attack, the rebels could have pursued and hounded the retreating Qaddaffi forces all the way back to Tripoli without giving them the chance to re-organize, and this war would most likely be over by now.
Instead, the war was handicapped, possibly fatally so, by the political requirement that there would be 'no boots on the ground'. And when western leaders were repeating that same line excessively on TV, they were doing it for the benefit of their home population instead of trying to reassure China and Russia.
In light of this, western expeditionary military might is proving to be a weakness far more than a strength for the west. All that military power does is tempt western leaders into using it recklessly and irresponsibly, and that ultimately undermines and harms western interests at the end of the day no matter how the war ends.
If that was the conclusion, then it is gravely mistaken.
Unless the west plans to colonize Libya again, their intervention will change little of how things will work after Qaddaffi as it did while he was in power.
China did not get all those oil deals in Libya because of some shady backdoor deal, western companies were in the bidding just like Chinese companies, and if the rebels take over, it will be much the same. They are not going to just gift oil deals to the west and in effect surrender their future.
Before the west could use reconstruction as a leverage, but these days, if they tried to pull that stunt, it will just mean more business for Chinese companies.
Mr T
Senior Member
With all due respect, you're completely wrong. The US doesn't really want to be involved in this but feels it has to because other NATO members don't have the capabilities it does. For ages Obama prevaricated, almost to the point where Gaddafi was about to march into Bengzhazi and start exterminating anyone suspected of being a rebel or rebel sympathiser.
The idea that the UK and France need a compliant Libya to hold down energy prices is ridiculous. First, war only reduces output. Second, Libya doesn't have the capacity to make up for other OPEC members. Saudi Arabia has done more to help deal with energy prices by releasing some of its stocks. Are you telling me that countries like the UK and France only suddenly remembered that they might pick up the phone to Riyadh? Ridiculous!
Third, if there was potential to get more exports out of the country, giving Gaddafi investment to do it would be a lot better than trying to help overthrow him and hope the new regime would be friendly. After all, look at Afghanistan. China hasn't sent any troops to help improve Afghani security, nor did it help oust the Taleban. Yet it has won energy/resource contracts in the country. Why would Libya be any different?
The NATO intervention is largely down to David Cameron. He saw that Gaddafi had lost it and was going to bathe eastern Libya in blood to reassert himself. He also saw that there was a golden opportunity to intervene because of Libya's geographical situation, its lack of friends/international opinion generally and the poor state of its air defences.
But sure, for some people if democratic countries intervene against dictators it's always about oil....