Round The World

New Delhi, 22 March 2011

Air Strikes On Libya

MAKING SENSE OF INDIA’S STAND

By Monish Tourangbam

Research Scholar, School of International Studies (JNU)

The Libyan conflict has come to a point wherein countries are being called to choose sides. Questions of morality and ethics are being raised as Libyan strongman Muammar Gaddafi goes all out to retain his power and position, trying to crush the rebellion with all his might.

Given the emerging scenario in this North African country, it should not be so difficult to take sides and blame Gaddafi for unabashedly using violence and force against his own people. But, when it comes to the issue of intervening in the conflict and directly resorting to the use of force to assist the rebels and save lives, the issue becomes much more complex.

Regardless of the hows and whys one went in, the world has not gotten over the ill-effects of external interventions in two other Islamic countries, Afghanistan and Iraq. When one decides to intervene with the use of force (in the case of Libya, airstrikes by a coalition of Western countries including the US, Britain and France) it does not just end with the bombardment of a few strategic locations. There should be an accurate knowledge of what one is getting into and this is not the easiest thing to discern.

The conflict in Libya has quickly morphed from a simple act of widespread rebellion into what is more a civil-war like situation with all the characteristics of turning into a protracted one. Then, questions arise as to what the countries now willing to go for air strikes would do if they found out that aerial bombardments will not be enough to belittle Gaddafi’s forces. Will they be willing to send in a ground offensive, given the reverses that especially the US Army has suffered in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Importantly, what are the specific goals of the air strikes? As of now, the action seems to be guided only by an ad-hoc policy of saving Libyan civilians and of tilting the balance in favor of the rebels. And as it has happened before, a series of reports of civilian deaths, even though unintended, is all that it takes to build up images of “unwanted” Western intervention and stoke cries of anti-Americanism on the Arab streets.

Moreover, the support of the Arab League that the Western countries are counting on to give concrete legitimacy to its campaign in an Arab country does not seem too strong to last continuing reverses in the future. According to sources, while respecting the UN mandated resolution to intervene in Libya, the Arab League Chief Amr Moussa stressed the importance of protecting civilians and questioned the need of heavy bombardments.

The Indian decision to abstain from the UN vote should be seen in the context of these concerns. India abstained from voting on a United Nations Security Council (UNSC) resolution approving “all necessary measures,” including imposition of a no-fly zone over Libya. Earlier New Delhi, though expressing some concerns, had joined other UNSC members to back sanctions against Libya.

But, this time around, India has decided to stick to its guns and has categorically opposed the use of force in Libya by external powers, fearing that it will only worsen the situation more and lead to no tangible results.

However, at the same time, it must be noted that India was not alone, among the major powers when it came to abstaining from the UN vote. Other countries like Russia, China, Germany and Brazil too toed the same line. In fact, although not vetoing the UN resolution, countries like Russia and China have been much more vehement in their opposition to the issue of external intervention in Libya.

“The resolution is defective and flawed,” said Russia's Prime Minister Vladimir Putin. “It allows everything. It resembles medieval calls for crusades,” he added. China's official newspapers accused nations backing the strikes of breaking international rules and courting new turmoil in the “Middle East”.

India called upon all parties to abjure violence saying the need of the hour was “cessation of armed conflict”. “We view with grave concern the ongoing violence, strikes and deteriorating humanitarian situation in Libya. We regret the air strikes that are taking place,” External Affairs Minister S.M. Krishna told reporters. Adding that the air strikes would harm innocent civilians, foreign nationals and diplomatic missions and their personnel, who are still in Libya.

New Delhi felt that the UN Security Council should have focused on ceasefire and bringing violence under control instead of choosing the option of “force based on relatively little credible information on the situation” from Libya. India said there was no clarity on details of enforcement measures, including “who and with what assets would they participate and how these measures will be exactly carried out.”

 According to reports, concern for civilians including its own nationals also weighed on India in deciding to abstain. New Delhi also emphasized the absence of a report by the Special U.N. Envoy on Libya appointed by the U.N. Secretary-General or even a report from the Secretariat.

Assessing the present scenario, analysts are pointing at the lack of a clear exit strategy by the Western allies. The plan seems to be centred on the whole ethics of protecting civilians and keeping the intervention short and sweet. Well, by all accounts, it is going to be anything but short and sweet.

Significantly, Chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen and British Defense Secretary Liam Fox, both said Gaddafi’s ouster wasn’t the aim of the campaign, whose stated goal is to protect civilians from a potential onslaught.

“It’s like someone rushing to action in the movies. It looks good but it doesn’t work in real life,” asserted Jan Techau, Director of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Brussels and a former analyst at the NATO Defense College in Rome. “You can’t have an exit strategy without having goals, and we don’t know what the goals are in Libya,” he added.  There is very less clarity but the Libyan tyrant seems to be quite certain of what he will do. He has vowed that his country would become hell for the “monsters” attacking it.

One of the major spotlights of the Libyan conflict will be regarding the tussle between the liberalist agenda of protecting civilians and the more hardcore realist issue of how far one can go to help the rebels in putting an end to Gaddafi’s regime. The Western coalition seems very confused on this area.

How is ousting Gaddafi not a part of the plan? How is the mission of saving civilian lives to be extricated from that of assisting the rebels? And what happens in case civilian casualties increases (though unintended) and as a result, the Arab support fizzles out?

These questions will significantly magnify in the coming days as Gaddhafi seems defiant in his vehement denial of the shifting political ground in Libya. And as the Western countries sink its teeth further into another open-ended campaign in yet another Islamic country, international politics is in for another hot game of choosing sides and balancing in the middle. ---- INFA

(Copyright, India News and Feature Alliance)