ON THE FOURTH DAY of the allied no fly zone over Libya, questions are being asked that should have been asked before allied raids began at the weekend. First of all Colonel Gadaffi’s status is now being argued over between politicians and the head of our armed forces (believe me, only the lawyers will do well out of this). For all the wickedness perpetrated by Gadaffi on his own people over the past forty years, we are actually debating as to whether he should be targeted or left alone in the hope that someday he will face trial in the Hague as a war criminal.
The mealy mouthed western politicians and diplomats dance merrily on the head of a pin, debating whether the egg should be cracked open at its pointed end or its more rotund end. Like the people of Lilliput the international community represented by the United Nations have managed to make a legal pigs-ear out of getting rid of Gadaffi.
David Cameron, Hillary Clinton and Nicolas Sarkozy have all said that Gadaffi has to go, but to deliberately target him would be tantamount to regime change, which was not part of UN Resolution 1973. However, to leave him safely holed up somewhere in Tripoli orchestrating his fight back from his near death experience of a few weeks ago, invites stalemate in what is fast becoming a civil war.
According to resolution 1973 the Libyan people are to be protected from Gadaffi’s forces by a no fly zone. Now, if the rebel forces were well armed and capable, a no fly zone would have been enough to tip Gadaffi’s forces over the edge. But the rebel forces are ill equipped , ill-trained and ill-disciplined as well as argumentative and without a cohesive political central leadership and military structure.
The Foreign Secretary, William Hague, was vilified when he sent a diplomat guarded by eight special forces personnel into Libya to make contact with the rebels in order to set up a conduit between the rebels and the allies, in order to establish a workable network of contacts between the West and the rebels on the ground. But as we know, the rebels threw what was their one chance of defeating Gadaffi on land, out of the country.
We are now in a position where it is becoming necessary to have feet on the ground because the rebels are in no position to deliver a quick end to Gadaffi and his regime.
Resolution 1973 states that there cannot be any kind of foreign occupying force in Libya; but the allies would not be in violation of this if they deployed a sufficient but not overwhelming ground force that would be perceived as a occupying force, to end what will otherwise become a costly stalemate lasting many years.
Only a madman of Gadaffi’s stature would want to govern this country, let alone occupy it. If we do not end this problem quickly then it will come back to haunt us. Let us just get rid of the whole Gadaffi menagerie and let the Libyan people argue their future out among themselves. In this way our collective consciences will be clear – which, after all, is it not what most appeals to a good liberal?
By implementing the no fly zone we have bought time for the people of Benghazi who were being threatened from the mouth of Gadaffi with genocide - and it was no idle threat. The success of the no fly zone brought back the thousands of Benghazi citizens who had fled when Gaddafi’s forces were entering the outskirts of Benghazi.
David Cameron and Nicolas Sarkozy were both right in fighting for a no fly zone to be created by the UN. For to have stood by and done nothing would have incurred the wrath of those very same croakers who today express their opposition to the no fly zone. For if we had ignored what was about to befall the people of Benghazi; and images of the inevitable carnage had reached western news outlets; those who today express their scepticism would have been the first to castigate their leaders.
NOW, WE ARE WHERE WE ARE. I supported the no fly zone in order to stop what would surely have become an even bigger migration problem for Europe. Many of those escaping Gadaffi’s revenge would have made their way up the spine of Italy into the broader Europe, and yes, into the UK. As far as I am concerned the allies success would have prevented a further foreign language I could not understand, from walking down my street.
As soon as the no fly zone became operable people began to return to Benghazi from where they had fled hours earlier. What the Libyan people want is to be rid of the Gadaffi tribe and we should accommodate such a request, and in doing so should not balk at killing the head of that tribe, irrespective of the legal perceptions.
This whole business is not about the oil cliché. After all, Libya’s production amounts to little more than 2% of world production. Now if it were Saudi Arabia those martyrs to the West’s greed for oil would have a point.
We do however have an interest in North Africa that does not embrace oil. We are witnessing a domino effect throughout the Arab world; and depending upon how these numerous explosions of public descent end; we in Europe may face masses of migrants ending up on our shores.
Our people cannot pretend that Libya is a distant land that cannot impinge on our lives. Our politicians have used the argument that should Gadaffi be victorious all sorts of things may happen related to various acts of terrorism. But they only, in the most obscure of terms mention migration.
IF WE DO NOT put feet on the ground to bring this man and his sons to heel then he will once more manage to survive in some capacity, even if it is as a ruler of just three quarters of his country.
I believe that Gadaffi need not take up much of the West’s time if the West did what was required of the situation they find themselves in. Libya is a country of eight million people. Gadaffi’s army requires the inclusion of mercenaries from other parts of Africa to make up its numbers. We are not dealing with any of the following, Vietnam, Serbia, Afghanistan or Iraq.
Gadaffi can be manipulated like a lump of putty; his forces, if at all loyal in every circumstance required of them, are in insufficient numbers to challenge the West.
If the Libyan problem is to go away then it will require some kind of land presence by the West to help it do so. But I fear that neither the UN or America are open to such an arrangement. In the end one of two things will have to happen. Gadaffi will have, in some way or other, to be gotten rid of, or have an accident. Or Britain, France and whomsoever we can bring on board from other European nations will have to put military personnel on the ground ; if need be in violation of resolution 1973.
OVER THE COMING DAYS the USA is going to leave Europe holding the baby. Obama has made it plain that he does not wish the USA to permanently hold a position of leadership over the UN forces arranged against Libya. It was hoped that NATO would take on the overseeing role, but Turkey has opposed this, and so where now for the alliance against genocide?
It is wonderful to think that, for all the problems the West now faces with Libya; it would only take few words from their arch enemy to let the West off the hook. If only Gadaffi would announce his intent to take up residence either in Zimbabwe or South America we could all breathe a sigh of relief - and in doing so the Colonel may even avoid a war crimes trial.
I believe he is testing us as he has always done. He knows we are hemmed in by international law and a softness that he despises but welcomes. Gadaffi knows just how weak and feeble are Western moral values when turned upon someone like him.
If we are to rid ourselves of this creature then we must act in accordance with our military might and not some UN resolution that effectively ties our arm behind our back and allows Gadaffi to prolong, perhaps for many years, his fate.
Unlike Afghanistan and Iraq, Libya need not drag on for years. It can be ended if the West shows the necessary ruthlessness that may, on occasions, contradict resolution 1973.
No comments:
Post a Comment