E-Kantipur

A month ago, two towering figures of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, British Prime Minister David Cameron and French President Nicolas Sarkozy, paid a lightning visit to Tripoli amid tight security. They were almost duplicating the then US president’s much mocked “Mission Accomplished” speech aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln in May 2003. A month after the US invasion of Iraq and deployment of US troops there, US President George Bush declared that major combat activities in Iraq had ended. But it was only after the much publicised speech that insurgency and violence erupted in Iraq, and peace there is still miles away.

The European duo’s presence in the Libyan capital and their speeches there seemed to signify that the rebels opposed to Libyan dictator Colonel M Gaddafi had taken full control of the oil-rich country. But a month later, the battle in one form or the other still rages; and till Friday, the rebels who launched a major assault to take the Gaddafi stronghold of Sirte had still not been able to take the city. The presence of the NATO leaders in Tripoli last month could mark the advent of yet another unstable state in north Africa and result in the deaths of innocent civilians, the very people NATO used as an excuse to bring about a regime change in the oil-rich African country.

In the rush to bring about a regime change in Libya, it is generally agreed that NATO forces had more than overstepped the UN mandate. Western media reports spoke of French, British and some Arab personnel directing the rebel forces on the ground though they did not actually take part in the actual fighting. This is apart from the much publicised aerial bombardments and supply of weapons to the rebels. NATO forces are reported to have carried out over 20,000 sorties over Libya. More than 8,000 of these sorties were reported in the Western media to have been air strikes. And at what cost to the Western countries? Conservative estimates put the cost of support of the main Western countries at over US$ 6 billion. 

The US, Britain and France are among the militarily most powerful countries in the world while Libya is said to be a “third rate” military power. Yet it is more than strange that the Libyan rebels took almost seven months to gain complete control of Libya despite the support and guidance of the Western powers. It now seems just a matter of days before the National Transitional Council, recognised by all governments as the present legal executive power in Libya, takes control of the whole country. But the way the NTC came to power with the direct intervention of foreign powers is something for all to mull over for the future.

The Libyan uprising against the despot Gaddafi who ruled Libya with an iron hand for over 40 years after overthrowing the monarchy began in February this year. According to media reports, the Gaddafi regime resorted to uncalled for violence against the protestors leading to condemnation from the Western countries. Ultimately, the Security Council adopted Resolution 1973 under which first France and later the US and Britain bombed pro-Gaddafi forces and thereby saved hundreds of thousands of civilians from being massacred by Gaddafi’s forces. The uprising against Gaddafi followed similar uprisings against various Arab and African rulers beginning with the uprising against President Hosni Mubarak in Egypt. 

A situation similar to Libya is in progress in Syria and elsewhere in the Middle East and some African countries. But somehow, the response of the Western countries has not been as rapid as it was in Libya. A UN resolution on imposing sanctions against Syria was vetoed in the Security Council despite the fact that the situation in Syria was a virtual re-run of what happened in Libya.

The Syrian unrest began in the middle of March and, according to the UN, the seven-month unrest has claimed over 3,000 lives. And yet the Western response to the Syrian unrest has been nothing like the one in Libya where the UN acted swiftly, thanks to Western powers, and adopted Resolution 1973 paving the way for NATO intervention.

Even the International Criminal Court that issued the necessary warrants against Gaddafi has remained silent with regard to the Syrian head of state. (And what about the US seeking legal immunity for its remaining troops in Afghanistan once the formal withdrawal is complete? Is that in keeping with human rights norms?) We all know that Gaddafi was a loner, and Libya did not have special friends like Syria and other states have with powerful countries.

More important than the loss of precious resources in fighting any kind of war, the loss of human lives should be unacceptable to anyone whether one believes in democracy or not, whether one is a follower of capitalism or socialism or communism. Gaddafi was, no doubt, a despot, and was probably the heartless dictator he has been painted to be. But is that any excuse for mounting a full-scale bombardment by super sophisticated NATO aircraft on a country that has no means to counter such attacks?

Isn’t it time for the international community to come together to ostracise dictators and tyrants of all forms so that they will have to bow out of the picture without bloodshed? Is such a scheme an unattainable utopia? Maybe, but it is worth a try; and if economically powerful countries mount sufficient and effective sanctions, it may still fall in the realm of possibility. The NATO involvement has been criticised for the forced regime change in Libya, and it is not entirely a baseless criticism.

Post Your Comment

Please note that all the fields marked * are mandatory.
* Full Name
* Address
* Email Address
* Comment
* Captcha	Get another CAPTCHA code
Note:	Comments containing abusive words or slander shall not be published.