The Libyan situation is now being acted out on multiple levels in a maze that should be a dream to conspiracy theorists. Theoretically, the situation in Libya is being dealt with by the UN Security Council through the instrument of an international coalition of governments contributing military resources to a no-fly zone. In reality there are several more levels, and they are not well connected with each other:
- The bottom level is the struggle between Libyan rebels and the Gaddafi government's forces in which fortunes and loyalties seem forever changing and unpredictable; neither side has helpful international links;
- The military action level of implementing the UN-mandated no-fly zone and associated airstrikes against Gaddafi forces in Libya – a multinational coalition venture lately led by NATO and consisting of both non-NATO and NATO forces gathered in a multitude of national military contributions, each delivered under specific limiting conditions and all subject to continuous coordinating discussion between the military authorities involved, working through the established machinery of NATO military diplomacy and NATO's consultation apparatus linking it to partners and other non-members;
- The politico-diplomatic level of coalition government leaders and their officials – as of March 29 organized into a Contact Group of nearly 40 governments – seeking to hold the implementing coalition together from day to day, tackling sceptical parties like Turkey and Germany, and attempting to gain some semblance of coherence as to what their goals (long-term and short) actually are;
- The global/international political level where Russia, China, India, Iran and others offer sceptical input into the UN Security Council oversight of the implementation of the resolution mandating the no-fly zone.
Interwoven with this multidimensional mess are (a) the domestic political struggles in all of these countries, most intense in the countries participating in the coalition and clearly more intense in the United States than anywhere else; (b) the diplomatic role-playing, mostly in the wings, of the intergovernmental organizations also involved, pushing their separate agendas (the African Union, the Arab League, the European Union, the Islamic Conference, NATO); (c) the international and national media competing in pursuit of their stories or in making them up.
You may think that you grasp an important part of the whole if you are completely informed about what is going on at one level. However, this is not necessarily so, because the connections between the levels are weak – the governments do not directly command the military level although they are supposedly their superiors, and the military cannot control what happens on the ground except indirectly through their use of air power and missiles. Even that use of military means depends on passing through several intermediate levels, since the employment of military force is still the responsibility of the national military units that make up the coalition.
TO MAKE A COMMENT, please check the option "anonymous" before clicking "publish" - even if you sign by name, otherwise the system will not show your comment.
CORRECTION (PREVIOUS BLOG):
Gaddafi (whose name is spelled in a multitude of different ways, even in English) has seven sons, not five as I stated in my previous blog. Even worse.
2 comments:
I agree with you, Olav, that things does not look that bright in Libya right now. Today, Sweden decided to send airplanes to a military conflict for the first time since the 60s in Congo. All political parties in the parliament, except for the populist small party Sweden Democrats, agreed on this. However, the Swedes are only allowed to take part in the flying, not engaging in any forms of attacks on the ground. If they spot a Libyan assault on a hospital, they can just "wave to them", as explained in a newspaper editorial.
The question is if more resolve would help (if not from Sweden, from the US or NATO). Do we have any prior cases where external military engagement has been successful, when no strong opposition exists? I am having a hard time trying to find examples...
It has been suggested that Arab neighboring countries are the ones that should be involved. One wonder, though, who that would be. In what Arab country do we see a leader that would be willing to assist the opposition in other Arab countries, when all of them are having a hard time suppressing their own peoples?
Sadly, I think there are indications that North Africa will turn into a Yugoslavia-like situation, rather than the more successful transitions in Eastern Europe, which of course is not very comforting. Even if it a good thing that at least the dictators of Tunisia and Egypt will not come back, my guess is that it will be a very hard road ahead for all the countries in Northern Africa.
By the way, even if the Swedish JAS fighters are not allowed to engage in battle of any kind, their trip to Libya might prove to be a great bonus for SAAB and Swedish economic interests. What a great world. How come that people in less fortunate countries from time to time feel that Westerners may look a bit hypocritical...
I think Kosovo may be one such example where the intervention succeeded when one side was much weaker than the other. On the other hand, this effort is not about helping the weak side but about protecting the civilian population from both sides. Note that the rebels were warned yesterday by the coalition to be sure to avoid mistreating civilians. - Otherwise, thanks for an informative comment bringing the Swedish cpontribution into the picture, limited though it may be.
Post a Comment