Further Coalition Entanglement in Libya a Bad Idea
The United States, United Kingdom, France and other Western powers seem to be coming to terms with the idea of arming the anti-Gadhafi forces in Libya. However, they remain understandably concerned by the prospect of increased involvement in Libya's internal affairs.
Speaking at the international summit convened in London following the start of the military intervention in Libya, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton declared that the "embargo on arms [to Libya] is no longer effective." The Western countries leading the initiative have stated that it would be difficult to meet the military objectives of the Libyan mission with airstrikes alone, hinting at the possibility of direct military assistance to the opposition forces.
However, in U.N. Resolution 1973, passed March 17, there is a passage specifically barring any weapons sales on Libyan territory, which is to be understood as applying to both the pro- and anti-Gadhafi forces. It seems, therefore, that the Western countries are trying to apply a very arbitrary interpretation of the U.N. resolution, one for which it will be hard to find proper justification.
If the Western powers are to offer weapons to the anti-Gadhafi forces, then they must work through official channels. In so doing, they will be the ones to imbue the anti-Gadhafi forces with political legitimacy. However, this would mean that the Libyan people would no longer be fully in charge of their own political destiny. The Western countries are on the road to not only destroying Libya’s sovereignty, but also to inextricably entangling themselves in Libya's domestic affairs.
The Western powers seem to regard this matter as an unavoidable step in achieving the objectives outlined at the start of the military operation. It may even be possible at first to achieve democracy in Libya by following this strategy. However, it may also further stoke Muslim nations’ anti-Western sentiments.
It would not be acceptable for Libya to become a second Iraq, or a second Afghanistan. The United States and its allies may be winning the military contest in the short term, but it is time to meditate on the long-term consequences and possible civil war that their decisions could bring about.
Speaking at the international summit convened in London following the start of the military intervention in Libya, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton declared that the "embargo on arms [to Libya] is no longer effective." The Western countries leading the initiative have stated that it would be difficult to meet the military objectives of the Libyan mission with airstrikes alone, hinting at the possibility of direct military assistance to the opposition forces.
However, in U.N. Resolution 1973, passed March 17, there is a passage specifically barring any weapons sales on Libyan territory, which is to be understood as applying to both the pro- and anti-Gadhafi forces. It seems, therefore, that the Western countries are trying to apply a very arbitrary interpretation of the U.N. resolution, one for which it will be hard to find proper justification.
If the Western powers are to offer weapons to the anti-Gadhafi forces, then they must work through official channels. In so doing, they will be the ones to imbue the anti-Gadhafi forces with political legitimacy. However, this would mean that the Libyan people would no longer be fully in charge of their own political destiny. The Western countries are on the road to not only destroying Libya’s sovereignty, but also to inextricably entangling themselves in Libya's domestic affairs.
The Western powers seem to regard this matter as an unavoidable step in achieving the objectives outlined at the start of the military operation. It may even be possible at first to achieve democracy in Libya by following this strategy. However, it may also further stoke Muslim nations’ anti-Western sentiments.
It would not be acceptable for Libya to become a second Iraq, or a second Afghanistan. The United States and its allies may be winning the military contest in the short term, but it is time to meditate on the long-term consequences and possible civil war that their decisions could bring about.