NATO to Bring Fire Down on Libya
Published in Nezavisimaya Gazeta
(Russia) on 29 March 2011
by Artur Blinov (link to original)
(Russia) on 29 March 2011
by Artur Blinov (link to original)
Translated from
by Elvinas Blazevicius.
Edited by Amy Wong
.
The military operation in Libya, which took place in accordance with U.N. Security Council Resolution 1973, became a NATO operation last Sunday. The Alliance took the lead in all three aspects of the operation, namely enforcing the no-fly zone in Libya, enforcing the arms embargo and attacking Libyan ground targets. According to Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, although NATO involvement does not contradict the U.N. Security Council resolution, the parties should implement a ceasefire.
On Sunday night, the NATO Council decided at the ambassadorial level to take over control of the operation. However, Canadian Gen. Charles Bouchard, who became commander of the operation, announced earlier that the Alliance had been handed over responsibility for maintaining two aspects of the operation — enforcing the no-fly zone and coordinating the naval blockade.
However, the NATO Council needed to decide who would be responsible for the third and the most important aspect of the operation — bombing Libyan government army targets. Prior to that, it was an American admiral who exercised tactical control over these actions. According to recent reports, after some disputes, this aspect of the operation became the responsibility of all NATO members. In addition, the NATO Council had to reformulate the rules of the operation. In particular, the result of the discussion were the statements by NATO headquarters press officers that the Alliance would take over the leadership of the operation for a period of 90 days, which, however, may be extended or, conversely, reduced, depending on the situation.
Moreover, according to Brussels, NATO will strictly limit strikes on Libyan territory and will not take sides in the conflict. These assurances appear extremely unconvincing during the ongoing air strikes on Libyan troops and, as a consequence, intensified the onset of opposition forces. According to recent data, opposition forces have already occupied Sirte (Gadhafi's hometown) and are now moving to the west, towards the capital of the country, Tripoli. “NATO will always remain impartial. NATO does not take sides. The goal is to stop any potential danger for the population, in line with the U.N. Security Council resolution,” said one of NATO diplomats. According to the same circles, “[t]here will be no troops on the ground in Libya.”
A question arises in connection with the decision of the NATO Council: Who gave NATO responsibility for directing the operation? This question is raised by the fact that Barack Obama has been contradicting himself when speaking on the subject. Thus, for example, when announcing the beginning of the operation, the U.S. president said that the United States would not play a leading role in it. However, a few days later he nevertheless called for handing off the lead role to NATO.
Formally, the operation was lead by a coalition of 11 countries, the main fighting force of which belonged to the United States, France and Britain. The actual management of military operations was executed by American Gen. Carter Ham. Since March 9, this 59-year-old military man has been commander of U.S. Africa Command, which was created several years ago. Its headquarters are in Stuttgart, Germany, the same location where U.S. armed forces in Europe are headquartered.
After responsibility for the operation was transferred to NATO, Barack Obama was able to argue that the United States really does not lead the operation. He should have made a statement about this in his television address a week ago, which was announced in advance as very important.
Why did Obama need to hide the real role of the U.S. in operations in Libya? Answering this question for Nezavisimaya Gazeta, Vice-Chancellor of the Moscow State Institute of International Relations (MGIMO) and Professor Alexei Bogaturov noted that the current political situation in the United States is difficult for President Obama. According to Mr. Bogaturov, Congress, where Republicans dominate both houses, has been more demanding with regard to executive power. In these circumstances, recognition of the third American war in a Muslim country could cause strong criticism and demand accurate report about the timing of the operation, its cost and possible damage to the image of the United States, especially in the Third World. The same questions could be asked by some Democratic legislators, and elections will be as soon as next year.
According to Mr. Bogaturov, the complexity of the inner political situation in the United States is also demonstrated by disagreements within the administration during the discussion about conducting the operation. Military leaders did not show enthusiasm for the proposed military action in Libya, but diplomats who insisted on carrying out the operation, especially Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, gained the upper hand. It was their arguments that President Obama eventually considered.
According to media reports, heated debates about the actions in Libya were taking place at NATO headquarters in Brussels almost every day during the last week. The most acute confrontation was observed between the positions of France and Turkey. At first, the French strongly opposed the transfer of control to NATO, as this would cause a negative reaction in Arab countries. The Turks, on the contrary, insisted that the operation would gain legitimacy only under the command of NATO. Later, Paris accepted the leading role of NATO but insisted on the establishment of a political leadership share of 11 initial members of the coalition, that is, excluding Turkey and Germany. Such disputes are related to the fact that Turkey is discontented with the reluctance of the French to admit it to the European Union. Ultimately, it was allegedly agreed to entrust NATO with all three aspects of the operation. The most important part of the operation, namely air strikes on ground targets, will be controlled from the NATO airbase in Izmir, Turkey, where U.S. and Turkish generals will be in charge.
Issues concerning operation management will be finally resolved at a meeting of foreign ministers of NATO member states in London on Tuesday. The meeting will be also attended by representatives of several Arab countries and international organizations, including the United Nations.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov does not think that the transfer of responsibility for military operations in Libya is illegitimate. According to Mr. Lavrov, U.N. Security Council Resolution 1973 provides that the task of enforcing a no-fly zone may be executed by countries that are capable to do this as well as by international and regional organizations. At the same time, Mr. Lavrov stressed that the powers provided for in the resolution can be used with only one purpose — to protect the civilian population. The minister called for a ceasefire by both parties involved in the civil war in Libya.
At the same time, as Professor Bogaturov noted, before adopting Resolution 1973, U.N. Security Council members considered available precedents. These precedents, however, used fairly broad terms and did not include direct prohibition of particular actions.
On Sunday night, the NATO Council decided at the ambassadorial level to take over control of the operation. However, Canadian Gen. Charles Bouchard, who became commander of the operation, announced earlier that the Alliance had been handed over responsibility for maintaining two aspects of the operation — enforcing the no-fly zone and coordinating the naval blockade.
However, the NATO Council needed to decide who would be responsible for the third and the most important aspect of the operation — bombing Libyan government army targets. Prior to that, it was an American admiral who exercised tactical control over these actions. According to recent reports, after some disputes, this aspect of the operation became the responsibility of all NATO members. In addition, the NATO Council had to reformulate the rules of the operation. In particular, the result of the discussion were the statements by NATO headquarters press officers that the Alliance would take over the leadership of the operation for a period of 90 days, which, however, may be extended or, conversely, reduced, depending on the situation.
Moreover, according to Brussels, NATO will strictly limit strikes on Libyan territory and will not take sides in the conflict. These assurances appear extremely unconvincing during the ongoing air strikes on Libyan troops and, as a consequence, intensified the onset of opposition forces. According to recent data, opposition forces have already occupied Sirte (Gadhafi's hometown) and are now moving to the west, towards the capital of the country, Tripoli. “NATO will always remain impartial. NATO does not take sides. The goal is to stop any potential danger for the population, in line with the U.N. Security Council resolution,” said one of NATO diplomats. According to the same circles, “[t]here will be no troops on the ground in Libya.”
A question arises in connection with the decision of the NATO Council: Who gave NATO responsibility for directing the operation? This question is raised by the fact that Barack Obama has been contradicting himself when speaking on the subject. Thus, for example, when announcing the beginning of the operation, the U.S. president said that the United States would not play a leading role in it. However, a few days later he nevertheless called for handing off the lead role to NATO.
Formally, the operation was lead by a coalition of 11 countries, the main fighting force of which belonged to the United States, France and Britain. The actual management of military operations was executed by American Gen. Carter Ham. Since March 9, this 59-year-old military man has been commander of U.S. Africa Command, which was created several years ago. Its headquarters are in Stuttgart, Germany, the same location where U.S. armed forces in Europe are headquartered.
After responsibility for the operation was transferred to NATO, Barack Obama was able to argue that the United States really does not lead the operation. He should have made a statement about this in his television address a week ago, which was announced in advance as very important.
Why did Obama need to hide the real role of the U.S. in operations in Libya? Answering this question for Nezavisimaya Gazeta, Vice-Chancellor of the Moscow State Institute of International Relations (MGIMO) and Professor Alexei Bogaturov noted that the current political situation in the United States is difficult for President Obama. According to Mr. Bogaturov, Congress, where Republicans dominate both houses, has been more demanding with regard to executive power. In these circumstances, recognition of the third American war in a Muslim country could cause strong criticism and demand accurate report about the timing of the operation, its cost and possible damage to the image of the United States, especially in the Third World. The same questions could be asked by some Democratic legislators, and elections will be as soon as next year.
According to Mr. Bogaturov, the complexity of the inner political situation in the United States is also demonstrated by disagreements within the administration during the discussion about conducting the operation. Military leaders did not show enthusiasm for the proposed military action in Libya, but diplomats who insisted on carrying out the operation, especially Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, gained the upper hand. It was their arguments that President Obama eventually considered.
According to media reports, heated debates about the actions in Libya were taking place at NATO headquarters in Brussels almost every day during the last week. The most acute confrontation was observed between the positions of France and Turkey. At first, the French strongly opposed the transfer of control to NATO, as this would cause a negative reaction in Arab countries. The Turks, on the contrary, insisted that the operation would gain legitimacy only under the command of NATO. Later, Paris accepted the leading role of NATO but insisted on the establishment of a political leadership share of 11 initial members of the coalition, that is, excluding Turkey and Germany. Such disputes are related to the fact that Turkey is discontented with the reluctance of the French to admit it to the European Union. Ultimately, it was allegedly agreed to entrust NATO with all three aspects of the operation. The most important part of the operation, namely air strikes on ground targets, will be controlled from the NATO airbase in Izmir, Turkey, where U.S. and Turkish generals will be in charge.
Issues concerning operation management will be finally resolved at a meeting of foreign ministers of NATO member states in London on Tuesday. The meeting will be also attended by representatives of several Arab countries and international organizations, including the United Nations.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov does not think that the transfer of responsibility for military operations in Libya is illegitimate. According to Mr. Lavrov, U.N. Security Council Resolution 1973 provides that the task of enforcing a no-fly zone may be executed by countries that are capable to do this as well as by international and regional organizations. At the same time, Mr. Lavrov stressed that the powers provided for in the resolution can be used with only one purpose — to protect the civilian population. The minister called for a ceasefire by both parties involved in the civil war in Libya.
At the same time, as Professor Bogaturov noted, before adopting Resolution 1973, U.N. Security Council members considered available precedents. These precedents, however, used fairly broad terms and did not include direct prohibition of particular actions.
Next article![]( "Straddling the Fence, the Obama Administration Has Lost the Islamic World's Trust")
