Libya, Obama and Us

European public opinion is divided on the U.S. military intervention in Libya in its maximalist version, that is to say, a direct attack against Moammar Gadhafi. European governments disagree even on the “light” version: to impose a no-fly zone, which may make it difficult for Gadhafi to act with impunity against Libyan rebels. The advance of Libyan rebels came to a standstill because of the military superiority of the dictator and the West is facing a distressing dilemma: help Libya achieve democracy or run the risk of this tyrant maintaining power for a few years more by launching a brutal and bloody crackdown.

It is curious that this situation poses a dilemma for the U.S. and Western Europe. Other countries with great military power, such as China and Russia, and other nations with international standing — like Brazil, India or Turkey — do not plan to act. They have excessively traded with Arab autocrats, like we did, but their leaders do not seem to have any interest in showing indulgence towards Gadhafi to help bring down the dictator now that the situation is favorable because of the rebel population. The responsibility thus lies with the West. It is internationally known that in any humanitarian disaster caused by man or by a government, Russia or China — two powers with veto in the United Nations Security Council — would raise their eyebrows and think that this situation has little to do with them. The bill has to be paid by others.

Among others, restless voices arise and governments are afraid because, owing to their passivity, in a few years one may hear the question “Why they did not do anything with Libya?” In this case, a sense of unease and remorse go hand in hand since we had contemplated too long over a leader with a dark past (UTA and the Lockerbie bombings) and a pathetic rate on freedom of expression and ethics — out of 194 countries, Libya is ranked 193 in freedom of the press and 146 in corruption.

In the U.S., the prestigious and progressive newspaper The New York Times stated that another war could be counterproductive but it is difficult to abandon the Libyan people. It is the same dilemma used as an excuse for tomorrow. A variety of politicians — for example, McCain, Kerry and Richardson, among others — ask for an intervention. Obama and his team are more cautious. The president stated that all options are on the table, but for the moment he has to wait. His chief of staff, William Daley, said that there is much excitement about the no-fly zone and that there are people who are close to the secretary of defense — and therefore close to the president — who think that this is a videogame. But the secretary also said he hasn’t forgotten that bombing anti-aircraft facilities in Libya is an act of war. Trying to buy time, Obama, with likely mixed feelings about this situation, said it would require an international agreement.

But what is that supposed to mean? A green light from the UN? For now, the intervention is unthinkable and the no-fly zone problematic. Europeans differ. France and England support the no-fly zone, Germany hesitates, Italy does nothing at all and Spain announces not only that the UN has to support an intervention but also the European Union (which is a little bit childish; we would not ask for an intervention if only Estonia or Greece were opposed). Countries of the Gulf region have already asked for an intervention, and the Arab League will gather to study the plan. Libyan patriots insist on not sending troops, but they ask for help.

As it happened in Kosovo, the moment of truth will come if television or stories from correspondents show us appalling scenes, Libyan rebels call for air support and the UN, fearing a Russian veto, does not give its blessing. The United States, with 175 aircraft from the Sixth Fleet, would be enough to establish it. But we do not know if the U.S. would like to do it only with the help of Great Britain and a few more countries. A detail that we forget is that in Kosovo there was no support from the UN and less in Iraq. The Europeans needed Washington to topple Milosevic regime, and Spain, with no help from the UN, participated without complaining in the Balkan intervention.

What would happen now in a similar situation? Would the Alliance of Civilizations lead us out of this?