Military Intervention in Libya Is Legitimate Action to Prevent Massacre

The major multinational forces of the United States, Britain and France have carried out military intervention in North Africa’s Libya, where there is currently a civil war.

French aircraft have bombed the Gadhafi government’s tanks and armored vehicles, and Britain and the U.S. have attacked its air defense facilities with cruise missiles.

This strategy is a legitimate humanitarian intervention, based on Resolution 1973 of the U.N. Security Council. The resolution has authorized “all necessary measures to protect civilians” — with the exception of occupation — and establishing a no-fly zone.

Rebels, rising up to overthrow Gadhafi’s government, temporarily seized the Eastern parts of the Mediterranean, but the government’s armed forces have regained some of their ground, and the rebels based in Benghazi are on the verge of surrendering.

In order to avoid the carnage that would inevitably come with the fall of Benghazi, military intervention was unavoidable.

When it came to voting on the Security Council resolution, five countries abstained: China, Russia, Germany, India and Brazil. However, because they didn’t voice opposition to it either, there is surely a tacit understanding between them.

In order to reduce the burden on participating countries, Germany has taken on a larger role in Afghanistan. This shows that even though some countries are in favor of military intervention in Libya, and some aren’t, the world has not been split into two.

Gadhafi has denounced the Western military operation as a “second crusade.” He is likening it to Christian crusaders invading the Islamic world in an attempt to incite revolt by Arab nations.

However, this operation in Libya is different from the 2003 war in Iraq, which invited a distrust of America by Islam.

Both the Libyan citizens — who have suffered under Gadhafi’s tyrannical rule — and the Arab League supported military intervention. It is fundamentally different from what happened in Iraq.

Even though Gadhafi agreed to a cease-fire after the U.N. Security Council resolution, he rescinded it and shifted to a new mindset of do-or-die resistance. However, in the end, this will probably leave him no other choice than to agree to an immediate cease-fire and withdrawal from the East.

Operations this time around find France and Britain taking the leadership role, with America following behind. Although Britain and France have rushed into the decision to intervene, they have also been harshly criticized, both domestically and abroad, for being too slow to respond to the situations in Tunisia and Egypt — countries that had set a precedent for bringing down their dictatorships.

In terms of wanting Gadhafi’s violence to end, the Japanese government has, of course, declared its support for military action.

If the unrest in Libya, an oil-producing country, is prolonged, the price of oil will rise steeply, and not only will it affect the world economy, it will also affect Japan’s plans for reconstruction after the big earthquake. Therefore, Japan must not show any reluctance to cooperate for the speedy stabilization of Libya.