Libya: The Letter That Betrays NATO’s Desperation

April 15, 2011

President Barack Obama of the US, Prime Minister David Cameron of the UK, and President Nicolas Sarkozy of France have written a joint letter to The Times of London, the International Herald Tribune, and Le Figaro, vowing to keep up the pressure on Libyan leader, Muammar Gaddafi, and pledging to maintain NATO military pressure on his forces (according to the BBC news, April 14, 2011).

A substantial part of that letter said: “Our duty and our mandate under UN Security Council Resolution 1973 is to protect civilians, and we are doing that. It is not to remove Gaddafi by force. But it is impossible to imagine a future for Libya with Gaddafi in power.”

Another portion has this to say: “There is a pathway to peace that promises new hope for the people of Libya: a future without Gaddafi that preserves Libya's integrity and sovereignty and restores her economy and the prosperity and security of her people.”

The contents of the letter suggest extreme desperation and betray the political immaturity of the three signatories—Obama, Sarkozy, and Cameron. In fact, from the manner in which they have been handling the matter, one can conclude that they lack the political maturity that solving such a crisis demands.

Their immaturity seems to be telling on NATO itself, considering the split in stance on how to go about implementing this military option. If there were no split, why would NATO be crying for more aircraft from member states?

Spain, Italy, Turkey, and Germany are reluctant to provide the logistics needed to intensify the bombardment of Libya.

Political maturity could yield better results.

Annoying contradictions with their claim that the aim of the military bombardment is not a regime change come to the fore. In one breath, they may be assaying so but in the same breath, they insist that the bombardment will continue until Gaddafi leaves office.

So, whom are these belligerent but inexperienced leaders fooling?

They are claiming that the removal of Gaddafi from office is a political process, which is not the direct purpose of the ongoing military option. How confused aren't these people already?

From the other angle, Brazil, Russia, India, and China have expressed strong reservations against the NATO action, which indicates that the phenomenon is taking a turn for the worse and is a violation of UN Security Council’s Resolution 1973.

Probably, that criticism may be influencing moves by France to seek a new UN resolution that will cater for a regime change and the future of Gaddafi. The French Defence Minister, Gerard Longuet, has dropped hints to that effect.

Something unexpected is emerging. These Gaddafi haters have no consistent plan for the International Coalition and seem to be acting on reckless impulses, originated and fed by mere hatred for Gaddafi; hence, the unwillingness of the other members of NATO to commit resources (fighter aircraft, particularly) for the intensification and sustenance of the military actions in Libya.

Already, the Obama-Sarkozy-Cameron triumvirate seems to have peeked into the future that they have carved for Libya—something they impudently call “a vision for the future of Libya.” We can tell from this part of their letter the extent to which they have made themselves the Godfathers of the Libyan people:

“… so long as Gaddafi is in power, NATO and its coalition partners must maintain their operations so that civilians remain protected and the pressure on the regime builds. Then a genuine transition from dictatorship to an inclusive constitutional process can really begin, led by a new generation of leaders. For that transition to succeed, Colonel Gaddafi must go, and go for good. 

“At that point, the United Nations and its members should help the Libyan people as they rebuild where Gaddafi has destroyed - to repair homes and hospitals, to restore basic utilities, and to assist Libyans as they develop the institutions to underpin a prosperous and open society.”

These people seem not to know where they are in the Libyan system. 

The Libyan crisis, however, reveals other serious issues that concern the future of the African Union and the United Nations. The varying positions taken by these institutions on the crisis reflect some discouraging tendencies that must be addressed to reposition them in handling matters within their purview.

1. The African Union’s Conundrum
The conflicts on the continent pose serious challenges to the AU and call for immediate measures to rebuild it. Far from being frustrated into throwing their arms in despair, the members of the AU must use this Libyan crisis and the rough treatment by the West as a golden opportunity to redeem themselves.

They must re-engineer the AU and redefine its strategies for fighting the African cause. They must revisit some of the concrete suggestions from past members of the OAU to revitalize the AU and help it stand on its feet to meet the challenges of our contemporary world.

Dr. Nkrumah's call for Africa to unite is still valid. Also relevant is his suggestion for an African High Command to perform the military function that the West has arrogated to itself on the continent.

Such a military force could be used for purposes that will have an African flavour, not what we see happening on the continent today when the West willfully interferes in the internal affairs of sovereign African countries with devastating consequences just to fulfill their own long-held ambitions.

This is the time for the AU to re-organize itself and strengthen all its organs to perform effectively. Had the AU done so long before the eruption of all these major crises on the continent, it would have been playing the frontline role in restoring normalcy, not be hamstrung and undermined by the West.

Member-states of the AU must rediscover their worth and speak with one voice on issues affecting the continent. What South Africa, Nigeria, and Gabon did by endorsing the UN Resolution 1973 that has legitimized the destruction of Libya is not a good example of how AU members should behave.

If they were intimidated into giving the nod to the West or bribed with promises of a permanent seat on the UN Security Council (to enjoy the power of veto), they must by now have realized how disastrous that manipulation is.

They should have known that the UN was not designed to give African countries any prominent role to play, let alone serving as a permanent member. That's what the AU must recognize.

Is it not ironic that South Africa's Jacob Zuma should be leading the AU's delegation to seek a political solution to the Libyan crisis after his country had gone to bed with the West to repudiate the AU's position against the military option? Last Monday, Zuma was in Libya to present the AU's non-violent “Road Map to Peace,” which Gaddafi didn't hesitate to accept but which the rebels rejected outright. 

How do Zuma, Nigeria's Jonathan Goodluck, and Gabon's Bongo hope to rationalize these two conflicting positions concerning their countries and what the AU recommended for resolving the Libyan crisis? How can the AU function effectively if leaders of that sort don't join the Union in speaking with one common voice on issues affecting the continent?

I hesitate to suggest that the African member-states of the UN should withdraw from the world body in protest at the raw deal being given the AU. It won't happen because almost all the African countries are fed by the very powerful states that are manipulating the UN to serve their interests.

Can they dare bite the finger that feeds them and remain unscathed? They can't and will quickly go back on their knees to swallow back their vomit. They should remain in the UN but act with one accord.

2. The United Nations’ Dilemma
It seems the UN has lost its focus and is now a tool in the hands of the West, which is being used for legitimizing the West's belligerence and militaristic attitude. Isn't it ironic that an institution that was set up to work for global peace has turned away from using peaceful means to resolve political disputes?

Or that such an organization would rush to endorse the use of heavy-handed military measures to destroy life and property in countries just because those financing it have called the shots? Why has the UN not strongly opted for a political solution as the best approach instead of legitimizing this devastation of Libya (and the Ivory Coast?) through military firepower?

The UN's role in the Ivory Coast and its overwhelming support for the military action against Libya confirm suspicions that the organization is nothing but an instrument that is funded and controlled by the West to be used at will for such purposes.

It is depressing for the powerful members of the UN to exploit their control of the world body to destroy the weaker members of the organization. 

It's not surprising that Gaddafi has for long opposed the location of the UN in the United States, considering it as a tool of the US. Gaddafi's suggestion that the UN Headquarters be relocated elsewhere outside the US did not get support, and the UN has remained on the US soil to be funded and bullied by the US for use by the West to serve all kinds of purposes.

Of course, the US is the major financier of the UN and we recall what happened when it withdrew funding in protest sometime in the 1980s or 1990s. Once the UN has been reduced to a subservient status, it will continue to be at the beck and call of the powerful states to be used against the weaker states all in the name of democracy.

Unfortunately, however, the weaker states dare not resign from the UN for fear of reprisals (especially the pulling of strings to starve them of economic support, which will further deepen their plight). Like a flag in the direction of a powerful wind, the weaker states have no option but to obey the wind or be torn into shreds.

It is obvious that one should call for a reform of the UN to make it more credible as an institution that will tackle global problems without bias or betraying double-standards. As it currently handles affairs, it seems it has lost much credibility and risks opening itself up to be manipulated more by the powerful states and turned into an instrument for war, not peace.

If that becomes the order of the day, the UN will go the way its predecessor (the League of Nations) did—a change that may come at a huge cost to the world.

This is the context within which the letter from the Obama-Sarkozy-Cameron triumvirate must be assessed. As of now, we know that this triumvirate is determined to use NATO to its fullest extent in devastating Libya. Indeed, Obama, Sarkozy, and Cameron are on the move. But where to, exactly?