Established for the purpose of collective defense and the
protection of the liberal democracy of the West, the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization (NATO) an intergovernmental military alliance, was established in
1949 in the midst of the Cold War. Originating from the Treaty of Brussels in 1948,
NATO started off with only a handful of states but has now grown to include 28 member
countries, some of which are former Soviet states. In addition to this NATO’s
various partnership programs such as ‘Partnership for Peace’ and its dialogue
programs see the involvement of additional countries, exclusive of NATO
membership. With the passage of time there has been a growth and expansion in the
scope of NATO, as what started off as a mere political association has now
transformed into a military organization which provides assistance to a variety
of countries for a myriad of reasons. The most prominent example of this would
be the NATO led ISAF task force in Afghanistan which sees to most of the
defense needs of the country, and the training of the Afghan National Security
Force.
Due to this complex evolution of the aims and purposes of
this organization, recently NATO has been subjected to criticism and
controversy due to its peacekeeping activities, with special emphasis on Libya
and Afghanistan. Therefore in this
answer this writer will analyze NATO’s role in the final outcome of the
situation in Libya and determine if the intervention in Libya was a success or
a failure.
With regard to the situation in Libya, initially coalition
forces headed by the UK, France and the United States of America initiated a
military intervention in Libya on 19th March 2011, following the
passing of UNSC resolution 1973. This resolution called for the establishment
of a no-fly-zone over Libya and authorized the international community to use
all necessary measures short of foreign occupation, for the protection of
Libyan civilians. However in an attempt to unify and concentrate the command of
the coalition forces into a small group, the mission was transferred into the
control of the NATO beginning with the enforcement of the arms embargo on the
22nd of March, following objections raised by the Turkish, German and French
governments to this plan. The full transition of control occurred on the 31st
of March and thereafter a multitude of other states joined forces with NATO,
some of them being Sweden, Qatar, Morocco, UAE, Jordan etc. During NATO’s
operation in Libya over 26,000 sorties were carried out with an average of 120
sorties, predominantly strike sorties. NATO also conducted a de-conflicting of
nearly 4000 zones on land, sea and air to assist the carrying out of
humanitarian projects carried out by the UN and a multitude of NGOs.
When evaluated prima facie, it seems like NATO succeeded in
its mission when they won a decisive victory and ended the operation on 31st
October 2011. However this is not at all the case and NATO’s intervention in
Libya has been tinged with criticism, speculation and controversy. Many people
claim that the basis of the military intervention was not humanitarian grounds
or democratic concerns, but was based on interest in Libya’s national
resources. Libya, a member state of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting
Countries (OPEC), is one of the world’s largest suppliers of oil with the fifth
biggest oil reserve in the world.
Additionally the country’s financial capital, such as its gold reserve with over 100 tons of gold and its national assets with an estimated worth of over $56 billion, have been speculated to be the real motivators behind the entire mission. The entire operation has also been criticized as being an imperialist mission with a plethora of state strongly condemning it, such as Cuba, Iran, Zimbabwe, Namibia, North Korea, Russia etc. It was also speculated that the mission was carried out to counter Muammar Gaddafi’s plan of having nations outside Africa pay for oil in gold. NATO’s role in Libya was also strongly condemned not only by Russia’s UN envoy Vitaly Chulkin, who called for an inquiry into the civilian deaths that resulted out of NATO’s activities in Libya, but also by the BRICS countries who collectively stated that NATO acted beyond its mandate by openly taking sides in a civil war by assisting the rebels to overthrow the Gaddafi regime. In addition to this, in an independent report released by the ‘Arab Organization for Human rights’, a human rights group based in the Middle East, it was stated that there is evidence to show that all three parties to the Libyan civil war, i.e. NATO, the rebels and the pro Gaddafi forces, are responsible for perpetrating war crimes and human right violations. The Libyan government also claimed that Gaddafi’s youngest son and three grandchildren were killed in NATO strikes in the country’s capital, Tripoli in April 2011. NATO was criticized for classifying certain civilian targets as military targets and for strikes in September 2011 in Sirte which caused the deaths of 47 civilians. Should this be proved, it would be especially embarrassing to NATO who expounded continuously on avoiding any civilian casualties.
Additionally the country’s financial capital, such as its gold reserve with over 100 tons of gold and its national assets with an estimated worth of over $56 billion, have been speculated to be the real motivators behind the entire mission. The entire operation has also been criticized as being an imperialist mission with a plethora of state strongly condemning it, such as Cuba, Iran, Zimbabwe, Namibia, North Korea, Russia etc. It was also speculated that the mission was carried out to counter Muammar Gaddafi’s plan of having nations outside Africa pay for oil in gold. NATO’s role in Libya was also strongly condemned not only by Russia’s UN envoy Vitaly Chulkin, who called for an inquiry into the civilian deaths that resulted out of NATO’s activities in Libya, but also by the BRICS countries who collectively stated that NATO acted beyond its mandate by openly taking sides in a civil war by assisting the rebels to overthrow the Gaddafi regime. In addition to this, in an independent report released by the ‘Arab Organization for Human rights’, a human rights group based in the Middle East, it was stated that there is evidence to show that all three parties to the Libyan civil war, i.e. NATO, the rebels and the pro Gaddafi forces, are responsible for perpetrating war crimes and human right violations. The Libyan government also claimed that Gaddafi’s youngest son and three grandchildren were killed in NATO strikes in the country’s capital, Tripoli in April 2011. NATO was criticized for classifying certain civilian targets as military targets and for strikes in September 2011 in Sirte which caused the deaths of 47 civilians. Should this be proved, it would be especially embarrassing to NATO who expounded continuously on avoiding any civilian casualties.
Unfortunately many people believed that following the
completion of NATO’s mission in Libya, the people of Libya would be liberated
from a tyrannical and ruthless dictator, and that the future would be nothing
but smooth sailing. However this couldn’t be any further from the truth, and it
seems that the chaos is far from over in the country. Reports indicate that
mass scale violence still continues, with torture, ethnic cleansing and revenge
killing rampant across the nation. Libyan National Congress president Mohammed
el-Megarif recently classified the southern portion of the country as a
military zone due to high levels of drug, human and arms trafficking occurring
there. The murder of US ambassador Christopher Stevens in September 11th
2012 also opened the eyes of many people and gave an indicator of the current
nature of the state.
Discrimination against the Christian minority who make up of 3% of the population is also present, and the recent bombing of a stone church in Dafniya is a testament to this. The weaknesses of the government were also manifested in the recent abduction of Benghazi Police Captain and Investigation Chief Abdel-Salam al-Mahdawi whose fate is still unknown. In addition to these two months earlier Police Chief Faraj al-Deirsy was shot and killed by unknown assailants. This goes to show that despite overthrowing an oppressive regime, life is far from perfect in the current context of the country.
Discrimination against the Christian minority who make up of 3% of the population is also present, and the recent bombing of a stone church in Dafniya is a testament to this. The weaknesses of the government were also manifested in the recent abduction of Benghazi Police Captain and Investigation Chief Abdel-Salam al-Mahdawi whose fate is still unknown. In addition to these two months earlier Police Chief Faraj al-Deirsy was shot and killed by unknown assailants. This goes to show that despite overthrowing an oppressive regime, life is far from perfect in the current context of the country.
However despite the less than favorable situation in Libya, it
must be also noted that the NATO had some successes in this mission, most
notably the fact that it saved many lives by bringing down Gaddafi’s air force
and monitoring the Libyan coast. The fact that NATO also received authorization
from the UN Security Council gives them a legal basis for the intervention. This
mission was also based on the principle of ‘Responsibility to Protect’ (R2P),
wherein a country is given authorization to intervene in a country which is in
large scale chaos and turmoil and where the rights of the citizens are grossly violated.
While R2P is more of a norm than a law, it has strong links to international
law and therefore it has some sort of a legal basis. This operation has been
viewed by many to have set a strong and positive precedent under this
principle.
UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon also commended NATO for its successful operation in Libya and also came to its defense by stating that “This military operation done by the NATO forces was strictly within (resolution) 1973”, countering claims by the BRIC countries who stated otherwise. The mission was also hailed as being one of the “most successful” in NATO’s history, by General Secretary Anders Fogh Rasmussen. It must also not be forgotten that for NATO to be requested to carry out the operation, there must have been some faith and belief in its capabilities to resolve the tumultuous events in Libya. Kosovo, Macedonia and Bosnia and Herzegovina have been cited as NATO’s past successes, and therefore it must be agreed that at the international level there was a perhaps a great deal of approval of NATO’s intervention in Libya.
UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon also commended NATO for its successful operation in Libya and also came to its defense by stating that “This military operation done by the NATO forces was strictly within (resolution) 1973”, countering claims by the BRIC countries who stated otherwise. The mission was also hailed as being one of the “most successful” in NATO’s history, by General Secretary Anders Fogh Rasmussen. It must also not be forgotten that for NATO to be requested to carry out the operation, there must have been some faith and belief in its capabilities to resolve the tumultuous events in Libya. Kosovo, Macedonia and Bosnia and Herzegovina have been cited as NATO’s past successes, and therefore it must be agreed that at the international level there was a perhaps a great deal of approval of NATO’s intervention in Libya.
In conclusion it is extremely difficult to gauge if NATO’s
mission in Libya was a success or a failure. Despite “liberating” the people of
Libya and successfully completing the task it set out to do, NATO’s accomplishments
in this situation is negated and overshadowed by dubious claims on the ulterior
motives of the organization and alleged civilian deaths. However it must be
remembered that NATO is an international organization which has experience in
dealing with such matters and have so far (with the exception of Afghanistan)
has had a mostly positive track record. It would be a utopian ideal to not
expect any setbacks or mistakes, and therefore certain concessions must be
afforded. NATO now needs to clear up its
name with a proper and speedy solution for the chaotic situation in Afghanistan.
Photo: http://www.corbisimages.com/images/Corbis-AX010412.jpg?size=67&uid=0f41e24d-d14e-4239-8470-39b8c0ca09d0
Photo: http://www.corbisimages.com/images/Corbis-AX010412.jpg?size=67&uid=0f41e24d-d14e-4239-8470-39b8c0ca09d0
No comments:
Post a Comment