Why in Libya, Americans are 'Bringing Up the French Rear'
After China
abstained on U.N. authorization for a no-fly zone over Libya, this article from
the state-controlled Beijing Youth Daily attempts to explain why, after
decades of almost unilateral decision-making, Washington is letting France take
the lead in operations against Muammar Qaddafi's forces. Beijing academic Zhang Guoqing suggests that President Sarkozy is hoping to demonstrate
strength to ensure reelection, and President Obama wants to shield himself from
another Iraq-style embarrassment.
French President Nicolas Sarkozy: In championing military action against the Libyan regime, he has put his political future and French diplomacy on the line. But why has Washington gone along so easily?
With such a large number of
countries taking part in the military intervention in Libya, it comes as a
surprise to many that France is taking the lead. Because in the past, the
leading role invariably belonged to the United States. President Obama's position as he expressed it
in Brazil has led people to believe that America has decided to hang back to create
conditions to allow France to "navigate."
France as "navigator"
is actually quite consistent with Sarkozy's working style. Sarkozy hastily broke
off diplomatic relations with Libya; then, sensing the hopelessness of Qaddafi's
situation, he quickly recognized Libya's anti-government forces, which
inadvertently put them at a disadvantage - a serious error in judgment. Sarkozy
recently described how, to prevent Qaddafi's forces from completely defeating Libya's
opposition, he spent some sleepless nights finding the fastest way possible of winning
passage of U.N.
Security Council Resolution 1973, which subsequently resulted in the French
army leading the charge in Libya.
Furthermore, this is also a
strategy to prevent Sarkozy from becoming a public laughing stock, thus
affecting his chances of reelection. Meanwhile, after the success of this battle,
Sarkozy hopes people will recognize his strength of leadership - worthy of
continued trust as master of the Elysée Palace.
Geopolitically and historically,
Libya has genuine significance to France. Among the large Western countries, France
is the closest in proximity to Libya and for many years of the last century until Libya declared its independence in 1951, the French controlled its southern region.
Certainly, oil access is also in France's interests. Today, French oil companies
have invested billions in Libya, and if France supports the coming to power of Libya's
anti-government forces, it is likely to receive greater "energy dividends"
when the war is over, which will have tremendous significance for both the
development of the French energy sector and energy security alike.
Moreover, this will also help
ease domestic conflict in France - at least Sarkozy thinks so. This also helps explain
why he is so determined, even though U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told
the French president that the war risks significant bloodshed. He intends to
pursue his interests even if that means climbing a mountain of swords.
In contrast, Canada and other
countries are much more "neutral." They're concern is to burnish
an image tied to humanitarian aid, even if ultimately Libyan civilians suffer
great losses. The United States is even more selfish. On the one hand, America doesn't
want to fall behind on the "humanitarian" front, but neither does it
want to charge in precipitously - which is precisely what France wants to do. On
the other hand, Obama insists that the U.S. not dispatch ground
troops, concerned as he is about reproducing the embarrassment of the Iraq War. And neither
does the U.S. economic situation allow for a deep involvement.
Obama lacks sufficient enthusiasm
for the Libya issue because of the shadow cast by the Iraq and America's entanglement
in Afghanistan. Moreover, there are serious differences within the
Obama Administration. According to U.S. media reports, in regard to military
intervention in Libya, the White House is divided into two groups: Supporters
are led by Vice President Joe Biden and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, while
those opposed include Defense Secretary Robert Gates, U.S. National Security
Adviser Tom Donilon, and
others.
Posted by WORLDMEETS.US
With these internal and
external conflicts, Obama insists on two clear principles: If the U.S. must
take the lead, he doesn't want to use force; and even if a military strike is
carried out, he has no intention of using U.S. ground forces. With France
launching the attack, the United States had to follow on the battlefield. But
considering their interests, the United States hopes that France, Britain and
other countries are capable of rushing to the front, while the U.S. plays the
role of providing logistical support. Based on these considerations, after the initial
phase of the attack, the problems confronted by the Pentagon will no longer be
how to maintain effective leadership, but rather, how to choose the appropriate
method of passing on military leadership to its allies.
Obama told reporters
traveling with him in Brazil, "Make no mistake, today we are part of a
broad coalition." Such a willingness on the part of the U.S. to be a "part"
has been very rare in recent years. To show this solidarity, Obama emphasized
six times in a three minute statement that the international community supports
the use of force, and he stressed that America is acting together with a "broad
coalition," including partners in Europe and the Arab world. The White
House had specifically sought the views of leaders in both parties of Congress.
All of this shows that in the "battle for Libya", the United States
is willing to be France's backup.
As for the prospect of
military strikes, the losses will be relatively small, whether Qaddafi gives up
or anti-government troops overrun him with the support of multinational forces.
But there is cause for another concern: Libya may relive the nightmare of Yugoslavia.
