Confronting a Distant and Uncertain Result in Libya
"Obama
must be relieved to see the Europeans, mainly the French and British,
assume operational political responsibility … in terms of Arab opinion,
partition would spell political disaster. The entire operation carried out to
rescue the Libyan people would quickly be summarized as a war over oil."
Going
to war is one thing. Getting out is another. The London meeting on the future
of Libya mainly suggests that the outcome is far too uncertain - for the
international coalition is facing an impasse that the best strategists don't
seem to have foreseen. And to choose another option that would bypass this
obstacle would be to go beyond U.N.
Security Council Resolution 1973, with all of the associated outcry that one might
imagine. Already the Arab states, allies that on a psychological level are so
precious, seem to be losing enthusiasm since NATO took command: only seven of
the 24 Arab League countries were represented at the conference.
Yet
control of the Libyan skies has been won. Qaddafi's troops have been stopped in
open country by coalition aircraft and immediately, "rebel" forces seized
the terrain. But lightly armed, they disbanded as soon as "loyalist"
artillery, sheltered by towns and villages and therefore impossible to destroy
without enormous "collateral damage," thundered. Today the situation
is about the same as it was two weeks ago: the Benghazi volunteers remain
blocked outside of Sirte, and are about to lose their recent conquests.
So
what to do? Ground engagement is totally out of the question for Washington,
where Barack Obama doesn't want to repeat the errors committed in Iraq … and must
be relieved to see the Europeans, mainly the French and British, assume operational
political responsibility for the operations. Theoretically, too, the U.N.
forbids an escalation that an invasion of Western troops would represent,
although the resolution is ambiguous, since it says all means possible
can be used to protect the civilian population. Whether [Foreign Minister] Alain Juppé likes it
or not, arming the insurgency raises the same issue because it would require
deploying on-site instructors. In any case, such a thing would be conceivable
only if the international community recognized the National
Transitional Council. So far, only France and Qatar have taken that step.
Fuzziness
prevails and will prevail as long as Muammar Qaddafi clings to Tripoli.
Offering him exile, as has been suggested by Italian diplomats, seems unlikely:
a scorched earth proponent, the "Guide" will not leave voluntarily.
Neither will his all-too-compromised accomplices. Negotiating a genuine cease-fire
with corridors for humanitarian aid, to cite a Turkish initiative, also smacks
of utopia. Rome and Ankara, for various reasons, seek for the most part to
stand above the Franco-British voluntarism … while Berlin is keeping a low
profile. And we mustn't overlook other factors in Libya itself, where ancestral
rivalries pit Tripolitania
against Cyrenaica. One
cannot exclude a de facto partition, with the green flag of "Jamahiriya" to the West
and, to the East, the banner of long-gone monarch King Idris. Perhaps in
Benghazi, under a more democratic regime, perhaps pro-West and guaranteeing
access to oil.
But
in terms of Arab opinion, partition would spell political disaster. The entire
operation carried out to rescue the Libyan people would quickly be summarized
as a war over oil …
