Libya | Crying over spilt milk: Dear Mr. President, Secretary Clinton and Ambassador Rice, abstentions are allowed in the United Nations.

Disclaimer: So goes the saying: “hindsight is 20/20.” It is easier to pass judgment while having the benefit of looking into the past. I am not writing this to whine, and I write this with the understanding that the players did not have such a luxury. I would hope that those reading would see it the same way.

Whether you supported the war in Iraq or not, whether you liked President George Bush Jr. or not, whether you are a Democrat or Republican, since the US invaded Iraq without a UN Security Council (UNSC) Resolution, the US has been widely perceived to see itself exceptional to international norms and standards set by the “international community.” It can be argued that such a perception had been growing before, but the Iraq War certainly did the US no favors to dispel it. American exceptionalism and the limited choice fallacy of being “with us or against us” is not just an image problem, it is a license for other countries to do the same. It also turns off countries from wanting to work with the US as we become seen as arrogant and unstrustworthy. Would you trust anyone who advocates for laws but claims to be above it?

The UN has shown its impotence in dealing with some of the most alarming human rights crises such as Rwanda, Srebernica, Kosovo, etc…yes it’s true, BUT people tend to forget that the UN is only as strong as its members will allow it to be. The UN is not a one world government and cannot make its members act if they choose not to. Additionally, the P5 (US, UK, France, Russia and China) hold privileged positions in the UN where they can veto a resolution they disagree with. This allows the P5 to veto any resolution that is explicitly against their national interest. If anything, the UN is unbalanced to favor those five countries, the US included. Which is why the US approach to the UNSC and Resolution 1973 during the Libyan rebellion was very disappointing.

An abstention does not mean opposition to military intervention in Libya.

In the UNSC, countries can either vote in favor, against, or abstain from a resolution. In fact, this holds true across the main bodies of the UN. The difference in the UNSC is that if one of the P5 votes against the resolution, the resolution is dead. Since the threat of a veto is everpresent, it forces all members of the UNSC to prepare a resolution that will not threaten the core interests of any of the P5 country. If a resolution becomes potentially threatening, members of the UNSC will negotiate to at least get the country to abstain from the vote.

An abstention simply means not voting, it doesn’t mean an opposition to the resolution. Abstentions can also be used if the country either has reservations to what the resolution calls for, or cannot be seen voting for or against the resolution because it might offend a close ally. It is not uncommon for P5 members to reduce aid to countries that did not vote in line with their policies at the UN.

UNSC Resolution 1973 was passed by a vote of 10 in favor (Bosnia-Herzegovina, Colombia, France, Gabon, Lebanon, Nigeria, Portugal, South Africa, UK, and the US), 0 against, and 5 abstentions (Brazil, China, Germany, India, Russia). The US should have abstained from the voting.

The US vote will matter not just in Libya but elsewhere

By taking a stand and voting in favor, the US has made a statement that it wants the UNSC to take action where a government is killing its civilians and creating a humanitarian problem. But what happens when the US is called on by other countries to act on similar problems going on in Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Israel-Palestine, or any other country where we have an express interest to leave it alone? What about the Ivory Coast where the winner of an internationally recognized democratic election is not only denied his position by the incumbent, but now clashes between the two parties are getting more violent as time passes?  (REF: Guardian | Ivory Coast president Laurent Gagbo bolsters army to take on rebels) It is doubtful that the US would vote in favor of a resolution to intervene or even act in the same fashion as Odyssey Dawn.

Nothing wrong with that right? Except that the US ends up looking like an incredible hypocrite by being selective in applying idealistic principles. The US is a sovereign country and like any other, has a right to and will exercise its national interest and be selective with it. But to claim a moral high ground of helping people with self-determination towards democracy, or protecting civilian lives from repression while doing so? American exceptionalism becomes the perception again and our trust value also goes down.

How would an abstention been any different?

An abstention would have allowed the US to do the following:

(1) Participate or simply leave Odyssey Dawn operations to the Europeans to deal with, as the crisis in Libya is more likely to affect them, therefore let them do the work. As Stephen Walt put it: “this is an ideal opportunity for Europeans to learn that they should stop adopting lofty moral positions and then expect Uncle Sucker to do the heavy lifting” (REF: Foreign Policy | Stephen M. Walt). By abstaining, the US can leave the leadership of these operations to the French, British or whoever, which makes it easier for the US to leave such a coalition if and when necessary.

(2) Success or failure of UNSC Resolution 1973 and Odyssey Dawn will not fall on the US. After all, the US would have had abstained from the vote. The burden of failure would fall on those leading the operations and the “international community” of the UN. The US would have had participated because of its commitment to the international community and the UN, not because the US thought this was a fully prudent choice.

(3) When questioned why the US does not push for intervention elsewhere, where intervention does not suit US interests, the US has the ability to make a statement that it is willing to support missions that has been decided on by the UNSC and the international community. The US can announce reservations of intervention where they would like to and continue to abstain based on those reservations, but the fact the US voted in favor of intervention in Libya before will not come back to rear its head.

The UN is a tool for foreign policy. There is a difference in sidelining and purposefully weakening the organization and gaming the system. The US would do well to game the system (like other countries do) but make sure to strengthen the institutions and norms that the UN espouses because…they are the same values espoused by the US. But by voting in favor of Resolution 1973, the US may have made the UN relevant again (REF: BBC | Mark Mardell), but only for the short-term as it is guaranteed to be sidelined again when the status quo is the US interest.

The countries that abstained? Well played…

Filed under: Diplomacy, Libya, UN, US

Libya | When and how will Odyssey Dawn end?

It’s all about Benghazi. Operation Odyssey Dawn and UNSC Resolution 1973′s success of failure will be conditional on the rebel’s ability to hold Benghazi. If Qaddafi somehow manages to take Benghazi and push out the rebels from country, airstrikes will no longer be an effective means to stop a massacre from occuring. Ground intervention will be required, and it is clear that there is no political will to do so.

However, it seems that the rebels are going to hold Benghazi for now. Reports even show that the rebels have been able to break out of Benghazi as Qaddafi’s forces have been held at bay by the air strikes. (REF: NY Times | With Confidence and Skittishness, Lybian Rebels Renew Charge). While it seems that the rebels in Benghazi are comparatively safer from Qadaffi’s forces than in the west, one would be hard pressed that the rebels will be able to make a drive for Tripoli and oust Qadaffi.

But this is moot. Despite the desires of some Odyssey Dawn’s participants, removing Qadaffi from power through airstrikes alone may not come into fruition, nor does the resolution call for regime change. So now what? In the previous post, I mentioned that comparing the current intervention with the war in Iraq was a poor comparison. There is no call for forcible regime change through an invasion, nor does the impetus for this operation have anything to do with threats to international peace (such as the WMD argument). It is worth noting that arguments for the Iraq war did include Saddam Hussein’s repressive regime but that was supplemental to the WMD and Al-Qaeda argument. A better comparison can be made by looking at the aerial bombing campaign during the Bosnian War (1991-1995) and the Kosovo War (1998-1999).

The case for aerial intervention in both the Bosnian and Kosovo Wars were for humanitarian reasons as it is now in Libya (to be fair, the humanitarian crisis in Bosnia and Kosovo were much worse, with ethnic Serb forces actively conducting ethnic cleansing campaigns). Those two wars give an insight as to when and how Odyssey Dawn will end.

The Bosnian War and Kosovo War compared to Libya

After the Bosnian-Serbs (this means ethnic Serbs in Bosnia) committed several ethnically driven mass murders, the most infamous one during the war taking place in Srebenica, NATO decided to conduct air strikes against the Bosnian-Serbs. Considering that the Croats and the Bosniaks were making some progress during the airstrikes to reclaim much territory from the Bosnian-Serbs, and pressure was applied to the presidents of Serbia, Croatia, and Bosnia-Herzegovina, all warring parties and their proxies were brought to the negotiating table. The result was the Dayton Accord (1995), which was a peace treaty that has lasted so far, albeit with quite a bit of international assistance.

The point here is that airstrikes with a combination of internal military losses, and external diplomatic pressure can result in bringing warring parties to the negotiating table for a political solution.In Libya, Qadaffi is already facing diplomatic pressure if not already isolated from his former allies. The rebels may not be able to push out past Benghazi on their own but it is likely that a stalemate will occur with the line being somewhere between Benghazi and Ajdabiya. As the airstrikes continue, even Qadaffi supporters will have to realize that a REAL ceasefire is the only course of action. From that point, a political negotiation will be the next step, hopefully mediated by the Arab League and the UN, as resolution 1973 stipulates in paragraph 2.

It is unlikely that the rebels will accept anything short of Qadaffi leaving. Qadaffi is unlikely to leave peaceably unless he can find a way to live out in exile without being either prosecuted for various crimes* in Libya through their court systems, or through the International Criminal Court (ICC) a la Charles Taylor of Liberia.

So…

Should Qadaffi be allowed to go into exile and not face repercussions, then it is likely to result in a transitional government for Libya, guided by the UN and Arab League. The BBC has reported that people representing Qadaffi has contacted the US to see if this result is possible (REF: BBC | Gaddafi has told supporters ‘We will not surrender’). Bosnia-Herzegovina has since had a transitional government balanced (shaky at times) by the different political forces from within, and since the Dayton Accords, a war has not broken out again. This would be the ideal situation but Qadaffi will have to leave for this to work. In response to if Qadaffi being allowed to to exile however, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton does not seem to receptive to it (REF: BBC | Same as above)

Should Qadaffi not have a way out and decide to fight to the bitter end, then the result will be much like Kosovo, where an autonomous region in Libya will exist outside of the Libyan state’s writ. Like Kosovo, this region will end up being underdeveloped (as Qadaffi’s forces control the oil producing regions) and disadvantaged in its quasi-state form, unable to fully participate in international institutions. Kosovo eventually declared independence but it has not yet been widely recognized, so it still remains in its quasi-state form and it has come to much displeasure as Serbs claim it has violated the principles of UN Resolution 1944 (but let’s leave the details of this for another day).

Let’s see how it all ends

Barring any major changes (such as Qadaffi assasinated or killed in airstrike), Odyssey Dawn will end in one of these two scenarios. But let’s first look for the first sign of the end: a cease-fire.

* I use the term crimes loosely here. That should be a subject of another discussion but Qadaffi does not want to end up in prison or executed like Saddam Hussein was.

Filed under: Conflict, Diplomacy, Libya, Odyssey Dawn, UN

Libya | UN Security Resolution 1973 and Operation Odyssey Dawn.

Based on UN Security Council  (UNSC) Resolution 1973, what does Operation Odyssey Dawn set out to do?

On 17 March, the UNSC passed Resolution 1973, which authorized member states to:

(1) “to take all necessary measures…to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, including Benghazi, while excluding a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory” (paragraph 4).

(2) “take all necessary measures to enforce compliance with the ban on flights” (paragraph 8).

Now the resolution of course has more details, but those are more about informing the UN Secretary-General of actions to be taken in support of the resolution and requests cooperation with the Arab League and so forth and so on. It’s not that those aspects of the resolution are unimportant, but for now let’s examine the resolution alongside the ongoing military operations named in the US as Operation Odyssey Dawn.

As it is stated several times throughout the resolution, the rationale for authorizing military action is to protect the lives of civilians in Libya. In other words, the OBJECTIVE is to safeguard the lives of civilians. Keep in mind that the civilians mentioned are include both pro (whether you like it or not they do exist) and anti-Qadaffi civilians.

Here where it gets a little problematic. Was the UNSC differentiating between the civilians who are unarmed and the rebels? The rebels might have started out as unarmed civilians, and they picked up arms after Qaddafi’s forces fired on them, but they are no longer non-combatants. The rebels are no longer unarmed civilians. The resolution does not make this clear.

France was the first to strike, specifically targeting tanks and Libyan state forces poised to attack Benghazi (basically the rebel’s last stronghold), and US and UK missiles followed, targeting Libyan air defense sites.  (REF: BBC | French Jets resume Libya sorties).

France’s strikes against Qadaffi’s forces were meant to stop an advance on Benghazi, and so far it appears that it has succeeded in preventing a mass exodus and what was expected to be punitive killings for the rebellion. US and British attacks on the first day against air defenses were done to ensure that the no-fly zone. So far, Odyssey Dawn is being carried out within the bounds of the UNSC Resolution…which makes the resolution itself troubling.

What is the problem?

If the rebels decide to push out of Benghazi, will Odyssey Dawn prevent them from doing so? While, for the time being the rebels do not seem to be breaking out of their siege of Benghazi, one is hard pressed to believe that Odyssey Dawn will fire upon them to stop the rebel advance. Are the participants of Odyssey Dawn meant to be the rebel “Air Force”? By doing so, is Odyssey Dawn choosing a side? By doing so, is the OBJECTIVE really about preventing a humanitarian disaster or is it really about regime change? Remember, France has already recognized the Libyan National Council as the “legitimate representative of the Libyan people” (REF: WSJ | France Recognizes Libyan Opposition).

So far, it seems that Odyssey Dawn is living up to the resolution. However, if Odyssey Dawn causes a lot of civilian deaths (and this almost guaranteed to happen), the OBJECTIVE of preventing civilian deaths will sound empty, and the OBJECTIVE of regime change will be the apparent reason for continuing the operation. Of course, this is not really any surprise for the US, UK, France and other countries who have already called for Qadaffi to step down. Well, it should have been no surprise for anyone. It would be naive to think otherwise.

So why all the talk about preventing further civilian deaths? Ultimately, the OBJECTIVE of regime change will be based on Qadaffi’s purported threats to “have no mercy and no pity” on those behind the rebellion (REF: IBT | Obama’s Speech on Libya Situation (Full Text)), or at least that will be the reason to justify it. Whether there are ulterior motives or not, this sets a precedence (well it sort of has been done with the Kosovo War) that will leave many countries very nervous: humanitarian grounds, government forms (authoritarian, less-than perfect democracies), using force to quell protests and rebellions can become grounds for UN sanctioned interventions for regime change.

It is no surprise then that since Odyssey Dawn has been in effect, several countries have shown their misgivings towards the operation. After all, Libya is not the only state that has a repressive government using force to quell protests and rebellions causing humanitarian disasters. One needs not to look far to see different combinations of these problems in Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Israel-Palestine, etc. There is also the forgotten rebellion in the Ivory Coast. But you don’t see UNSC action like in Libya.

What now?

First and foremost, making comparisons between Odyssey Dawn and Iraq is a waste of time (personally it gives me a headache to have to point out all the differences, wrong wars to compare). A better comparison for the current action in Libya is the Bosnian War (1991-1995) and the Kosovo War (1998-1999). Now that the die has been cast, participants of Odyssey Dawn, as well as much of the world will want the Libyan conflict to end more like the former rather than the latter, but I will leave that argument for another time.

Filed under: Conflict, Diplomacy, Libya, Odyssey Dawn, UN