obama, politics

The future of Libya

Published on: The Canadian Charger, April 14th, 2011
[http://www.thecanadiancharger.com/page.php?id=5&a=868]

The airstrikes on Libya, as authorized by the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973, has a veneer of “internationalism” about that that needs to be addressed.

Compounded by the calls for a no-fly-zone from the Arab League, the African Union, and the provisional council set up by the Libyan rebels themselves, the air strikes—especially in the usual media corners—seem to be much, much more than an effort anchored by the United States.

This is a myth. The coalition forces of France, the United Kingdom, etc. was led by a U.S. commander—General Carter Ham.

The helm has since then been passed on to a Canadian official, who is supposedly heading up a joint NATO venture.  The U.S. has contributed substantially to a barrage of 110 Tomahawk missiles on Libya’s air defenses on March 19th, 2011. Named by the U.S. as “Operation Odyssey Dawn,” the multi-phased no-fly-zone/airstrikes operation was just beginning—and right off the bat, the Associated Press reported that the United States deployed a slew of B2s, F-15s, F-16s, Navy EA-18G electronic warfare planes and Marine attack jets. In other words—despite the carefully crafted image of “limited military action” from the Obama administration—it is clear that the United States is calling the shots and doing the heavy lifting.

The rebels have since then called for a ceasefire after losing one of their key oil ports, Ras Lanuf, while also being stopped at Brega.

Whether international intervention helped or not is a tough question to answer, given mixed results. Qaddafi’s forces have not been able to fight where they wanted to, but rebel leaders have also come out to criticize the foreign airstrikes. “NATO is not doing their job, the airstrikes are late and never on time. NATO is not helping us. Gadhafi still gets ammunition and supplies to his forces–that’s why he is pushing us back,” says Mohammed Abdullah, a rebel who defected from loyalist ranks. The UK Daily Telegraph has also reported that “strafing runs” have been carried out by NATO helicopters trying to rescue fallen allied pilots. This practise has put civilian lives at risk.

The purpose for Resolution 1973 was, basically, to obtain a ceasefire. Barack Obama, on the other hand, has made it clear that Operation Odyssey Dawn seeks to implement genuine regime change. This lack of overlap in terms of end goals gives some indication of what each party has at stake in Libya. Despite its rhetoric of massacre prevention and international cooperation, the Obama administration’s geopolitical vision extends beyond the conditions of war, and into the conditions of peace. Suffice it to say that if Libya was a land known for carrots, Qaddafi’s troops would not be facing constant airstrikes.

By now, the most likely scenario is a partitioned Libya, and thus a divided Libya. The rebels in Benghazi—aside from asking for a ceasefire—have also rejected an overture from the African Union to broker talks, and for good reason, given that 15% of the AU’s expenses were paid by the Qaddafi regime. Furthermore, the Transitional National Council in Benghazi has agreed to a temporary “trust fund” to help channel assets from “international donations,” according to Al Jazeera English. All this indicates that the situation in Libya is perhaps entering a stage of stalemate. Subsequent planning is not clear, and long-term peace may indeed—like many feared—be subject to the interests of the NATO powers who have so much at stake in Libya.

If the endgame involves the removal of Qaddafi and the dissolution of his regime (it is hard to imagine the coalition forces allowing Qaddafi to stay in power), then an imposition of a no-fly-zone will most likely be protracted into a “long war”. Indeed, according to a report by Reuters, Obama has already signed off on a presidential “finding” (although no admission has been made), that authorizes “covert U.S. government support for rebel forces seeking to oust Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, government…”

The best case scenario of course is for Qaddafi to be eliminated permanently, or to have him remove himself from power. This may be a possibility if the no-fly-zone is kept in place and works fluidly in order to protect places like Benghazi and Tobrouk from reprisals. If this happens, it may be possible to negotiate a political settlement. The talks can be brokered by international coalition forces and will most likely include the removal of Qaddafi—or at least an agreement from him to submit to parliamentary elections (or a trip to the International Criminal Court?). This, however, may be wishful thinking. For now, Libya’s war of liberation is looking more and more like a civil war. Support for Qaddafi is tough to quantify, and estimates have ranged from 10% all the way up to 30%.  Obama may do well to let the pro-Qaddafi towns alone, and focus strictly on protecting civilians. This will prove to be more and more difficult as airstrikes take on new configurations.

One can only hope that Resolution 1973 (1) does more good than harm when it comes to civilian protection, (2) works to facilitate more civilian involvement instead of restricting it, and (3) does not lead to foreign troops on Libyan soil.

Standard
middle east, muslims, war on terror

Niqab-ban in France: Contextualized and Dispelled

“Toleration of those that differ from others in matters of religion is so agreeable to […] the genuine reason of mankind, that it seems monstrous for men to be so blind as not to perceive the necessity and advantage of it.”
—John Locke

Much a fuss has been made of the recent ban that has gone into effect in France that forbids the wearing of the niqab in public. At once an opportunistic tactic, but also a misinterpretation of Enlightenment principles, the legislation is not necessarily worth the amount of press and anguish devoted to it.

Nicholas Sarkozy is the least popular French president since the founding of the Fifth Republic. Hovering at around 25% approval from his people, Sarkozy has so far enacted a two part play in order to rectify his image. First, his overt conjecture in the NATO bombing campaign in Libya was supposed to rally his countrymen behind his veneer of Manichean populism (while he let the U.S. do the heavy-lifting where it counted). Next came the ban, something less than novel at this point in time (recall Quebec, Belgium, Turkey, the Netherlands, etc.). Sarkozy knew this was a sure-fire route to take when his heart sank at the prospect of Marine Le Pen out-prejudicing him on the Islam front. The horror! Halal food and minarets have gone through the same treatment.

But it seems that every time something like this comes along, one is forced to enter into another nebulous philosophical debate with “clash of civilizations”, “secular freedom under siege”, “repression of women” and other clichés bouncing off of one another. Every single time, the same arguments are re-argued, and the same anguish is recycled. However, with each subsequent joust, the discourse becomes more unclear, eventually mediating the representation of the big picture that finally gets lost in the fold.

Let’s quickly dispel the three main arguments deployed by those who are for the niqab ban. (1) No, the fewer-than-2000 niqabis in France do not constitute a security threat. A backpack is a much better place to hide a bomb, should we ban them? Should we also ban ski masks (much more common in robberies) and balaclavas (popular among violent protestors)? (2) No, banning the niqab is not on the same plane as banning frontal nudity in public. Most free societies do have some sort of regulation in term of dress, but compromises can be reached when particular difficulties like the niqab are presented. There are ways around problems like this, like getting a female bureaucrat to check ID when necessary. Not the end of the world. (3) The “mobile prison argument”, that women are forced to wear the face-veil by their fathers and husbands. Suffice it to say that one should speak to those who wear the niqab in order to evaluate the merit of this argument.

Where does that bring us? Back to square one, a most basic and fundamental principle of Enlightenment expression and tolerance: cartoonists who drew demeaning portraits of the Prophet Muhammad have to put up with the face veil, and the niqabis have to put up with the cartoonists. One may not “approve of” or respect a particular way of life, but—like it or not—that is the deal in a free society: one must to learn to live with practices that one “resents”.

Therefore, the Sarkozy ruse is, like its progenitors, an easy one to untangle. It fails politically due to its easily detectable hypocrisy and opportunism, but also philosophically (if one is to grant him the audience of an unnecessary debate), for it disrespects the vows of a free society and the guiding principles of free-expression/religious-freedom.

Standard