Nato is no longer protecting either Libya's rebels or Gaddafi's inner circle. So in whose interests is it acting?
Share3
Comments (11)
Tom Dale
guardian.co.uk, Monday 4 July 2011 21.02 BST
Article history
Nato's secretary general, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, gives his monthly press briefing at the Nato headquarters in Brussels, Belgium. Photograph: Olivier Hoslet/EPA
What is Nato doing in Libya? Drive through any town in rebel-held Libya and the slogans from the early days of Nato's offensive are plain to see. "Thank you USA, Britain, France", "Thank you Nato". The graffiti is a reminder of the moment when airstrikes prevented Muammar Gaddafi's tanks from overrunning the rebellion in Benghazi. But three months later that sentiment is evaporating. Last month, at a rebel outpost in the Nafusa mountains, in western Libya, this was very much in evidence. Gaddafi has been shelling the town of Nalut for weeks, and rebels on the mountain tops can see the launchers in plain view. They say they pass the co-ordinates to Nato, but these are rarely used.
According to them, on one occasion a Nato jet was actually overhead while a launcher fired, but did nothing. A rebel commander asked: "What is Nato doing about the shelling from Gaddafi? A girl was orphaned here because Nato isn't helping. It's all talk and no action, the revolutionaries have lost confidence in Nato, it's clear that they are serving their own interests."
On the eastern front there are similar sentiments. However, while confusion or outrage are common, there has been little acknowledgement that they are reactions to a definite Nato strategy. As the Economist puts it, the Nato powers hope that "the rebels will not capture Tripoli after a headlong advance from the east". Instead, they want to see the regime implode: and that hope corresponds to a strategy of pressure on Gaddafi's command apparatus, rather than the tanks that are preventing the rebel advance. That is the reason for the present deadlock. According to the Economist, the reason for this is the "risks of retribution being inflicted on Gaddafi loyalists" in a rebel advance. But is it plausible that Nato's primary motivation is to minimise the loss of life?
There are reasons to be sceptical. For a start, while there have been human rights abuses on the rebel side, these have not amounted to mass killings. Rebel fighters tend to see Gaddafi's soldiers as having been duped, and civilians in cities such as Tripoli as too cowed to rise up.
Most even see opposing soldiers as "Libyan brothers". Nato's secretary general, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, has said: "I don't think rebels will attack civilians." Furthermore, the prolonged conflict is costing more casualties on both sides every day, as rebel fighters with little more than small arms seek to push back an army of tanks and artillery. Nato strikes in Tripoli, while aimed at military targets, inevitably put civilians at risk, and Gaddafi's authority has already lasted longer than Nato anticipated.
But why would the western powers prefer a coup by Gaddafi's inner circle to victory by the rebel army? Such a coup would imply a negotiated settlement between the elements of the old regime still around Gaddafi, and the rebel leadership – which itself incorporates many ex-regime figures. Western governments want stability and influence, and they see the figures of the old regime, minus the Gaddafi family, as the best guarantors of that. Meanwhile, the deadlock is producing tensions. On 20 June rebels cut the oil pipeline from the southern wells to Zawiya, although Nato had asked them not to do so. On 29 June it emerged that the French government has been unilaterally smuggling weapons, including "light tanks", to rebels in the west. France has a disagreement with its coalition partners over how to bring Gaddafi down, and may be looking to build direct influence with the rebels.
In the first third of June, 46% of Nato strikes were in or near Tripoli, despite the lack of fighting there, while in the latter third that figure fell to 17%. After 20 June the number of strikes per day outside Tripoli nearly trebled. This suggests some sort of reorientation towards the rebels in the field, perhaps as a response to Gaddafi's surprising resilience. Nonetheless, that resilience is not infinite. When he does go, the future of Libya will be the contested terrain of the forces that have deposed him.
That includes the different western powers, and the refugees from the old regime. Each of them is tussling for influence now, and Nato's strategy is one expression of that tussle.
***
Comments in chronological order (Total 11 comments)
waterbarbarian
4 July 2011 9:12PM
European nations used to be on the side lines in previous invasions. Now they want to be in command for the new Crusade, as they used to be.
Greenways
4 July 2011 9:13PM
`What is Nato doing in Libya?'
What are you trying to say with this piece? I'm not sure.
One thing is for sure the French are looking increasingly like this mission's creeps moving away from protecting civilians to regime change or partition or negotiations with the New Gadaffis. The rebels need to forget taking Tripoli. They should dig in and allow the people of that great city to finish off Gadaffi and reunify the nation with their Benghazan brothers and sisters.
FIGHTCOALITIONFORCES
4 July 2011 9:17PM
Playing for time and wondering how the hell to get its leaders a paddle to the creak.
Arapas
4 July 2011 9:19PM
Nato is no longer protecting either Libya's rebels or Gaddafi's inner circle.
Killing innocent civilians perhaps, until they get on their knees and turn against Gaddafi?
Rotten strategy, from an immoral NATO.
TomLars
4 July 2011 9:19PM
Your theory is hard to believe, but it's true that instability of an oil producing countries make it easier to get oil (and other multinational) deal afterward (since the country is on its knee economically).
Still if the goal is to save civilians and Libyan lives. The best way to do it is to impose a ceasefire, sending UN, AU peacekeepers and get the different factions talk they way toward a free election open to all candidates supervised by international observers.
That solution bring immediate peace. Allow Libyan people to choose their leader (potentially rejected or supporting Gaddafi or those rebels who got no names yet democratically) and as such would bring long lasting peace between Libyan people since nobody would be sidelined for political interest.
I think the rebels are not confidant of their popularity in the population. That's why the Nato backed rebels and Nato themselves are afraid of free elections open to all candidates. It seems the rebel want to held an election between themselves with their more serious contender (Gaddafi) conveniently sidelined.
TomLars
4 July 2011 9:19PM
Your theory is hard to believe, but it's true that instability of an oil producing countries make it easier to get oil (and other multinational) deal afterward (since the country is on its knee economically).
Still if the goal is to save civilians and Libyan lives. The best way to do it is to impose a ceasefire, sending UN, AU peacekeepers and get the different factions talk they way toward a free election open to all candidates supervised by international observers.
That solution bring immediate peace. Allow Libyan people to choose their leader (potentially rejected or supporting Gaddafi or those rebels who got no names yet democratically) and as such would bring long lasting peace between Libyan people since nobody would be sidelined for political interest.
I think the rebels are not confidant of their popularity in the population. That's why the Nato backed rebels and Nato themselves are afraid of free elections open to all candidates. It seems the rebel want to held an election between themselves with their more serious contender (Gaddafi) conveniently sidelined.
Recommend? (3)
Report abuse
| Link cbarr
4 July 2011 9:20PM
The French have provided equipment in Western Libya which is cut off from other rebel areas and is one of the places the ICC is most interested in with regards mass killings by Gaddafi's soldiers. They therefore continue to make the argument that the arms where legitimate under the aims of protecting civilians. NATO may prefer a palace coup for the simple reason of the very slow progress the rebels are making and worries especially about some tribal areas where Gaddafi remains popular with the need for a brokered peace deal to keep law and order in the nation. Also as a means of avoiding Iraqi style civil breakdown maintaining the police and elements of the army whilst moving towards placing the rebels as the new formal government of Libya. NATO is trying to learn from the Iraq experience by ensuring some elements of civil society aren't destroyed by the war and civil servants ect continue to go to work roads are cleaned hospitals have power and governance doesn't disappear in large swathes of the country the second the regime is defeated. Inevitably the rebels are starting to have issues with NATO's operational style but this paper would call foul if NATO operated in the manner the rebels want the rules of engagement remaining incredibly strict so as to remain within the remit of the UN resolution and to avoid alienating the civilian population still under Gaddafi's control through large numbers of civilian casualties it also has to play out across the rest of the Arab world this means targeting needs to be done carefully.
JinWales
4 July 2011 9:21PM
Oil companies. Simplz! (Don't beleive I sad "Simplz")!
TomLars
4 July 2011 9:28PM
For those curious about Gaddafi popularity (and those of the armed rebels with no name and no program) should look at this video:
http://vimeo.com/user7648947/green-square-tripoli-libya-1st-july-2011
Obviously it's impossible to gauge the complete popularity or non popularity of Gaddafi or those armed rebels. Only a free democratic elections open to all candidates under international supervision can settle the issue between Libyan people for long lasting peace. That is one of the main solution push diplomatically by the AU, Russia, China while Nato are only dropping bombs and supporting an armed rebellion (in complete contravention of the UN resolution which called for a ceasefire and the end of hostilities).
gk1971
4 July 2011 9:31PM
words going out that NATO planning to send ground troops in Libya around october and november 2011
gk1971
4 July 2011 9:31PM
words going out that NATO planning to send ground troops in Libya around october and november 2011
Recommend? (0)
Report abuse
| Link payneinspain
4 July 2011 9:31PM
The people behind the NATO offensive don't care about anything but oil, otherwise they wouldn't be there.
Their excuses and incompetency are like an old juke box record.
In the meantime, as usual, thousands of innocent people will have their lives shattered if not lost and billions of money will be poured down the drain by countries that can't balance their own books.
This is beyond pathetic.
hopefulcyclist
4 July 2011 9:35PM
Maybe NATO don't want an outright rebel victory because the rebels have a significant number of Islamists in their ranks.
Much better to have a change of head honcho but leave most of the opressive control structure , secret police, military in place. That way there is a sembalnce of democracy whilst it remains business as usual for the oil companies, and the rebel leaders can be quietly rounded up 6 months later when the world's media have gone home.
We don't want an implosion like Iraq, where the only office of the old regime guarded against looting by US soldiers was the oil ministry...
__________
Các anh chị có ý kiến, nhận định, phê bình gì qua bài viết "Nato's real plan for Libya" ? và những ý kiến từ "11 Comments" của đọc giả ?
Các anh chị nghĩ thế nào về suy nghĩ "Maybe NATO don't want an outright rebel victory because the rebels have a significant number of Islamists in their ranks." của đọc giả có nick hopefulcyclist ?
Chân thành cám ơn Quý Anh Chị ghé thăm "conbenho Nguyễn Hoài Trang Blog"
Xin được lắng nghe ý kiến chia sẻ của Quý Anh Chị trực tiếp tại Diễn Đàn Paltalk: 1Latdo Tapdoan Vietgian CSVN Phanquoc Bannuoc .
Kính chúc Sức Khỏe Quý Anh Chị .
conbenho
Tiểu Muội quantu
Nguyễn Hoài Trang
05072011
___________
CSVN là TỘI ÁC
Bao che, dung dưỡng TỘI ÁC là đồng lõa với TỘI ÁC
No comments:
Post a Comment