Dispatches From The Edge

Libya & the Law of Unintended Consequences 

By Conn Hallinan 
April 6, 2011

Coming to grips with the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization's (NATO) intervention in the Libyan civil
war is a little like wresting a grizzly bear: big,
hairy, and likely to make you pretty uncomfortable no
matter where you grab a hold of it. Is it a
humanitarian endeavor? A grab for oil resources? Or an
election ploy by French President Nicolas Sarkozy? but
regardless of the motivations-and there are many-the
decision to attack the regime of Muammar Qaddafi will
have global consequences, some of them not exactly what
NATO had in mind. For starters, forget a nuclear free
Korean peninsula and pressing for wider adherence to
the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT).

The humanitarian rationale was the one that brought the
Arab League and the United Nations on board, although
it is not entirely clear that such a crisis existed.
Qaddafi's blood-curdling rhetoric not withstanding,
there is no evidence of mass killings of civilians.

UN Resolution 1973 authorized member states "to take
all necessary measures.to protect civilians and
civilian populations under threat of attack," while
also "excluding a foreign occupation force of any
form." But exactly what that meant depended on who was
flying the fighter-bombers and launching the cruise
missiles.

The French targeted Qaddafi's army. The British tried
taking out the "Great Leader" with a cruise. The
Americans smashed up the Libyan air force, but as to
offing Qaddafi, that depended on with whom you talked.
President Obama said he wanted him out, his Defense
Secretary said that wasn't the mission, and U.S.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton played coy.

On one level, Operation Odyssey Dawn was what one
military analyst called "the attack of the Keystone
Krusaders." It took a week to figure out who was in
charge, and cooperation wasn't helped when French
Interior Minister Claude Gueant called the attack a
"crusade." It is not a word that goes down well in the
Middle East.

But beyond the snafus is whether Odyssey Dawn is
consistent with the U.S. Constitution and the UN
Charter and what it means for the future.

According to the Constitution, unless the U.S., "its
territories or possessions, or its armed forces" are
attacked, only Congress can declare war. The Obama
Administration did not consult Congress, nor did it
claim Libya had attacked it, thus bypassing both the
Constitution and the 1973 War Powers Act.

The UN Charter forbids countries from going to war
except in response to an attack by another country.
However, in 2005 the UN's World Summit in New York
endorsed a "Responsibility to Protect" (P2P) policy
that member states have a responsibility to protect
people from genocide, ethnic cleansing, war crimes and
crimes against humanity. "P2P" was a response to the
1994 massacre of some 800,000 people in Rwanda.

"P2P," however, requires that member states first "seek
a solution by negotiation, enquiry, mediation,
conciliation, arbitration, judicial arrangement.or
other peaceful means of their own choice."

But there was no effort to negotiate anything before
the French started bombing. So, in strictly legal
terms, UN Resolution 1973 is a little shaky. There is
no question Qaddafi was killing civilians, but no one
has suggested that it reached a level of genocide. One
can, however, make a case for crimes against humanity.
The problem is that you can make the same case against
Israel's invasion of Gaza in 2008-09, as well as the
current crackdown against democracy advocates in Syria,
Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, and Yemen, not to mention the
2009 massacre of some 20,000 Tamils in the last weeks
of the Sri Lankan civil war.

"The contradictions between principle and national
interest," says Nigerian Foreign Minister Odein
Ajumogobia, "have enabled the international community
to impose a no-fly zone over Libya, ostensibly to
protect innocent civilians from slaughter, but to watch
seemingly helplessly [in Ivory Coast] as.men, women and
children are slaughtered in equally, even if less
egregious, violence."

There is no question that some supported the
intervention for genuinely humanitarian reasons. A
brutal thug like Qaddafi is certainly capable of
killing a lot of people.

But there were lots of irons in this fire.

"Sarkozy likes nothing better than a crisis, a fight
and a gamble," says Financial Times columnist Peggy
Hollinger. "With his approval ratings at an all-time
low, this [Libyan intervention] could be just what he
needs to revive his faltering popularity at home."
However, in spite of France's leading role in the
attack, the President's party took a shellacking in the
Mar. 28 local elections.

For the U.S., Odyssey Dawn was a coming out party for
America's newest military formation, African Command
(Africom).  It is no accident that, at the very moment
that African oil reserves are becoming a major source
for the United States, Washington should create a
military formation for the continent. By 2013, African
oil production is projected to rise to 11 million
barrels of oil a day, and to 14.5 million by 2018. Gulf
of Guinea oil will make up more than 25 percent of U.S.
imports by 2015.

Is the intervention then over oil? Control of energy
resources is always central to U.S. strategy, and, with
world reserves declining, the scramble to hold the
petroleum high ground is always part of the agenda.
Right now Washington is in a resource competition with
China, and while the U.S. does not use Libyan oil, its
NATO allies do.

A major reason the Obama administration is tolerant of
Bahrain's monarchy is because the U.S. Fifth Fleet is
based there, controling the Persian Gulf and the Red
Sea, areas that hold the bulk of the world's oil
reserves.

China is currently Africa's largest trading partner,
and accounts for 73 percent of the continent's oil
exports, with the bulk of their purchases from Sudan
and Angola. Between Africom and the Fifth Fleet, the
U.S. has its thumb on five out of China's six main
petroleum suppliers: Saudi Arabia, Iran, Oman, Sudan,
and Angola.

War always has consequences, although not all of them
are initially obvious. In war, as Carl von Clausewitz
noted, the only thing you can determine is who fires
the first shot. After that it's all fog and plans gone
awry.

But some consequences are clear. An unnamed North
Korean Foreign Ministry official told Pyongyang's
Korean Central News Agency that "The Libyan crisis" was
"teaching the international community a grave
lesson.the truth that one should have power to defend
peace."

The official went on to suggest that the West had duped
Libya into disarming its nuclear program in 2003 and
then attacked it when it could no longer defend itself.

North Korea may be erratic, but there are many other
quite sober countries that might draw similar
conclusions. While most countries of the world adhere
to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, the nuclear
powers-three of whom are currently bombing Libya-have
yet to fulfill their obligations under Article VI to
eliminate their arsenals and begin negotiations on
general disarmament.

Until that happens, the temptation will be to obtain
something that will level the playing field,
particularly when some countries are so quick to resort
to military power.

That is a world that will be infinitely more dangerous
than the one in which we currently live.

___________________________________________

Portside aims to provide material of interest to people
on the left that will help them to interpret the world
and to change it.

Submit via email: [log in to unmask]

Submit via the Web: http://portside.org/submittous3

Frequently asked questions: http://portside.org/faq

Sub/Unsub: http://portside.org/subscribe-and-unsubscribe

Search Portside archives: http://portside.org/archive

Contribute to Portside: https://portside.org/donate