September 2011, Week 1


Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Portside Moderator <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Sat, 3 Sep 2011 11:04:48 -0400
text/plain (98 lines)
Libya Could Be the Last Place Where the West is Allowed
to Intervene

    "Every major rising power opposed the
    exhortations of London and Paris to go to war"

By Shashank Joshi
The Telegraph (UK)
September 3, 2011


Nato's job in Libya is all but done. As the conquering
heroes met in Paris yesterday, there was no "Mission
Accomplished" banner in sight. In place of
triumphalism, we've substituted lessons galore - about
how durable Nato remains, and its discovery of a new
model of apparently riskless war.

But have those who gathered in the halls of Old Europe
missed a darker lesson lurking beneath their victory?
It is surely a warning sign that every major rising
power, every aspirant to a permanent seat on the United
Nations Security Council except docile Japan, opposed
the exhortations of London and Paris to go to war. That
applies not just to the two Asian giants, India and
China, but even to Germany, the economic linchpin of
Europe, and a diplomatically energised Turkey, whose
influence in the Middle East is at its highest since
the days of the Ottoman Empire. . . .

When Nato went to war over Kosovo in 1999, the world
was a different place. Russia was an economic basket-
case led by a drunk. India, which faced international
isolation for testing nuclear weapons, was growing at
half the rate of 2010. China was neither the world's
second largest economy nor Washington's biggest
creditor. Today, all that has changed. True, it would
still be foolish to underestimate the global reach and
technological edge of Western military might - or, more
particularly, American military might. But flexing
those muscles will not be as simple as before.

When asked about a no-fly zone back in March, Turkey's
prime minister lambasted the West's use of Libyans as
"pawns in oil wars". Vladimir Putin hit out at the
"medieval calls for crusades". Brazil lamented the
illegitimacy of a war championed by "an old world
order". China's state-controlled press declared that
"the air attacks are an announcement that the West
still wants to dominate the world. . . ."

The growing web of constraints on the West can be seen
in Nato's reluctance to step in to stop the carnage in
Syria (although there are, admittedly, plenty of other
reasons for inaction). Neither India nor China will
stop buying oil and gas from Damascus, as the US
demanded last month - why should they sever their
economic lifelines for the slender hope that Syria will
turn into a democracy? Turkey, which has considerable
sway over its neighbour, will hedge its bets to the end
rather than prematurely burn any bridges. Syria sits at
the very heart of the Arab world, and most regional
powers would sooner see President Assad level every one
of his cities than welcome a major Nato operation in
the Levant.

In Paris, David Cameron and Nicolas Sarkozy will find
themselves feted by the Libyans. They may even find
time for a few self-congratulatory moments. But growing
powers have growing vetoes. Further down the road, it
is these states that will write the rules of the game
and set its tacit expectations. Advocates of full-
throated humanitarian intervention should not be
surprised if Libya is one of its last hurrahs.

Shashank Joshi is an associate fellow at the Royal
United Services Institute.


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