Watching Libya April 15, 2011

Britain’s prime minister David Cameron, US president Barack Obama and Nicolas Sarkozy, president of France, in a jointly signed article appearing today in The Times, The Washington Post and Le Figaro, stated that as their three countries were “united at the UN Security Council, as well as the following Paris Conference, in building a broad-based coalition to respond to the crisis in Libya”, they will  now be “united on what needs to happen to end it.”

The three leaders concede that UN Security Council Resolution 1973 authorises action to protect civilians, not regime change. “But”, they argue, “it is impossible to imagine a future for Libya with Gheddafi in power.” Confirming previous statements, they state unequivocally that Gheddafi must go. “It is unthinkable that someone who has tried to massacre his own people can play a part in their future government.” Accepting such an arrangement, they argue, would mean that the citizens of those Libyan towns targeted by Gheddafi’s forces “would face a fearful vengeance”.

Another reason for excluding any hypothesis that sees Gheddafi as playing a role in Libya’s future, they explain, is that “it would condemn Libya to being not only a pariah state, but a failed state too.” Gheddafi, they remind readers, “has promised to carry out terrorist attacks against civilian ships and airliners”. “We know from bitter experience what that would mean. Neither Europe, the region nor the world can afford a new safe haven for extremists.”  Furthermore, they add, “he has lost the consent of his people and any deal that leaves him in power would lead to further chaos and lawlessness.”

Whilst Cameron, Obama and Sarkozy assure the world that “it will be the people of Libya, not the UN, who choose their new constitution, elect their new leaders and write the next chapter in their history”, they also reiterate their determination that “the pathway to peace that promises new hope for the people of Libya”, is “a future without Gheddafi that preserves Libya’s integrity and sovereignty and restores her economy and the prosperity and security of her people.”

They spell out that this pathway must “begin with a genuine end to violence”, meaning that “the regime has to pull back from the cities it is besieging, including Ajdabiya, Misratah and Zintan, and its forces return to their barracks.” Until Gheddafi remains in power, “NATO and its coalition partners must maintain their operations so that civilians remain protected and the pressure on the regime builds.” When this point is reached, “the United Nations and its members should help the Libyan people as they rebuild where Gaddafi has destroyed – to repair homes and hospitals, to restore basic utilities, and to assist Libyans as they develop the institutions to underpin a prosperous and open society.”

That this article is signed by the British prime minister and the US and French presidents is, in itself, interesting. Although the article refers to “NATO and its coalition partners”, and although it notes that the vision for Libya’s future outlined in the article “has the support of a broad coalition of countries, including many from the Arab world”, that the article is not signed by others (for example, Italy and an authoritative member of the Arab League) suggests that Britain, the US and France are urging their partners in NATO and beyond not to accept any compromises regarding Gheddafi’s future.

Noting that  “Nato and its coalition partners are acting in the name of the United Nations with an unprecedented international legal mandate”, they solemnly declare that “Britain, France and the United States will not rest until the United Nations Security Council resolutions have been implemented and the Libyan people can choose their own future.

That Italy’s head of government does not feature as one of the authors of the article should not be taken to mean that Italy may be tempted to accept solutions to the crisis in which Gheddafi or his family play a role. There may be several reasons why Italy’s head of government does not feature as one of the authors of today’s article. It may be that its promoters wished to restrict it to permanent members of the UN Security Council (Italy is not), or it may be that Italy has chosen to take a more low key role because of its colonial past in Libya. It may also have something to do with friction between Italy and France regarding Italy’s granting of Shengen visas to migrants arriving from Tunisia. It could also have something to do with Berlusconi’s own problems in Italy.

In fact, Italian foreign minister Franco Frattini has made it amply clear that Gheddafi must go. In an interview with the French radio station Europe 1 on April 11, Frattini ruled out the possibility of any member of the Gheddafi family being associated with the ruling powers in Tripoli in the future. “On this point I agree with my friend Alain Juppé [the French Foreign Minister]. And I’ll be discussing this same question in London this morning with my British colleague William Hague”.

In Italy’s view, the “precondition for a new start in Libya based on national reconciliation is that Muammar Gheddafi must leave power”. This is “the first point on the road map”. A road map that rules out any division of Libya. “We cannot accept that as it would mean that our international mission had failed. We need to fight for a united, democratic Libya, using political and military channels. As regards the possibility of action on the ground by the international coalition, Frattini was categorical: “In my view that’s out of the question”. However, he added, the UN resolution “allows the coalition to provide weapons. This is my own opinion, though – we haven’t discussed it yet, but we’ll have an opportunity to do so now”. [See this].

Speaking  at the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London on Tuesday, April 12,  Frattini said: “today, we need to find the right balance. We need to take a more broadly encompassing approach that is mindful of our neighbours’ aspirations. We want free and prosperous friends, not unstable tyrannies, at our borders. We are therefore ready to answer our neighbours’ call for change, by helping them define and implement their own agendas for reform and development.” Read the whole text on the Italian Ministry of Foreign Affairs official site [here].