Like many others, I have been fairly critical of the Obama administration’s policy drift and lack of leadership since the start of the Arab uprisings. And while I still stand by this view in general, the outcome of last night’s vote at the UNSC was a clear victory for Obama’s philosophy of multilateralism and international law over the unilateral policies of the US in recent years. But why did it take so long in coming?
Less than three weeks ago Qaddafi was surrounded by opposition forces. To all intents and purposes it looked like the game was up. But sensing a lack of political will for military intervention on the part of the US in particular the Libyan leader was able to push back. It appears that in the end Obama’s hand was forced. He did not want to be the president on whose watch Qaddafi butchered his people and neither did the US or Europe want a pariah reeking chaos across North Africa and beyond, and possibly resorting the terrorism and reviving his chemical weapons programme in the process.
But there were other considerations. Apart from having no strategical interest in Libya, the US is already fighting wars in two Muslim countries and the Generals and Obama seemed deeply reluctant to take the lead in another. Accordingly, Obama let Britain and France do the running, whilst at the same time refusing to sign up until there was clear Arab and African Union support also. Once the Arab league approved the no-fly zone and later some states – notably Qatar and the UAE – pledged to take part in military operations – Obama and the State Department were in a better position to sell the draft proposal of military intervention to a still skeptical Defense Department, probably on the grounds that US military participation would be minimal. By pursuing this path Obama was also able to achieve solid legal backing for military action and also embolden the UN. In the end it was a clever if rather belated strategy.
Whether it will work or not is another story. There are many possible pitfalls ahead, ranging from Qaddafi making good on his threat to target civilian targets to getting bogged down in a protracted conflict. The Western powers will be hoping that the threat of airstrikes may be enough to force Qaddafi to back down and declare a ceasefire. But if he does declare a ceasefire what next? What counts as a ceasefire? Will Qaddafi’s security forces step aside and allow the Libyan people to express their will through peaceful protests? To do so would mark the endgame for a dictator that remains in denial. And if Qaddafi was to declare a ceasefire would the rebels reciprocate? I doubt it. They are far more likely to march on Tripoli in the belief that they have won. Maybe they have.
On a different note, Marc Lynch has an interesting piece on the Foreign Policy Blog about how Bahrain’s leaders are flaming the flames of sectarianism in order to rally regional allies and maintain a monopoly on power.
