White gives away foreign policy establishment’s sleight-of-hand on Libya
|
It’s hard to know the exact moment when Hugh White’s justification for inaction on Libya published today in the Fairfax press goes from being merely facile to outright nauseating. But either way, it’s classic foreign policy establishment stuff — albeit, in White’s case, Foreign Policy Establishment – Slavish Grovelling to Beijing sub-branch. White finds himself with some rather mixed company in the NFZ camp. Guy Rundle has put together an excellent dissection of the local anti-imperialist Left’s opposition to action to aid the Libyan uprising, one that bears close reading. White can count on John Pilger for company as well — last week Pilger slotted Libya into his standard anti-neo-imperialist template (oil, blood, murder, conspiracy, rinse, repeat) and accused the US and the UK of looking for an excuse to invade Libya. But unlike his left-wing colleagues in the sit-back-and-watch camp, White would have us believe he writes strictly from the realist point of view about how a NFZ may not work and why we haven’t learnt the lessons of Iraq. The Iraq line is meant to scare off everyone, Left and Right, and relies on lazy equivalence that NFZ opponents hope will slide by unchallenged. Apart from the murderous sociopath of the dictator, and being vaguely in the same part of the world, there’s no equivalence. An uprising had succeeded in wresting significant sections of Libya out of the regime’s grasp. It has established a provisional government. It is calling for international support to remove the air power advantage of the monstrous regime it is trying to throw off. The contrast with the confected basis for the Bush Administration’s attack on Saddam Hussein, in fact, couldn’t be greater. But under White’s “Iraq” logic, there’s only massive intervention employing combat troops, or nothing. Zero or one. It doesn’t matter that “interventionists”, as he calls us — and I’ll get to that term — only want a NFZ. For White that’s just a slippery slope into an Iraq-style mire. There’ll be sectarian bombings and Apaches over Tripoli before you can say “Curveball”. But if there’s anything increasing the likelihood of, as White warns, the NFZ not being enough, it’s NFZ opponents themselves. The French — and Kevin Rudd last night on Lateline — are right, the moment to act is passing. A NFZ imposed when Gaddafi’s forces were in disarray, that could have grounded his air force and stopped him flying in mercenaries, would have been highly effective. But the longer the delay in international action lasts, the more likely it is that Gaddafi’s forces will exploit their position to defeat the rebels outright. White’s piece relies on another piece of sleight-of-hand common to NFZ opponents, the suggestion that the choice for the West is between intervention and non-intervention. It’s a straw man. We’re already intervening in Libya, as we have done throughout the Middle East, for generations. What weapons is Gaddafi using to attack rebel positions and slaughter civilians? Since the arms embargo on his regime was lifted in 2004, European countries, led by Italy, France and the UK have sold him more than €800m worth of weapons, including nearly €300m worth of aircraft. Gaddafi is relying on our hardware for his military advantage. And it was George W. Bush and Tony Blair — ably supported by the clown prince of the Mediterranean, Silvia Berlusconi — who rehabilitated Gaddafi and indulged his family and cronies. Unlike his decades as the mad dog of the Middle East, Gaddafi realized there was a good life to be had being a murderous dictator backed by the West, rather than one at odds with the West. Maybe White doesn’t think that’s “intervention”, but Arabs would have an altogether different view. In effect, White is saying it’s fine to intervene by backing the likes of Gaddafi, but problematic if it involves backing those who want something better than a government based on the last days of Caligula. Let’s not forget, though that White has form when it comes to dictators. He’s the one who demanded a new approach to China involving “no more lecturing China about dissidents, Tibet or religious freedom.” It seems the good professor doesn’t like even the mildest of Western hand-wringing when it comes to human rights. The failure of an NFZ would, White insists, “leave the interveners in a very awkward position.” Well, no Prof, it wouldn’t, and not just because we’re all of us “interveners” of one kind or another. No Libyan is calling for foreign troops. Indeed, some rebels have sworn they’ll fight any foreign troops who land in Libya with the same determination they’re fighting Gaddafi’s forces. It is universally accepted that this is a fight Libyans themselves must win, even as Gaddafi relies on foreign mercenaries. The rebel forces want our assistance in nullifying the military advantages that we ourselves have handed Gaddafi. They don’t want us to do their job for them. But, really, White doesn’t have much use for the rebels. “Who are the rebels and what would their victory mean for Libya?” he asks. We’ve heard this line before, from other parts of the foreign policy establishment. “We don’t know the opposition,” warned Daniel Byman of the Brookings Institution last month, when there were first calls for a NFZ. Well, we know one critical thing — they’re not Gaddafi, we know they’re not a regime that engages in systematic and savage human rights violations as a matter of basic policy, we know they won’t, should they manage to take control of those parts of Libya currently under Gaddafi’s control, systematically butcher the resident populations. Which answers the “who are the rebels” question comprehensively on the issue of “intervention”. Awkward positions? There’s no awkward position here. “Interveners” can say they wanted to respond to Libyan pleas for help. They can say they wanted to give some substance to the West’s endless prattle about human rights, freedom and pluralism. They can say they weren’t content to conjure reasons why nothing could be done, to explain away the possibility that the West’s incessant intervention in the Middle East could, for once, aid freedom rather than propping up the vilest of dictators. Kevin Rudd’s concluding remarks on Libya last night are worth repeating, because — unusually for Rudd — they very pithily sum up why the likes of Hugh White are so profoundly wrong.
|
|
|
|
19 Comments
Call me a cynic; but I suspect that the “international community’s” men on the ground aren’t in control of this revolution, so there is no point in its view, expending effort when the required outcome (i.e. business as usual or more business as usual) is unlikely or uncertain. Better to stick with the devil you know as it were!
Sorry, but if France think time to act is slipping, why don’t they shut up and act?
If they think the situation is so dire, why do they need international support?
I think a country should act militarily unilaterally only in circumstances which are extreme or when it is extremely sure of its position. While I think the United Nations should impose a no fly zone on Libya I don’t think the case is strong enough to warrant any country’s unilateral imposition of a no fly zone, even if it could do it. I gather that France couldn’t impose a no fly zone over even the crucial parts of Libya on its own.
That’s right Gavin, they couldn’t. And in large part I think France are being political in their stance - not having to put their money where their mouth is, so to speak. But then again, at least they have a position.
Again, agree with Kevin Rudd who consistently proves himself worthy of the title, True Statesman.
I agree with this take on Hugh White - but I have to say at least he is putting up something that can be ripped down and pulled apart. There is still no answer from anyone else as to what an intervention would really look like, what would happen if the sh — it hit the fan, are we committing to the same action going forward for any countries ‘rebels’ that ask for it, etc., etc. etc.
I don’t think that time is running out, I think it has past. It past and we failed, and we should feel shame.
Oh, meant to say this earlier too - are Russia & China considered part of “the West” nowadays? I mean, given our inaction I understand glass houses and all that - but these are the two countries objecting to the Sec Council NFZ resolution.
It’s hard to dig up information as to what their concerns are - I imagine it might have something to do with authorising the UN to intervene in the operations of a nation state that is being revolutionized from within by ‘rebels’.
You can sort of see their point.
(What’s with the Choice pop-up Crikey?)
“The rebel forces want our assistance in nullifying the military advantages that we ourselves have handed Gaddafi. They don’t want us to do their job for them.”
Exactly right.
“They can say they weren’t content to conjure reasons why nothing could be done, to explain away the possibility that the West’s incessant intervention in the Middle East could, for once, aid freedom rather than propping up the vilest of dictators.”
It’s a nice thought that one..
I’m quite sure that a deal of thought was given to ‘intervention’ in Iraq and Afghanistan, but Libya?
Seems to be in a different category,-I wonder why? Perhaps the worlds policeman is over committed?
It’s a puzzle.
I like the way the media quickly dropped “rebels” (who are always a bad thing) in favour of “anti-Gaddafi forces” (who are a good thing). And here was I thinking they looked like just another bunch of angry men with moustaches and guns and no coherent philosophy other than to kill the other guys.
Yeah, I know, freedom, whatever that is, got a few mentions, but when the cameras are rolling, they would say that, wouldn’t they?
I support the new geopolitical notion, though, that as soon as the opponents of a regime, whatever their motivation, take up arms against it, they get immediate international support.
Does this mean that when the US Tea Party crowd start to bring guns to their rallies- or more guns than they usually bring- we should support their efforts to overthrow the Obama government?
FunkiJ,
You need international support if you are not acting in self defence, the only legitimate reason for the use of force, to counter the illegitimate use of force in aggression. Otherwise one needs a security Council resolution to act. Otherwise we descend into free-for-all use of violence.
Fred Lips.
Jean - I have been asking (a version of) that question for weeks.
The reply I’ve been getting is, oh no, wait hang on a minute, that’s right, no one has been able to give a reply…. silly me..
First, I think the ABC is still calling the armed opponents of the Gaddafi government ‘rebels’.
But I think the substantive point turns on the legitimacy and behaviour of the government on the one hand and on the inclusiveness and behaviour of the opponents on the other. So many believe that Gaddafi and the governments of Burma, North Korea … lack legitimacy because they don’t seem to command widespread support of their people and they suppress dissent violently. Many people observe Gaddafi’s opponents to be inclusive and to behave ok, and Burma’s democratic movement has won respect for its honourable behaviour.
Compare that the US’ siege of the Branch Davidians’ compound in Waco, Texas. For all its faults the US is clearly a democracy and in 1993 the government seemed to enjoy broad support amongst US citizens. In contrast the Branch Davidians were an obscure Christian sect with a reputation for violence and sexual abuse. They were perceived to be resisting the US government’s legitimate exercise of force.
Whether opponents of a government should be supported or not requires a difficult exercise of judgement, often on incomplete information. That is why Fram is right to say that if a state seeks to use force against another it should have international support, and I would add, the support of the United Nations as the best available altho admittedly flawed gauge of international support. For if one can’t persuade the broad international community of the merits of using force against another state it is likely that one’s case is not very strong and it is more likely that one’s judgement on the matter is flawed.
I agree with that Gavin, and now that we have a UN Resolution to act, the Libyan people may benefit from such action. I hope so.
But what if the UN continued not to resolve, what if China and Russia actually vetoed instead of abstaining? Does that mean the Libyan resistance is less worthy of support?
I’m not at all trying to pick apart your answer - and I couldn’t agree more with you saying it’s a difficult exercise in judgement.
My concern all along has been addressed to those of us on the side making critical judgments about governments and inaction, without fully appreciating just how difficult those judgments are, without putting up a real plan of action ‘ourselves’, without considering the medium and long-term consequences, and most of all, without considering what precedents we set by asking our governments to act with violence and military might on our behalf.
Oh yeah, and I’m reasonably confident that the US would have focussed major diplomatic energies towards getting China and Russia to abstain rather than veto. A job well done too.
“I support the new geopolitical notion, though, that as soon as the opponents of a regime, whatever their motivation, take up arms against it, they get immediate international support.”
From where? From who? ‘Immediate international‘support?
Immediate does not come into it at all. That is what is largely being discussed here.
International? A bit of a sweeping statement don’t you think? Or do we buy this ludicrous and arrogant assertion that the entire global community does the will of the ‘worlds policeman’??
That does not happen. Thank God!, because if we did, this entire globe would be controlled at the will of the US Administration.
(If it helps to alleviate the fragile sensitivities of the poor widdle ‘don’ be nasty to America’ ((the Administration BTW, NOT the populace as a whole)) fan club,…let me wipe your brows with a soothing salve;-I don’t give a flyung fick whether it is the US; Russia; or even bloody Andorra! OK?)
“Does this mean that when the US Tea Party crowd start to bring guns to their rallies- or more guns than they usually bring- we should support their efforts to overthrow the Obama government?”
What an absurd thing to say!! Where DOES this puffed up self importance come from? IF the Turd Party start bringing guns (‘or more guns’) to their rallies, US security forces must /will deal with any imminent danger. They are very good at that.
It might be hard to believe, but the rest of this orb does NOT revolve around the US!!
Do you seriously believe,-given your first quoted statement-that the international community will galvanise to send in troops, because this extremist group-spawned by the ‘might is right’ US ethic, have brought….more guns than they usually bring….to a Turd Party gathering??
Yes. Sure. Silly is damn right!
I think the point is Élan why wouldn’t the international community do that. Why shouldn’t they do that?
If they do it in Libya, why shouldn’t they do it anywhere else, including the US? Including China? Including Australia, Iran, Greece - anywhere else.
‘MLF’ don’t attempt to tell me what the ‘point’ is.
You know damn well that your blind devotion to all things USA administration, is a tad tedious to me.
Your logic is based on that vantage point. I agree you have little perception of what I’m talking about.
I’ve answered you out of courtesy, but without a doubt, you are a protected species here,-and I have no intention of conversing with you directly again.
I will however concentrate on the statements of you and your ilk. Your ‘You guys just don’t get it’, ‘world policeman’ twaddle, makes response compelling.
I can still make comment on such statements as I wish. That is the nature of discussion is it not?
It would be silly of you to try to get me to see what you wish me to see. You seem to have only one agenda nowadays, and clearly I have little interest in the incessant message you peddle here.
Now; before I get done over again for ‘personal attack’, let us leave it there OK ‘MLF’ ??
There was a recurring rhythm to President Barack Obama’s speech about the no-fly zone over Libya. But it wasn’t a drum beat of war - it was a chorus about consensus, an insistence on internationalism.
Sure, there was an ultimatum, the threat of military action. Those are the headlines. And there was an explanation why America might have to fight.
Left unchecked, we have every reason to believe that Gaddafi would commit atrocities against his people. Many thousands could die. A humanitarian crisis would ensue. The entire region could be destabilised, endangering many of our allies and partners. The calls of the Libyan people for help would go unanswered. The democratic values that we stand for would be overrun. Moreover, the words of the international community would be rendered hollow.
But the subtext is more important. Read the last sentence in that quotation again. In a speech of just over three pages he repeats this point. Not once:
The US has worked with our allies and partners to shape a strong international response.
Not twice:
The US is prepared to act as part of an international coalition. American leadership is essential, but that does not mean acting alone.
Not three times:
It is not an action that we will pursue alone. Indeed, our British and French allies, and members of the Arab League, have already committed to take a leadership role.
But more:
So I have taken this decision with the confidence that action is necessary, and that we will not be acting alone.
So you might have gathered, the US is not going it alone. Throughout his declaration Mr Obama makes it clear how different this is to the Iraq war. Not only the international consensus, but the limits on action.
I also want to be clear about what we will not be doing. The US is not going to deploy ground troops into Libya. And we are not going to use force to go beyond a well-defined goal — specifically, the protection of civilians in Libya.
The limits he sets out are not just practical, they are limits to ambitions and objectives.
I want to be clear: The change in the region will not and cannot be imposed by the US or any foreign power; ultimately, it will be driven by the people of the Arab World. It is their right and their responsibility to determine their own destiny.
Mr Obama is only a reluctant convert to action, and you could argue he’s merely disguising his feet-dragging with noble rhetoric about the international community. It’s certainly noticeable that he didn’t mention the killings in Yemen (although he earlier issued a statement condemning them) or the unrest in Bahrain, stiffer tests of American power and resolve.
But I think we are seeing something new. He is using a crisis thrust upon him to set out an Obama doctrine of sorts, to make a statement about America’s relationship with the world. While he is in charge, he is saying, America will not go it alone, will set limits on what it does, and won’t impose its will. Some will not like this,
and the world will find it difficult to adapt to a president who almost seems determined to lead from behind.
The Obama doctrine is a tightrope walk: Acting, but within limits, leading only as a first among equals.
BBC
It seems Crikey Mods consistent inconsistency is alive and well. I wonder how it would have played out if Elan replaced all ‘US’ references with ‘J — wish’ ones….?
Anyway, Elan - that’s no problem about not conversing again. I said before if you’re only interested in picking a fight I’m not interested so yes, it would appear its better this way.
I think though that one day you will come to the realization that you were wrong in your judgement of me. By that point however it will be too late to do anything positive about it.
If you are anything like me, then if you have done wrong by someone and not apologized or not made amends, you’ll feel just a little bit bad about that forever. If that is the case, good, because you should.
If that is not the case and you are not at all anything like me, well… well that actually would explain a lot…
Adieu.
Sheesh!!
Happy to let those last three paragraphs speak for themselves.
In fact the last two posts..
NO personal response is here present!!
ENOUGH.
MLF, it’s very hard to follow what you are saying? Do you agree they should have a NFZ or not?
The case has been made, the international community has endorsed it, and the only sensible discussion can be whether it was done quickly enough.
The case for doing nothing is patently ludicrous. Watch another country descend into a Pol Pot type killing fields? Is that really an option in your world?
It can’t be argued that we should stay out because of some ‘slippery slope’ argument, or ‘why don’t we support the tea party if they take up arms’?
If you can’t see the difference there really is no point in discussing it. In a world of grey this is one of those rare moments of black and white. Sitting by watching a mass slaughter while you count the number of angels on the head of a pin is really a most pointless exercise.
We can deal with other situations as they come to hand. If your argument is that we should stay out because then we might have to go in if there is a Chinese uprising, or a tea party uprising, is just absurd.