Trapped in the palace

When Barack Obama and David Cameron met in London this week, one problem would have been foremost in their minds. It’s more than six weeks since they penned their joint article with Nicolas Sarkozy demanding that ‘Gaddafi must go’. It’s more than two months since they started airstrikes in Libya. Yet Gaddafi is stubbornly refusing to be toppled.

He is not alone. In Yemen, Ali Abdullah Saleh has reneged on two deals to step down and, at the last minute, refused to sign a third — despite an American promise of immunity. In Syria, Bashar Assad seems determined to stay on through sheer bloody force, unmoved by US and EU sanctions. In Zimbabwe, Robert Mugabe has announced that he will run for president again this year at the age of 87. How do you persuade despots to step down if airstrikes, sanctions, international condemnation, regional pressure, declarations that they are war criminals or even offers of immunity won’t sway them? The problem becomes particularly acute when they know only too well you don’t want to put boots on ground to oust them militarily. It’s easy for Obama and Cameron to say ‘go’. But where?

Once, dictators could just step down, and go off to enjoy their ill-gotten wealth in villas in the South of France. But for nine years now, the International Criminal Court has been scouring the planet for people to prosecute. It was intended to deter those in power from committing atrocities, but many argue that it has actually made it harder to end wars by removing a tyrant. For despots who already have blood on their hands — Gaddafi was indicted by the court last week — the threat of prosecution is a reason to fight until the bitter end.