Libya

Friday

Daniel Korski

The way to cease fire

Colonel Ghadaffi wants a cease fire. Fine, but Western governments should insist that the no-fly zone still comes into force; that a new UN resolution is drafted to specify cantoment areas for his forces; and that a UN-mandated Arab Leage but NATO-enabled interpositional force is deployed to ensure the ceasefire holds, perhaps with an Egyptian officer as the head working in tandem with the UN and EU envoys to kickstart a political process. Finally, the West should lend massive support to the “free republic” of Benghazi – economic, military and so on. That is the kind of ceasefire the West can accept. Not a ploy that aims to pick the

Freddy Gray Freddy Gray

Hillary the hawk

Intervention it is then. Cue lots of politicians walking around with rousing West Wing music in their minds’ ears. This is the part where they get to play the good guys. Until something goes wrong, and they are bungling idiots again. Of course, it’s good for everyone to feel that a bombing campaign in Libya is a multi-lateral, UN decision – not an Iraq. But if this turns into a long campaign, American airpower will be expected to do the vast majority of the work. And while Obama may be reluctant to engage on a third front, there are plenty of enthusiasts in Washington – none more so than Hillary

Alex Massie Alex Massie

In Defence of Germany

Among the many odd things about the Libyan “debate” is the argument that Germany’s decision to abstain during the Security Council vote is somehow disgraceful and proof that Germany still isn’t ready to play its part on the international stage. (Obviously some of these objections come from the kind of rightists who fear or dislike German influence in other, more peaceful, areas of international politics and business. But never mind.) But Germany’s vote seems qualitatively different from the BRIC-blog of abstentions. Brazil, India, China and Russia each have reasons to be wary of this kind of resolution and, indeed, this kind of precedent. Deep down, I suspect some of them

James Forsyth James Forsyth

Libya declares a ceasefire

What to make of Libya’s declaration of a ceasefire and acceptance of the UN resolution Seen most cynically, it could just be seen as the Gaddafi regime playing for time, using the extra hours to make it more difficult in both military and political terms for action to be taken. Or, it could indicate a division within the regime, with more pragmatic elements trying to temper Gaddafi’s threats and avoid anything that brings the situation to a head. 

James Forsyth James Forsyth

Cameron’s sombre statement

David Cameron was calm, measured and far from messianic as he delivered his statement to the House on the coming action against Libya. He was keen to stress that last night’s resolution ‘excludes an occupation force of any part of Libyan territory.’ However, he did, in answer to a question from James Arbuthnot, agree that regime change was likely to be necessary to achieve the aims of the resolution.   Cameron said there would be a statement later today from international leaders and it seems that this will be an ultimatum to Gaddafi. If military action does follow, Cameron said that he had ‘some guarantees’ from Arab leaders that they

Daniel Korski

Learning from recent history

With a UN resolution now passed, Prime Minister David Cameron has displayed diplomatic skills his critics believed he did not possess. As NATO is planning to enforce an expansive no-fly zone over Libya, it is worth pausing for a moment to consider such a mission’s aims and to learn the lessons from recent wars. The strategic aim of the mission cannot only be to protect Libyan civilians. Framed in this way, the international community will face the same problems it did Bosnia: for instance, the Srebrenica massacre happened while a no-fly zone was already in place. A no-fly zone will not force Colonel Ghadaffi from power. As troops are not

Alex Massie Alex Massie

A Leap into the Libyan Unknown

So we’re going to war again. This may be David Cameron’s first conflict but it’s the seventh time in just 21 years that a British Prime Minister has committed Her Majesty’s forces to military action. Are we doing the right thing? I don’t know and I’m mildly suspicious of those who seem too certain about anything Libyan right now, rehardless of which side of the argument their certainties lie. Now that it is beginning, however, let it at least be done properly and let us hope that, somehow or other, Gaddafi capitulates. But if he does not do not be fooled into thinking that this will be over soon. Like

Thursday

James Forsyth

Cameron’s persistent leadership on Libya was key to tonight’s resolution

David Cameron deserves huge credit for tonight’s Security Council vote. He has kept plugging away for a no fly zone and has succeeded in moving the Obama administration’s position. Cameron’s decision to have Britain table with the French and the Lebanese a Security Council resolution without the support of the Americans or even having talked to the president was a bold move that has turned out to be a game changer. The Prime Minister has proved himself an effective and courageous actor on the world stage. The question now is how quickly and effectively military force can be deployed and how Gaddafi is to be ousted. It, obviously, would have

Peter Hoskin

The UN decides to take “all necessary measures” against Gaddafi

“There will be no mercy. Our troops will be coming to Benghazi tonight.” Perhaps it was the murderous threat contained within Gaddafi’s latest radio message that shocked the United Nations into action today — because shocked into action they have been. After sweating and toiling over the precise formulation of a resolution on Libya, the UN Security Council finally reached the voting stage this evening. And it has now voted 10-0 in favour of member states taking “all necessary measures … to protect civilian and populated areas, including Benghazi, while excluding an occupation force.” Brazil, India, China, Russia and — staggeringly — Germany all abstained. What this means, in practice,

Daniel Korski

If we don’t help the Libyan rebels, then the extremists might

The West’s indifference towards Libya may create the very conditions for extremism that we normally seek to avoid. In today’s Times, the war correspondent Anthony Loyd writes (£) from Benghazi about the dangers of an extremist backlash as the pro-democracy forces become disillusioned with the West: “The growing suspicion and anger towards the West offers an unsettling glimpse of the direction that the country’s revolution may take.” This has several potential implications inside and outside Libya. Outside the country, it could provide an opportunity for Osama bin Laden — who has been otherwise marginalised, following the protests in Tunisia and Egypt — to argue that the West’s inaction, and even

Wednesday

James Forsyth

Zelikow’s case for a no-drive zone

Philip Zelikow, who served on the 9/11 Commission and in both Bush administrations, has a persuasive piece in today’s FT arguing that a no drive zone on the highway from Tripoli to eastern Libya could be as effective as a no fly zone and easier to implement. He says that it could be enforced from off-shore with the use of precision weapons. Legally, there would be issue with this scheme—as there would be with any intervention in Libya that is not based on a full Security Council resolution  under chapter 7. But there simply will not be enough time now to get full UN authorization before Gaddafi has reasserted full

Lloyd Evans Lloyd Evans

An alternative PMQs

With Libya in metaphorical meltdown and with Japan close to the real thing, it was remarkable how little foreign affairs impinged on PMQs today. Ed Miliband led on the NHS and facetiously asked if Cameron planned any amendments to his health bill following the LibDem spring conference. Cameron replied by accusing Labour of wasting £250m on phantom operations. Would he apologise for this scandalous blunder? Miliband, unsurprisingly, declined even to acknowledge the invitation. The session developed on these familiar, solipsistic lines. Keen to harry the PM on bureaucracy Miliband stumbled on a Cameron quote decrying ‘pointless topdown re-organisations’ of the NHS. He pulled it up by the roots, shook off

Alex Massie Alex Massie

The Limits of British Influence

To be fair to Gary Gibbon, he’s not the only member of the lobby to have lost the plot when it comes to David Cameron, Libya and Washington. Ben Brogan has a sadly-fatuous piece today asking “Does Anyone in Washington Listen to David Cameron?” He writes: Robert Gates was far from flattering when he dismissed the PM’s initial no-fly suggestion as ‘loose talk’. The Coalition made a virtue of putting the US-UK relationship on a more low-key footing. There was to be none of the cosyness of Blair-Bush or the neediness of Brown-Obama. But Britain’s post-war strategic interest relied in part on its position as the one ally with the

Tuesday

James Forsyth

UN Security Council Resolution proposing a no fly zone over Libya is tabled

Britain, France and Lebanon’s decision to table a UN Security Council resolution proposing a no fly zone and a bar on flights in and out of Gaddafi’s Libya is an honourable effort to push the international community to move before the window for action closes entirely. Yet as the French Foreign Minister Alain Juppe acknowledged yesterday,  “If we had used military force last week to neutralize some airstrips and the several dozen planes that they have, perhaps the reversal taking place to the detriment of the opposition wouldn’t have happened,” Juppe told Europe-1 radio. “But that’s the past.” “What is happening today shows us that we may have let slip

James Forsyth James Forsyth

Gaddafi’s coming victory is a huge strategic setback for the West

It now seems almost certain that Colonel Gaddafi will now not only survive in Libya but reassert control over the whole country. With the fall of Ajdabiya, there is no break between Gaddafi’s forces and the rebel capital of Benghazi. The window for international action is shutting rapidly, even if it has not yet closed. But, as so often, there seems to be no multilateral desire for action. Gaddafi’s triumph is a disaster for the Libyan people but also one of the biggest strategic set-backs the West has suffered in the post 9/11 world. Every dictator will now know that they can suppress a revolt with violence without fear of

Alex Massie Alex Massie

Actually, the Libyan Civil War is Not David Cameron’s Fault

Amidst tough competition it is possible that Channel 4’s Gary Gibbon has written the stupidest thing yet about the Libyan civil war: Wherever this ends, those close to David Cameron will be hoping that he has done enough to avoid the blame if there is more carnage in Libya. I think even demented Guardianistas might be capable of appreciating that the violence is scarcely David Cameron’s fault or responsibility* Nevertheless, Gibbon’s post is useful in as much as it demonstrates the limits of the View from Westminster Bridge while simultaneously having it both ways: Cameron is, implicitly, criticised for lacking “influence” with the President of the United States but you

Monday

James Forsyth

Cameron’s call to the White House

David Cameron’s statement on Libya today reflected his growing frustration at the pace at which the wheels of diplomacy are moving on this issue. In his statement, Cameron warned that ‘time is of essence’ and that Gaddafi staying in power, something Cameron had previously called ‘unthinkable’, would send a ‘dreadful signal’. Time, really, is of the essence. If we don’t see movement in the next few days, it seems almost inevitable that Gaddafi will crush the revolt. One of the things that Cameron stressed is that Gaddafi continuing in power would be more than a moral and humanitarian disaster. As he warned, ‘a pariah state on Europe’s southern border’ would

Sunday

Alex Massie

The case for a Libyan No-Fly Zone is, at least in part, based on aesthetics.

I don’t know what we – that is Britain/NATO/the West/Whoever – should do about Libya. But while I think Brothers Korski and Nelson make many valid points I’m not sure that the case for any kind of military action has yet been made persuasively. That doesn’t mean one must be happy to see Gaddafi blitzing the Libyan rebels, merely that the calls to do something or anything seem long on justified emotion but desperately short on practical application. Andrew Rawnsley, for instance, asks “Are we content to let Colonel Gaddafi win?” But this is a false question. No, we are not content to let Gaddafi win but few, if any,

Daniel Korski

The coming war with Libya

If the West is not ready to intervene decisively against Colonel Ghadaffi, it needs to get ready for a post-revolutionary Libya, where the dictator and his bloodthirsty family seek revenge on pro-democracy activists and countries like Britain. Think of Ghadaffi’s previous record: the Lockerbie bombing, targeted assassinations like in the 1970s, and attacks on US soldiers in Germany. Libya could in future represent a threat to Britain akin to al Qaeda. So, the British government needs to think how it will deal with Ghadaffi MK II. Its policy should draw on past examples of containment and isolation. Libya’s neighbours will have to be incentivised to bolster European – and especially Italian

Fraser Nelson Fraser Nelson

Cameron’s principled stand over Libya

Slowly, David Cameron seems to be mutating into a hawk over Libya. I’ve been increasingly impressed with the way he has made the case for a no-fly zone – knowing that it is an unpopular cause outside of the Arab world. Since the evacuation chaos, which he apologised for, he has pretty much led calls for some form of military intervention to stop Gaddafi bombing his own people back into submission. He was laughed at to start with; accused of making it up on the hoof. But now the 22-nation Arab League backs this position, as does Sarko. It may have been messy at first – but that’s how these