POLITICS MARCH 5, 2012
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
Just a year has gone by since the Arab Spring first hit Libya, and celebrations of Libya's liberation from its despicable dictator aren't exactly making headlines. Indeed, has there been much to glorify? There is little semblance of a central government, and intertribal fighting shows no signs of abatement. Are the Libyan people better off now than they were before France and Britain, with the United States "leading from behind," rushed to the rescue of the 2011 revolution? It’s time to take a painful assessment of the Libyan intervention—not least because it may have limited our options for dealing with both the butchery in Syria and the looming Iranian nuclear threat.
To understand the repercussions, we must look back to eight years ago. In December 2003, the world was stunned by the revelation that the Libyan dictator Muammar Qaddafi had agreed to end his effort to develop a nuclear military capability. All the machinery and equipment were dismantled and the country was pronounced "clean." Thanks to the orchestrations of the CIA and MI6, for the very first time in history a Muslim state in the Middle East had voluntarily agreed to roll back its nuclear program. In exchange, the West tacitly agreed to guarantee the Qaddafi regime’s security and to acknowledge its legitimacy (while also reaching settlements on the downing of Pan-Am Flight 103 and other Libyan terrorist operations). To that end, a stream of high-level figures from Washington and London traveled to Tripoli to celebrate the rapprochement between Qaddafi and the international community.
This was a high-stakes political bargain, but it was deemed justified by the ultimate goal: ridding the international community of a military nuclear threat in the heart of the Mediterranean. Moreover, it established a precedent that could be applied the next time a country in the volatile Middle East aspired to acquire nuclear weapons.
Today, however, the achievements of 2003 have been destroyed by the policies of 2011. The unique accomplishment of the rollback precedent was replaced with another example of Great Power license to abandon promises at the slightest whim. Indeed, the West seemed eager to violate its previous diplomatic commitments. They interpreted Security Council Resolution 1973—which permitted intervention in Libya—in brazen fashion, going further than the abstaining Russian and Chinese governments had ever thought possible. (They also hardly concealed their pleasure over Russia’s loss of its arms trade with the Qaddafi regime.)
As Barack Obama and Benjamin Netanyahu meet today, the bitter lessons of the Libyan campaign will hover in the background. In light of the Libyan experience, what nuclear aspiring nation can now put its trust in a rollback deal of any sort? When NATO took to the skies over Tripoli, Benghazi, and Misrata, it delivered the greatest possible blow to future non-proliferation diplomacy.
There’s been plenty of collateral damage as well. Substantial quantities of sophisticated and toxic weaponry disappeared overnight from large Libyan armament stores and may have found their way, in part, to the most vulnerable and inflamed areas of the Middle East. Worst of all, the Libyan experience has already compromised—for the moment, at least—any chance that international coalitions can be assembled and maintained to deal with the Iranian nuclear threat and the Syrian crisis.
Indeed, the West will regret spurning Russia. Moscow feels it was misled or outfoxed in Libya—hence its current stance in the U.N. Security Council, where it is using its veto to torpedo any international efforts to unseat Bashar Al Assad. Having lost Iraq and Libya as clients of its military industry, it is hanging onto Syria and might even upgrade the equipment it is selling to Iran. Russia will strive to prove that no resolution to the Syrian crisis can conclude without its participation and consent.
Of course, there will be those who will ask about the moral and human aspects of the Libyan revolution. Indeed, what about them? How much has the lot of the Libyan people improved by the substitution of a dictator for havoc, lawlessness, and the collapse of governance? In the final analysis, does anyone really know how many died at the hands of Qaddafi's goons and how many were killed by the weaponry of NATO and other air forces?
Philosophers and men of morals and justice who strutted across the stage have long gone home, leaving the people of Libya poor, destitute, and alone. And they have left the international community facing Syria and Iran with fewer and worse options than we had before the Libyan intervention. The question of whether it was worth it answers itself.
Efraim Halevy is head of the Center for Strategic and Policy Studies at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. He served as chief of the Mossad from 1998 to 2002, and is the author of Man in the Shadows: Inside the Middle East Crisis with a Man who Led the Mossad.
18 comments
Am I the only one who finds this analysis ghastly? We prevented an intranational genocide. That's right, not even sectarian or tribal, just plain old slaughter of people who lived in Benghazi and eastern Libya--slaughter that possibly would have outdone the Assad's genocide at Hama. Not only was this atrocity prevented, we couldn't even have known a year ago that Syria would degenerate to genocide watch, although it was probably more likely if Qaddafi was permitted to get away with it. By all means, complain about our stretching of Responsibility to Protect. But don't bellyache as you write from a country that exists precisely because people weren't principled enough to stand up to genocide. If the United States decides to work with all countries in the world with consciences to start to put teeth in the United Nations and try to prevent at least some of the genocides in the world from happening, then maybe we can actually make good on those promises to "never forget".
- chaitless
March 5, 2012 at 12:54am
"Today, however, the achievements of 2003 have been destroyed by the policies of 2011." This statement seems very peculiar. When the 2003 arrangements were made, Libya was a stable if authoritarian country under a loopy leader. In 2011 it had tipped over into chaos and civil war (and the loopy leader was announcing a massacre) before any UNSC resolution came up for decision and before a single NATO aircraft took off.
- ironyroad
March 5, 2012 at 1:19am
Not so simple. We had the backing of the Security Council to prevent harm to civilians. We exceeded that mandate by using it for regime change, not what was contemplated. At the time, I suggested in these pages that there would be a price to pay for not sticking to the UN mandate -- the inability to obtain another such resolution. So, is the problem a necessary consequence of the protection of civilians or of our zeal for regime change? Likewise the difficulty of persuading Iran to give up the pursuit of nuclear arms while our politicians cannot refrain from ruminating aloud about regime change. Given the Libyan precedent and the history of our interference in Iran, from Mossadegh to our backing of Iraq's illegal invasion of Iran, why should the Iranians not believe that their best protection for us is nuclear weapons?
- roidubouloi
March 5, 2012 at 1:46am
It is quite clear that there is great reluctance to engage even with conventional arms a power that has nuclear arms. I don't think that is at all controversial. Vietnam defeated us and ejected us. One can understand why, having defeated the United States in a conventional war, the Vietnamese would not be particularly concerned about us any longer. Would we be returning for a second helping? Also, the Vietnamese don't have oil. Also, we don't talk about regime change in Vietnam. The Iran-Iraq war in which we provided significant direct and indirect support for Iraq, the illegal invader of Iran, is probably a very tedious subject for you, malahat. But the Iranians suffered 1 million to 2 million casualties. They may not think it either tedious or oh so long ago and far away. Why, there may even be living Iranians who lost family members in that war. Imagine that!
- roidubouloi
March 5, 2012 at 3:55pm
I think your basic point, malahat, is that the Iranians are bad, whereas we are good. If the Iranians have enemies, such as us, it is their fault for being bad. Hence, they don't need weapons. They just need to be good. Then they won't have us as an enemy. And if they cannot get the point and become good on their own, why then we can change their regime. No reason for the Iranians to fear that, since, once we have changed their regime to one more to our liking, they will be good and have nothing to fear.
- roidubouloi
March 5, 2012 at 3:58pm
"Am I the only one who finds this analysis ghastly?" No, chaitless, you're not. And kudos on the other fine points you make. In addition, the importance of stopping Qaddafi's genocide in Libya went far beyond that country's borders. It would have halted or reversed the momentum of the Arab Spring and other potentially positive changes that may emerge in that part of the world. If things are messy and potentially threatening in that part of the world right now, that's what happens in the wake of decades of corrupt, repressive, thuggish regimes holding back political, economic and social progress. For there to be any chance of things improving for most of these countries and their place in the world, these regimes have to go...unless we want to kid ourselves into thinking they'll reform of their own accord. The chances are that the changes will work out better in some countries than others, but at least we're starting to see the potential for democracy and related progress in what had been the most politically backward region on the planet. Lest it seem that I'm arguing for the discredited Bush doctrine, heaven forbid! The difference in Libya is that Obama and our allies used relatively modest resources to help a grassroots rebellion and stifle an imminent series of massacres. roid, you make a fair point about our helping to dump possibly Qaddafi feeding into the Iranian regime's calculation about whether to acquire a nuclear military capacity. But as you acknowledge in making that point, many other factors will affect that calculation...to the extent that Iran is open to persuasion to begin with.
- Thunderroad
March 5, 2012 at 4:49pm
1. The Vietnamese hardly posed a mortal threat to the Chinese, but if the Vietnamese had had nuclear weapons, I think it fair to suppose the Chinese would have been more circumspect. 2. Hardly a red herring. Because we think regimes are bad is hardly going to persuade them that they ought to leave themselves open to decapitation by us, just because they are bad and we know it. This induces a defensive response that will include nuclear weapons for countries that think they have the means. You, malahat, don't think we threaten Iran. If I were an Iranian, would think quite the reverse. Are you not able to imagination how self-proclaimed virtuous Americans, who do a lot of bad things, support vicious regimes when it suits our interests, etc., can appear less than benign to others, especially when we cannot shut up about who we are going to bomb or invade next? 3. Thunderroad, my point is that a world in which we eschew international agencies and arrogate unto ourselves the power and right to decide which regimes shall live and which shall die -- plainly not based on virtue as we support heinous regimes when it will benefit us -- may not end up being a safer world for us or in general.
- roidubouloi
March 5, 2012 at 5:11pm
Oh, I think the Arabs have been much more circumspect since Israel developed nuclear weapons. As I pointed out on one of these threads, nuclear weapons serve to create redlines that an enemy dares not to cross. So futile is it to hope to overwhelm Israel and survive that the Arabs have quite given up trying. The warfare now is all asymmetric -- terrorism if you prefer -- war by proxy and by arms that are not massed. I also rather think that it is you who are missing the point. Nuclear weapons are a means by which the conventionally weak can deter the conventionally strong, not the other way around. If you push a conventionally weak power to the wall, it might drop the bomb. Syria has non-nuclear WMDs, chemical and biological according to accounts in the last few days? Against what threat? Would it use them offensively against Israel? Not bloody likely. It is the doomsday weapon -- push us to the wall and we might use them on you. Thus, China cannot deter Vietnam with nuclear weapons, because Vietnam cannot push China to the wall. Nothing to deter. But a nuclear-armed Vietnam could deter China. Likewise, Israel can deter the numerically much larger Arab states from invading it or from even spending a lot of their time and effort to that end -- they surely could overwhelm Israel if oil money were harnessed to the Moslem population -- because there is no point. The Arabs cannot defeat Israel while it has the bomb. You may consider Egypt in 1973 an exception, but, had the Egyptians managed to rout Israel from Sinai, I don't think they would have risked approaching Israel's core population centers. That would have been too far. Is Iran threatening its neighbors? Who might that be? It is certainly working on its missile offense. Missile defense is highly problematic, not yet technically feasible even for us without being hugely porous. Why Iran threatens Israel is something I do not understand. Maybe it is pure religious hatred. Maybe it is resentment of Israeli domination of a Moslem population. Maybe not. However, one strand may be fact that Iranians certainly do feel threatened by the US, and Israel touts itself as our strategic ally. Ally in what? The defense of Israel? Israel is our strategic ally in our mutual defense of Israel? Against Russia? Against NATO countries? Against Africa? Makes no sense. So, if you start asking yourself just what the purported strategic alliance means to the US, you might think that threatening Moslem states is about the only purpose it could serve. Deterring that threat and not allowing itself to be cornered is a rational strategic project for Iran. If one listened to your theory, malahat, then there is no reason for any state, including Israel, to want nuclear weapons. Somehow that does not seem to be the way the world works.
- roidubouloi
March 5, 2012 at 6:50pm
Nuclear weapons didn't deter 911. Does that mean we should give them all up?
- roidubouloi
March 5, 2012 at 6:50pm
"That's why the response of Iran's neighbors is rationally to obtain nuclear weapons if the Iranians do." But not rational of Iran to obtain them because Israel has them? That, I suppose, is because Israel poses no threat to Iran. At least not in our eyes.
- roidubouloi
March 5, 2012 at 6:58pm
The single most appalling piece of analysis on Libya I've ever read. I'm a staunch supporter of Israel, but there is something creepy and disturbing about a sense of one's own state-interests that can license this kind of extreme political cynicism. It's also strange that such a gifted author apparently can't see how unsubtle are his efforts at dissimulation. Russia, the potential ally against Islamism, tragically spurned. The Libyan intervention as somehow licensing Iran's nuclear ambitions. And saddest of all, the 'what good has it done for the Libyan people?' sop. If the Obama administration followed an equally cynical line of logic about Israel, their conclusion would presumably be: well, we sympathise with the poor folks, but defending them causes us an awful lot of trouble in the world. And in the end, who's to say if they would be worse off under the rule of Hamas? Presumably the follow-up article will be in support of President Assad, on the grounds that he's a secularist opposing the Islamist tide.
- dburchell
March 5, 2012 at 7:34pm
malahat, so perfectly convinced are you of the truth, virtue, and obviousness of the American view of who is threatened by whom and who is not, that you cannot even imagine that Iran -- a country that has seen its leader deposed, with our participation, to install a regime to our liking, a regime that was, with our continuous support, tremendously repressive, an illegal invasion that was also supported by us, directly and indirectly, and whose declared "staunchest ally" in the region is armed with nuclear weapons -- might see us, and by extension Israel, as threatening to it. I wouldn't want to hire you as a diplomat, malahat. The craft requires some ability to understand the world the way both friends and adversaries do.
- roidubouloi
March 5, 2012 at 8:07pm
The point is hardly that one uses nuclear weapons to defend against spy capers, but that, in light of history, Iran has rational reason to see us as a hostile power willing to use force against it to serve our own interests. Iran never deposed our president or participated in an invasion against us. In turn, if we do use force, or commit what we would regard as terrorist acts if conducted against us, assassinations, sabotage, and such, and if Iran is nuclear armed, it has greater latitude to retaliate. Thus, it can deter acts that are less than full-scale war. Of course, to understand is not to condone, but since the Iranians are likely not much interested in whether we do or do not condone their behavior, understanding might be more relevant to the right policy than moral judgment. We shall agree to disagree.
- roidubouloi
March 5, 2012 at 9:05pm
I think there is another aspect of the argument worth considering. The reason why some countries don't develop nuclear weapons capability is that they are damned expensive and difficult. They require considerable resources of knowledge, plant, and administration, and it's worth noting that two relatively poor countries that have them, North Korea and Pakistan, are respectively (a) a paranoid and grisly dictatorship, and (b) a paranoid nation in which the military establishment exercises a significant amount of authority in deciding broad national policy. If a military nuclear policy (leaving aside formal non-proliferation treaty agreements) is decided in a more-or-less democratic system where it can't be hidden (although India may be a counter-argument there), it has to be justified in some way that makes sense to people -- and that includes the economic effects of a large scientific investment that may not be appropriate as well as the general feeling of the population about such weapons. My guess is that had Israel been in a different security situation in the 1950s and 60s than it was, it might well have decided that nuclear weapons weren't worth it. It's interesting that the Israeli policy of blanket silence (more or less pretending that they don't exist) is a relatively unusual one.
- ironyroad
March 5, 2012 at 9:40pm
I am with Chaitless way above, this was ghastly. The war in Libya, by nearly every definition, was a great success. Halevy would have looked at the US during the time of the Articles of Confederation and all the troubles of our early republic and would have judged it a miserable failure.
- blackton
March 5, 2012 at 10:58pm
I don't like the tone of this piece, but I don't think Halevy is wrong to point out that our actions in Libya have had and will have negative consequences as well as positive. "Success" ought not depend on ignoring reality. Blackton was convinced from the start that the UNSC resolution had to be used to remove Qaddafi, despite its terms, because there was no way to prevent massacres otherwise. I am still not sure that was the case, but the inability ever to obtain another such resolution from the UNSC, as the terms of the first such were abused, was fairly predictable.
- roidubouloi
March 5, 2012 at 11:18pm
And predicted here, by me and others.
- roidubouloi
March 5, 2012 at 11:34pm
I am definitely with Halevy. I remember the discussions on this blog. Even I and roid agreed as to the anticipated results. This is the first article that makes this logical connection. Intervention in Libya was far from a success it claimed to be. It served only the interests of BP and Total SA. BTW, yesterday if I heard correctly, Libya have split itself into Tripolitania and Cyrenaika. How is that for comfort?
- rmakover@swbell.net-OLD
March 7, 2012 at 2:19pm