by Andrew Murray
The political campaign to launch a military intervention in Libya – ostensibly on humanitarian grounds but with patently political ends in sight – is gathering steam among the Nato powers.
A “no-fly zone” has now been urged by the Arab League – for the most part a collection of frightened despots desperate to get the US military still more deeply involved in the region. That would be the start of a journey down slippery slope.
Here are 10 reasons to resist the siren calls for intervention.
1 – Intervention will violate Libya’s sovereignty. This is not just a legalistic point, although the importance of observing international law should not be discounted if the big powers in the world are not to be given the green light run amok.
As soon as Nato starts to intervene, the Libyan people will start to lose control of their own country and future.
2 – Intervention can only prolong, not end the civil war. “No-fly zones” and supplying arms will not be able to halt the conflict and will lead to more bloodshed, not less.
3 – Intervention will lead to escalation. Because the measures being advocated today cannot bring an end to the civil war, the next demand will be for a full-scale armed presence in Libya, as in Iraq – and meeting the same continuing resistance. That way lie decades of conflict.
4 – This is not Spain in 1936, when non-intervention meant helping the fascist side which, if victorious in the conflict, would only encourage the instigators of a wider war – as it did.
Here, the powers clamouring for military action are the ones already fighting a wider war across the Middle East and looking to preserve their power even as they lose their autocratic allies. Respecting Libya’s sovereignty helps the cause of peace.
5 – It is more like Iraq in the 1990s, after the first Gulf war. Then, the US, Britain and France imposed no-fly zones which did not lead to peace – the two parties in protected Iraqi Kurdistan fought a bitter civil war under the protection of the no-fly zone – and did prepare the ground for the invasion of 2003. Intervention may effectively partition Libya and institutionalise conflict for decades.
6 – Or it is more like the situation in Kosovo and Bosnia. Nato interference has not led to peace, reconciliation or genuine freedom in the Balkans, just to never-ending foreign occupations.
7 – Yes, it is about oil. Why the talk of intervening in Libya, but not the Congo, for example? Ask BP.
8 – It is also about pressure on Egyptian revolution – the biggest threat to imperial interests in the region.
A Nato garrison next door would be a base for pressure at least, and intervention at worst, if Egyptian freedom flowers to the point where it challenges Western interests in the region.
9 – The hypocrisy gives the game away. When the people of Bahrain rose against their US-backed monarchy and were cut down in the streets, there was no talk of military action, even though the US sixth fleet is based there. Instead, the US is supporting Saudi intervention against the revolution.
As top US republican Senator Lindsey Graham observed last month, “there are regimes we want to change, and those we don’t.”
Nato will only ever intervene to strangle genuine social revolution, never to support it.
10 – Military aggression in Libya – to give it the right name – will be used to revive the blood-soaked policy of “liberal interventionism.” That beast cannot be allowed to rise from the graves of Iraq and Afghanistan.
Andrew Murray is chairman of the Stop the War Coalition.
BS on said:
“As soon as Nato starts to intervene, the Libyan people will start to lose control of their own country and future.”
Brilliant you can’t make this stuff up
Come back Tom Lehrer your planet needs you
Martel on said:
This statement makes me ill.
Surely the nail in the coffin for ‘the Stop the War Coalition.’
Wombo on said:
I’m opposed to intervention, but this statement is highly flawed:
1. Defence of bourgeois legalism is a different thing to the defence of national integrity. This point misses the point.
2. If prolonging the “civil war” means the rebels have a chance of winning it, I’m all for it. But only through the supply of arms – not intervention.
3. Ok. Valid point.
4. Contradicts 8. There “is* a wider war, and military intervention would be the West stepping up to strangle the revolution in Libya, Egypt, Tunisia, and elsewhere. The war needs to be won by the arab peoples, but a little help in terms of arms wouldn’t hurt – especially after decades of backing and arming the dictators.
5. Probably true.
6. Also possible.
7. Agreed. Which is why the interests of the West in not interfering “too early” have to be watched for too. They will be – I’m certain – more than happy to let the genuine revolts get strangled before they decide to “help” the region in ways that further their own interests.
8. Agreed.
9. Agreed.
10. Also agreed.
Martel on said:
I also do not agree with intervention on the ground but I am happy with recognising the rebels, arming the rebels, transferring seized assets to the rebels and a no-fly zone.
This statement is all about supporting Gadaffi in a clean, swift victory and advocating the rebels subjugation to the tyrant who will be issuing their death warrants.
However unfortunately I sort of expected this from Andrew Murray.
Rumbobo on said:
A legal, UN-sponsored, Arab League approved no-fly zone would be good. An illegal, unilateral, opportunist NATO intervention would drag us back to the unilateral imperialism of the Bush presidency the defeat of which sparked the Arab Spring in the first place.
But of course the Libyan masses should rely on their own strength and expect no favours from the blood soaked Western imperialists who propped up Gadaffi, Mubarak, Ben Ali et al and have supported the Zionist usurper state against the Arab people for decades (who is blocking a UN resolution?). Where is Cameron’s no-fly zone in any case. Two weeks on it is nowhere to be seen. All the opportunist Cameron did was give Gadaffi the narrative he needed to rally his forces to crush the rebellion. But the rebellion is not yet crushed. As Gadaffi’s forces venture out from Tripoli he opens the possibility of a vacuum behind him that his vicious mercenaries cannot fill and Benghazi is in no mood to surrender no-flly zone or no no fly zone.
Jonny Mac on said:
“Respecting Libya’s sovereignty helps the cause of peace.”
There have been many sick-making statements coming from the so-called anti-imperaliast left in recent days, but that is right up there with the very worst of them.
Still, not a surprise from someone who’s a defender of both the North Korean regime and Stalin.
Vanya on said:
#6 Of course respecting the sovereignty of other countries is the classic halmark of belligerent agressors isn’t it?
Karl Stewart on said:
Excellent statement from Andrew Murray. Makes the principled case – which is, quite frankly, ABC stuff for anyone on the left – against NATO military intervention.
Would be good to see this position formally adopted by the Stop the War Coalition, along with a call to put pressure on our government to abandon its neo-con interventionist line and, instead, support a UNSC-backed ceasefire, followed by negotiations between the protagonists.
P Spence on said:
To date I am not aware of any verified evidence of genocide, mass executions, crimes against humanity etc to warrant any military intervention by the West.
Andrew Murray is right and most of the comments to date are wrong. Gadaffi will in time be dealt with by his own people: intervention will have the opposite effect of that intended and will lock Libya in to years of bloody conflict.
I expect President Obama will prove more sensible and less inclined to unleash more violence than some of the contributors here.
BS on said:
#9 Gadaffi will in time be dealt with by his own peopl
And in the meantime?
I assume you take the view that the Libyan people should be punished for asking for no fly zone
Denzil on said:
The duplicity of the West towards the situation in Bahrain is sickening: the Saudi military intervention there has many similiarities to the Soviet support given to Najibullah in Afghanistan and yet William Hague appears to be quite silent.
Karl Stewart on said:
BS, I can’t speak for PSpence, but the reality is – as a leading US figure recently pointed out – that a pre-requisite for a “no-fly zone” would be the military destruction of Libya’s air defences. In other words, it would mean that there had already been massive air strikes against the country, air strikes in which many Libyans would be killed.
On the other hand, a nuetral and robust ceasefire could give the Libyan people a respite from the killing and negotiations between the protagonists could become the national conversation that the Libyan people clearly need to hold over their own future.
Why do you and others oppose such a scenario?
BS on said:
Actually that does not automatically follow that mass bombing would be a necessary for a no fly zone
Also the rebels have asked for support and we should be giving it to them
This is the whack job they are living under
For more information
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ga9c28VD-Yc
and
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PKIyy2cryj8
A
Karl Stewart on said:
“Actually that does not automatically follow that mass bombing would be a necessary for a no fly zone.”
Well then, clearly you and the experts at the top of the US military have a different view here. I’m not a military expert myself, so I can’t be sure whether to believe the Pentagon or anonymous keyboard man BS.
BS on said:
Allright lets start from the beginning what do you think a no fly zone is or means?
I’m afraid it is back to first principles here!
Martel on said:
# 14 ‘Makes the principled case – which is, quite frankly, ABC stuff for anyone on the left – against NATO military intervention.’
Do not suppose to speak for the left, Karl. You and your odd-ball USSR nostalgia club are very much a small minority.
A no-fly zone would not require mass bombing rather targeted bombing of Libyan air defences in the West.
This will cause less damage than Gadaffi will inflict with his airstrikes against the rebels.
And would cause certainly less pain and suffering than Gadaffi will inflict in his revenge killings if he gets hold of the east.
‘Why do you and others oppose such a scenario?’
For I oppose Narnia, it does not exist.
Martel on said:
Should read: For the same reason I oppose Narnia, it does not exist.
Karl Stewart on said:
Martel, firstly, who’s mentioned the USSR? What a peculiar comment?
Of course I don’t claim to “speak for the left” but opposition to western military intervention in circumstances such as these has, traditionally, been pretty much a given for the left. It’s really odd that some on the left – like yourself – seem to have utterly lost your political orientation here.
Listen to yourself, you’re actually calling for military air strikes by NATO against Libya. Do you really think these strikes can be “targetted” with such presicion that there would be no non-combatant casualties? Did the military actions in Iraq, Afghanistan and Serbia over the past decade pass you by completely?
Erm…BS, a “no-fly zone” was imposed in areas of Iraq after the 1991 war after its air defences had been destroyed and after it had been defeated militarily. How on earth can a no-fly zone be imposed on any nation unless those imposing the sanction actually have the means to enforce it?
Karl Stewart on said:
And Martel, of course the scenario I outlined does not exist – scenarios do not exist by definition. They are possible outcomes.
Vanya on said:
#15 Apologies for answering for Karl, but a no-fly zone means an area of air-space where planes are prevented from flying.
This can only be enforced militarally and requires either the use of surface to air missiles, air to air missiles, or both.
Missiles and/or planes firing them will be shot down if ground to air defences are allowed to operate. In the absence of ground troops, ground to air defence systems can only be knocked out through heavy bombing and they are frequently located in or near to populated areas.
Basics? Simples more like.
Francis King on said:
Those calling for intervention presumably expect that it would lead to a more-or-less speedy victory for the Benghazi side in the current civil war in Libya. Maybe it would. But what if it doesn’t?
BS on said:
@21 – Well we would have tried and have been doing what the rebels ask
Martel on said:
# 18 Karl it is pretty obvious to readers of this site that that you tend to parrot Andrew Murray and Nick – torpedo the dentists – Wright. Members of the CPB – aka as the USSR nostalgia club.
Anyway, that it beside the point.
A no-fly zone, as well as being of benefit to the rebels in preventing Gadaffi’s onslaught will undoubtedly save more lives than it will cause.
Firstly, it will prevent Gadaffi using his airforce against civilians and the rebels in the East. This is already taking place but the threat of the no-fly zone is restraining Gadaffi from unleashing the full power of his airforce.
And secondly if it prevents Gadaffi’s entry into the east, it will prevent a murderous war of retribution he is bound to enact against the rebels. And this will be brutal for civiland and rebel militias alike.
The only principled posistion for the left in Britain is support for the Libyan revolutionaries against the murderous brutal tyrant Gadaffi.
Karl Stewart on said:
Martel, your position is one of support for western military intervention against the people of Libya.
Mine is one of ending the killing now and for the Libyan people, collectively, to decide their own future.
Martel on said:
#24 No, your posistion is for letting Gadaffi crush the revolution, with the massacre that is likely to follow.
You think Gadaffi is going to think of anything but revenge towards the rebels if he takes the east?
Need I remind you of the hundreds executed after the Tobruk revolt, the purging of the army forces, the televised executions, the murder of Libyan asylum seekers,the brutal internal secret police etc. etc.
Francis King on said:
I can’t help feeling that the interventionists are not fully setting out their stall here. It is clear that Gaddafi has significant support, both in the population and the army, which is why his regime did not just crumble when the rebellion broke out. It seems unlikely that a “no-fly zone”, even if one could be imposed, would allow the Benghazi forces to sweep to a speedy victory across the whole country. So what next? Well, the rebels would probably start calling for NATO aircraft to bomb Gaddafi’s ground troops… And so on.
Wars are easy to get into, and difficult to get of. We shouldn’t forget that.
Jonny Mac on said:
18 – “but opposition to western military intervention in circumstances such as these has, traditionally, been pretty much a given for the left.”
Crap. It’s a traditional Conservative(in US terms, paleo-Con)position to decline help to people fighting oppressors and fascists. The traditional left position is to help them – see Spain in the 30s etc.
The fact that the left has lost its moral compass in a swamp of self-loathing moral relativism does not make its current non-interventionist, ant-internationalist position “traditional” in any sense.
Jellytot on said:
@27 The fact that the left has lost its moral compass in a swamp of self-loathing moral relativism does not make its current non-interventionist, ant-internationalist position “traditional” in any sense.
I agree that there has been a tad too much moral relativism on the Left in recent decades but your belief in the alturism and moral values of the US Air Force is rather touching.
Martel on said:
# 28 ‘but your belief in the alturism and moral values of the US Air Force is rather touching.’
I do not think anybody has expressed such a belief.
Carl on said:
2 – Intervention can only prolong, not end the civil war. “No-fly zones” and supplying arms will not be able to halt the conflict and will lead to more bloodshed, not less.
I suppose if the conflict carries on like it did today in the Libyan town of Ajdabiya – which has been pounded by airstrikes and artillery taking with it many civilian casualties – then the counter-revolution will ensure bloodshed is minimised and limited to rebels only.
It’s not for me though; no matter how long it takes I’d prefer to join the “Stop the Civil War Coalition” myself.
brian the dog on said:
An excellent analysis by Andrew Murray and one that is long over due from the socialist left.
Tony from Aus (currently overseas) on said:
1. We’ve got the example of what a No-Fly Zone would mean from Iraq in the 1990s. To talk about what a NFZ could do is irrelevant. What a NFZ will do will be determined by who is implementing it.
2. Highest casualty estimates are about 6000. Compare that figure with the 1½ million killed in Iraq by starvation, blockade on medicines and by bombing, during the time of No Fly Zones on Iraq. (not to mention the million plus more killed post-2003 in the war to overthrow the dictator that the NFZ failed to weaken). To call for a No Fly Zone to stop genocide is bullshit. Anyone who thinks that any form of Western intervention will lessen the killing is deluded. Most of those calling for a NFZ to stop the killing are lying.
3. Why hasn’t the West supplied the rebels with modern anti-aircraft weapons if they are so concerned with the killing by Gaddafy’s airforce? When did Britain stop supplying weapons to Gaddafy?
4. How representative are the very recently defected high ranking Gaddafy régime insiders who the West has recognised as the leadership of the opposition and are now calling for a NFZ? What role did the West play in their rise and their adoption of a very military strategy for overthrowing the dictator that hasn’t proved very succesful? These two are not rhetorical questions, I don’t know the answers but I do know that the crushing by Gadaffy of independant, mass-based Lybian democracy movement, followed by overthrow of Gadaffy by West and new government of Gadaffy henchmen would be optimal outcome for the imperialists.
5. WHAT ABOUT BAHRAIN? OK, anyone who is familiar with this site would be aware that Johnny Mac is a racist who loathes Arabs and therefore would know that the fact that Lybians are being killed doesn’t upset him, but this feigning of sympathy for the victims in Lybia while ignoring the slaughter of unarmed, non-violent democracy protesters in Bahrain is sickening. Just to remind people: the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is wholly-owned subsidiary of the US and the Gulf Cooperation Council, in whose name the Saudis are invading Bahrain to slaughter the unarmed non-violent protesters, is one of the main advocates of a NFZ in Libya.
Ian Croft on said:
UN Security Council due to vote on motion at 10pm apparently.
Reuters are saying that the French are confident of it passing, the text of the resolution being passed around is very broad. The motion specifically declares that ground troops cannot be deployed but it would authorise air attacks on any and every military target in Libya – specifically it creates a no fly zone and authroises the destruction of any and all planes flying without UN permission.
About fucking time I say.
Ed D on said:
Wow, great news. We could be bombing Gaddafi within hours.
Time to celebrate along with pro democratic Libyans.
Let freedom reign!
Ed D on said:
Hold on, Colin Powell has just broken into the the floor of the UN and is carrying a vial of powder which he says Gaddafi could use to wipe out millions…..we’re losing them. Get him out of there!
Ed D on said:
Resolution passed!
Ian Croft on said:
10 in favour, 0 against and 5 abstained (including China and Russia)
Ed D on said:
Remember all that tosh about Iraq making military action by the UK never feesible again?
Ian Croft on said:
Fuck off Ed
Anonymous on said:
Goodbye Gaddafi. Hurrah.
The Libyan people can fight the next enemy – whether it’s Nato, BP or whoever the fuck else – when the moment comes. For the moment, anything that helps topple the murderous regime oppressing the Libyan people, should be welcome news to the partisans of human freedom.
Calvin on said:
So the old man with the beard who almost alone in the world warned of Western intervention from day one, turned out not to be senile after all.
http://www.granma.cu/ingles/reflections-i/21february-reflections.html
Ed D on said:
They’ve had to pullout all the oil companies because of this dispute. It would have been easier to support Gaddafi.
Attila on said:
People of Libya! You have been liberated by the glorious United States Air Force!
Now about those oil contracts…
Robert on said:
Wonder what quid pro quo they had to give Russia and China in exchange for them not voting against the resolution.
Ed D on said:
Now about those oil contracts…
I think Britain and France should be alright. The US might be sidelined for dragging it’s feet.
Ed D on said:
Wonder what quid pro quo they had to give Russia and China in exchange for them not voting against the resolution
Not wanting to be on the wrong side of global public opinion probably swayed it.
We sometimes forget that most countries in the world haven’t been through 8 years of self loathing so aren’t that adverse to military action for a good cause.
Darkness at Noon on said:
@Calvin: No he’s not senile, just sticking up for his pals Gaddaffi, Chavez and Mahmoud while running his wee fiefdom.
Francis King on said:
Leaving aside all the pious guff in the resolution about protecting civilians, this is about regime change, about the Western states seizing the opportunity presented by the rebellion – which they almost let slip – of getting rid of an unpredictable ruler who had annoyed them for decades. But before our interventionists get too cock-a-hoop – will bombing Gaddafi’s forces be enough to allow the Benghazi forces to win? If Gaddafi’s forces are defeated militarily, will that be an end to the matter? Will the Benghazi forces be able to secure their control over the whole country, or will they need “help” in containing an “insurgency”? In other words, will this lead to the sort of outcome the Benghazi forces and the interventionists were hoping for? If it does, that will be something of a first.
Darkness at Noon on said:
@Francis: “If it does, that will be something of a first.”
I’m not so sure, but Bosnia is a precedent.
Ed D on said:
49.Leaving aside all the pious guff in the resolution about protecting civilians, this is about regime change, about the Western states seizing the opportunity presented by the rebellion – which they almost let slip – of getting rid of an unpredictable ruler who had annoyed them for decades.
Why did they bother removing sanctions and doing business with him then?
Ed D on said:
I think Obama has up to now gone about things the right way. He rebuffed the opportunist Cameron’s Blair-like neo-con blundering when he called for a unilateral, illegal NATO intervention
Cameron didn’t do that, of course, no such call was made for a unilateral no fly zone. But I agree there is an argument to be made that Obama’s low key approach, allowing Britain, France and the Arabs to build momentum, has worked in favour of the UN deal. The bad press he has been getting in the US for being such a slow coach will not have gone unnoticed by the other permernant members and made it easier for them to go along with this. The down side of that is the action may have taken longer than it would have done and nhow the rebels are in a far worse starting point. But now the UN’s credibility is on the line hopefully they will stop at nothing to get the job done. The rebels will very soon have shiney new weapons.
Francis King on said:
Bosnia is a precedent? Really? The warring sides had been fighting for the best part of 3 years there, had largely “cleansed” their respective bits of the wrong sort of Bosnians, and had pretty much fought to a standstill by the time that the Western powers intervened with air strikes. I agree that the intervention probably helped get people to the negotiating table, but by that time they were probably about ready to settle.
Ian Croft on said:
“Why did they bother removing sanctions and doing business with him then?”
Money
Francis King on said:
# 51. Realpolitik, my dear Ed, Realpolitik. If you don’t see much chance of overthrowing someone you don’t like, you come to terms with them.
Ian Croft on said:
Francis that isn’t true. The Bosnian Serbs only went to the peace table when it became clear they were facing military defeat as the Croats, Bosnians and NATO ganged up on them while Serbia looked the other way.
Francis King on said:
True enough, Ian – but the Bosnian Serbs were able to calculate that they had won all they were going to win, while the Croats and Bosnians could see little chance of retaking what became Srpska. That was why the NATO intervention led to peace, rather than to the Croats and Bosnians pressing home their advantage, wasn’t it?
Ed D on said:
# 51. Realpolitik, my dear Ed, Realpolitik. If you don’t see much chance of overthrowing someone you don’t like, you come to terms with them.
Not really. Libya were sending out good signals and I think Blair was trying to show the Americans how to do a northern Ireland job from a positon of strength after the Iraq war – they give us something, we give them something, then we let their prisoner out, and we all go home happy. Sadly it didn’t work out like that. But removing sanctions on them did remove Gaddafi’s excuse that the west was responsible for the failure of his system, which made the people turn against him, so without Blair’s help this revolution may not have gotten started.
Maybe it should be called the Blair revolution in his honor.
Francis King on said:
Ed – it’s the way you tell ‘em…
Howard Kirk on said:
#58
What position of strength after the Iraq War? The Iranian Government and Halliburton had a position of strength after the Iraq War.
That said, in terms of Realpolitik, you are correct about the overtures to the Libyan regime which was not likely to leaving very soon.
On balance, I’m sceptical but I’m glad the UN passed this tonight. I don’t want the solidarity with the defenders of Benghazi to end with their massacre. I hope it’s not too late.
Laurie on said:
@ Francis King
“Those calling for intervention presumably expect that it would lead to a more-or-less speedy victory for the Benghazi side in the current civil war in Libya. Maybe it would. But what if it doesn’t?”
This is my worry too, Francis. The rebels have almost lost. They may now eventually prevail but that is a hell of a lot of ground to take back from Gadaffi, with an awful lot of unforseen bloody horrors and accidents (to view outside intervention in the kindliest light) liable to materialise on the way. I fear this will go on and on. I hope I am wrong.
JN on said:
#60
No, much better that it ends with Libyans being massacred by French & British airforces bombing Libyan cities (of course, when that happens we call it “collateral damage” rather than massacre), & the rebellion becomes completely co-opted, discredited, & hopeless (in terms of bringing about a better Libya for the people who live there)!
You think?!
Fuck Gaddafi, but no western intervention! How many times do we have to be taught this lesson before we ALL learn it? Somalia, Serbia, Haiti, Afghanistan, Iraq…….