In a heartening turn of events, Gaddafi’s Foreign Minister Moussa Koussa released a statement saying,“Libya declared a ceasefire in the country to protect civilians and comply with a United Nations resolution passed overnight.”
The US resolution which was passed unanimously with 10 in favor, 0 against and 5 abstentions (China, Russia, India, Brazil, Germany),demanded “an immediate ceasefire in Libya, including an end to the current attacks against civilians, which it said may amount to “crimes against humanity.” As part of the resolution, the UN agreed on a imposing a ban on all flights in and out of the country’s airspace and tightened sanctions of Gaddafi’s government. Most significant, was the contentious article that authorized UN member states,
“to take all necessary measures [notwithstanding the previous arms embargo] to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, including Benghazi, while excluding a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory.”
While the news is certainly welcomed in the rebel held stronghold of Benghazi where the announcement was greeted with joyous celebrations throughout the streets, many in the international community expressed reservations. Germany’s Chancellor Angela Merkel defended her country’s decision to abstain from the vote voicing her concern and Germany’s unwillingness to participate militarily. The other 4 abstaining countries expressed similar misgivings regarding the use of military support.
Besides the image problem resulting from the sentence “all necessary measures” being seen as another military invasion of a Muslim country by the West, other questions remain.
Most notably as to what will come next in Libya.
Is the Libyan foreign minister’s ceasefire sincere or will Gaddafi keep up the offensive anyway? If genuine, it seems highly unlikely that the rebels who have sustained heavily causalities would be willing to live under Gaddafi’s continued rule. Therefore does Gaddafi retreat to the west of the country and leave the east to the rebels? Would Libya therefore be divided into 2 states? If not, will Gaddafi leave or be finally knocked off by one of his inner circle? Such news would no doubt be greeted by relief by the international community, but then what?
Revolution is a messy process and given Gaddafi’s 30 year campaign to do away with civil society and government institutions, who would assume power? The adhoc council in Benghazi that France recognized as therepresentative government of Libya surely won’t be accepted by those in Tripoli.
Finally, the question that must trouble Hilary and the State Department more than any other is what is America’s role if there is a civil war? Would America side with the rebels in the east (or possibly a yet unknown group) or would the US refrain from entering into a sovereign dispute?
Surely America will seek some kind of alliance that would ensure that the future government, whoever it is, will be friendly towards the West. Will reconstruction and aid be enough or will more covert military funding and support be necessary to win loyalties?
All of these are critical unanswered questions, yet the logistical and funding issues still have to be sorted out as well. With two current wars, how do America and other UN countries propose to fund the costly no-fly zone and any further military actions.
These are just some of the difficult uncertainties that will start to unfold in the coming days as Libya’s future is fought over by various parties. However for the moment, liberal internationalists, the UN and the citizens in Benghazi can celebrate as the UN looks to have at least initially intimidated Gaddafi and his regime and achieved their biggest success in conflict resolution in recent memory.