Another difference between the Bush years and the age of Obama is that the latter has at least some regard for the rule of international law
In a joint newspaper article yesterday, the US president and British prime minister told the world that they would maintain their assault on an Arab country until its regime collapsed. The inclusion of the French president as a third signatory was less familiar, but a sense that the casus belli is being breezily redefined while stalemate takes hold on the ground is eerily reminiscent of 2003.
Libya, however, is not Iraq, as a close reading of the grand triumvirate's words makes plain. Barack Obama has been a reluctant warrior, and his chief purpose in signing the piece was not perverting an avowedly humanitarian campaign, but rather extending a low-cost lifeline to allies in Paris and London, who have been feeling politically isolated. Nato's air power has not yet proved decisive and, despite some confident claims at its Berlin summit, most of its members are reluctant to step into the space created by American reticence. The White House's caution was reflected in an op-ed that proposed transition from dictatorship not to democracy, but to the more fudgeable prospect of "an inclusive constitutional process".
Another difference between the Bush years and the age of Obama is that the latter has at least some regard for the rule of international law, and this was evident in painstaking drafting. It acknowledged that the legal mandate was about protecting civilians, and was explicitly "not to remove Colonel Gaddafi by force". Nonetheless, the trio said, removed he must be, not as the objective of the action but as an inescapable precondition to securing the humanitarian goals. The argument is reminiscent of Catholic teachings about the difference between sought moral consequences and those that are merely foreseen. There was no place for such nuance in the born-again certainties of George Bush. But changing war aims via Jesuitical distinctions is too clever by half.
For one thing it raises expectations that may be impossible to fulfil. All manner of military options are currently being considered which could change things on the ground rapidly, but for the moment the balance of forces appears to be stuck, and the allies ought not to narrow their options. Negotiation or partition would have their problems; but so too would a more full-throated deployment of force. It is too early to say which course will minimise the sum of Libyan misery. Even if Gaddafi does go in the end, as must be hoped, this might be as part of a deal that will never get done if his departure is made a precondition to the brokering.
The deeper anxiety is that the perception of mission creep will retard the greatest struggle of the lot ? for international relations governed by the rule of law. Faltering advances have been made over the years since the second world war, as yesterday's conviction of two Croats for war crimes underlined, but progress was greatly set back by Iraq. The three leaders' careful drafting might have satisfied their own lawyers, but if critics at home and abroad feel caught out by the small print that can only undermine the campaign's legitimacy. Three Conservative and two Labour MPs yesterday demanded a recall of parliament, arguing that policy had moved on significantly without the Commons having a say. If similar resentment takes hold in the sceptical capitals which ultimately acquiesced in the unopposed security council vote, then a fragile consensus will shatter.
The current attorney general would do well to remember the damage done during the Iraq affair, when dubious interpretations of resolution 1441 were used to license the course the superpower was already set on. This created the sense that the UN's role was a fraud. Whether it has been right or wrong on Libya, it has proved capable of shared resolve, and shown it can have teeth. The new language of regime change may leave the council descending into accusations of bad faith ? and the planet slipping back into a more lawless world.
Source: http://feeds.guardian.co.uk/~r/theguardian/commentisfree/rss/~3/5rCI19VJmAI/libya-middleeast
Chalkboards Post-traumatic stress disorder Italy Madagascar Private equity Nicolas Anelka
No comments:
Post a Comment