Past experience. For Europe and its member states, the prolonged participation in armed conflicts is both ineffective and damaging. This is an observation. Military intervention is sometimes inevitable but the longer it is drawn out, the more problems and failures there are. These generalisations might appear excessive and in this column, strange, but developments, particularly in Libya, appear to be so similar to those experienced in the past (Korea, the Suez Canal, Iraq, etc) that a comparison is not inappropriate - ultimately, only the failures are noticed and we can understand why efforts are made to get out of wars.
In the case of Libya, EUROPE 10418 reported on the developments that have taken place at the highest levels of the EU and NATO. I would like to underline four points: (1) the TNC (the Transitional National Council, which represents the rebels) has a “role to play in the gradual transition towards the future”, which appears to indicate that it is not possible to call for the prior exile of Gaddafi; (2) military action in Libya is both a heavy technical and financial burden; (3) the TNC is calling for substantial financial assistance - the EU has already contributed to it and the International “Libya” Contact Group has in fact just released $3 billion out of the billions and billions that Gaddafi and his clique had deposited in the banks; (4) the rebels' acting foreign affairs minister has indicated that in this new era, no foreign military presence would be welcome.
For a diplomatic solution. The new orientations were explicitly confirmed and clarified in France during the debate on 12 July at the national parliament and later at the Senate. As the reports of this double debate have not gone beyond France, it is useful to go back to them.
The French prime minister, François Fillon, declared that France “is abiding by the mandate defined by the United Nations Security Council, which is not calling for the elimination of Colonel Gaddafi… a political solution is more crucial than ever and is beginning to take shape”. This solution involves “the colonel leaving power”; “a genuine and verifiable ceasefire”; the end to acts of violence being committed against the civilian population; unimpeded access for humanitarian aid. The minister for foreign affairs, Alain Juppé, was even more explicit: “Today, we are in a better position to develop a political consensus on the diplomatic solution”, which will involve “setting up a transitional government made up of the different stakeholders.” This mixed government would be in charge of organising a national dialogue, which would bring together the traditional authorities under the auspices of the TNC. Does Mr Gaddafi have to leave Libya? The minister replied that “it will be up to the different protagonists to discuss the subject”. Colonel Gaddafi will not, in any case, have any political responsibility. In a backdrop to the official debate, Mr Juppé indicated that “we have met certain emissaries who say that Mr Gaddafi is prepared to withdraw”. Mr Juppé is also said to have made the following comment: “We will stop bombing as soon as the Libyans start talking to each other and the soldiers from all camps go back to their barracks.” The “official” Libyan prime minister has proposed a, “dialogue between all the different parties” in which Mr Gaddafi will not personally participate. Turkey has also developed a similar plan to that of France, which is even more detailed and precise.
These orientations have been asserted by Alain Juppé from the start, but they were not the initial orientations of Mr Sarkozy, who has strangely come under the influence of the philosopher journalist, Bernard-Henri Lévy.
Nothing has worked as planned. As is often the case in war, nothing has worked as planned by Mr Sarkozy or the United Kingdom. The UN's starting point was protecting the civilian population. The objective progressively became regime change in Libya because the colonel's regime was expected to collapse in just a few weeks. The real situation is quite different and the operation has become a particularly heavy burden to bear for France and the United Kingdom, together with complications and concerns regarding armaments. Certain initiatives, such as supplying the “rebels” with light weapons, had nothing to do with the initial mandate. Hence the shift towards a political solution.
A general trend. If the “diplomatic” project succeeds, the result will ultimately be positive. Everything is moving in the direction of preventing another addition to the list of failures which have proved the inefficiency of protracted armed conflicts that in fact damage the interests of member states and divide Europe. The trend goes beyond Libya and is shifting towards a gradual reduction of military commitment and a withdrawal as soon as possible from wars like those in Afghanistan, and a reduced military presence elsewhere.
The soldiers are doing their job - let the political leaders do theirs. (F.R./transl.fl)