NATO and Libya: A Defensible Intervention in a Sovereign State - Paper Example

In March 2011, NATO coalition forces attacked Libya in a humanitarian response to attacks against civilians. The intervention only ended in October 2011 when Gaddafi was killed (Waal, 2017). This intervention destroyed the economy of Libya and left the country in chaos. This paper analyzes the real purpose of the military intervention led by Western countries. It analyses the relationship between Colonel Muammar Gaddafi's Libya, Libya's resources, and the West. It demonstrates that NATO and the West failed in their responsibility to protect innocent citizen. In fact, the humanitarian intervention was not a legitimate reason for NATO intervention in Libya.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

Libya under Gaddafi

Colonel Muammar Gaddafi rose to power during a coup he masterminded in 1969 as a young officer in the Libyan Armed Forces. After the King had fled from Libya, the Libyan Revolutionary Command Council (RCC) assumed power with Gaddafi as its leader (Pingeot and Obenland, 2014). Gaddafi abolished the old constitution and the monarchy, and he was declared the leader of Libya. After coming into power, Gaddafi directed funds to healthcare, education and housing. He made education free and mandatory for children of all genders. Gaddafi's policies enabled all Libyans to access healthcare free of charge. He pledged free housing to all Libyan citizens.

Also, upon taking power, Gaddafi renegotiated oil contracts with the foreign companies by threatening to shut off production (Bajoria, 2011). With new oil contracts, a huge share of oil revenue was guaranteed to the new government of Libya. This provided funds for its development programs. With control of oil resources, Gaddafis influence in OPEC and the Arab grew exponentially. Economically, Gaddafi shifted the Libyan economy towards socialism but encouraged private enterprises in all aspects of the economy except oil industry and banking. He also supported irrigation and constructed the Trans-Sahara pipeline to boost agriculture. With Gaddafi reforms, Libya's per capita income rose above $11000(Brown, 2017).

Gaddafi further initiated reforms across all aspect of Libyans. His political reforms included changing the country from monarchy to a republic. Libyans lost their right to vote and instead had revolution committees' governing them (Bajoria, 2011). On the other hand, Gaddafi's foreign policy was controversial. He openly supported African rebels fighting for independence and advocated for a united African political federation (Brown, 2017). There are claims that Gaddafi supported terrorist organizations, including the Palestine Liberation Organization. Libyas relations with the West were harmed when Libya refused to hand over the Libyans suspected of bombing the Pan Am plane. Sanctions on Libya were enforced and were removed only after Libya handed over the suspects.

The Gold Back Currency

A country utilizing gold standard establishes a fixed price for gold, and it purchases and sells gold at that fixed value. The gold standard refers to a currency system where all currency in a country has a value which is proportional to the value of gold (Brown, 2017). All governments in the world have abandoned gold standard for fiat money. However, gold is still a vital financial asset for governments and their central banks.

Gold was popular in Libya as it did not lose value as other commodities which had been used as currency. The gold standard arose from universal acceptance of gold as currency although it collapsed after the World War II due to inflation (Pingeot and Obenland, 2014). The durability and rarity of gold made it popular as a currency. However, countries abandoned gold standards to finance the war, but the inflation increased exponentially. The gold standard was also blamed for the Great Depression of 1930's as the US Federal Reserve could not mint more currency to stimulate economic growth. Gold standards made it difficult for governments to manipulate cash flows in an economy.

Gaddafi wanted to create a united African federation that would use gold dinar as its currency. According to Brown (2017), Gaddafi's attempt to unite Africa and create an independent African currency was viewed by the West as a threat to the world's financial security. Libya planned to use the dinar as an alternative to the French Franc used in francophone Africa. France and its allies decided to get rid of Gaddafi to thwart his monetary coup. Western disapproval to the gold standard was also vital in the removal of Gaddafi.

The NATO Military Intervention

In March 2011, North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) initiated a military intervention in Libya to enforce the United Nation Security Council Resolution of 1973. The United Nations wanted to enforce an immediate ceasefire, end attacks against Libyan civilians, impose a no-fly zone over Libya and impose tighter sanctions on Colonel Muhammad Gaddafi's regime (Brown, 2017). The resolution was a direct response to the Libyan Civil War. The military intervention was initiated by the American and British navies who fired cruise missiles into Libya. French, British and Canadian air forces maintained a naval blockade on Libya while French air force jets conducted air strikes on Libyan Army arsenal (Pingeot and Obenland, 2014). The air strikes were started by attacks by French air force on Libya's air defense systems.

The military intervention was led by the United Kingdom and France who shared command with the United States. In the beginning, the air strikes were carried out independently by individual countries and lacked a united command. It was not until 31st March 2011 when NATO took command of the no-fly zone. However, ground forces remained under the command of their own countries. NATO launched more than 25000 airstrikes on Libya before the military intervention ended (Pingeot and Obenland, 2014). By June 2011, the mission of the military intervention had changed from humanitarian reasons to regime change. Fighting only subsided in October 2011 after the death of Colonel Muammar Gaddafi (Brown, 2017). After his death, NATO announced that their mission in Libya would end on 31st March 2011. Despite the request from Libya's new government for an extension of the mission till 31st December 2011, the UN Security Council voted to end the mission on 31st October.

The NATO intervention in Libya is controversial. Despite the banning of foreign troops on a sovereign country by United Nation Security Council Resolution of 1973, the coalition troops were recorded on film while in Libya. The US also criticized some NATO members such as Germany and Poland who refused to participate in the intervention. The NATO mission is also alleged to have killed more than 2000 civilians including three journalists for the Al-Jamahiriya TV (Pingeot and Obenland, 2014).

Critics of the NATO intervention argue that humanitarian reasons were not the main reason for the military intervention in Libya. They claim NATO wanted a share of Libya's wealth. It is important to note that although Libya was an African country, it was relatively wealthier than most countries in Europe. The main source of this wealth was oil and financial capital. Libya had huge crude oil reserves and it sovereign national fund was one of the world's largest in 2011 Pingeot and Obenland, 2014). The fund, Libyan Investment Authority, controlled more than $56 billion including 100 tons of gold reserves at Libyan Central Bank (Walker, 2017). NATO was accused of imperialism by countries which were friendly to Libya. There are speculations that Libya was attacked to get rid of Gaddafi because he wanted to establish a united federation of African countries that would utilize gold as its currency and force oil importers to pay in gold.

NATO used the UN policy of responsibility to protect' to justify its military intervention in Libya. According to the Council for Foreign Relations (2011), the intervention in Libya had one key purpose: to protect Libyan civilians. It explains that the NATO's mission was not a fight for democracy or getting rid of Gaddafi but to protect the people of Libya from atrocities committed to them by their government. However, the council remains skeptical on why the intervention only happened in Libya and not in other countries such as Syria and Cote dIvoire where there were popular uprisings against the government.

Military Intervention and Realism

The NATO military intervention in Libya can be used as a case study for realism as an international relations theory. Realists define the international political system by anarchy: it lacks a central authority. They see countries as autonomous and independent from each other. Countries can only be bound together through coercion or by their own consent. In a system of anarchy, state power is very vital. It is the only through this power that a state can defend itself to guarantee its survival (Slaughter, 2011). State power can be achieved economically, militarily or even diplomatically but it is the coercive ability of the state power that has influence in the international political system.

For realists, survival of a nation is the basic goal of every country. The greatest threat for survival comes from foreign invasion and occupation. Realists believe that a nation should be capable of defending itself from foreign invasions (Slaughter, 2011). They also believe that states should work to maximize their probability of survival. In realism, the world is an uncertain place. All countries have military capacities and realism assumes no country knows the intention of other states. The fourth assumption of realism is that the biggest powers that have the biggest military capability in an international political system that have a decisive say.

Realists' opinions vary on the best way to guarantee the survival of a nation. Offensive realists argue the best way to maintain the survival of a nation is maximizing their power when compared to other nations. This strategy is called hegemony. Defensive realists believe that hegemony may cause dangerous conflicts that may threaten the survival of a nation (Slaughter, 2011). Realists support for anarchy undermines international cooperation organizations. They argue that a nation can only its use its precious state power to enforce the law in a foreign country if it has interests in that country. States may create international bodies enforcing international laws. However, it is not these rules that govern how nations act, but it is power relations and material interests at stake that matter.

The responsibility to protect was used as a scapegoat to attack Libya. The NATO used this excuse to bomb Libya. It is very vivid that the NATO attacks on Libya had hidden motives. Attacks on factories, civilian hospitals and on irrigation projects at the Great Man-Made River Project do not represent the responsibility of protection. These were attacks on strategic Libyan assets. Brown (2017) explains the five hidden reasons that led France to advocate for the military intervention in Libya; a greater share in Libyan oil, increased French influence in North Africa, improved home popularity for President Sarkozy, provision of an opportunity for the French military to reassert its position as a military power and the need to prevent Libya from succeeding France as the most dominant power in Africa. According to the realism theory, France felt its state power was being relinquished to Libya. It needed to defend its strategic power and gain material wealth from Libya to increase its probability of survival.

The doctrine of humanitarian intervention is controversial due to lack of generally accepted definition of humanitarian intervention' (Ryniker, 2001). In Libya the intervention force was...