While the discussion about the crisis in Libya has centered largely on terrorism, human rights and democracy, very little is said about the conflicting interests of great powers. The two most important clauses of UN Resolution 1973 were the implementation of a no-fly zone over Libya and an arms embargo. Both were flagrantly violated by the great powers.
To better understand the interest motive behind great power intervention in Libya, it is instructive to briefly revisit the circumstances leading to UN Resolution 1973 that authorised NATO involvement in Libya. Western powers and their allies counted among the ten members that voted “yes,” while China and Russia led the “skeptical” bloc that abstained. The “yes” vote carried the day and marked the beginning of Gaddafi’s end.
Exceeding the Limits of the No-fly Zone
Authorization for the no-fly zone over Libya signified a death sentence for Gaddafi. The intensity of NATO bombing in Libya sent a clear message to Gaddafi that his head was wanted on a platter of gold. The embattled leaders saw members of his family being pounded by NATO bombs. This brought NATO under intense criticism from the “skeptics” who accuse the western-led military coalition of over-stepping its bounds from protecting civilians to implementing regime change in Libya.
Even South Africa, which voted in favour of Resolution 1973, increasingly became critical and suspicious of NATO activities and intentions in Libya. “We strongly believe that the resolution is being abused for regime change, political assassinations and foreign military occupation” South African President Jacob Zuma told parliament in June 2011.
As his attempts to find a peaceful solution to Libya’s crisis failed, Mr Zuma threw the blame entirely on NATO. “We have spoken out against the misuse of the good intentions in Resolution 1973,” he lamented. His frustrations were shared by Jean Ping, Chairman of the African Union Commission who blamed western powers for sidelining Africa. “Certain international players seem to have denied Africa any control in this search for a peaceful solution ... Africa should not be a spectator in what is happening to it.”
Violations of UN Arms Embargo in Libya by China and the West
Libya presents just another case study in Africa where crises have been exploited to create a lucrative market for the sale of arms for the purpose of cementing ties in an attempt to protect the long term interests of great powers. A New York Times article of September 4, 2011 carried the title “China Sought to sell Arms to Gaddafi.” The article discusses an arms deal involving Gaddafi’s envoys and state-controlled Chinese companies involving $200 million worth of arms including rocket launchers, anti-tank missiles and portable surface-to-surface missiles among others.
The trade in arms between China and rogue states in Africa has become an issue of public debate in the West especially since China established its grip on Africa. When a shipload of Chinese arms destined for Robert Mugabe was blocked in South Africa at the height of Zimbabwe’s political unrest in 2008, the West cried foul. China was again implicated in crisis-torn Guinea the next year. There were many other unanswered questions about Chinese arms fuelling genocide in Darfur.
But as usual, the West has been crying foul when its own hands are not clean from colonial till the present crises throughout Africa. Recently in the Ivory Coast, a French military presence was quite evident in the crisis that led to the collapse of Laurent Gbagbo’s regime. In Guinea, where all accusing fingers pointed at China, Amnesty International observed that a “South African subsidiary of [British]BAE Systems sold Mamba vehicles used to quell demonstrations.”
The accusations and counter-accusations about Chinese arms sales to Libya constitute only a tiny part of the conflict of interest involved in this crisis. The CIA established its presence in Libya in 2004 and it collaborated with Gaddafi since then. As evidence from wikileaks cables have revealed, western governments trained, supplied and equipped the army that Gaddafi used against his own people. Even with Resolution 1973 in the air, arms flowed to both sides of the conflict in Libya.
See Also
Africa’s Look East Policy under Challenge
Phases in the Scramble for Africa
Sources
Leigh, David. “Amnesty: UK firm supplied armoured cars used against Guinea Protesters." 26 October 2009.
“South African President Blasts NATO actions in Libya.” CNN, June 14, 2011.
UN Security Council Resolution 1973 (2011) on Libya – Full Text, Guardian.co.uk, 17 March 2011.
Tongkeh Joseph Fowale - Tongkeh Joseph Fowale is a post graduate student of International Public Affairs at LUISS Guido Carli University, Rome - Italy.
