EQUIPO NIZKOR |
|
30Aug11
NATO faces 'catastrophic success' in Libya
The Libya war situation recently underwent dramatic changes. French and British defense ministers stressed at the end of July that the Libyan opposition could not defeat the government forces or capture Tripoli, the capital of Libya, on its own. However, certain media outlets revealed in mid-August that the Libyan opposition was expected to capture the capital before the end of August, according to a NATO schedule.
As it turned out, the opposition forces entered Tripoli on Aug. 21. There are two main reasons for the sudden victory of the opposition forces. First, Western countries not only launched air strikes and provided a large amount of weapons to the opposition forces but also sent ground troops to Libya. According to recent media reports, France, the United Kingdom and Italy had dispatched Special Forces to Libya to help the opposition troops finally win the ground war. Second, Western countries reportedly bought over almost all senior officials of the Qaddafi regime. In brief, Western countries planned and directed the opposition forces' capture of Tripoli.
However, the NATO's victory in Libya is just a miserable victory. First, in order to reduce civilian casualties, the United Nations Security Council authorized NATO to establish a no-fly zone in Libya. However, the military operations of NATO have enlarged the civil war, led to tens of thousands of casualties of innocent civilians, made countless people homeless, and caused severe property damages and a huge humanitarian disaster.
NATO's arming of the Libyan Rebels and use of land forces in Libya both violated the Security Council's resolution, which prohibited both actions. In order to overthrow the Qadafi's administration, foster a pro-West government and further control Libya, western countries will use any methods. Fair or foul, they do not care. Therefore, they have already failed in morality and justice.
Second, several of the strongest Western countries joined forces, spent a lot of money and manpower, and bombed Libya for five months, but they ultimately still had to adopt illegal actions and commanded the Libyan Rebels to take the capital. It could fully reflect the rudeness, brutality and selfishness of the Western countries. In addition, their actions not only failed to demonstrate their powerful strengths but also revealed their weakness, fragility and incapacity.
U.K.-based The Times reported that NATO is generally using the term "catastrophic success" to describe the opposition's victory. The relationship among various factions of Libya's opposition is indeed complicated. Although they have made collective actions to achieve the goal of overthrowing Qaddafi's regime, it is very difficult for them to remain united in the post-Qaddafi era. Instead, they are very likely to divide and even cause new conflicts to arise. Furthermore, it is very difficult for Qaddafi's tribes to accept the cruel facts, including the losses of their dominant position, authority and interests.
The international community is universally worried that Libya will likely become the second Iraq or Somalia, and some even forecasted that Libya would likely be divided into three parts. The war and the inevitable future chaos caused by war will make the Libyan People the biggest victim and affect the regional and global peace and stability. The Western countries will unlikely obtain the rewards that they are coveting.
Western countries have launched the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq over the past decade and have participated in the Libyan war in 2011. Although they have all met the goals of regime changes, have they really achieved victories? The Iraq war waged by the United States is not worth the costs and has become one of the major reasons behind the fall of the United States from its hegemonic position, which is already a consensus in the international community.
The Afghan war has lasted as long as 10 years, putting those who launched the war into a dilemma. The Libyan war is no exception and can never become a model for Western powers' successful interference in the internal affairs of other countries. The "gunboat diplomacy" era has long passed, and resolving political differences through negotiations has become the trend of the times.
Going against the trend of the times, maintaining blind faith in the use of force, imposing the threat of force and even interfering militarily have not only become increasingly difficult but also do harm to others and themselves. As Western countries have repeatedly failed to take lessons from their blind moves, it is no wonder they has embarked on the path of decline.
[Source: By An Huihou (Jiefang Daily), People's Daily Online, Beijing, 30Aug11]
 | This document has been published on 24Oct11 by the Equipo Nizkor and Derechos Human Rights. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. |