This House believes western intervention in Libya has been a success

Gaddafi was an oppressive ruler who led Libya for 42 years. The country had no Parliament, political parties, or NGO’s and no civil society [1].

He ruled Libya with an iron fist, eliminating any political opposition, restricting people’s rights and worst of all supporting different terrorist groups around the world. The same man was responsible for the 1988 bombing of a Pan Am jet over Lockerbie, Scotland, which killed 270 people [2] and he supported the leadership of Iddi Amin a dictator who killed masses in Uganda.

His leadership posed a threat not only to Libya but to countries around the world. Western intervention in the Libyan civil war paved a clear path for the downfall of Gaddafi’s rule. We should consider the downfall of such a dictator to be a success and benefit to Libya and all who Gaddafi threatened.

[1] Neil, MacFarquhar, ‘An erratic leader, brutal and defiant to the end’ nytimes.com, 20 October 2011

[2] BBC News South Scotland, ‘Colonel Gaddafi ordered Lockerbie Shooting’, bbc.co.uk, 23 February 2011

Intervention was approved under the doctrine responsibility to protect and it aimed at protecting civilians in Libya [1]. While toppling Gaddafi was successful, it did not help in stabilising Libya. Many would prefer stability under a dictatorship than chaos. The situation today is even worse than during Gaddafi’s regime, with insecurity and chaos across the country, increased reports of human rights violation and terrorism [2].

Intervention however did not restore peace and did nothing to help or protect civilians in the longer term.

[1] The economist, ‘The lessons of Libya’, economist.com, 19 May 2011

[2] The fault lines, ‘Libya; state of insecurity background reading’, Aljazeera.com, 14 February 2014

From the day of the uprising in Benghazi, the government was committed to fight back till the end. Gaddafi asserted that he will chase down the protesters and cleanse house by house while his son said that rivers of blood would flow with thousands of deaths, if the uprising didn’t stop [1].

Military jets and helicopter gunships were indiscriminately unleashed upon people who had no means to defend themselves against assault from the air. 

The resolution of a no fly zone passed by the security council weakened and prevented government forces from killing people and destroying cities using air strikes[2]. Air strikes went on to destroy artillery, armor and other weapons that could be used for indiscriminate attacks. The intervention therefore stopped large scale civilian bloodshed.

[1] The middle east in revolt, ‘Gaddafi’s son; last gasp of Libya’s dying regime?’, time.com

[2] Los Angeles Times, ‘Obama on Libya; Intervention prevented more bloodshed’, latimes.com, 28 March 2011

Gaddafi was not deliberately killing civilians but rather targeting armed rebels fighters who were targeting his government. In his words he said he would show no mercy to rebels and did not speak about civilians.

When pro Gaddafi forces regained control of Brega and Zawiyah, there was no bloodshed reported or any conflict harming civilians [1]. We don’t know what would have happened had Gaddafi regained control of Benghazi, but it is likely there would have been no bloodbath.

[1] RT news, ‘Gaddafi gaining ground in battle, losing on information front’, rt.com, 11 March 2011

The uprising sparked off as a concern for freedom in the country, people were tired of the oppressive regime and wanted to be liberated. This could not happen by people power alone; Gaddafi was willing to crack down to prevent it like Assad in Syria did.

Western intervention in the civil war helped the citizens gain power and force to fight for their rights, by providing them with training, intelligence and logistics among others hence ejecting the oppressive leadership a symbol for liberation.

After the civil war, people were able to participate in an election of the national assembly considered free and fair for the first time in Libya[1]. The part of the Mo Ibrahim index that rates participation and human rights rose from 20% in 2010 to 30.5% in 2012 [2]. More democratic and accountable government institutions have been set up, NGO’s welcomed and civil society empowered. Libya is becoming much freer with freedom house upgrading the country from ‘not free’ to ‘partially free’ [3].

[1] BBC news Africa, ‘Libya election success for secularist Jibril’s bloc’, bbc.co.uk, 18 July 2012

[2] Mo Ibrahim foundation, ‘Ibrahim index; Libya’, moibrahimfoundation.org

[3] ‘Freedom in the World 2013’, Freedom House, 2013

Far from creating a liberated and free democracy western intervention has set Libya on the path to becoming a failed state. The country is today ranked among the most insecure countries in the world [1]. Two years after the war, The country has not managed to form a unified police force or a professional army, and it has even formally recognised several of the militias, entrusting them with security tasks [2]. It may be better but freedom of information in Libya is still under threat [3]?  The threat is simply different; less from the state, and more from a chaotic situation. Freedoms are also not gaining ground in all areas; notably there are concerns that religious freedom is declining with the country moving towards Sharia law, and with minorities being attacked and forced to convert to Islam [4].

[1] The New York times, ‘Clashes and car bombings highlight insecurity across Libya’, nytimes.com, 4 November 2012

[2] Euronews, ‘Libya’s internal insecurity appears long-term militia problem’, euronews.com, 10 October 2013

[3] World press freedom index, ‘Middle east and North Africa’, rsf.org

[4] Nzwili, Fredrick, ‘Christians in Libya cast anxious eye at religious freedom’, The Washington Post, 10 January 2014

Gaddafi was an oppressive ruler who led Libya for 42 years. The country had no Parliament, political parties, or NGO’s and no civil society [1].

He ruled Libya with an iron fist, eliminating any political opposition, restricting people’s rights and worst of all supporting different terrorist groups around the world. The same man was responsible for the 1988 bombing of a Pan Am jet over Lockerbie, Scotland, which killed 270 people [2] and he supported the leadership of Iddi Amin a dictator who killed masses in Uganda.

His leadership posed a threat not only to Libya but to countries around the world. Western intervention in the Libyan civil war paved a clear path for the downfall of Gaddafi’s rule. We should consider the downfall of such a dictator to be a success and benefit to Libya and all who Gaddafi threatened.

[1] Neil, MacFarquhar, ‘An erratic leader, brutal and defiant to the end’ nytimes.com, 20 October 2011

[2] BBC News South Scotland, ‘Colonel Gaddafi ordered Lockerbie Shooting’, bbc.co.uk, 23 February 2011

Intervention was approved under the doctrine responsibility to protect and it aimed at protecting civilians in Libya [1]. While toppling Gaddafi was successful, it did not help in stabilising Libya. Many would prefer stability under a dictatorship than chaos. The situation today is even worse than during Gaddafi’s regime, with insecurity and chaos across the country, increased reports of human rights violation and terrorism [2].

Intervention however did not restore peace and did nothing to help or protect civilians in the longer term.

[1] The economist, ‘The lessons of Libya’, economist.com, 19 May 2011

[2] The fault lines, ‘Libya; state of insecurity background reading’, Aljazeera.com, 14 February 2014

From the day of the uprising in Benghazi, the government was committed to fight back till the end. Gaddafi asserted that he will chase down the protesters and cleanse house by house while his son said that rivers of blood would flow with thousands of deaths, if the uprising didn’t stop [1].

Military jets and helicopter gunships were indiscriminately unleashed upon people who had no means to defend themselves against assault from the air. 

The resolution of a no fly zone passed by the security council weakened and prevented government forces from killing people and destroying cities using air strikes[2]. Air strikes went on to destroy artillery, armor and other weapons that could be used for indiscriminate attacks. The intervention therefore stopped large scale civilian bloodshed.

[1] The middle east in revolt, ‘Gaddafi’s son; last gasp of Libya’s dying regime?’, time.com

[2] Los Angeles Times, ‘Obama on Libya; Intervention prevented more bloodshed’, latimes.com, 28 March 2011

Gaddafi was not deliberately killing civilians but rather targeting armed rebels fighters who were targeting his government. In his words he said he would show no mercy to rebels and did not speak about civilians.

When pro Gaddafi forces regained control of Brega and Zawiyah, there was no bloodshed reported or any conflict harming civilians [1]. We don’t know what would have happened had Gaddafi regained control of Benghazi, but it is likely there would have been no bloodbath.

[1] RT news, ‘Gaddafi gaining ground in battle, losing on information front’, rt.com, 11 March 2011

The uprising sparked off as a concern for freedom in the country, people were tired of the oppressive regime and wanted to be liberated. This could not happen by people power alone; Gaddafi was willing to crack down to prevent it like Assad in Syria did.

Western intervention in the civil war helped the citizens gain power and force to fight for their rights, by providing them with training, intelligence and logistics among others hence ejecting the oppressive leadership a symbol for liberation.

After the civil war, people were able to participate in an election of the national assembly considered free and fair for the first time in Libya[1]. The part of the Mo Ibrahim index that rates participation and human rights rose from 20% in 2010 to 30.5% in 2012 [2]. More democratic and accountable government institutions have been set up, NGO’s welcomed and civil society empowered. Libya is becoming much freer with freedom house upgrading the country from ‘not free’ to ‘partially free’ [3].

[1] BBC news Africa, ‘Libya election success for secularist Jibril’s bloc’, bbc.co.uk, 18 July 2012

[2] Mo Ibrahim foundation, ‘Ibrahim index; Libya’, moibrahimfoundation.org

[3] ‘Freedom in the World 2013’, Freedom House, 2013

Far from creating a liberated and free democracy western intervention has set Libya on the path to becoming a failed state. The country is today ranked among the most insecure countries in the world [1]. Two years after the war, The country has not managed to form a unified police force or a professional army, and it has even formally recognised several of the militias, entrusting them with security tasks [2]. It may be better but freedom of information in Libya is still under threat [3]?  The threat is simply different; less from the state, and more from a chaotic situation. Freedoms are also not gaining ground in all areas; notably there are concerns that religious freedom is declining with the country moving towards Sharia law, and with minorities being attacked and forced to convert to Islam [4].

[1] The New York times, ‘Clashes and car bombings highlight insecurity across Libya’, nytimes.com, 4 November 2012

[2] Euronews, ‘Libya’s internal insecurity appears long-term militia problem’, euronews.com, 10 October 2013

[3] World press freedom index, ‘Middle east and North Africa’, rsf.org

[4] Nzwili, Fredrick, ‘Christians in Libya cast anxious eye at religious freedom’, The Washington Post, 10 January 2014

NATO’S action increased the conflict’s duration about a six fold and the death toll at least sevenfold, but also increasing human rights abuses, humanitarian suffering, and weapon proliferation in Libya and neighbouring countries [1]. The UN security council approved the resolution for protecting civilians in Libya [2] but NATO just did the opposite. Their operation came at the expense of increasing harm to Libyans. NATO attacked Libyan forces indiscriminately including those in Sirte who posed no threat to civilians as Sirte remained in government hands right to near the end of the conflict and continued to support the rebels offering them weapons, military training, intelligence and troops on ground [1], even when they rejected cease fire offers from the government that would have helped end the crisis and spare civilians.

[1] Alan, Kuperman, ‘Lessons from Libya; How not to intervene’, harvard.edu September 2013

[2] Robert, winnet and Richard Spencer, ‘UN approves no fly zone as British troops prepare for action’, telegraph.co.uk, 17 March 2011

The no-fly zone on its own was not sufficient to protect civilians on the ground. It was the responsibility of NATO to take further action aimed at protecting people whose lives were at risk from gaddafi’s soldiers. This NATO did by attacking military targets such as artillery. This was also part of the UNSC agreement “permit all necessary measures to protect civilians”[1].

Specifically, NATO targeted military weapon stores and facilities not homes and camps as Gaddafi’s military did. 72 civilians were killed during this bombing campaign [2] a small number compared to the thousands of sorties. No one can know how long the conflict would have lasted without NATO intervention, it is therefore impossible to state that the conflict lasted six times longer than it would have without NATO involvement.

[1] Richard, Roth, ‘UN Security council approves no fly zone in Libya’, cnn.com, 18 March 2011

[2] BBC news Africa, ‘Nato hits back at Libya's civilian deaths report’, bbc.co.uk, 14 May 2012

The toppling of Muammar Gaddafi has had unpleasant side effects. Gaddafi’s army involved a large number of mercenaries, many of them Tuaregs from northern Mali. When Gaddafi was overthrown they returned to their homeland without having given up their arms. These returnees helped spark a rebellion that deposed a democratically elected president under a coup and prompted yet another western intervention[1].

In Libya the situation never fully calmed down with the country left dealing with militia groups and terrorist attacks. The US ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens was killed, Prime minister Ali Zaidan was kidnapped and there are reports of ongoing insurgencies [2]. Previously Libyans may have lived under an eccentric dictator but at least they had order and stability.

[1] Owen, Jones, ‘The war in Libya was seen as a success now here we are engaging in the blowback in Mali’, independent.co.uk, 13 Jan 2013

[2] Chris, Stephen, ‘Assassination pushes Libya towards civil war, two years after Gaddafi’s death’, thegurdian.com, 19 October 2013

The Malian conflict is not new and has been on for a long period notably the 1960, 1996 and the 2006 rebellions[1]. It did not break up from the Libyan conflict and additionally the Tuareg were not the only rebels involved in this crisis. The insecurity reports across Libya is typical for every emerging democracy in transition and cannot be a reason to claim that it is not stable. Even the Libyan people accept it with 71% of the population being optimistic about the current situation [2].

[1] Mats,Utas, ‘The Malian crisis; Causes, consequences, responses’, wordpress.com 7 May 2013

[2] JMW Consulting, ‘Believing in Democracy: Public Opinion Survey in Libya’, National Democratic Institute, August 2013, p.6

The UN security council approved humanitarian intervention in Libya that ensured a no fly zone to protect civilians from government attacks. However, the west went beyond the resolution’s intent and turned it into a de facto campaign for regime change [1].

This made Russia and China who initially had opposed any intervention feel cheated. The divide has affected the response of the security council to other crises notably in Syria where over a hundred thousand people have been killed and an even larger number displaced. Russia and China have vetoed resolutions on Syria three times [2] fearing that it may end like the Libyan case a fact that Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov stressed; “Russia will not allow a repetition of the Libyan scenario in Syria” [3].

Such divisionism has destroyed the credibility of the security council [4] and created an unintended casualty of the Libyan intervention.

[1] David, Blair, ‘Putin thinks Cameron conned him over Syria, he won’t allow that to happen again with Syria’, telegraph.co.uk, 2 August 2012

[2] Rick, Gladstone, ‘Friction at the U.N. as Russia and China Veto Another Resolution on Syria Sanctions’, nytimes.com, 19 July 2012

[3] Global research, ‘Russia Will not Allow Repetition of “Libya Scenario” in Syria’ globalresearch.ca

[4] Mick, B. Krever, ‘Why won’t the UN Security council intervene in Syria?’, cnn.com 14,January 2012

Russia’s long standing antagonism with the west is not new [1] and Libya is not the cause. Its reaction towards the Syrian conflict is driven by a complex mixture of political and economic interests including having a naval base in the country [2].

The UN security council has also continued to ensure that its operations are successful and have acted on the Syrian crisis too.

It approved a mission to destroy chemical weapon stockpiles in Syria and evacuate people from Homs. This shows how the UNSC usually works; where the major powers can agree they do and act, where they can’t the council does nothing. This would have happened in Syria regardless of what occurred in Libya; Syria is simply worth more strategically to Russia than Libya was.

[1] Con, Coughlin, ‘While Putin still believes the west is still an enemy, Russia will not change’, telegraph.co.uk, 3 December 2010

[2] Nicholas, Kosturos, ‘What Drives Russia’s Unrelenting Position on Syria?’, americanprogress.org, 13 August 2012