Critics of the west have a general tendency to project the United States as the root cause of most international issues and disputes. They believe that the United States should be under public trial every time in the court of “morality”, without even attempting to identify the “red flags” or alarming threats posed by several other countries of the world, particularly the middle east. The NATO intervention in Libya in 2011, is one of the best-suited examples. The primary criticism when it comes to the intervention is that the United States and its allies failed miserably to establish a stable democracy. However, a deeper understanding of the intervention can invalidate this criticism. Clause 4 of the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973, adopted on 17 March 2011 reads-
“Authorizes Member States that have notified the Secretary-General, acting nationally or through regional organizations or arrangements, and acting in cooperation with the Secretary-General, to take all necessary measures, to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, including Benghazi, while excluding a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory, and requests the Member States concerned to inform the Secretary-General immediately of the measures they take pursuant to the authorization conferred by this paragraph which shall be immediately reported to the Security Council”
In other words, this implies that the ultimate objective of the intervention, authorized by the United Nations Security Council, was to protect the civilians under threat from the Gaddafi regime. Gaddafi, a dictator who is usually projected as benevolent and liberal by the anti-western lobby, had threatened to kill all the protestors of his regime, house by house and inch by inch, in one of his most infamous public speeches. He had also gone to the extent of labelling all his critics as “cockroaches”. When the pro-democracy protests had begun in Libya in February 2011, Gaddafi’s security forces had killed more than 100 people within four days in Benghazi, a city in eastern Libya. By the eve of NATO’s military intervention, the death toll had increased beyond 1,000. It must also be taken into account that the security forces used snipers and helicopter gunships against protesting civilians. The crackdown policies adopted by Gaddafi were not just inhumane but also genocidal in nature. Friends of Humanity, a human rights organization based in Vienna, equated the massacres of civilians in Libya to war crimes. The crisis in Libya was undoubtedly beyond the scope of “internal politics” as the Gaddafi regime engaged in gross violation of international human rights laws.
Another significant allegation levelled by the critics of the west is that the United States and its allies “invaded” Libya with vested political interests. In other words, they accuse the United States of bringing down regimes which are against their national interests. However, the decision to get militarily involved in Libya was taken by NATO only after the pro-democracy Libyan protesters requested foreign intervention following the bombing of civilian territories by Libyan air forces. In addition to this moral defense of the intervention, there is a clear legal rationale as well. Chapter 7 of the UN Charter declares that the Security Council can “determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and take military and nonmilitary action to restore international peace and security”. In the Libyan crisis, this is exactly what happened. The international law was upheld, let alone violated. Therefore, the intervention by NATO, sanctioned by the United Nations, was not an operation to change the political system or promote western ideals, as argued by most critics. It was a humanitarian initiative to prevent the loss of civilian lives and put a full stop to the chaos unleashed by the Gaddafi regime.
Another lens to examine the conflict is by raising the “What If” question. In other words, what would have been the situation in Libya had NATO led by the United States not intervened? As argued before, by the eve of the intervention, the number of deaths of civilians had already surpassed 1000. Without NATO stepping in, the death toll was likely to rapidly increase. With the use of high-level ammunition by the security forces on the unarmed protestors, it would have evolved into a mass killing operation sponsored by the state. With the massacre of civilians, destruction of property and total chaos, education, jobs and basic amenities- everything would have gone for a toss. Furthermore, the fight between the rebels and the Gaddafi regime could have been prolonged, resulting in a crisis similar to Syria. Without NATO’s military intervention, Libya would have set a negative precedent for the people in the rest of the middle east fighting for their rights.
The United States is sometimes blamed for only extending moral support and no active intervention, just like in the recent Ukraine crisis. However, when it acts to safeguard lives and prevent human rights violations, it is condemned under the pretext of “interference in world affairs”. After the Iraq War of 2003, for instance, despite shreds of evidence of Saddam Hussein using biological and chemical weapons against Kurdish civilians, the United States was blamed for exaggerating the threats of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD). While it cannot be denied that the United States is the hegemon which often works only for its national interests, the international community must also take into cognizance that any transnational operation requires the cooperation of the United States for its success. Thus, world politics must not be only understood as the hegemony of a particular nation. It is important to contextualize and examine each event from different layers.
