The UN security council may have sanctioned air strikes, but they are viewed with ambivalence in most countries
United States | Russia | China | Israel | Iran | Egypt | Arab states |Germany | Italy | France | Turkey | India | Canada | Venezuela |Africa
United States
The conflict in Libya has fractured the United States. The air strikes have seen an outpouring of criticism against Barack Obama from his Republican critics. Opponents of the Iraq war may raise an eyebrow, but Republican leaders have criticised Obama for not clearly stating a mission goal and for risking getting US troops involved in a protracted conflict in a Muslim country. "Nine days into this military intervention, Americans still have no answer to the fundamental question: what does success in Libya look like?" said the Republican House leader, John Boehner.
But Republicans have been joined by some Democrats, especially on the left of the party. They are worried about the effect of another military intervention on an already stretched army and a stuttering economy. They also say Obama's actions in ordering the strikes without consulting Congress remind them too much of President George W Bush. Dennis Kucinich, a liberal Ohio congressman, is organising moves with some Republicans to try to cut federal funding for the conflict. "There is no question the president exceeded his constitutionally authorised authority," he told Fox News.
Other concerns have been raised over the prospect of arming the Libyan rebels and fears over who makes up the Libyan opposition. The result has been a public left divided and confused. Some 47% of Americans said the US was doing the wrong thing by fighting in Libya, according to a Quinninpiac poll. But at the same time 65% said they supported the use of military force to protect civilians. Paul Harris New York
Russia
Moscow's reaction to Operation Odyssey Dawn has exposed a split in Russia's ruling elite. While the Kremlin abstained in the UN security council vote, Vladimir Putin, the prime minster, took a hawkish stance last week, saying the resolution was "defective and flawed" and resembled "a medieval call for the Crusades".
The same day, Dmitry Medvedev, who as president is responsible for setting the country's foreign policy, appeared to slap down his political ally when he said it was "inadmissible to use expressions like the Crusades that, in essence, can lead to a clash of civilisations".
Russia's former ambassador to Tripoli has since stirred up the argument, saying the failure to protect billions of dollars of Russian business contracts in Libya "can be considered a betrayal of Russia's interests".
Both Russia's parliament and the defence minister, Anatoly Serdyukov, have called for a ceasefire. For its part, the foreign ministry has kept faith with Medvedev's line: insisting that protecting civilian lives should be Nato's "overriding priority" while stressing that Gaddafi's future is an issue for Libyans alone.
Meanwhile, a survey of Russians by the VTsIOM polling agency published last week found that 62% of respondents were against foreign intervention in Libya.
Dmitry Babich, an analyst with the state-owned RIA Novosti news agency, summed up a common view when he wrote that "liberal-optimists" in the west were obsessed with toppling tyrants while giving little thought to the consequences. Tom Parfitt Moscow
China
China abstained in the security council vote despite its doctrinal opposition to interference in other countries' domestic affairs, with a foreign ministry spokeswoman citing "the concerns and stances of Arab countries and the African Union".
But Beijing voiced "regret" at the strikes as soon as they began and within two days had strengthened its criticism, expressing deep concern.
"The original intent of the resolution was to protect the security of the Libyan people. We oppose the wanton use of armed force causing even more civilian casualties and an even bigger humanitarian disaster," said foreign ministry spokeswoman Jiang Yu.
State media have attacked the western allies for hypocrisy and accused them of acting from self-interest, particularly as the debate about the resolution's scope has developed.
An editorial in the Global Times, a popular nationalist tabloid, complained this week: "Although Libya had announced a ceasefire and was willing to talk to the opposition forces, western countries still carried on the air raids, after making the UN pass their smartly designed no-fly zone resolution ... Although it is under the name of 'protecting human rights and civilians', it is for their own economic and political interest."
The People's Daily, the official Communist party newspaper, said in another commentary: "The air raids clearly go against the original goal of protecting civilians in Libya. There has been a long history of western countries having double standards." Tania Branigan Beijing
Israel
The country – its people and its government – view events in Libya with alarm. If the Middle Eastern status quo pre-Tunisia was not ideal, it was stable and clear. Now there has been rapid change which has left everyone feeling insecure.
Haaretz noted in its editorial on Wednesday that military intervention may transform the Facebook revolution into the Tomahawk revolution and undermine the legitimacy of civilian movements elsewhere in the Middle East.
Many see the western intervention as further evidence of international hypocrisy, which would condemn Israel for airstrikes on an Arab country but not Nato. Other commentators see the intervention as a further example of western naivete and argue that Arabs are incapable of being democratic so western intervention can only bring about a different kind of autocratic regime.
The Israeli government is more concerned about the indirect consequences of the intervention in Libya. First, officials say they believe they will come under increased diplomatic pressure to move forward with the Palestinian peace process as European counties try to demonstrate their actions in Libya are not anti-Arab or anti-Muslim.
Second, Israel is concerned that a Libya-style popular uprising does not occur in Syria and Jordan. It is symbolic of Israel's confusion that it is fearful of the fall of its enemy, Bashar al-Assad, the president of Syria and sponsor of Hamas and Hezbollah.
Shlomo Bron, a defence analyst at Tel Aviv University, said: "We have not had any special problems with Gaddafi and so it does not matter who comes after him. Israel is more concerned with the countries with whom it shares a border or those who have a strategic capacity to harm Israel such as Iran." Conal Urquhart Jerusalem
Iran
Tehran has condemned the US-led military intervention in Libya despite supporting the revolt against Gaddafi.
The Iranian supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has accused western governments of attempting to gain control over Libya's oil but voiced support for the anti-Gaddafi rebels.
"They claim they want to defend the people by carrying out military operations or by entering Libya ... You did not come to defend the people, you've come after Libya's oil," he said in a live television broadcast in the holy city of Mashhad in east of Iran. "Iran condemns the military action in Libya."
Iran has praised the pro-democracy movements in the Arab world but it has found itself in a peculiar situation with the unrest in Syria, an ally, where, by contrast, it has supported the regime.
At the same time, several officials in Tehran have said the military intervention in Libya reflects "the double standards" of western governments in enforcing a no-fly zone in support of rebels while "staying silent" over the suppression of pro-democracy protesters in Bahrain.
The opposition reaction to the intervention has also been mixed. Some have said they are worried for the lives of civilians while others have welcomed it as a means to stop Gaddafi killing Libyans.
Meanwhile, Iran's Red Crescent Society has sent medical supplies and food to the Tunisian border to aid Libyan refugees. Saeed Kamali Dehghan
Egypt
For Egypt, the Libya crisis creates a problem on its own doorstep. So far the approach has been quietly pragmatic, with the army moving to try to help Egyptians leave but doing or saying little else publicly.
Despite supporting the Arab League's initial stance in favour of a western-enforced no-fly zone, Egypt's Supreme Council of the Armed Forces – in effect governing by decree until parliamentary elections later this year – has resisted international pressure to get involved and add a sheen of "Arab legitimacy" to the operation.
"Egypt can't take part for two reasons: the fear that Gaddafi would target its citizens living in the troubled country and also because Egypt's military is concerned with administrating the internal affairs of the nation," Mohamed Abdel Salam, a national security expert, told the newspaper al-Masry al-Youm. Egypt's foreign minister has said categorically the interim government is not arming the rebels across the border, which stretches 1,000km through the Sahara up to the Mediterranean.
Popular opinion remains divided, with many supporting grassroots efforts to topple Gaddafi but opposed to the involvement of the west. Last week al-Azhar – a Cairo-based university that represents the highest authority in Sunni Islam – issued a condemnation of "military aggression" by western countries, although it insisted that it backed the demands of the Libyan revolution.
Opinion writers have also weighed in firmly against air strikes: political analyst Refaat Sayyed Ahmad has argued that the US and its allies are intervening in Libya only because that country's oil reserves are not under Washington's control and accused the Egyptian secretary-general of the Arab League, Amr Moussa, of being "an agent for the west". When the UN chief, Ban Ki-moon, visited Cairo recently he was attacked by pro-Gaddafi supporters and forced to abandon a planned visit to Tahrir Square. Jack Shenker
Arab states
In the Middle East, a personal spat between Colonel Gaddafi and the Arab League chief, Amr Moussa, has provided some entertaining diversion from difficult questions about the military action in Libya.
Presumably piqued by the league's backing of intervention, Gaddafi is claiming that he had earlier bribed Moussa with the gift of a car.
Moussa insists the car was given to the league and not to him personally, and has responded by calling Gaddafi "a donkey" and "a miser".
Across the Arab countries there is a lot of ambivalence about the intervention and where it might lead.
The Jeddah-based Arab News hedges its bets between suspicions that "western interest in Libya is driven by the oil factor" and the possibility that "there's some truth" in Obama's claim that intervention prevented a massacre.
It also thinks Obama may have broken away from the Bush era's "toxic legacy". It says: "This is a welcome change in the US policy, if it's indeed a change."
Qatar – the first Arab country to participate in the action over Libya – attended Tuesday's conference on Libya in London. On Wednesday the pan-Arab daily Asharq Alawsat published an article written jointly by the British prime minister, David Cameron, and the Qatari prime minister, Hamad bin Jassim Al Thani.
"It must be for the Libyan people to choose the future they want," they wrote. "But today, as things stand, they have little chance to determine their own destiny. That is why it is essential we continue to enforce the UN sanctions on the Gaddafi regime – and it is why the international community must do everything possible to help the Libyan people."
On al-Jazeera's website political analyst Marwan Bishara considers whether a "Libyan Karzai" might be installed – as happened in Afghanistan – but ends by dismissing the idea. "Libya isn't likely to emerge as a client state, or be led by client leadership," he says, "no matter how long the Nato bombardment goes on or how long Gaddafi holds on to power." Brian Whitaker
Germany
Germany has been the key European country most sharply opposed to the Libyan campaign, putting it at odds with its main European partner, France. Berlin shocked its allies by abandoning the transatlantic ties with the US, Britain and France and siding with the "Brics" – Brazil, Russia, India and China – in abstaining on the UN security council resolution authorising air strikes.
"We don't want to get involved in a civil war in north Africa," Guido Westerwelle, the foreign minister, has repeatedly stated. He publicly claims vindication for that position in the ambivalence among the Arab League. Indignant allies charge that, in making such statements, he is actively encouraging Arab resistance to the "coalition" – now Nato – campaign.
But Westerwelle, whose political fortunes are in the pits, does not make German foreign policy. He could have been overruled by Chancellor Angela Merkel, who, not for the first time, stands accused of dithering, putting domestic politics above all else and determinedly following rather than leading public opinion.
The public, the most pacifist of the big European states, is against involvement. Elite opinion worries, however, that Merkel has blown Germany's chances of obtaining a permanent security council seat and has hardened international suspicions of German isolationism and unreliability.
"I am ashamed," said Joschka Fischer, the former foreign minister.
While her position is popular, Merkel's calculation that it would pay political dividends has backfired badly. Her Christian Democrats slumped to a historic defeat at the weekend in the prosperous south-western state of Baden-Wüerttemberg. Westerwelle's liberal Free Democrats fared even worse.
Merkel's predecessor, Gerhard Schroeder, exploited the anti-war line in Iraq in 2003 to win a surprise second term. Merkel failed at the weekend to repeat the trick. Ian Traynor
Italy
The prime minister, Silvio Berlusconi, set the tone for his approach to the Libyan conflict by stating, as protests first flared against Colonel Gaddafi, that he would rather not "bother" him.
Since then, Italy's foreign ministry has worked to claw back the diplomatic initiative from Berlusconi, who has previously handled relations with Libya as the result of his close ties to Gaddafi which opened the way to extensive Italian business interests in Libya.
The proposal by the foreign minister, Franco Frattini, to send Gaddafi into exile in another African country found favour among allies while Italian airbases have welcomed coalition aircraft – though when the Italian air force took to the skies Berlusconi promised they were not dropping bombs.
Reaction to the conflict has been mixed in Italy, with polls showing that 53% of the public oppose it and only 42% approve.
Statements from rebels on how Italian businesses will be treated by a post-Gaddafi government are closely monitored, with Corriere della Sera reporting on Wednesday that "with Rome, there is a cold relationship".
Reports suggest Berlusconi was upset at being excluded from a video conference between the leaders of France, Germany, the US and UK before Tuesday's Libya conference in London and his publications have attacked French president Nicolas Sarkozy's aggressive approach to Libya.
As one Italian policeman watching France send north Africans back across the border into Italy put it: "France gets the petrol and it is left to us to offer a helping hand (to migrants)." Tom Kington Rome
France
The intervention in Libya has widespread support among the French population and political parties. The last poll carried out two days ago showed 66% of those asked supported the military operation and that most political parties, with the notable exception of the Parti Communiste, agreed.
Sarkozy is currently in China where the president, Hu Jintao, criticised French involvement in the military operation, something France was trying to play down.
On Wednesday the chief of staff of the French air force, Jean-Paul Palomeros, said: "The air campaign in Libya is more difficult and complex than the interventions in Bosnia and Kosovo were." He said what was needed was "patience". "The nearer we get to urban centres the more difficult it becomes." Kim Willsher Paris
Turkey
Turkey has carefully watched the unfolding events, with its leaders claiming they can mediate a political end to the conflict and warning against western military action.
"Measures will surely be taken if civilians come under any threat. But without such a threat, a military action, a bombardment is out of question," the Turkish foreign minister, Ahmet Davutoglu, said this week.
Turkey is the sole Muslim member of Nato and officials have warned that the outcome of a military intervention might be similar to those in Afghanistan and Iraq, accusing countries such as France of being focused on Libya's natural resources.
"I wish they would look at Libya with a conscientious eye instead of an eye for oil," the prime minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, said.
The media have applauded the ruling Justice and Development party (AKP) for asserting itself against western countries and also its ability to negotiate with both Muammar Gaddafi and opposition forces.
"These steps have brought Turkey a step closer to its vision of being a country that is not influenced, but influences, that is not determined, but determines," Turkish columnist Yusuf Ergen wrote in the newspaper Today's Zaman.
However, Turkey appears committed to western efforts to end the conflict. According to Davutoglu, Turkey will join a "contact group" that aims to help Libya during its transition process. "Turkey will take part in this contact group. The shape and the functions of the group have yet to be decided, but Turkey will definitely be there." Justin Vela Istanbul
India
Reaction in Delhi to the launch of Operation Odyssey Dawn has been largely negative. At an official level, the last weeks have seen a reversion to a classic Indian foreign policy, analysts say.
The Libyan crisis has posed New Delhi its first major challenge as a new non-permanent rotating member of the United Nations security council – a position the emerging power hopes will become permanent.
However few concessions have been made to the United States, with whom relations have improved markedly in recent years, or Europe.
Instead India abstained from the vote on UN resolution 1973 saying publicly that "the use of force [was] totally unacceptable and must not be resorted to" and expressing concern for "the welfare of the civilian population and foreigners in Libya".
"New India appears to be following a pretty old Indian thinking," one western diplomat in Delhi said.
The fence-sitting reflected the traditional axes of Indian foreign policy: non-alignment with major powers and opposition to intervention in the affairs of sovereign states, local diplomats say.
The policy largely reflects public opinion. In parliament and the media, many on the right and particularly the left attacked "American-led western imperialism" and "adventurism".
Last week Pranab Mukherjee, finance minister and leader of the lower chamber in parliament, the Lok Sabha, said events in Libya were "an internal affair". "Nobody, no two or three countries can take a decision to change a particular regime in a third country. No external powers should interfere in it," he told MPs.
An editorial in the Hindu newspaper argued that "the absence of clear aims heightens the risk of an open-ended conflict, into which the foreign participants will … be drawn more and more deeply with the additional risk that the main aim becomes regime change and not civilian protection."
The newspaper said that it was regrettable that Russia and China "abstained instead of vetoing the resolution that has enabled this military aggression and expanding war in an already tormented region."
However, press coverage has been largely sympathetic to the Libyan rebels, perhaps better reflecting views of ordinary Indians. Jason BurkeDelhi
Canada
Politics is in turmoil in Canada. After the fall of Stephen Harper's Conservative government an election campaign is under way and the country's role in Libya is an issue.
Harper has been under fire for months for spending billions of dollars on new F-35 fighter jets. Opponents have argued that in a time of economic problems worldwide such expense on defence is unnecessary. Now, however, the Canadian air force has deployed its planes to fly over Libya and some leftwing commentators have connected the dots and portrayed it as a cynical move to justify defence expense.
Others, however, have said that intervention shows why Canada needs a strong military. "Libya shows why Canada needs jets," read a headline in the Ottawa Citizen.
As part of Nato, Canada now finds that one of its generals, Lieutenant-General Charles Bouchard, has been placed in charge of the mission. Unlike in the US, however, where Obama did not consult Congress, there was a debate on Libya in the Canadian parliament. All major parties backed the UN resolution calling for intervention and supported Canadian military involvement.
But as the election campaign has kicked off most politicians have preferred to keep the focus of their campaigning on domestic issues rather than the thorny territory of the Libyan conflict. "The Conservative government and all three opposition parties agreed that Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi is a bad dude ... then they got back to the real business of Canadian politics: slagging one another over which party is the most dishonest," wrote Toronto Star columnist Thomas Walkom. Paul Harris
Venezuela
Venezuela's government has condemned the air strikes in Libya as an imperialist oil-grab against a socialist ally, reflecting President Hugo Chavez's close ties to Gaddafi.
"The imperialists are taking off their masks. They attack without any moral limits and invent anything to bomb and kill people to 'protect them'," Chavez said this week.
He complained of a US-backed effort to demonise him along with Libya's leader as a prelude to a military attack against Venezuela to topple its socialist experiment and control its vast oil reserves. "Don't you see that there are efforts to label Chavez and Gaddafi as dictators, cruel dictators who persecute their people?"
When Libya's rebellion erupted Chavez's support for Gaddafi was tentative but once western planes started bombing he endorsed his ally as an embodiment of Libyan sovereignty.
Venezuelan ministers and state-backed media have echoed the president's accusations that the air campaign was massacring civilians. "The rebels tried last Sunday to take control of Sirte confident in the help of indiscriminate bombing of Libya's coast by the imperialist coalition led by the United States, France, the United Kingdom," said Telesur.
Many opposition politicians and media outlets, in contrast, have welcomed western intervention as a legitimate effort to stop a brutal dictator slaughtering his own people. A newsreader on Globovision went so far as to accuse Gaddafi's troops of "genocide".
In the absence of opinion polls analysts suspect the highly polarised country has split over the bombing along pro- and anti-Chavez lines.Rory Carroll Caracas
Africa
South Africa's support of the UN resolution has proved hugely divisive at home.
Tom Wheeler, research associate at the South African Institute of International Affairs, said the decision had set the right tone to overcome past criticism of South Africa for opposing UN sanctions on Burma and Zimbabwe.
But there has been strong condemnation of the move by the influential youth league of the governing African National Congress (ANC). Its outspoken president, Julius Malema, was quoted by the Star newspaper as saying: "South Africa voted in favour of imperialists, and we cannot smile about that.
"The ANC of Nelson Mandela would never have voted for the killing of fellow Africans imposed by our former masters ... How can they vote for the interests of the UN and the United States of America, a country which clearly wants control over oil reserves?"
The South African press has demanded what comes next. An editorial in the Times, under the headline "Will west have to turn its guns on the Libyan rebels?", said: "It's a no-brainer that, if the rebels are not persuaded to halt their advance soon, western powers, already accused by the Russians of siding with the insurgents, will have to target the anti-Gaddafi forces to save the lives of Tripoli's people.
"It is vital that decisive action be taken on the diplomatic front to pave the way for an early ceasefire, possibly including some sort of exit strategy for Gaddafi and his acolytes."
In neighbouring Zimbabwe, the president, Robert Mugabe, has condemned African support for the UN. "There is no reneging on the resolution any more, it's there, it's a mistake we made," he said. "We should have never given the west, knowing they're bloody vampires of the past, all this room to go for our people in Africa and try to displace a regime."
The Zimbabwean press and blogosphere have carried rumours that Mugabe's government sent troops to fight for Gaddafi and could yet provide him sanctuary if he seeks exile.
Other African leaders have joined the criticism. The Ugandan leader, Yoweri Museveni, said: "Using tanks and planes that are easily targeted by Mr Sarkozy's planes is not the only way of fighting. Who will be responsible for such a protracted war? It is high time we did more careful thinking."
Of the Libyan rebels, he added: "I would feel embarrassed to be backed by western war planes, because the quislings of foreign interests have never helped Africa."
But in an open letter to Museveni in Kenya's Daily Nation newspaper, John Barri wrote: "The views that you espouse for the west keeping its hands off Africa are the same that permits the daily atrocities that occur throughout Africa." David Smith Johannesburg
No comments:
Post a Comment