On February 26, the UN Security Council passed a resolution designed to send a clear message to Muammar Gaddafi and his regime. As well as an asset freeze, travel ban and arms embargo, the UN took the unprecedented step of requesting that the International Criminal Court investigate possible war crimes or crimes against humanity committed by Colonel Gaddafi and his forces. Such a resolution might be expected to persuade most sane leaders to desist from extra-judicial killing, but Gaddafi is not your average leader. It seems that not only did the message fail to stop the violence but that it may be having the opposite effect, persuading members of the regime in Tripoli that they have no option other than to fight for their survival.
The escalating violence in Libya presents a test of the international community’s commitment to prevent crimes against humanity. With calls for international action becoming louder, the UN Security Council was stirred into action, passing a landmark resolution, the first of its kind to make unambiguous reference to the principle of “responsibility to protect”.
In 2005, following its failures in Rwanda and Kosovo, the UN General Assembly adopted this principle, intended to provide a new level of international consensus which would allow swift action to prevent future atrocities. However, repeated failure to intervene in places such as Darfur, the Democratic Republic of Congo and Sri Lanka combined with widespread post-Iraq cynicism toward all forms of so-called humanitarian intervention suggested the principle might never be put into practice. And then came Libya. While it was always unlikely that Gaddafiwould be unduly bothered by a threat of referral to the ICC, it was hoped that members of his regime, significantly, the military, might take it more seriously. Resolution 1970 allows for individuals thought to be responsible for attacks against civilians or human rights abuses to be nominated for addition to the ICC’s charge sheet. But rather than encouraging the military to turn on Gaddafi, generals and soldiers who had already been involved in putting down the protests may well have been forced into the same “last stand” mentality as their leader. This is not to say that Resolution 1970 was unwelcome or that the principle of responsibility to protect is unimportant. The international community should have an obligation to step in where states manifestly fail to protect their populations. The asset freeze and arms embargo will impact on Libya, but their effect will be slow and experience has shown sanctions may cripple a nation without necessarily bringing down its governing regime.
Contingency plans for some form of military intervention are no doubt being drawn up. The imposition of a no-fly zone would need to be authorised by the UN Security Council and might be more possible following the recent shift in the French position and support from the Arab League. While a no-fly zone would not prevent killing on the ground it would stop aerial attacks by the Libyan air force and prevent weapons and other supplies from reaching Gaddafi’s security forces. As each day passes and more blood is spilt, the harder it will be for a post-conflict Libya to put itself together again. Bloody internal conflicts leave indelible scares on nations and festering resentments among their populations. The success or failure of international action on Libya will shape future forms of humanitarian intervention and help determine how the principle of responsibility to protect can be put into practice.
Stefan Simanowitz is a journalist and Middle East/Africa analyst
