The Group of Eight (G-8) nations were not able to agree yesterday, after negotiations in Paris, on the issue of a no-fly zone over Libya. Intended to shield civilians and opposition forces from Col. Muammar Qaddafi, the measure was strongly supported by France and the United Kingdom, while Germany and Russia led the opposition. The United States has, thus far, been hesitant to support intervention. The Daily believes that the Obama administration should not support a no-fly zone.
President Barack Obama has stated his desire to see Qaddafi leave office and allow for a transfer of power. Though he has been cagey in his response, he has reportedly been considering, in addition to the no-fly zone, aerial surveillance, humanitarian assistance and tougher enforcement of an arms embargo that was passed by the U.N. Security Council two weeks ago.
The United States was wise not to jump to intervention at the first sign of violence against the population. Now, it seems as though these other options make more sense.
Though France has been a proponent of a no-fly zone, the French Foreign Minister Alain Juppé told his parliament yesterday that it may now be too late to implement. It would no longer be viable, he said, and at this point, the ground movement of Qaddafi's troops is the utmost concern.
The significant progress made by Qaddafi's forces on Tuesday included the overtaking of Ajdabiya, one of the rebels' essential cities. No more than 10 days ago, rebels were close to marching on Libya's capital and Qaddafi's stronghold, Tripoli, but the momentum has shifted toward Qaddafi's forces over the last week. The Libyan leader said the opposition's only options now are to "surrender or run away."
If a no-fly zone were implemented, the United States and other nations would be putting themselves at the top of a very slippery slope toward on-the-ground intervention, a move which many would agree is unacceptable. Were the measure put into place and Qaddafi continued to massacre the opposition from the ground, would the international community stand by? With their airplanes overhead enforcing the no-fly zone, it is difficult to imagine intervention not increasing.
Nor, for that matter, is the implementation of a no-fly zone a benign step. Defense Secretary Robert Gates, in testimony before Congress two weeks ago, rightly said, "Let's just call a spade a spade. A no-fly zone begins with an attack on Libya to destroy the air defenses."
The situation is complicated by the fact that Libya is entering what increasingly appears to be full-scale civil war. Though Qaddafi's forces clearly have the upper hand militarily, the opposition is not a defenseless and complacent people being massacred by its leader. This differs, for example, from the no-fly zones enforced by the United States and others in Iraq in the 1990s. In that case, it was clearer that, in the wake of the Persian Gulf War, a no-fly zone could impede Saddam Hussein's hostilities. In Libya, Qaddafi has made it clear that he will not tolerate any efforts by the opposition to secure autonomy in its eastern stronghold.
Due to the lack of consensus from the G-8, the issue was punted to the United Nations Security Council, where a resolution is being sought by its member nations. Given the degree of mayhem on the ground, it is clear that a no-fly zone is untenable. Instead, the Obama administration should focus on the less interventionist options it has on the table as a way of inducing Qaddafi to step down.
