Whether one agrees that Britain should have taken a leading role in the Libyan conflict or not, there are a number of key issues that seem to have been forgotten or simply poorly reported in the mainstream media.
How did we enter the Libyan conflict? The initial military intervention was authorised by UN resolution 1973 but we have ignored that resolution's primary demand for an immediate ceasefire, and its requirement that military force should be used only to protect civilians. We intervened, it was claimed, to protect Benghazi. We have since openly supported the rebels militarily, to bring about regime change, contrary to resolution 1973 and International law.
When, on February 15th, Riots erupted in Benghazi following the arrest of rights activist, Fathi Tirbil Salwa, Gaddafi's forces began a crackdown that saw protestors arrested and killed. These protests spread across the country, beginning in Tripoli, and were met with a fierce response by the regime. UN sanctions were then imposed on Gaddafi and on 5th March the National transitional council (NTC) met in Benghazi to declare itself the sole representative of Libya.
Significantly, on 16th March, Gaddafi's son, Seif al-Islam, speaking to French-based Euronews, stated that his troops were near Benghazi and "that everything would be over in 48 hours." This prompted fears of massacres in the rebel-held strongholds and led directly to implementation of Security Council resolution 1973 and the establishment of no-fly zones. It also crucially authorised member states to take "all necessary measures" for the protection of civilians. At this stage many, including Moussa Koussa, the foreign minister who defected to Britain, aired their concerns that resolution 1973 might bring about a de facto partition of east and west Libya. But on the 19th March, after a ceasefire having been called by the Gaddafi regime, Benghazi was attacked. NATO air strikes began the same day.
I am sure the attorney general would argue that the attack on Benghazi's citizenry justified pre-emptive strikes on the military assets of the Gaddafi regime. I expect that the destruction, after over 200 sorties by NATO jets of 800 tanks, heavy artillery and listening posts could legally be justified in the same vein.
Could it be that the French President, Nicolas Sarkozy, and Prime Minister David Cameron had always wanted Gaddafi gone? They did not seek a further UN resolution, they did not seek a broader international consensus. Could this have been because in sight was what the NTC had heavily implied was on offer: greatly enhanced terms of trade?
Oil prices are currently at $100 a barrel, and the price keeps getting higher. Libya produced about 1.6m barrels a day before the start of the civil war but the six-month conflict has, according to the FT, reduced the oil flow to 50,000 b/d. In the Pelagian Basin, the West Sirte Basin, the East Sirte Basin and Murzuk, large cash incentives await the 'peace'. The international community is already clamouring to reposition themselves around the NTC with even China and Italy, who had previously expressed reluctance at getting involved, now becoming vocal in their desire to help the reconstruction effort. I wonder why?
To the victors, go the spoils, as the old adage goes and it may prove to have been a very lucrative war for both Britain and France. Cheap discounted oil in return for becoming the air force of the rebel militias is not a bad deal. I simply hope that the disarming of the militias, the enfranchisement of the citizenry, the restoration of running water and electricity to the people, will be given the priority these real and pressing 'reconstructions' deserve. Crucially, though, I hope that the wealth of the country's natural resources is conferred upon the people and that the ownership of the country's oil fields is constitutionally guaranteed to the new government and not, as was the case in Iraq, sold off to corporations who wait, rubbing their hands, in the wings.
As in Iraq, our PM has clumsily twisted a UN mandate to suit what could be argued was a pre-determined purpose. Cameron has shown a certain disregard for the instruments and institutions of international law whilst simultaneously claiming UN resolution 1973 justified our involvement.
The true reality of the nature and purpose of our intervention will be seen in the peace that follows. For although many similarities seem to abound in the nature of our self interest in both Iraq and Libya, I would argue that our saving grace may be a genuinely concerted effort this time round, to afford the people of Libya the democratic future that we purport to care so much about. History will judge our intervention in Libya by the results. I would rather we made good on our spin that we are the benign supporters of emancipation, but I fear that we may, as so many times before in our colonial past, be judged as being victors who ransacked the citadel.