Lessons of Libya

By Bridget Moix on 08/23/2011 @ 05:30 PM

Tags: Peaceful Prevention, Libya

As Qaddafi appears to be finally lose his grip on Libya, many policymakers and pundits are celebrating the US/NATO military intervention as a great success. Yesterday the White House released a statement lauding how the US led the international community in responding to the crisis, noting that in the early days the US provided "the bulk of the firepower" in the UN-authorized mission to enforce a no-fly zone and beat back Qaddafi's forces. The President claims that "the future of Libya is in the hands of its people."

But I still have my doubts. And I still believe war is not the answer.

The military intervention in Libya may indeed have given the rebels the war-fighting boost they needed to win the fight against Qaddafi's brutal regime. But it has hardly handed the people of Libya a peaceful and democratic future. In fact, the end of Qaddafi's rule could turn into the beginning of another phase of violent conflict as various factions now battle for control of the country. In addition to boosting the rebels' fighting power against Qaddafi, the international military intervention has justified the use of violence to seek political change and increased the availability of weapons, which may now be used to continue the fight for power along new or re-exposed political and ethnic fractures. If Libya now begins to spiral into a new civil war, the US and NATO may have to decide whose side they are on among a complex and little understood mix of groups - many of them armed.

As we have repeatedly emphasized at FCNL, waging war against a dictator - no matter how brutal - is not an effective means of protecting civilians or advancing peace and democracy. It may offer short-term gains - as Libya illustrates - but it also yields serious long-term problems - as Libya may well still illustrate.

Acknowledging that the situation in Tripoli is far from stabilized or peaceful, a NATO spokesmen told the New York Times that "the alliance had precision weapons at its disposal to enforce its United Nations Security Council mandate, which is to protect civilians from attack." But is dropping bombs on a city of two million really a good way to protect civilians? Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International are stressing calls for all parties to uphold international law, respect human rights, and protect vulnerable civilians - illustrating that innocent people in Libya are still very much at risk.

While the Libyan people may be able to breathe a sigh of relief that Qaddafi's rule is coming to an end, they may not be celebrating the real outbreak of peace for a while. Half of all countries recovering from war fall back into violent conflict, and Libya has a long list of political, economic, security, and social challenges that must be addressed quickly if a path toward peace is to be forged out of the wreckage of civil war.

As for role of the US and international community in Libya now that Qaddafi's days are numbered, experience shows that mustering short-term military responses in the face of urgent crises is still easier than sustaining the necessary long-term diplomatic, humanitarian, and development support to prevent another outbreak of violence. If the White House and NATO do want to contribute to protecting civilians and advancing peace in Libya they should, as International Crisis Group recommends, "match their military campaign with a new and commensurate political, diplomatic and reconstruction/development-focused effort."

So, will the Administration and Congress commit as much political engagement in helping Libya transition out of war and toward peace as they did in launching a military intervention? Or offer another $1.1 billion (the cost of US military engagement in Libya) to back up a sustained peace campaign? Doubtful. Even though the pay-offs would be much higher. Research shows that every $1 invested in preventing deadly conflict saves $60 in military intervention after violence erupts.

The real lessons learned from the Arab Reawakening - from Tunisia to Syria - should be about the remarkable power of nonviolent peoples movements posited aside the costly challenges of so-called humanitarian interventions, and the need for the US to reshape its foreign policy toward preventing, not fighting, more wars.