When the consensus to use the force against Gaddafi was legally established in the United Nations and backed up by the League of Arab States, the motive was crystal clear: the military action was to prevent the dictator using his arm forces against his own people. It indeed was considered to be necessary, legal, and right. There was no world leader who would strongly oppose and condemn this conclusion. Even Russia and China have refrained themselves to veto the decision, which is usually a sign of approval to western counterparts.  No one disagrees that it is right to resort to armed force to protect civilians in theory. However, it is becoming a much more difficult goal to achieve in practice.

With the first bombardment and collateral damage, the coalition forces have become divided over Libya mission. Now the question of what is acceptable in conducting such military action has moved into the shaky realm of symbolic politics. Abruptly, the US and Britain have begun to explain that the military operation is not aimed at Gaddafi’s removal but is to enforce a no-fly zone to protect Libyans from attacks by Gaddafi loyalists. Gaddafi is not a target but “he needs to go”. However, how this is going to happen is undisclosed. On the other hand, the stone cold criticism of Secretary-General of Arab League, Amr Moussa, over the military operation has discouraged other active members of NATO like Germany, Norway, and Turkey to send their forces.  Qatar and the United Arab Emirates have halted on their participation as well. It is only the matter of time when France will start showing the signs of abstention. It seems that the only benefactor in this symbolic play of words is Colonel Gaddafi, who has been ridiculously effective in denouncing the coalition as the new Crusaders.

As a result, this display of unwillingness to take the necessary steps in doing something which was deemed to be legal and right by the United Nations and even Arab League, have immediately fortified the authority of those Middle Eastern dictators who would not refrain themselves from using violence against their own people, if needed. This past Thursday, around 100 protesters were reported to be killed by Syrian soldiers in the southern town of Deraa. How many more should be killed before Asad “needs” to go?  The massacre which was carried out by the Syrian government against its own citizens has manifested the determination of Bashar Assad to ensure his firm grip on power in Syria. As well as Gaddafi, Assad does not yet realize that he “needs” to go, but he is fully aware of the “necessity” to use the “necessary” means to keep his government intact, even though these actions will be criticised as illegal and wrong by the world community. So is Gaddafi. But it does not seem that the coalition actions in Libya are as well motivated, focused, and coordinated. Moreover, its hesitation has raised serious concerns on whether it has a clear agreement on the nature and goals of the military mission in Libya.

This strange hesitation especially becomes evident once the situation is compared with a similar and less media-hyped military mission in Bahrain. Unlike Libyan case, this operation is not sanctioned by the UN or Arab League, but it seems to be more coordinated amongst the key allies in the region like the United States, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. Ironically, there is no humanitarian intervention involved, oppositely to it, there is a quite cynical attempt to protect a Sunni government from Shia protesters, who are most likely supported and directed by the allies’ rivals in Iran.  This protection of “good” dictators from “bad” protesters may not be legal or virtuous from the humanitarian perspective, but it serve its purpose well enough in protecting the strategic interests of Americans and Saudis in Bahrain. That is the place where the 5^th Fleet is based ensuring the control over the transit of energy resources from the gulf. Unlike Libya, achieving these goals in Bahrain is indeed strategic and necessary. In real politics, there is no good or evil, right or wrong, everything is instrumental and governed by the laws of necessity. And, after all, big money softens cultural differences. So why not?

Consequently, what we have here is the problem of humanitarian institutions like the UN which are unable to enforce something that is proclaimed to be legal and ethical. The formed coalition under the umbrella of the UN is seemed to be weak, puzzled and unsure about the ways to continue intervention in Libya so it keeps its humanitarian outlook. Right now, six warplanes in the sky at a time can even hardly enforce a no-fly zone over the stronghold of opposition in Benghazi.  This is clearly not enough to prevent Gaddafi from taking upper hand in the clash against the opposition. And it just shows the level of necessity of the whole operation and the real motivation behind the rhetoric of key world players to protect civilians in Libya or any country of Middle East in flux. And it is business as usual.

Constantine Fuchs is a citizen journalist based in Toronto, Canada. He is student of Political Science and is interested in Political Philosophy, Global Politics and Regional Studies. You can read more of his writing at  http://pardonedflying.livejournal.com

---