Explain Tensions That Happened The First Time The 1986 United States Bombing Of Libya, Code-Named Operation El Dorado Canyon, Comprised Air Strikes By The United States Against Libya On Tuesday 15 April 1986.
What Happened And Why Analysis What Kind Of Leader Was Gaddafi Libya: Examination Of Intervention And Collapse And The Uk's Future Policy Options. The Committee Concluded That Gaddafi Was Not Planning To Massacre Civilians With Reports To The Contrary Being Propagated By Rebels And Western Governments, Noting That On 17 March 2011 Gaddafi Had Given Benghazi Rebels The Offer Of Peaceful Surrender Criticise The Reasons Why Nato Intervened. Were They Justified ?
Explain How Gaddafi Was a Good Leader But Other Countries Wanted To Take Oil And Give The Excuse Of An Intervention So This Plan Has Some Points That i Have Added So i Want Those Points Explored And Analysed Very Deeply.
The intervention of North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) in Libya is one of the historical events in the peacekeeping across the entire world. It was in the year 2011 when the NATO forces entered the country, there were many problems that were going on within Libya. This was done so the United Nations Security Council 1973 could be implemented. This resolution had been done signed by France, United Kingdom and Lebanon. The government of Libya could not manage the situation because they could gun down a single plane used by the forces of NATO.
On the other hand, it should be said that French air jets launched heavy attacks through air strikes. They launched attack on the military vehicles and destroyed them completely. According to the reports by media, it has been found that civilians had been attacked in Libya by Gaddafi. The challenges were thrown directly on Gaddafi and his supporters. Therefore, it must be said that the allied NATO forces wanted to put an end to the disruptive practices of the Gaddafi regime. The Libyan government was controlled by Gaddafi and his unethical practices were the biggest reasons for the intervention of NATO to save humanity.
The Responsibility to Protect (R2P) by NATO was the reason why they intervened. The analysis of the role of NATO must be done to come to a conclusion if these actions were justified. Libya did not protect its citizens from genocide and they even carried on with this social evil. In order to understand other reasons for intervention of NATO, one must surely understand the chronological factors behind this historical move. The conditions of Libya in the 21st century declined in terms of its human rights and international inventions were highly needed to stop the inhuman torture to which civilian people were subjected to. It was very evident from the scenario that the regime of Gaddafi had civilians as their target.
Operation El Dorado Canyon
The main attempt of NATO was to protect the civilians of Libya from the grasp of this torturous regime. United Nations urged NATO to take some positive actions so those people could be saved from mass destruction. In the year 2011, the coalition forces of NATO allies combined and they went on with their military operations to save the common people of the country. Many people were rendered as shelter less in those vicious attacks by Gaddafi regime. There were high chances of insurgency if they got any external help from neighboring countries. The mission by NATO was named Operation Unified Protector (OUP).This operation went on for few months and it was successfully concluded by allied forces on 31st day of October of the same year.
In this course, some situations are responsible for this incident in this region. Previously in the year 1986, forces of the United States conducted bombing in Libya. The code name of this mission was Operation El Dorado Canyon. Airstrikes had been conducted on Libya on 15th of April in the year 1986. The operation was completely carried out by US navy, US Marine Corps and US Air Force. Around 40 Libyan people died but a plane was shot down by Libya too. This began the overall tensions between the two countries Libya and United States. Moreover tensions were also raised on the Western countries whom Libyans through to be enemies. According to the reports, it had been claimed that daughter of Muammar Gaddafi, Hana Gaddafi had been killed in this strike. As a result of these events, Libya had responded very quickly when they fired two Scud missiles at Lampedusa, an Italian island. This was the marine coast guard station for United States of America.
They also believed that America declare every country to be an outlaw or terrorist if they did not agree to become a vassal for them. Due to all these events, Gaddafi went on to make an internal revolt and destroy the allies of America in no time. Though it was known Gaddafi was not in the scene of public sphere between the times of 1986 and 1987. In the later years, Government of Libya had ordered to hijack the Pan Am Flight 73 at Pakistan in the year 1986 only. In this incident around 20 people had died. This proves the terrorist activities to which Libya was indulged. The situation was going out of control and Australia discarded any foreign relationships with Libya saying they were attempting to encourage the violent terrorist activities within the country.
NATO Intervention in Libya
The Libyan civil war came to existence when the armed conflicts were fought between the loyal people of Gaddafi and people who wanted their government to fall. The Libyan Revolution took the central stage and people were completely outraged at this point of time. This was also known as 17th February Revolution. Many protest activities took place in the region Zawlya before the war broke out in 2009. Further protests took place in the year 2011 at Benghazi and it paved the way for the civil war. The clashes between common people and security forces were an obvious outcome in this situation. The security forces had opened fire on the crowd. The protests were so loud and fierce that it had transformed into a rebellion in the later years. People who protested against Gaddafi had set up an interim government. They named it National Transitional Council.
On 26th February, the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) had taken up a big move towards this issue. They seized some crucial assets of Gaddafi and his close people. After that they also controlled the overall movements of Gaddafi in international sphere. This issue was also taken to the International Criminal Court. A big force of Gaddafi did not sit back but they rather formed a rally. Through this, they began to shift towards the east and took back some cities across the region under their control. Furthermore, all the member states of the United Nations were ordered to enforce the no-fly zone. They wanted to make sure that attacks on the civilians must be stopped at any cost. In order to confirm it, all member states should take up necessary measures. Most of the military installations had been damaged by the allied forces of NATO. The rebels did not support the offers provided by the Libyan government or African union. Their only demand was to remove Gaddafi from the throne of Libya.
NATO has always been known for their operations against terrorism and they have contributed to this issue in a large manner over the decades. According to the experts of the international relations, terrorism has always been a big threat for the member countries of NATO in all forms. So, it is their biggest responsibility to save the lives of these people. This would also provide the stability and ensure prosperity in the different countries in various continents. Terrorism is such a threat that has no border, national identity or even any religious propaganda. Therefore, NATO allied forces always prepare themselves to protect the lives of all the people in the countries where terrorism has affected the lifestyles of common people. The proper reason for their intervention in Libya was mainly to secure the lives of common and innocent people so they could live a progressive life. Still, this issue of the intervention in Libya by NATO has always raised several debates in the minds of critics. The issue of protection of common civilians was the highlighted point but many critics have opined their main purpose was political behind this kind o intervention.
The Libyan Civil War and Muammar Gaddafi
Many events took place during those times that fuelled these debates more and more. The death of Gaddafi’s daughter was probably the main political reason why Gaddafi regime launched attacks on American shores as well as hijacked planes. During this time, it is well evident that the role of NATO was quite mysterious and they supported America for various reasons. The allied forces of NATO were mainly led by the Americans and they wanted to settle this thing once for all. They wanted to shut the protests of Libya forever and this was only possible by the mass attacks on Libya for the sake of protecting the lives of common people.
Therefore, most critics have opined that this issue of protecting the lives of common people was only used as a shield or camouflage. These actions taken up by NATO were completely contradictory in most cases indeed. The extent of that intervention was also somewhat doubtful though they claimed the full success of that mission. The Responsibility to Protect (R2P) and issue of regime change can be defined properly so the context of NATO’s role could be put under thorough analysis.
In this section of the paper, analysis will be done if NATO’s intervention was correct or somewhat doubtful. The definition of Responsibility to Protect (R2P) has been very interesting factor that was administered in the United Nations World Summit that took place in the year 2005. This definition reflects on the fact that all the individuals in the world had their responsibilities to protect its people from all forms of genocide, crimes, ethnic discrimination and war crimes that were exhibited against humanity. The international organizations had been established by the will of all the nation states so they could take care of these innocent people. In this scenario, the tortures imposed by Gaddafi on the civilians were very important to be taken care. Most of things were completely woven through for the successful intervention into Libya. They wanted to keep it secret that their actual purpose was to control the oil production in the country. It was completely unethical to intervene into the internal matters of the country just for political and economic purpose and shielding it through humanitarian purpose. If France gained the access over the production of oil, they would have gained better chances for controlling the overall economy of the Middle East regions.
It was also the responsibility of the United Nations that they would protect the common people through the help of the United Nations through all forms. They would also be responsible to protect the common people from genocide and war crimes. The counterattacks would have to be lethal and people should be saved by the international community and the help of Security Council. If the solutions cannot be derived by peaceful ways, the Security Council would impose military actions against these people. The regime change is also a very critical aspect in this scenario since the change in regime would take place by altering beliefs, values and activities practiced by the previous regime. The set of rules and decision making processes would change in the new regime. The people of Libya wanted to change the Gaddafi regime because their decision making systems became very fragile and it needed to be changed as soon as possible. If the regime of Gaddafi was changed, it would mean the rules, principles of the country and their decision making processes would be changed also.
Some critics have justified these definitions so the actions of United Nations and NATO could be proven as right. This intervention of NATO was crucial and to some extent very important also. Here the concept of leadership from the perspective of Moammar Gaddafi should be evaluated. It must be acknowledged that Gaddafi was a sort of erratic leader. He was very brutal and he executed so many people through his actions. In the beginning of his reign, he was termed as an international hero but later he transformed into the international pariah. He used his strategies so well that he did not give any opportunity to his critics about the actions. He always had a justification for his actions throughout. He was a kind of leader who developed his own political philosophy and work accordingly.
Many critics believe that his ideologies or political beliefs had the ingredients of all philosophers like Marx, Locke or Plato. He had been termed as “Picasso of the Middle east politics”. His influence in the Middle east was so high that regularly appeared in the Arabian world and international gatherings. On the other hand, his sense of clothing and fashion surprised everyone. Therefore, it shows that his entire appearance was influential and he cast a spell on his followers through his actions. He went through different times like pan-Arab period, pan-African period and Islamic period. He was so much free spoken that he had the courage to threaten the oil companies about the rights of his people. He was very bold and confident when he said that people could live without oil if people were able to thrive without oil for 5000 years in the ancient times. Still some of his policies were very problematic that did not satisfy his countrymen at all. He was so stern in his objective that sealed him the success when Libya was recognized as the first developing country in the world to get the revenues from their own oil production.
His political philosophy did not allow him to follow the ideals of Arabian nationalism or consumerism beliefs of the Gulf cities. Rather he developed his own administrative styles that made him one of the best leaders among the Islamic countries. He published his own Green Book where he developed an ideology that could solve the conflicts between communism and capitalism in an evident manner. He wanted to establish a set of rules where oppressed people would be free from all the shackles. However, some theories in the political philosophy of Gaddafi were highlighted with intolerance. Therefore, he was unable to attract the people in his favor. The political participation of the common people was on its way to extinction since Gaddafi turned out to be a complete monarch.
A critic like Alison Pargeter described her views on the regime of Gaddafi and intervention of NATO in the internal matters of Libya. She described Gaddafi as an eccentric leader. She also said allied forces of Gaddafi took over the region of Ajdabiya from the hands of protestors. Still, they did not attack any one of the civilian people in these missions. This incident took place in the month of February in 2011. This took place just sometime before the intervention of NATO while allied forces attacked the country to siege the Gaddafi regime. She was also in favor of the regime o Gaddafi and political ideology that he used to run Libya. She opined that Gaddafi took a very important approach of appeasement towards the rebels in the country. He also released all the prisoners of Islamic faith and he promised them that he will look into the issue of development in Benghazi. This kind of assistance is given by most leaders in the world but very few acts accordingly.
In the words of critics, Gaddafi was such a leader who always stuck to his beliefs, values and promises. Therefore, it was always certain that Gaddafi will look forward to the ultimate development of the common people of Benghazi and other regions in Libya. The release of Islamist prisoners was also a benevolent act from the perspectives of Gaddafi.
After going through such information, many scholars of the international relations have said that this kind of international intervention into another country is definitely unethical. Simply putting the fact, this intervention was not needed at all since Gaddafi would have been able to deal with all these properly with his political philosophy and leadership styles properly. It was very clear from the chronological events that it was the purpose of the United States to defeat him and get hold of the oil resources in Libya. Simultaneously, United States could also get access in the African continent also. Thus they would get dual advantages.
Many times Gaddafi had been entitled as the “Brother Leader” of Libya. This means he had sympathy for all people in the country and he wanted everyone in Libya to live freely and happily. Still. Many criticisms engulfed him completely. His regime was full of violence and he sponsored the terrorist violence within the country. On the contrary his view of the state was completely unique than others. He was completely relentless in his activities to hold on his power. In order to do this, he could do anything and everything. This desperate approach of Gaddafi had been entirely misinterpreted by United States and some rebels in his own country.
Here it should be addressed that France was another country that was behind the intervention of NATO in Libya. It was clear that France had several; purposes behind this intervention while approached NATO for this. These purposes were mostly economic, political as well as humanitarian. France also wanted to get the lion share hold in the oil production in Libya. This is why they thought it was utmost necessary to overthrow the regime of Gaddafi.
Afterwards, they wanted to control political resources of the country so they could avail cheap labor from Libya for their industrial growth. They used this humanitarian approach as a shield so they could gain the advantage over the government in establishing control over Gaddafi’s regime. Sidney Blumenthal, the advisor of Hilary Clinton completely disclosed the original purposes of France. She was quite sure that France was trying to increase its influence over several other African regions. It was also revealed from the further reports that Islamic extremist organizations supported the rebels from the background. This was the primary reason as to why Libyan rebels were so strong in protest and they could continue these efforts for a long time.
Throughout all these explanations, it could be said that Gaddafi was really a very good leader but he lost his place within his own country because his countrymen were misguided by several international forces and they wanted to take revenge on Gaddafi for his policies. This humanitarian cause was a complete misconception and it was nothing but an excuse. These international forces like France and United States understood that it would really be difficult for them to take any actions against Gaddafi if all his countrymen are with him. So, they played this game of conceit and separated all his compatriots from him. In this scenario, it was almost inevitable that Gaddafi was left nowhere. Gaddafi did not like to compromise with his views and he was very stern in this case. It gave the opportunity to French and US leaders to take the advantage the use nationalistic emotions to create an influence on the Libyans.
Thus, it was quite sure that Libyan people would go against him and it would be easier for those international forces to expose the natural resources of this African country. They would also establish their control over oil production of Libya. This would strengthen their economy because they were sure about the deaths of many innocent civilians and loyal followers of the Gaddafi regime. In this scenario, Gaddafi’s good leadership and straightforward approach had been completely on the wrong foot this time. He was unable to find a way out from these problems whatsoever.
The entire story was designed in such a manner that people of other countries thought Gaddafi to be a terrorist and his regime to be an epitome of oppression. They were in darkness about the real truth about the situation. They only understood what was presented before them. So, misguidance was the ultimate truth in this scenario. The situations were created like a dramatic plot and people could not understand the crafty work of Western countries. They only supported what Western countries with the help of the allied forces of NATO. They suppressed the voice of Gaddafi regime with their united power. Thus they were able to gain an upper hand in the share of oil production of Libya.
In the concluding section, it should be clarified that Gaddafi regime did many good works for the common people of the country as well as for the believers of the Islamic faith. All the events that took place there could be described by the cause and effect relationship. Common people were misguided by the Western countries as they joined hands with Islamic extremists to a certain extent. These extremists had immense influence over the native people of Libya. They used this influence for their advantage. On the other hand, Western countries aimed at gaining the share in the oil production of the country. These were the ways through which Libya became the central point of attraction for NATO and the allied forces finally decided to attack the country with all their might. There was no way that Gaddafi could stand up against them with his limited army personnel. His compatriots left him and joined rebel forces. These rebels began the civil war and the only outcome of this civil war was genocide. So, NATO finally arrived in the scene and showed their power to overtake Gaddafi regime.
Adler-Nissen, Rebecca, and Vincent Pouliot. "Power in practice: Negotiating the international intervention in Libya." European journal of international relations 20, no. 4 (2014): 889-911.
Al Nahed, Sumaya. "Covering Libya: A framing analysis of Al Jazeera and BBC coverage of the 2011 Libyan uprising and NATO intervention." Middle East Critique 24, no. 3 (2015): 251-267.
Beresford, Alexander. "A responsibility to protect Africa from the West? South Africa and the NATO intervention in Libya." International Politics 52, no. 3 (2015): 288-304.
Berti, Benedetta. "Forcible intervention in Libya: revamping the ‘politics of human protection’?." Global Change, Peace & Security 26, no. 1 (2014): 21-39.
Brockmeier, Sarah, Oliver Stuenkel, and Marcos Tourinho. "The impact of the Libya intervention debates on norms of protection." Global Society 30, no. 1 (2016): 113-133.
Carati, Andrea. "Responsibility to protect, NATO and the problem of who should intervene: reassessing the intervention in Libya." Global Change, Peace & Security 29, no. 3 (2017): 293-309.
Chollet, Derek, and Ben Fishman. "Who Lost Libya." Foreign Aff. 94 (2015): 154.
Nato.int. 2020. "Homepage". NATO. https://www.nato.int/.