A Western alliance finally launched a military attack against Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi’s regime. However, it is curious that the US, which most often takes the lead in resolving such international disputes, is letting France take the lead in Libya.
Although the US model for taking part in this intervention will not necessarily apply to every future international dispute, it does establish a new template for Washington’s interventions in future international crises.
In future, the key principle for US involvement in international disputes will be to not use ground forces in areas or countries that do not involve major interests. In 2003, the US used anti-terrorism and claims about weapons of mass destruction to attack Iraq, which remains plagued by guerrilla and terrorist attacks even though the US began to withdraw its troops last year.
The US also increased its troop presence in Afghanistan last year and even if that is not the reason behind the reluctance to send troops to Libya, a desire to not repeat past mistakes is understandable.
While the “war on terror” means that the US can claim that Iraq and Afghanistan are directly related to its national interest, Libya is not. This is the main reason why US President Barack Obama and US Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton insisted they would not send ground forces to aid the anti-Qaddafi rebels in Libya.
Another future guiding principle is that the US will not take the lead if it can avoid doing so, preferring instead to let other countries lead. When former US president George H.W. Bush launched the first gulf war in 1991, he was supported by the UK, France, Germany, Japan and a number of Arab countries, who backed him either militarily, financially or at least lent their moral support.
However, when former US president George W. Bush launched the second gulf war in 2003, France vigorously opposed him and some US lawmakers were so incensed that they renamed french fries “freedom fries” at the restaurant on Capitol Hill.
This time around, France was first to recognize the provisional government of the Libyan opposition. Although the US was not happy, it did not say too much. Indeed, it acceded to French President Nicolas Sarkozy chairing the emergency summit in Paris and sent Clinton to Paris to support Sarkozy, giving the French much “face.” Moreover, the French Air Force struck first in the military action against Libya and was only then followed by the US naval and air forces. This will of course also help improve US-French relations.
Yet another important principle for future US intervention in international disputes is to try to obtain authorization for military action through a UN Security Council resolution, such as Resolution 1973, which authorized the Western allies to stop Qaddafi’s crackdown on the opposition and impose a no-fly zone over Libya. This resolution allowed NATO member states to send their naval and air forces so that the US would not be criticized for unilateralism.
The Obama administration’s biggest hope is that it will gain the support of Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates and other countries in the Middle East in order to avoid protests from the region’s religious fundamentalists.
This is why Obama and Clinton invariably mention the UN and their respect for the opinions of their allies when they speak, claiming that Washington only wants to help the allies free the Libyans.
Obama and Clinton recently called on Qaddafi to obey the UN resolution and stop killing civilians or be compelled to do so by US miitary power. However, it goes without saying that the US is the real leader behind the Libyan war. Despite this, Washington has chosen to give all the credit to its allies, a rare and commendable change.
Obama has maintained a low profile in terms of US military operations against Libya. On the one hand, US national strength has declined and it can no longer handle two simultaneous wars, on the other, if he wants to be re-elected, Obama cannot afford an unnecessary war in Libya, especially a ground war. If the war damages the US economy, he will follow in the footsteps of the Bushes by winning the war and losing the election.
Edward Chen is a professor at Tamkang University’s Graduate Institute of American Studies.
TRANSLATED BY EDDY CHANG
For the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), China’s “century of humiliation” is the gift that keeps on giving. Beijing returns again and again to the theme of Western imperialism, oppression and exploitation to keep stoking the embers of grievance and resentment against the West, and especially the US. However, the People’s Republic of China (PRC) that in 1949 announced it had “stood up” soon made clear what that would mean for Chinese and the world — and it was not an agenda that would engender pride among ordinary Chinese, or peace of mind in the international community. At home, Mao Zedong (毛澤東) launched
The restructuring of supply chains, particularly in the semiconductor industry, was an essential part of discussions last week between Taiwan and a US delegation led by US Undersecretary of State for Economic Growth, Energy and the Environment Keith Krach. It took precedent over the highly anticipated subject of bilateral trade partnerships, and Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) founder Morris Chang’s (張忠謀) appearance on Friday at a dinner hosted by President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) for Krach was a subtle indicator of this. Chang was in photographs posted by Tsai on Facebook after the dinner, but no details about their discussions were disclosed. With
To say that this year has been eventful for China and the rest of the world would be something of an understatement. First, the US-China trade dispute, already simmering for two years, reached a boiling point as Washington tightened the noose around China’s economy. Second, China unleashed the COVID-19 pandemic on the world, wreaking havoc on an unimaginable scale and turning the People’s Republic of China into a common target of international scorn. Faced with a mounting crisis at home, Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) rashly decided to ratchet up military tensions with neighboring countries in a misguided attempt to divert the
Toward the end of former president Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) final term in office, there was much talk about his legacy. Ma himself would likely prefer history books to enshrine his achievements in reducing cross-strait tensions. He might see his meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) in Singapore in 2015 as the high point. However, given his statements in the past few months, he might be remembered more for contributing to the breakup of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT). We are still talking about Ma and his legacy because it is inextricably tied to the so-called “1992 consensus” as the bedrock of his