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
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has long been expansionist and contemptuous of international law. Under Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平), the CCP regime has become more despotic, coercive and punitive. As part of its strategy to annex Taiwan, Beijing has sought to erase the island democracy’s international identity by bribing countries to sever diplomatic ties with Taipei. One by one, China has peeled away Taiwan’s remaining diplomatic partners, leaving just 12 countries (mostly small developing states) and the Vatican recognizing Taiwan as a sovereign nation. Taiwan’s formal international space has shrunk dramatically. Yet even as Beijing has scored diplomatic successes, its overreach
In her article in Foreign Affairs, “A Perfect Storm for Taiwan in 2026?,” Yun Sun (孫韻), director of the China program at the Stimson Center in Washington, said that the US has grown indifferent to Taiwan, contending that, since it has long been the fear of US intervention — and the Chinese People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) inability to prevail against US forces — that has deterred China from using force against Taiwan, this perceived indifference from the US could lead China to conclude that a window of opportunity for a Taiwan invasion has opened this year. Most notably, she observes that
For Taiwan, the ongoing US and Israeli strikes on Iranian targets are a warning signal: When a major power stretches the boundaries of self-defense, smaller states feel the tremors first. Taiwan’s security rests on two pillars: US deterrence and the credibility of international law. The first deters coercion from China. The second legitimizes Taiwan’s place in the international community. One is material. The other is moral. Both are indispensable. Under the UN Charter, force is lawful only in response to an armed attack or with UN Security Council authorization. Even pre-emptive self-defense — long debated — requires a demonstrably imminent
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) said on Monday that it would be announcing its mayoral nominees for New Taipei City, Yilan County and Chiayi City on March 11, after which it would begin talks with the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) to field joint opposition candidates. The KMT would likely support Deputy Taipei Mayor Lee Shu-chuan (李四川) as its candidate for New Taipei City. The TPP is fielding its chairman, Huang Kuo-chang (黃國昌), for New Taipei City mayor, after Huang had officially announced his candidacy in December last year. Speaking in a radio program, Huang was asked whether he would join Lee’s
RSS