Libya - Why I support the intervention

Malta sends its army to Somalia to participate in anti-piracy operations but refuses to give logistical support or participation in the enforcement of the arms embargo against Libya.

So far I have not received any convincing answer from self-proclaimed pacifists or anti-imperialists to the question: in the absence of military intervention, who would have stopped Gaddafi from delivering his threat to annihilate the rebels in Benghazi?

Just hours before the UN Security Council-approved Resolution 1973, Gaddafi had these words for the rebels. “It's over... We are coming tonight… Prepare yourselves from tonight. We will find you in your closets… We will show no mercy and no pity… We will come, house by house, room by room.”

French Green MEP Dani Cohn Bendit has given the most plausible justification for the vast consensus in favour of the intervention in Libya. "Everyone has seen pictures of the Warsaw ghetto. Everyone knows what happens when an army takes over a city. That's why all parties in France, including on the left, were in favour of a military intervention in Libya. "

That does not mean that there is no self interest in the motivation of western powers to commence air-strikes against the Libyan regime. But one should not forget that Italy and to a lesser extent France and the UK already had excellent economic relations with Libya.

If self interest was the sole motivation for the west to intervene, it may well have chosen to ignore what was happening on the ground in Libya not to endanger a developing special relationship with the regime. For if the west had not intervened  by now Gaddafi would have  quashed the rebellion and it would have been perfectly possible for the west to return to business as usual .

In fact ignoring what was happening in Libya was  Berlusconi’s first instinct. When asked whether he had asked Gaddafi to stop the massacre he simply answered that he did not want to disturb Gaddafi.

In fact one may say that by supporting the rebellion the west has taken a risk. At best by supporting the rebellion against Gaddafi the west is securing the friendship of any future government in Libya. I don’t think it is all about oil although concern about oil falling in the wrong hands could have pushed the west to befriend  the rebels.

One primary consideration for the west is that if Gaddafi wins the war against the rebels, it would have to live next to a festering rogue state which would have used migrants as a human time bomb. Surely this exposes the hypocrisy of the Italians who had farmed out their immigration policy to the Libyan tyrant. The Italian government is so compromised by its past relationship with the regime that it is still the most reticent among the western powers.

Neither do I exclude more petty political considerations like Sarkozy’s re-election bid in next year’s presidential elections. But even for Sarkozy, the war is a big gamble, for if he gets bogged down in Libya he would be the first to be blamed.

There is one legitimate question raised by those critical of the intervention: Why Libya and not Yemen or Bahrain? The fact that this question is asked shows how groundbreaking resolution 1973 is in limiting national sovereignty when this is used as an excuse for committing genocide.

This creates a welcome precedent for the future. My answer to this question is that while the situation in Bahrain and Yemen does expose the west to the criticism of being soft on its Saudi allies, in Libya there was a concrete case of an army ordered to "show no mercy" advancing on a city. That said the US government has enough leverage to restrain Bahrain’s ruling elite and that it does not doing enough as it fears Iranian ambitions in the region.

Obviously moral legitimacy to stop a genocide does not give the west a blank cheque to determine Libya's future and its resources.  But as history shows, democracies are less easier to control than dictators who make perfect clients of neo-colonial powers.  Gaddafi fitted that role perfectly.

I am also disturbed by the invocation of Malta’s neutrality to justify our refusal to take part of the ongoing campaign. In fact our neutrality does not preclude us from participating in any action sanctioned by the UN security council.

While I see a point in the argument that our sole airport cannot be used as a military base, Malta could still offer some sort of logistical support or participation in the enforcement of the arms embargo against Libya. After all, some time ago we had no qualms in participating in military action against pirates off the coast of impoverished Somalia.

Because of its history Malta could also be a more formidable voice for a Euro Med process which offers prospects and rewards to those Arab countries which have taken the long road towards democracy. The hope of EU membership was a driving force in the renewal of Eastern European societies.

So will the prospect of a real partnership between the EU and the southern shores of the Mediterranean. If the millions of educated young people in the North Africa are not offered a better future democracy will not flourish.