Libya: Boots on the ground?

Throughout the Libyan crisis Foreign Minister George Vella has emerged as a voice of reason, emphasising the need for dialogue and reconciliation in the oil-rich country. 

On his part Prime Minister Joseph Muscat, who had to respond to the wave of national hysteria – sometimes amplified by irresponsible relaying of news from dubious news sources – which has gripped the nation, has tried to appear moderately hawkish by pressing on his demand for a UN sanctioned international peacekeeping force.  

But in reality a ‘peacekeeping force’ can only be effective and viable in Libya if it is accepted by the two rival governments in Tripoli and Tobruk. 

Interviewed yesterday by TVM, Bernardino Leon, the head of the United Nations’s support mission in Libya, hinted at the possibility of UN intervention if an agreement is not reached but it remains doubtful how a UN mission can carry out its peacekeeping duties if its presence is rejected by either Tripoli or Tobruk.

Malta has so far followed the international community in recognising the Tobruk government – which was elected in a democratic election won by secular forces. This position has earned Malta the rebuke of Tripoli, whose charge d’affaires, Hussin Musrati, has accused  Malta of “interfering in Libyan affairs” by taking sides.

But Vella has also favoured a political process involving the moderate Islamists which run the Tripoli government, who dispute the legitimacy of the new parliament which replaced another elected body that has an Islamist majority. The Tripoli government also claims legitimacy from a constitutional court decision which dissolved the new parliament.

For it is this power vacuum – in a country which is still building its institutions after decades of being ruled as Gaddafi’s dynastic fiefdom – which has created a fertile ground for Islamic State (IS), the group whose role was considered marginal till a few months ago, and which may emerge as a rival to both mainstream Islamist groups who adhere to a notion of parliamentary democracy, and to Al Qaeda affiliates who presently fight by their side.

As happened in Syria, IS’s fearsome reputation may win it more recruits in a prolonged civil war. Therefore the terrorist group may well favour an escalation of the civil war. Moreover if foreign intervention is seen as one aimed at bolstering the pro-Western government in Tobruk, it may push more moderate Islamists to join the ranks of the caliphate. This would be even more the case if Egypt, which is allied with Tobruk, intervenes directly in the conflict.  

Moreover the situation is murkier because the IS threat has often been hyped by the Tobruk government in its attempt to lure western intervention on its behalf, and downplayed by the Tripoli government in its bid to gain international legitimacy.

Moreover the composition of the force is bound to be tricky.   

Egypt, whose leader el Sisi won power by toppling a democratically elected Islamist government, and who is responsible for the Rabaa massacre in which according to Human Rights Watch 800 Islamists were killed by the army, has backed General Khalifa Haftar, in his struggle against the Tripoli-based government. 

General Khalifa Hifter

IS’s gruesome killing of 21 Copts has turned out to be its invitation for Egypt to intervene militarily in the conflict, fully knowing that such intervention will further radicalise Islamists in Libya in their struggle against a foreign threat. 

As veteran Middle East correspondent Robert Fisk notes, “Egypt’s support for the Libyan military of General Khalifa Haftar – who in turn supports the internationally-recognised Tobruk government – will only deepen the Libyan civil conflict”.

Both government and opposition have emphasised the need of the involvement of the European Union, with Simon Busuttil calling on the EU to take leadership of such a force. But the participation of western powers may well trigger deep standing resentment against colonialism, especially if this involves boots on the ground.  Italian participation may be particularly tricky due to the colonial past. Even Libyans who fought for the ousting of Gaddafi in 2011 were adamant in refusing any western boots on the ground. 

The US led coalition

On its part Nationalist Party has distinguished itself by insisting that Malta should form part of the global coalition against the Islamic State as a show of “a clear stand against terrorism”.

In September the Ministry for Foreign Affairs had categorically denied that Malta has signed an agreement to join the anti-Islamic State Coalition.

The denial came amid reports by international media that claim Malta is one of 62 countries which joined the United States in a coalition against IS.  

In fact, Malta remains the only EU country not to join the coalition.

But what would Malta be signing for if it joins the coalition against IS, as demanded by the opposition, and would participation in the coalition address the direct threat posed by the emergence of Libya as a failed state?

The rules of engagement

In September The Washington Post observed that although the United States-led coalition to fight the Islamic State militant group continues to grow, it remains “unclear, however, what exactly constitutes being a member of this coalition and how many nations have signed up”.

It was only last December that the 60 members of the Global Coalition to Counter the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (Daesh, or IS) met in Brussels, to define their goals following an invitation by US Secretary of State John Kerry. 

During the meeting coalition partners reaffirmed their commitment to work together under a ‘common, multifaceted, and long-term strategy’ to degrade and defeat IS. Participants decided that the efforts of the global coalition should focus on multiple lines of effort:

1. Supporting military operations, capacity building, and training;

2. Stopping the flow of foreign terrorist fighters;

3. Cutting off IS’s access to financing and funding;

4. Addressing associated humanitarian relief and crises; and

5. Exposing IS’s true nature 

Participants affirmed their commitment to implement UN Security Council Resolutions 2170 and 2178, which include provisions on combating the flow of foreign terrorist fighters, suppressing the financing of IS and other terrorist groups, and exposing the violent ideology espoused by IS around the world. 

21 key members of the global coalition met in London this month.

Members of the coalition include neutral EU member states like Finland, Austria, Ireland and Sweden. They also include Middle Eastern states, who stand on different sides in the Libyan conflict, namely Qatar and Turkey, which support  the Tripoli government, and Egypt and the United Arab Emirates, which support Tobruk.

The coalition also crucially includes the Sunni Kingdom of Saudi Arabia whose wahhabi ideology is akin to that of extremists it has been accused of financing but which has been regarded as a vauable regional ally of the west for the past decades.  It also includes Turkey, which was reluctant in supporting the Kurds fighting IS in Syria and has sympathetic to the Muslim Brotherhood. It does not include Iran, Russia and China.

Clearly membership in the coalition does not seem to exclude other constitutionally neutral countries.  Neither does it set Malta in a collision path with the Arab world. 

Moreover members of the coalition are not obliged to join military action.

A coalition of the willing?

Unlike the United Nations or even NATO, the coalition against IS has no statute or rules of engagement and started of as a response to Barack Obama’s appeal at the United Nations on 24 September last year.  

It is more akin to the ad hoc ‘coalition of the willing’ announced by George W. Bush in 2002 in his bid to disarm Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, than to a structured multilateral body.

Ironically it was this war and its bloody aftermath of sectarian violence, which created the conditions for IS to grow in Iraq.   

Some may also argue that it was western intervention against Gaddafi in Libya, which contributed to the rise of IS in Libya. But while one may argue that western intervention had accelerated the fall of a dictatorship and created a vacuum, the alternative would have been a prolonged civil war which may well have equally fed terrorism as happened in Syria, where Assad remains in power in Damascus.

Surely the war against IS atrocities enjoys a wider consensus than Bush’s lame excuse for invading Iraq, namely the weapons of mass destruction, which in fact did not exist. The coalition also includes all EU states except Malta, including the three other  neutral EU members.

Flirting with the US

The question is whether engagement in this coalition could be used as a pretext to justify closer military cooperation with the US.  

It could also entail cooperation with a super power, which since 2011 has shown remarkable eagerness to subvert the rule of law in carrying out its war on terror.

Although Malta never formally joined George Bush’s ‘coalition of the willing’ despite initial reports that it did so in 2002, Malta did actively participate in dubious US-led operations. Moreover the US may use the war of terror to follow other foreign policy goals, which may include protecting the interests of its traditional regional allies in the region.

US Embassy cables released to MaltaToday through a 2006 Freedom of Information request to the Department of State have revealed that the Maltese government provided the US with the approval for emergency landing for all military aircraft carrying either hazardous material or suspect personnel, in its support of the war against terrorism.

The most significant contributions, as stated in the cables, came in the form of “approval of over-flight for all military aircraft, approval for emergency landing for all military aircraft, approval for emergency landing for all military aircraft including those with hazardous material or suspect personnel, use of the Malta Drydocks for routine and emergency repairs of US navy ships, and full security support for visiting US navy ships”.

Malta’s cooperation with the United States escalated considerably after the 2001 attacks on the World Trade Centre. In 2004, Malta became the first EU member to install the Personal Identification Secure Comparison and Evaluation System (PISCES) at its airport and three seaports, as part of the United States Terrorist Interdiction Programme (TIP). The $1.5 million system is a border control tool that identifies wanted criminal and terrorist suspects as they enter and exit the country.

But this suggests that rather than formal membership in US-led coalitions, what really could undermine Maltese national sovereignty are the bilateral concessions made by the national government in its dealings with the USA.  

The coalition and Libya

Another question is whether joining the coalition against IS would strengthen Malta’s call for international intervention in Libya. 

Libya has so far been largely ignored by the coalition, which has focused its operations in Syria and Iraq.

This has prompted calls by Egypt’s President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, who has told the US that its coalition to defeat the Islamic State group should be expanded to counter “terrorist hotbeds” across the Middle East and Africa. Malta’s membership in the coalition could pile pressure on widening the coalition’s sight from Iraq and Syria to Libya. But the involvement in Libya of a US-led coalition may well play in the hands of IS, which portrays the west as a crusading entity. 

Malta’s constitutional neutrality

Another question is whether membership in a coalition against a terrorist group qualifies as membership of a military alliance, something which is ruled out by the constitution.

The constitution proclaims that Malta is a neutral state which “actively pursues peace, security and social progress among all nations”, a principle which militates in favour of participation in a coalition against an organisation bent at undermining peace and co-existence like IS.  

But the same constitution also makes it clear that Malta should not participate in any military alliance and that no foreign military base should be permitted on Maltese territory. 

But the constitution does make an important exception allowing the use of military facilities in Malta “in pursuance of measures or actions decided by the Security Council of the United Nations”. This means that Malta can participate in any military action against IS which is authorised by the United Nations. In fact both government and opposition have emphasised a logistical role for Malta in any intervention.

Therefore the constitution does not ban participation in the coalition against IS as long as this participation is limited to actions authorised by the UN. 

PN foreign policy shadow minister Roberta Metsola has adhered to Malta’s constitutional neutrality, arguing that Malta should participate in “non-military” action against Islamic State and that neutrality does not hinder the fight against terrorism.  

But the PN is committed in its electoral manifesto to revise the neutrality provision in the constitution.

The Constitution’s major shortcoming is the reference to two superpowers in one of its clauses, drawn up in Soviet Union days, which denies access to the Maltese shipyards to vessels belonging to the United States and the former Soviet Union.

A brainchild of Dom Mintoff who envisioned Malta’s role as a Switzerland in the Mediterranean back in 1958, neutrality was enshrined by the Labour government in the Maltese Constitution in 1987 in a tit-for-tat deal with the Nationalist opposition in return for accepting the notion of majority rule in the same Constitution.

A convert to neutrality by necessity rather than conviction, the Nationalist Party, which before 1971 wanted Malta to join NATO, refrained from any formal attempt to change the status quo after being elected in 1987. 

While supporting the overthrow of Gaddafi, Malta also refrained from supporting military action against Libya in 2011. Now both parties agree that Malta should offer logistical support to a UN authorised intervention.  But this will depend on whether anyone will be willing to send boots on the ground, something which Malta has already excluded.