Ryan Powell, Journal Contributor
Over the past few weeks, headlines have erupted with news on the Libyan conflict exuding curiosity with constant research in order to achieve an up-to-date consensus. Corruption fills authoritarian regimes while the democratic states are unable to carry out free and representative elections. Such strife is present in countries such as the liberated Egypt, Tunisia, Syria, and Bahrain in the Middle East. Each example upholds similar roots but the overall claim to rebellion varies in oppression of their particular governing bodies.
Concerning Libya, the initial altercation was a product of Muammar Gaddafi’s strict control Libyan ideology. He forces upon all of society his point of view and censors education facilities and other industries in order to dissuade rebellious movements. Furthermore, his practice of public executions of those opposing his regime do not allow for a stable and comforting environment. In mid-February of this year, protests began in Tobruk, Libya which is in the northeastern corner of the country.
Gradual expansion and acceptance of the idea developed a full-fledged opposition to Gaddafi. Of late, the rebels (opposition force) have been successfully taking over regions such as Benghazi, the second largest city after the capital, and surrounding military bases and airports. Although the rebels have exuded continuity towards a common cause, the pro-Gaddafi forces have proven to overpower them with an overall larger military capability.
Of late, the Western powers have debated a means of interaction, especially along the lines of a no-fly zone. The enforcement of this policy, along with not allowing any flight throughout Libya, would give France, England, and any other proponent probable cause to “disarm” any opposition to the no-fly zone. The deterrence from imposing this initially came from China and Russia, who both hold veto power amongst the United Nations Security Council (UNSC). This body has been the driving force towards action in Libya, but without consent from either of them, a no-fly zone would create even more contention.
. With the pro-Gaddafi forces gaining sufficient ground on rebel headquarters, the UN found dire need to act with civilian lives at risk. Gaddafi’s plan to attack over this past weekend compelled the UNSC to beseech a no-fly zone with readily available attack forces on any of Gaddafi’s military. This was only possible because China and Russia decided to abstain, or refrain from voting. With this drastic move, Gaddafi was coerced into proclaiming a “ceasefire” to avoid intervention from outside forces. Only after a few days recognizing this, a coalition was formed, initially between Great Britain and France, but now involving the U.S. and any Arab allies they can conjure. The cooperation between the Arab world and the West seems to manifest the amicable relations between the two.
In most recent events, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) has been gradually taking over the reins in Libya. This includes all military deployment and final decisions on actions taken by any outside force within. Be it humanitarian or military aid, the rebels need overwhelming help to dilute Gaddafi’s military power, and it will unquestionably take some time.
Many questions on Libya’s future pose themselves in light of the recent takeover by NATO, but indefinitely the final outcome must be determined by the rebels and their willingness to overcome Gaddafi’s presence. Where or when will the United States should become involved militarily? Also, the potential Gaddafi holds with previous claims of disruptive forces in the Mediterranean Sea and indecisive distribution of their oil is debatable at best. We can assume that with further military disruption, the U.S. may feel obligated to intervene, but the situation is still very fragile and the outcome is indeterminable.
