In his speech last night President Obama stated that it is not the policy of the US government to pursue regime change in Libya by military means but that it will pursue getting rid of Qaddafi by diplomatic means. The international conference on Libya held in London today has ended with the release of a joint communique.
Questions remain after London Libya conference
According to the chairman's statement - effectively a summary of what was agreed - the participants reaffirmed the importance of a full and swift implementation of all of the restrictions and sanctions imposed by recent UN Security Council resolutions, specifically the use of "all necessary measures" to protect civilian areas from attack by Libyan government forces.
Logically this statement is saying that the international coalition has already declared the existing Libyan government to be invalid. The ability to exercise police powers on the nations population is a fundamental function of a sovereign government. When you declare that a government is no longer competent to be allowed to carry out this function and refer the leader of that government to the international criminal court you really can't any closer to the notion of regime change.
The issue really doesn't seem to be whether the international coalition wants regime change. That part has been decided and trying to call it by another name is to say the least disingenuous. The open question is what they are willing to do to accomplish the objective. Clearly their preference would be to pen down Qaddfi's forces with air power and then have the rebel forces roll onto victory. That plan doesn't seem to be working out so well. The tide of battle and the control of territory seems to be following a seesaw pattern.
There are all sorts of backroom consultations about what to do with Qaddafi.
Col Muammar Gaddafi's future is the central issue. Italy and some of the African countries clearly wonder if one way out would be to afford the Libyan leader an exit route of some kind.
On the face of it, such an approach would fly in the face of the International Criminal Court, which is investigating possible war crimes charges against the colonel.
But if he can be encouraged to leave Libya, there is a feeling in some quarters that international justice can wait.
This is an approach that has been used in other civil conflicts such as Haiti. Exile of course always leaves open the possibility that the deposed leader might attempt to return to fight another day. That leaves a shadow over the efforts and fortunes of successor governments.
A stalemate on the battlefield could reopen the question of arming the rebel forces, something that many see as being banned by the UN-imposed arms embargo.
However US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton noted in a news conference after the conference that while there was no immediate plan to arm the opposition, UN Security Council resolution 1973 might be interpreted, at least in the US view, as overriding the blanket arms embargo.
At the strong urging of the US government NATO is about to assume full military command of the operations in Libya. Under Nato command there is going to be pressure from some NATO members such as Germany and Turkey to take a more conservative interpretation of the mandate authorized by the UNSC resolution. Russia was not invited the the London conference. They are already publicly raising the issue that the coalition has exceeded its mandate.
The objectives of restoring peaceful order to Libya really can't be accomplished without regime change. Trying to pretend otherwise is just plain silly. It be difficult to accomplish even after the removal of Qaddafi, but that is a necessary first condition. The only other alternative is to let the people in Libya fight it out. The negotiated exit for him would seem to be a possibility of accomplishing that without escalating the level of military intervention. If I were Obama, that is probably the basket I would put my eggs in.