Of the multiple revolutionary movements taking place in North Africa and the Middle East the one in Libya has so far been the most chaotic and bloody. The Gadaffi regime is prepared to engage in open ended slaughter of its opponents. The rebels appear to hold a major portion of the geographic territory with Gadaffi holed up in Tripoli. There is broad international concern about the state of affairs. Debates are taking place about the possibilities of sanctions and interventions.
The United Nations Security Council has unanimously adopted a resolution condemning Gadaffi's use of violence against peaceful protesters. It imposes a set of sanctions including, freezing financial assets, an arms embargo and travel ban. It also includes a referral to the International Criminal Court. The US and members of the EU have moved to adopt such sanctions. What is now being debated is the proposal to impose a no fly zone over Libya with the purpose of presenting aerial attacks on protesters and the importation of foreign mercenaries.
So far David Cameron of the UK has been the most assertive of western leaders in urging military intervention in Libya.
US tightens military grip on Gaddafi
The west is edging towards a possible military confrontation with Muammar Gaddafi's regime, as the US deployed naval and air force units around Libya, and David Cameron ordered contingency plans for a no-fly zone.
The prime minister said he had told the Ministry of Defence and the chief of the defence staff to draw up the plans in coordination with Britain's Nato allies and report back to him within days.
A no-fly zone would be designed principally to prevent attacks on Libyan people by the Gaddafi regime – mainly by his helicopter gun ships.
Cameron suggested the UK might even consider arming the Libyan opposition forces if Tripoli used more violence to crush demonstrations
At this point China is refusing to support UNSC authorization for military intervention. As one of the five permanent members it holds veto power. UNSC authorization is the only clearly recognized means of providing legal legitimacy for such intervention under international law. This brings the world to a situation similar to that over of Iraq in 2003 and of the Balkan wars in the 1990s. In the Balkan wars NATO sponsored military intervention without UNSC authorization. In 2003 neither the UNSC nor NATO would endorse Bush's invasion plans and they went ahead without any clear international support.
There are presently discussions underway about the possibility of once again using NATO as a vehicle for intervention. However, it is unclear if such a mandate can be obtained.
NATO chief: No UN mandate for Libyan no-fly zone
NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen referred to the UN Security Council's (UNSC) resolution on Saturday, which called for sanctions against Libyan leader Moamer Gaddafi's regime.
'I think the framework here and now is, and should be, the resolution adopted by the UNSC last week, and that Security Council resolution excludes the use of armed force and a no-fly zone is not mentioned in (it)' Rasmussen said.
Many of the people supporting the establishment of a no fly zone present it as a humanitarian solution beyond reasonable question. In a chaotic situation such as this military mission creep is a distinct possibility. Attacking aircraft can lead to attacking positions on the ground. However, this is not the battle of Waterloo with opposing armies drawn up in clearly defined positions. As we have seen time and again, intervention from the air is a fairly safe proposition for the western military fliers, but for people on the ground there is the unfortunate risk of "collateral damage".
People from non western countries are raising questions as to whether the motivations are entirely humanitarian or might be mixed with interest in oil. Given that revolutionary movements are rapidly flaring in multiple countries of the region, it seems highly unlikely that Libya will be an isolated situation. It seems very likely that issues of outside intervention will be raised in other neighboring countries and in the near future. Actions now or the lack of actions will establish precedents that impact future actions.
It is my personal opinion that the US led intervention in Iraq was a serious disaster for a number of reasons. It seems to me that there is reason to approach the situation in Libya with caution and restraint.