‘We need help, and we need it now,” says Ali al-Issawi, a member of Libya’s new National Transition Council.
Issawi was in Paris yesterday with another rebel leader, Mahmoud Jibril, to invite the European Union to “work with the council to protect the Libyan people” against “Khadafy’s massacre machine.”
Hours after the two men arrived in Paris, they met with President Nicolas Sarkozy — who announced that France recognized the council as “the new government” of Libya and would invite all European Union members to follow suit.
Issawi says he doesn’t want to spell out what help the council is asking for — but is loquacious about Col. Moammar Khadafy’s air force, which is “the dictator’s last trump card.”
In other words, the council would welcome a decision by the major powers to impose a no-fly zone, to prevent “the deranged colonel” from bombing the Libyans from the air.
So far, only France and Britain appear to be keen on a no-fly zone, with Italy and Greece openly hostile. The remaining 23 EU members are waiting to see what America intends to do.
According to the two Libyan envoys, Khadafy controls little land outside the capital, Tripoli, and its immediate suburbs. Elsewhere, he is engaged in aerial bombardments and heavy artillery attacks to dislodge the rebels from some positions, without being able to impose his own control.
The council now controls more than 500 miles of Libya’s 1,100-mile Mediterranean coastline, along with such cities as Benghazi and Tobruk. The Libyan hinterland, slightly larger than Alaska, resembles Swiss cheese, with “pockets of loyalty to the colonel” alongside “liberated zones.”
Cities that have rallied to the council include Zuwarah, Al-Jawf, Ghadmis and Sabha, showing that opposition to Khadafy isn’t limited to the eastern half of the country, as he claims. Indeed, the colonel has failed to weaken the rebels in any significant way.
Clearly, the “no-fly zone” debate has assumed much psycho-political importance to Libyan “freedom fighters.” The rebels are confident that they’ll topple Khadafy even without such a zone — but at a much higher price.
Opponents of a no-fly zone argue that it would require the destruction of Libyan air defenses and frequent dogfights with Libyan warplanes. But Libyan sources insist that once a no-fly zone is announced, the psycho-political balance of power would shift so dramatically that it would discourage Khadafy and his entourage from continuing a losing battle.
Another argument against a no-fly zone is that patrolling Libya’s vast airspace would require immense military resources.
True, Libya’s airspace is several times larger than that of Iraq, Bosnia or Kosovo — but that means Khadafy’s warplanes would be more vulnerable on their way to bombing rebel-held cities. In any case, one could impose a series of mini-zones on major population centers targeted by the colonel.
Yet another argument is that Russia and/or China might veto a no-fly zone in the UN Security Council. But that’s far from certain. As opportunist powers, Russia and China might not want to be seen as guarantors of Khadafy’s bloody regime — especially when the colonel’s prospects appear bleak.
Declaring a no-fly zone should be part of a broader strategy to support the Libyan uprising. America and its allies should extend de facto recognition to the Libyan National Transition Council and support it in its quest to win Libya’s seats in the Arab League, the African Union and the United Nations.
The council already controls some of Libya’s largest oilfields. Libyan sources tell me that production in those fields could be resumed within days, provided an “off-take” agreement is reached with the major oil companies. At the same time, it’s important to stop taking “stolen oil” from fields still controlled by the colonel.
More immediately, council-held cities require urgent humanitarian aid, as Khadafy, using scorched-earth tactics, has destroyed large stores of food and pharmaceuticals. Some of Libya’s frozen funds abroad could be used to buy the needed supplies.
Support from the United Nations and the democracies led by America could much shorten the struggle over Libya, in favor of the freedom fighters. Without that support, we may witness more Khadafy-ordered massacres and a full-blown humanitarian tragedy that could affect Tunisia, Algeria and Egypt, as well.
Even worse, Libya might end up as a new, and larger, Somalia — with no effective government. That, as we saw in Afghanistan in the ’90s, would lead to a vast marshland in which to breed the mosquitoes of terror.