There are many circumstances in which this newspaper would have no hesitation in supporting a British prime minister in his struggles with leaders of the European Union. However, when it comes to Libya and demands for a no-fly zone, David Cameron has got it wrong. At a meeting in Brussels the prime minister’s frustration was clear. “Do we need to do more?” he asked. “Of course we do, because this man is brutalising his own people and we cannot stand by while that happens.” Nicolas Sarkozy, the French president, was equally forthright. “We cannot stand idly by and watch civilians being massacred,” he said.
It is not difficult to share their frustration and wish something could be done to end this increasingly savage civil war and accelerate the departure of Libya’s dictator. Colonel Gadaffi combines the bizarre, erratic and dangerous behaviour of Idi Amin with the brutality towards his own people of Saddam Hussein. Even more than them, he has bankrolled and organised international acts of terror. Now there is a serious prospect that he will win the military struggle to cling to power and indulge in a bloodbath.
So we would all wish him to be gone — and quickly. But a no-fly zone is not the answer. Military experts are divided about whether such zones are ever effective, certainly when used in isolation. Usually they are a prelude to a land invasion, to boots on the ground.
It is not just a military question. There is a vast difference between rebellions that spring up naturally and those armed and funded from outside. The history of CIA-backed revolts in the post-war era should give us pause for thought. Were the Libyan rebellion a western-backed operation, its nature would change. It would be seen as outside interference in an Arab world still smarting from the less than glorious invasion of Iraq. The incursion by British special forces into Libya, reported by this newspaper last weekend, was a reminder of the sensitivities. Furthermore, Libya is racked by tribal disputes and there is no guarantee that a new government would ultimately be better than Mr Gadaffi’s regime.
Germany, on this occasion, spoke good sense. “A no-fly zone is not putting up a traffic sign but intervening with bombs, rockets, weapons,” said Guido Westerwelle, the foreign minister. “If it doesn’t work, do we go further — with land forces?”
Advertisement
Since nobody is talking about that, they should be wary about a no-fly zone. Mr Cameron’s frustration is understandable but there are other ways of undermining Mr Gadaffi, through freezing financial assets and other sanctions. They may be less dramatic, but they are shrewd and right.