Libya, once home to the far-flung Phoenicians and exalted Cyrene, has devolved into a crisis of revolutionary conflict in the last few months, with neither side offering diplomatic resolution or brokered compromise. The political turmoil that spurred the onset of revolution did not originate within the Libyan state, but rather, it was derivative of a series of ongoing clashes between the populace and the ruling class in neighboring Middle Eastern and North African countries. The conflagration had erupted in Tunisia, toppling yet another king of Carthage, with the so-called “Last Pharaoh” of Egypt following on his heels. Libya, situated directly between the two, could not escape the wildfire. This time, in spite of the numerous calls for his resignation, the ruling autocrat opted to militarily suppress the would-be rebels with every last ounce of his diminishing influence.
The international response to this crackdown has been neither slow nor reserved in forthcoming, and as of yet I believe it to be one of the only heartening consequences of this crisis. Supranational organizations that represent regional powers, such as the Arab League, the African Union, and the European Union, were quick to condemn the disproportionate use of force against Libyan civilians by mercenaries and military detachments loyal to the state. The conflict garnered enough controversy to warrant the attention of the United Nations (UN), the assembly of all sovereign nations, which proceeded to deliberate on whether or not action should be taken to staunch the crackdown. The UN passed a series of resolutions sanctioning the top officials of the Libyan cadre, and approved the use of extraordinary measures to protect the well-being of civilians. Not long hence, a coalition of 10 nations began an aerial and naval military operation to ground Libyan forces and disable armored artillery.
These events are quite significant to the legitimacy of international law, the viability of multinational interest, and the establishment of a “Pangaeaic” or human-centric identity, for the reasons I have listed below.
Foremost, it established a clear-cut precedent for the prosecution of international law against a rogue state. The primary accusers of the regime’s illegality originated not from within the body of the UN or a nation divested from Libya’s best interests, but from its neighboring states and various regional organizations whose membership and mutual support Libya had previously enjoyed. Their summons beckoned the attention of the international community, and their demands provide the ius ad bello and the ius in bello for the coalition’s subsequent military intervention.
Secondly, the level of caution and restraint affected by the individual nations of the coalition is to be commended. No actions that would violate Libya’s sovereignty were attempted prior to the establishment of a legal sanction. This basis was ultimately provided by UN Resolution 1973, which passed with ten member nations in favor and five abstaining. The five nations in abstention indicated that they believed the resolution overstepped the legal authority of the UN. However, the two nations possessing a veto noted that the desires of the Arab League and other such organizations were in accordance with the UN, and hence did not exercise their right to veto even though the resolution conflicted with their individual interests. The processing of this resolution demonstrates that these international organizations are capable of producing multinational interests, even in a volatile political community in which each member nation is an unknown variable.
Finally, we can easily see that the prosecution of law would ultimately be useless without the presence of enforcement, regardless of just cause or the rendered verdict. A large coalition of states formed with alacrity to enforce the UN resolution, and still many others have offered assistance should it be desired.
The outcome of the crisis in Libya and the other nations beset by turmoil is far from determined, but the international community has taken many precautions and satisfied many demands with its response. I can now only watch and wait as new developments invariably manifest.
The obstacles are still multitudinous, but these few glimmers among the gloom of unfolded events offer me hope that humanity can unite under a single identity with common interests. The complication will always lie in the world’s vast diversity and the tendency for diffidence among those that are unacquainted. We view our peers not in light of our many similar desires, but we focus on the few petty differences that facilitate suspicion and enforce a sense of variability for those that do not bear our banners. However, variables are the only constants in this cosmos, and we cannot wish away or ignore their existence simply because it is convenient. Through continued education, we can gradually push back the veil of ignorance that has kept the people of this world at odds with one another. I long for the day that this Earth can stand united, capable of dealing with common adversaries, arming ourselves foremost with caution, restraint, and reason. Until then, I will continue to peddle this long road to the Pangaeaic identity, enlisting all that I can to my cause.
Linda's Isocratean Reflections 