Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/464575
maltatoday, WEDNESDAY, 18 FEBRUARY 2015 6 THROUGHOUT the Libyan crisis Foreign Minister George Vella has emerged as a voice of reason, empha- sising the need for dialogue and rec- onciliation in the oil-rich country. On his part Prime Minister Joseph Muscat, who had to respond to the wave of national hysteria – sometimes amplified by irresponsible relaying of news from dubious news sources – which has gripped the nation, has tried to appear moderately hawkish by pressing on his demand for a UN sanctioned international peacekeep- ing force. But in reality a 'peacekeeping force' can only be effective and viable in Libya if it is accepted by the two rival governments in Tripoli and Tobruk. Interviewed yesterday by TVM, Ber- nardino Leon, the head of the United Nations's support mission in Libya, hinted at the possibility of UN inter- vention if an agreement is not reached but it remains doubtful how a UN mission can carry out its peacekeep- ing duties if its presence is rejected by either Tripoli or Tobruk. Malta has so far followed the inter- national community in recognising the Tobruk government – which was elected in a democratic election won by secular forces. This position has earned Malta the rebuke of Tripoli, whose charge d'affaires, Hussin Mus- rati, has accused Malta of "interfering in Libyan affairs" by taking sides. But Vella has also favoured a po- litical process involving the moderate Islamists which run the Tripoli gov- ernment, who dispute the legitimacy of the new parliament which replaced another elected body that has an Is- lamist majority. For it is this power vacuum – in a country which is still building its in- stitutions after decades of being ruled as Gaddafi's dynastic fiefdom – which has created a fertile ground for Islam- ic State (IS), the group whose role was considered marginal till a few months ago, and which may emerge as a rival to both mainstream Islamist groups who adhere to a notion of parliamen- tary democracy, and to Al Qaeda affil- iates who presently fight by their side. As happened in Syria, IS's fearsome reputation may win it more recruits in a prolonged civil war. Therefore the terrorist group may well favour an escalation of the civil war. Moreover if foreign intervention is seen as one aimed at bolstering the pro-Western government in Tobruk, it may push more moderate Islamists to join the ranks of the caliphate. This would be even more the case if Egypt, which is allied with Tobruk, intervenes directly in the conflict. Moreover the situation is murkier because the IS threat has often been hyped by the Tobruk government in its attempt to lure western interven- tion on its behalf, and downplayed by the Tripoli government in its bid to gain international legitimacy. Moreover the composition of the force is bound to be tricky. Egypt, whose leader el Sisi won power by toppling a democratically elected Islamist government, and who is responsible for the Rabaa massacre in which according to Human Rights Watch 800 Islamists were killed by the army, has backed General Kha- lifa Haftar, in his struggle against the Tripoli-based government. IS's gruesome killing of 21 Copts has turned out to be its invitation for Egypt to intervene militarily in the conflict, fully knowing that such intervention will further radicalise Islamists in Libya in their struggle against a foreign threat. As veteran Middle East correspond- ent Robert Fisk notes, "Egypt's sup- port for the Libyan military of General Khalifa Haftar – who in turn supports the internationally-recognised To- bruk government – will only deepen the Libyan civil conflict". Both government and opposition have emphasised the need of the in- volvement of the European Union, with Simon Busuttil calling on the EU to take leadership of such a force. But the participation of western pow- ers may well trigger deep standing resentment against colonialism, es- pecially if this involves boots on the ground. Italian participation may be particularly tricky due to the colonial past. Even Libyans who fought for the ousting of Gaddafi in 2011 were ada- mant in refusing any western boots on the ground. The US led coalition On its part Nationalist Party has distinguished itself by insisting that Malta should form part of the global coalition against the Islamic State as a show of "a clear stand against terror- ism". In September the Ministry for For- eign Affairs had categorically denied that Malta has signed an agreement to join the anti-Islamic State Coalition. The denial came amid reports by in- ternational media that claim Malta is one of 62 countries which joined the United States in a coalition against IS. In fact, Malta remains the only EU country not to join the coalition. But what would Malta be signing for if it joins the coalition against IS, as demanded by the opposition, and would participation in the coalition address the direct threat posed by the emergence of Libya as a failed state? The rules of engagement In September The Washington Post observed that although the United States-led coalition to fight the Is- lamic State militant group continues to grow, it remains "unclear, however, what exactly constitutes being a mem- ber of this coalition and how many na- tions have signed up". It was only last December that the 60 members of the Global Coalition to Counter the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (Daesh, or IS) met in Brussels, to define their goals follow- ing an invitation by US Secretary of State John Kerry. During the meeting coalition part- ners reaffirmed their commitment to work together under a 'common, multifaceted, and long-term strategy' to degrade and defeat IS. Participants decided that the efforts of the global coalition should focus on multiple lines of effort: 1. Supporting military operations, ca- pacity building, and training; 2. Stopping the flow of foreign terror- ist fighters; 3. Cutting off IS's access to financing and funding; 4. Addressing associated humanitar- ian relief and crises; and 5. Exposing IS's true nature Participants affirmed their com- mitment to implement UN Security Council Resolutions 2170 and 2178, which include provisions on combat- ing the flow of foreign terrorist fight- ers, suppressing the financing of IS and other terrorist groups, and expos- ing the violent ideology espoused by IS around the world. 21 key members of the global coali- tion met in London this month. Members of the coalition include neutral EU member states like Cyprus, Austria, Ireland and Sweden. They al- so include Middle Eastern states, who stand on different sides in the Libyan conflict, namely Qatar and Turkey, which support the Tripoli govern- ment, and Egypt and the United Arab Emirates, which support Tobruk. The coalition also crucially includes the Sunni Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, which in the past has been accused of financing IS and Turkey, which was reluctant in supporting the Kurds fighting IS in Syria. It does not include Iran, Russia and China. Clearly membership in the coalition does not seem to exclude other consti- tutionally neutral countries. Neither does it set Malta in a collision path with the Arab world. Moreover members of the coalition are not obliged to join military action. A coalition of the willing? Unlike the United Nations or even NATO, the coalition against IS has no statute or rules of engagement and started of as a response to Barack Obama's appeal at the United Nations on 24 September last year. It is more akin to the ad hoc 'coalition of the willing' announced by George W. Bush in 2002 in his bid to disarm Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, than to a structured multilateral body. Ironically it was this war and its bloody aftermath of sectarian vio- lence, which created the conditions for IS to grow in Iraq. Some may also argue that it was western intervention against Gaddafi in Libya, which contributed to the rise of IS in Libya. But while one may argue that western intervention had acceler- ated the fall of a dictatorship and cre- ated a vacuum, the alternative would have been a prolonged civil war which may well have equally fed terrorism as happened in Syria, where Assad re- mains in power in Damascus. Surely the war against IS atrocities enjoys a wider consensus than Bush's lame excuse for invading Iraq, namely the weapons of mass destruction, which in fact did not exist. The coali- tion also includes all EU states except Malta, including the three other neu- tral EU members. Flirting with the US The question is whether engage- ment in this coalition could be used as a pretext to justify closer military cooperation with the US. It could also entail cooperation with a super power, which since 2011 has shown remarkable eagerness to sub- vert the rule of law in carrying out its war on terror. Although Malta never formally joined George Bush's 'coalition of the willing' despite initial reports that it did so in 2002, Malta did actively par- ticipate in dubious US-led operations. Moreover the US may use the war of terror to follow other foreign policy goals, which may include protecting the interests of its traditional regional allies in the region. News Libya: Boots on the ground? In a sign of consensus, both government and opposition have advocated UN intervention in Libya, but the PN is also demanding Malta joins the US led-Global Coalition to Counter the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. But will foreign intervention defuse or further escalate the crisis? asks JAMES DEBONO President Barak Obama Libyan Prime Minister al-Thinni