Dilip Hiro

THE violence in Libya has exposed divisions far beyond its shores – in the Arab League, the European Union, the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, the UN Security Council, and among top officials in the United States. As foreign intervention in Libya intensifies and the toll mounts, the limited unity behind establishing a no-fly zone over Libya has begun fraying.

The roots of this emerging split lie in the chastening experience of US-led military interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq – and resulting weariness of Western publics to wars in Muslim countries. This factor weighed heavily with US President Barack Obama as the crisis unfolded. During his election campaign, Obama highlighted his opposition to the Iraq War. Decrying President George W. Bush’s policies of unilateralism and proclivity for exercising military force, he renounced Washington’s self-appointed role as global policeman and committed himself to multilateralism – with major international decisions to be implemented collectively with the legal sanction of the United Nations.

As civil war erupted in Libya, Obama deliberately let the European powers take the lead in debating how to handle the conflict. The idea of a no-fly zone over Libya was first mooted in European capitals. The proposal proved controversial, dividing not just France and Germany, leading nations of the EU, but also Obama’s cabinet. Secretary of Defence Robert Gates argued that enforcing an air-exclusion zone in Libya would be tantamount to a declaration of war and getting embroiled in a Muslim country’s civil strife. By contrast, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton favoured the idea.

Across the Atlantic, French President Nicolas Sarkozy zoomed ahead of other Western leaders, recognising the Benghazi-based Libyan Interim Transitional National Council, also known as the Interim Governing Council. By so doing, he tried to underscore the primacy that France claims in the Mediterranean region. In addition, he seemed eager to make amends for the unconditional backing his government gave to Tunisia’s military dictator.

Sarkozy’s rash, unilateral step antagonised German Chancellor Angela Merkel to the extent that she disagreed with him publicly, violating their long-held understanding that the Mediterranean region was to be left to Paris while Berlin focused on eastern and central Europe.

In Germany, the idea of an air-exclusion zone was put to maximum scrutiny, with most politicians lambasting it. Cautious by nature, Merkel emerged as its foremost opponent. Like other European leaders weary of military entanglements, Merkel realised that, after imposing a no-fly zone, air strikes was just one more step in the slippery slope of deeper involvement – as the Pentagon’s activities in Iraq between 1992 and 2003 had shown.

Such considerations weighed on Arab League foreign ministers as they debated the Libyan crisis in Cairo on March 12. They therefore called for a no-fly zone in Libya, nothing more. Of course, as Gates pointed out, to create a no-fly zone, destruction of anti-aircraft capabilities is a necessary precondition. Nonetheless, the Arab League resolution provided the basis sought by Obama. That plus the prospect of a bloodbath in Benghazi in the wake of its capture by the forces of Muammar Gaddafi, who had issued a “No Mercy” warning to Benghazi’s rebels, apparently tipped the scale for Obama to join the interventionist camp.

Those who drafted the resolution on Libya at the UN Security Council based their case on a need to protect Libya’s civilians from attacks and facilitate dialogue between warring camps. On March 17, Resolution 1973 authorised UN member states to “take all necessary measures” to achieve theses aims, but ruled out the presence of foreign troops on Libya’s soil. Although the resolution called for an immediate ceasefire, the US ambassador to the UN later said that it would permit helping the rebel forces with weapons.

Proposed jointly by Britain, France and Lebanon, seconded by the US, it was backed by the three non-permanent members of Africa, raising the total yes vote to 10. The remaining five members abstained.

Russia and China questioned the merit of using force when other means had not been exhausted, an argument backed by Brazil and India. The four nations pointed out the lack of clarity about who would enforce the measures. Thus, for the first time the major powers denoted by the acronym BRIC – Brazil, Russia, India and China – adopted a unified stance on a matter of war and peace.

Of the 21 Arab League members, excluding Libya, four attended the Paris summit. Of the 12 countries that signed up to implement Resolution 1973, only two – Qatar and the United Arab Emirates – are Arab. Washington’s repeated attempts to persuade Saudi King Abdullah to participate in enforcing an air-exclusion zone in Libya have failed. By contrast, Obama repeated his call that Gaddafi “must leave.” Cameron said that he and Obama had agreed that “Gaddafi should depart form power now.” In short, it was a call for regime change.

The inexperienced Cameron is suspected of using the Libyan crisis to make a mark on the international scene. Sarkozy’s aggressive stance on Libya could be aimed at recovering from low approval ratings as he heads to an election. On a broader level, the clash between the BRIC nations and the West is cantered on the vexing issue of sovereignty. BRIC views humanitarian interventions as violations of national sovereignty by a powerful West, selective about human-rights violations to suit its economic and strategic interests.

Military and diplomatic stalemate is likely after the initial blitzkrieg by the US-led coalition, as well casualties among civilians it claims to protect. Only then will more fundamental issues of sovereignty and humanitarian intervention come to dominate the debate in the international community.—KT

S. M. Hali

THE Twenty First Century is the century of Asia, in which a new world order that may shape the direction of world affairs will come into effect. China is destined to play a major role significantly affecting not only Asia but the world at large. The axis of world power is slowly evolving toward Asia-Pacific. Global economic activities, growing military budgets, population trends and a rising consensus within the region indicates that their time has come.

After centuries of colonialism, humiliation, imperialism, war and destruction, this diverse and vast region is beginning to regain its historic position in the first quarter of the 21st century. Japan, which had been devastated as result of the Second World War, had emerged from the ashes like a phoenix to become an industrial and economic giant, albeit with US support, owing to its status as a US protectorate. China, on the other hand, had suffered due to Japanese and British imperialism but arose on its own steam and is destined to become a world power without external support. It has already surpassed Japan’s economy and is challenging the US, forecast to overtake it in the next decade or so.

The west is wary of China’s rising economic strength and since the financial crisis; the US has been following a policy which has become increasingly aggressive in its effort to contain China. Noticeably, the US has adopted various measures in this regard, which focus on propping India as a counterbalance to China and prevailing upon South Korea, Japan, Vietnam, and other countries that neighbour China for joint military exercises to ‘encircle China militarily’. According to Russian newspaper, Nezavisimaya Gazeta, of October 27, 2010, the Pentagon is spending considerable sums to fashion a front to contain China. The paper asserts that measures in this regard include ‘Creating an Anti-China Alliance’ based on contentious issues such as the unresolved territorial disputes in the South China Sea and the fixed Renimbi currency exchange rate.

Countries surrounding China, like Japan, India, Vietnam, Australia, the Philippines, Indonesia, Taiwan and South Korea are trying to join the anti-China group because they have a conflict of interest with China and are attempting to gain benefits by using the U.S.

China on the other hand, which believes in peace and not war, in its Asia Policy asserts to continue to follow the basic principle of building friendship and partnership with neighbouring countries. In this regard, it is emphasizing on deepening mutual trust. Chinese leaders have recently visited a number of Asian countries; held broad and in-depth exchange of views with their foreign counterparts on how to further deepen mutual trust and bilateral cooperation, and have reached agreements on important issues.

China has ensured that Asian countries work together to make remarkable progress in overcoming the impact of the financial crisis on Asia. The Asian economy as a whole grew by 8.2% last year. It has become an important engine in driving world economic recovery. China boosted mutually beneficial cooperation, advanced regional integration and worked together in properly addressing regional hotspot issues.

China’s resolve to work with neighbouring countries to foster a peaceful, stable, region, pursuing win-win cooperation, will go a long way in achieving this end. In the year 2011, China will continue to increase political mutual trust since this year has some major landmarks.

It marks the 60th, 50th and 20th anniversaries of the establishment of diplomatic ties between China and Pakistan, China and the Lao PDR, and China and Brunei respectively. This year is also the 20th anniversary of the establishment of the dialogue relationship between China and ASEAN. Moreover, this year is the year of friendly exchanges between China and ASEAN and between China and India. China will hold colourful activities and work with other Asian countries to deepen the friendship and mutual understanding between its peoples and pursue common development in Asia.

In accordance with its Asia Policy, China will vigorously promote regional integration. The China-ASEAN Free Trade Area has been fully established, marking a good beginning. China will further deepen such cooperation. At the same time, efforts will also be made to advance the practical cooperation between ASEAN and China, Japan and the ROK. China and ASEAN countries enjoy geographical proximity. The two sides have already engaged in very friendly cooperation. It is the common aspiration of the two sides to advance connectivity and network building. In this field, good progress has already been made. The future belongs to China and Asia and Pakistan as a major Chinese ally must benefit from China’s Asia Policy.

Kumi Naidoo

TWELVE days are not nearly enough to comprehend the magnitude of the catastrophes that hit Japan starting March 11. From the children who lost parents in the crush of the earthquake, to those whose loved ones are still missing after the tsunami, to the scores of workers risking their health by heroically attempting to stabilise the Fukushima nuclear complex – there is no end to the tragic stories.

Yet in addition to the grief and empathy I feel for the Japanese people, I am beginning to develop another emotion, and that is anger. As we anxiously await every bit of news about the developments at Fukushima, hoping that radiation leaks and discharges will be brought to an end, that the risk of further catastrophe will be averted, and that the Japanese people will have one less nightmare to cope with, governments across the world continue to promote further investment in nuclear power. Just last week, for example, the government of my home country of South Africa announced that it was adding 9,600 megawatts of nuclear energy to its new energy plan.

There are two dangerous assumptions currently parading themselves as fact in the midst of the ongoing nuclear crisis. The first is that nuclear energy is safe. The second is that nuclear energy is an essential element of a low carbon future, that it is needed to prevent catastrophic climate change. Both are false. Nuclear technology will always be vulnerable to human error, natural disaster, design failure or terrorist attack. What we are seeing at Fukushima right now are failures of the systems. The reactors themselves withstood the earthquake and tsunami, but then the vital cooling systems failed. When the back-up power systems also failed, the reactors overheated, eventually causing the spread of radiation. This is only one example of what can go wrong.

Nuclear power is inherently unsafe and the list of possible illnesses stemming from exposure to the accompanying radiation is horrifying: genetic mutations, birth defects, cancer, leukemia and disorders of the reproductive, immune, cardiovascular and endocrine systems. While we have all heard of Chernobyl and Three Mile Island, the nuclear industry would have us believe these are but isolated events in an otherwise unblemished history. Not so. Over 800 other significant events have been officially reported to the International Atomic Energy Agency – Mayak, Tokaimura, Bohunice, Forsmark to name just a few.

The argument that nuclear energy is a necessary component of a carbon-free future is also false. Greenpeace and the European Renewable Energy Council have put together a study called “Energy [R]evolution,” which clearly shows that a clean energy pathway is cheaper, healthier and delivers faster results for the climate than any other option. This plan calls for the phase-out of existing reactors around the world and a moratorium on construction of new commercial nuclear reactors.

Furthermore, an energy scenario recently produced by the conservative International Energy Agency highlights the fact that nuclear power is not necessary for lowering greenhouse gas emissions. It shows that even if existing nuclear power capacity could be quadrupled by 2050, the proportion of energy that it provided would still be below 10 per cent globally. This would reduce carbon dioxide emissions by less than four per cent. The same amount of money, invested in clean, renewable energy sources such as wind and solar could have a much greater impact on lowering global warming.

Nuclear energy is an expensive and deadly distraction from the real solutions. “Fuel-free” sources of energy do not generate international conflicts (as I write I cannot help but think of Libya), they do not “run dry” and they do not spill. There are initial financial investments to be made, but in time the price of renewables will decline as technological advances and market competition drive the costs down. Furthermore, implemented wisely, a green, nuclear and fossil-free future will create a host of safe, new jobs.

As international organisations like Greenpeace join Japan’s Citizens Nuclear Information Centre in an appeal to the Japanese government for improved evacuation plans and other protective measures for people still within the 30-kilometre exclusion zone; as the issue of food and water contamination continues to grow in Asia; as iodine tablets continue to sell out around the globe and people in places as far away from Japan as Los Angeles are on high alert for “radioactive plumes” – it is imperative that as citizens of the world we continue to voice our opposition to further investment in nuclear energy. We need a truly clean energy revolution now.— KT