The fall of Libya and the dangerous temptation of regime change
On the 20th October 2011, a man got killed. Killed by those he had ruled over for more than 40 years. The day spelled victory for the uprising against Colonel Muammar Gaddafi. After decades of oppression a new Libya was about to emerge.
Now in 2017, six years later, three governments are fighting for the leadership of a divided country. Libya has become a sad reminder of the perils of interventionism.
The uprising against the rule of Gaddafi had begun in the wake of the Arab Spring in 2011 with large-scale protests that quickly turned into armed insurgence. United under the National Transitional Council (NTC) they initially managed to successfully capture several important cities. But ultimately, they stood little chance against the better organised and better armed troops of Gaddafi.
That is until in 2011 the Security Council adopted resolution 1973, giving a Western-led coalition the mandate to establish a no-fly zone over Libya to prevent the Libyan army from bombing rebels and civilians alike.
Controversially, this mandate was stretched into a legitimation of a bombing campaign targeting not only Libyan ground troops but often non-military targets as well. In the end this effort gave the NTC the backing to gain the upper hand, defeat and kill Gaddafi, and take control of the state.
At least for a while. As it turned out, they were not strong enough to establish a full monopoly of power over the whole country.
There are still forces loyal to Gaddafi in some parts of the territory, while in others older tribal structures have resurfaced to the forefront of power. And in the contested territories in-between religious extremists take advantage of the chaos.
This development highlights the danger of interventionism and forced regime change. It can result in the destruction of the infrastructure of power and therefore the means to effectively govern a country. With no viable opposition to take over, chaos and instability are almost inevitable.
This leaves leaders with a dilemma. Knowing of the dangers of intervention; can they justify to support or at least to ignore the brutality and oppressive nature of a regime and watch idly as initially peaceful protests are quashed and brutally pushed down? Is stability more important than morality?
When stability means that even more bloodshed and a state of chaos and anarchy is prevented, the answer must be yes. And given the unpredictability of the outcomes of regime change it seems wise for Western countries to stay away from interventionist adventures.
This is not to suggest fraternising with dictators. On the contrary. Accepting that one can’t change the situation overnight in a country like Libya does not mean being quiet on repression and human rights violations. On the contrary, it is imperative to take a clear stand and confront these regimes instead of selling them weapons.
But removing a regime without thinking about the outcome and potential chaos and instability it might bring equals playing with fire in an ammunition depot.
