BLOODY IMPASSE

The war in Libya continues. The violent clashes between supporters of Muammar Qaddafi's regime and the opposition, which is receiving help from NATO air forces, are accompanied by numerous casualties, including among civilians.

An honest answer from Rasmussen

The Western coalition's military operation has undergone major changes. Leadership of the campaign, which aimed to impose an arms embargo on Libya, establish a no-fly zone and protect the civilian population, has been taken over by NATO command. Simultaneously, the US officially announced that it was ceasing separate bombing of Libyan territory. The Americans are making it clear that they do not need another headache in the Middle East, akin to Afghanistan or Iraq. So, the course of NATO military operations against the Libyan regime will now be determined by the Europeans.

The North Atlantic Alliance has already achieved its objectives to some extent - the Libyan army has suffered significant damage and the air strikes have actually suppressed the Libyan air force and air defences. The bombing of the Libyan capital Tripoli, in particular air strikes on the Qaddafi residence brought a mixed response from the global community. These actions were denounced by Brazil and Russia. Brazilian Foreign Minister Antonio Patriota said that NATO's military actions, aimed at overthrowing the Libyan government, are in violation of the Security Council resolutions, which were intended to protect civilians. According to Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, no-one has given the leaders of certain states the right to execute Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi. "Who gave you permission to do this? Was there a trial? Who took on the right to execute a man, whatever he may be like?" Putin asked. He noted that "Qaddafi has long disappeared and is sitting somewhere in a bomb shelter, while civilians are dying".

The course of the civil war in Libya shows that Qaddafi's army has maintained its combat readiness and is prepared for a protracted war. This, of course, does not suit the insurgents, who have set up a transitional government in Benghazi and expected that with the beginning of NATO military operations, Qaddafi's forces would lose the its fighting capability. In any case, the Libyan opposition sees the underlying cause of continued resistance in inefficient strikes by the alliance. According to the rebel army chief of staff, Abdel Fattah Yunis, "NATO did not give us what we want. Alliance forces are very slow, allowing Muammar Qaddafi's troops to navigate and enter cities, and then it is too late to do anything."

The NATO leadership, meanwhile, believes that the opposition itself, or rather its lack of military capacity, is to blame for the prolongation of the war and efforts to depose Qaddafi's regime. Western military experts openly hint that Qaddafi's army would have taken Benghazi long ago, had it not been for NATO aircraft constantly striking at government forces.

Whatever the reason, a month after the beginning of NATO air operations in Libya, stalemate was reached in Libya. None of the warring parties is able to gain a final victory. Qaddafi's troops are not able to take Benghazi due to NATO air strikes, while the Libyan opposition is not sufficiently organized and equipped to use Western air support, launch an offensive on Tripoli and overthrow Qaddafi. So the only way forward can be peace talks. The West is aware of this, too.

Whereas the NATO leadership allowed about 90 days for the operation to overthrow Qaddafi, now NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen openly expresses his doubts about the possibility of resolving the Libyan crisis by military means. In an interview with the German magazine Spiegel, Rasmussen admitted: "The honest answer is: this conflict cannot be solved by military means."

However, will all the parties involved in the war in Libya have enough goodwill to achieve a peace agreement in the near future? Various options of such are being proposed by third parties.

"Qaddafi knows very well what he is required to do"

Turkey was one of the first to propose a 'roadmap' for peace in Libya. Although it is a member of NATO, it is critical of NATO's military intervention in Libya's domestic conflict. Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan suggested that Qaddafi's forces leave besieged cities, create conditions for the delivery of humanitarian assistance and institute democratic change in the country. The essence of the Turkish 'roadmap' is to put an immediate end to the bloodshed and to maintain Libya's territorial integrity.

Attempts to achieve peace are also being made by Qaddafi himself, who does not hide his desire for reconciliation with the West. To this end, he sent Libya's acting foreign minister Abdel Ati al-Obeidi to Greece, which is taking part in NATO's military operation. Soon after talks with the Libyan envoy, Greek Foreign Minister Dimitris Droutsas said: "It seems that Qaddafi's regime is seeking ways of resolving the conflict."

Further, the Libyan leader addressed a personal letter to President Barack Obama. He called on the White House for a truce, calling Obama a son and wishing him victory in the 2012 presidential election. Washington's reaction to Qaddafi's message was categorical. US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said: "Qaddafi knows very well what he is required to do - that is a ceasefire, the withdrawal of his forces from the cities captured with violence and human casualties and a decision on his departure from power."

But Washington is apparently no less interested than Tripoli in an early exit from the Libyan impasse. This is evidenced by the mission of former US Congressman Curt Weldon to the Libyan ruler. Although Weldon made similar demands to those of Clinton (adding that after Qaddafi's departure, the country should be ruled by a transitional government headed by current prime minister Baghdadi Ali al-Mahmudi and opposition leaders), in exchange for acceptance, he offered 'the leader of the Libyan Revolution' US assistance for his appointment to the post of honorary chairman of the African Union (AU).

In addition, US diplomat Gene Kretz said in Benghazi that Washington was not yet ready to officially recognize the opposition transitional government - the National Council of Libya. However, according to the US diplomat, this does not prevent them from assisting the rebels.

Meanwhile, the African Union came up with a very serious peace initiative, sending a delegation headed by South African President Jacob Zuma to Qaddafi. The delegation also included the leaders of Mauritania, Mali and Congo, Mohamed Ould Abdel Aziz, Amadou Toumani Toure and Denis Sassou Nguesso, along with Ugandan Foreign Minister Henry Okello Oryema. The 'roadmap' proposed by the AU includes an immediate cessation of hostilities, the delivery of humanitarian assistance, a start to dialogue between the different social groups and tribes of Libya and the protection of foreign nationals in Libya.

How to break the stalemate?

After Muammar Qaddafi approved the truce plan proposed by the AU delegation, its implementation depended on talks with opposition leaders in Benghazi. However, the vague possibility of peace was thwarted when the plan was rejected by the Libyan opposition. The opposition government confirmed that it would not end armed resistance until Qaddafi quit. The head of the transitional government, and ex-justice minister, Mustafa Abdul-Jalil, said that the plan did not meet the opposition's basic demands - Muammar Qaddafi's departure from power - and that "any other roadmap which does not guarantee this legitimate demand of the people is doomed to failure".

At the same time, Western powers also confirmed their demand for the immediate departure of the Libyan dictator. In addition, NATO Secretary General Rasmussen expressed disbelief in statements about the Libyan leadership's intention to cease fire. "We have heard and seen Qaddafi's forces declare and promise to cease fire in the past. They did not keep their promises and, on the contrary, they continued to systematically attack their own people. That's why I do not take such promises at face value", said the general secretary.

This, however, does not refute the fact that the Western community wants to find a quick way out of the situation in Libya. It is noteworthy that the African Union mission was approved by NATO and that during their visit to Tripoli, Western jets did not raid the Libyan capital. It is also important for the West to come out of this crisis with credit, which is why one cannot exclude pressure being exerted on Libyan opposition leaders to force them to soften their demands, which essentially call for the total surrender of Qaddafi's regime. This is especially the case as the odious Libyan leader has long ceased to be a bugbear for the West. Indeed, in recent years, relations between Tripoli and leading European powers become almost ones of partnership, particularly in the energy sector. With this in mind, it is not surprising that leaders of Western countries still doubt that the military operation against Qaddafi's regime was absolutely inevitable and consistent with the West's objectives. European and US experts accuse their governments of having no clear-cut strategy in the Libya campaign.

At the dawn of the 'Arab revolution', which began with protests in Tunisia and Egypt, Western strategists probably never considered the 'vital necessity' of overthrowing Qaddafi. But then, Washington and other Western capitals simply decided to get ahead of the game and prevent possible events that might cause major problems for the Euro-Atlantic community. The civil confrontation in Libya may well have ended with the triumph of Islamist radicals, the same ill-fated Al-Qaeda, of which, in fact, Qaddafi repeatedly warned, accusing Osama bin Laden's organization of trying to overthrow the Libyan leadership. It is significant that Rasmussen recently let slip that NATO is alarmed by the possibility of Libya becoming a haven for extremists in the long term. "Everything necessary must be done to avoid this situation," he said.

It is clear that Qaddafi at the helm in Libya is much more preferable to the West than radical Islamists. On the other hand, a victory by the 'leader of the Libyan revolution' over the opposition could lead to a retreat of revolutionary processes in other Middle Eastern countries, ending the 'Arab revolution' which, perhaps, the West did not prepare, but certainly decided to guide in an acceptable direction. This would be a precedent: the victory of one dictator would give a boost to others. That would not suit the West, which was out to catch a big fish in the pool of the 'Arab revolution'. Therefore, leading NATO countries decided to launch this complicated and controversial game in Libya, which, however, has ground to stalemate. The West is disillusioned that the leaders of the Libyan opposition it backed are not able to end the reign of Muammar Qaddafi, even with the support of NATO aircraft. It is now desperately seeking a way out. But if no exit is found (which suggests a stalemate), then the West will have to begin a new game around Libya. The question is what game and with whom? For the time being, there are no answers to these questions.