What a difference four months of air sorties make. Back in the early days of the Libya
intervention, David Cameron was unequivocal when it came to Muammar Gaddafi remaining in the country: there was “no future”
for the dictator within its borders, he said. But now, on top of comments by William Hague yesterday, the Prime Minister is thought to be
softening his stance. As the Independent says today, he
has decided that “the time has come to find a way out of the conflict and back a French proposal to allow Gaddafi to stay in the country as part of a negotiated settlement with rebel
forces.” So, from no future for Gaddafi to some sort of future, and all while the bombs have been dropping.
But France and Britain’s change in tack is unlikely to have much effect on the ground. As Christina Lamb explained in The Spectator a couple of months ago, the prospect of being forced out of Libya incentivised Gaddafi to keep on fighting:
“Once, dictators could just step down, and go off to enjoy their ill-gotten wealth in villas in the South of France. But for nine years now, the International Criminal Court has been scouring the planet for people to prosecute. It was intended to deter those in power from committing atrocities, but many argue that it has actually made it harder to end wars by removing a tyrant. For despots who already have blood on their hands — Gaddafi was indicted by the court last week — the threat of prosecution is a reason to fight until the bitter end.”
But even if he is allowed to stay in the country, by the terms of some peace deal, then Gaddafi may just face prosecution of a different sort. As one rebel leader puts it to the Times (£), “None of the Libyan people will allow him to stay here. We want him dead and buried.” Which is just the sort of prospect that might encourage the Libyan dictator to remain brutally defiant. Indeed, yesterday he ruled out talks until “Judgement Day”.
The problem for the West is if, as looks possible, there’s only one outcome acceptable to Gaddafi: that he remains in power. Such a set-up wouldn’t be conducive to a swift, or a bloodless, end to this conflict.
Comments