Attack on Libya; U.S. Ball in Europe‘s Court

17 March 2011 | 18:42 Code : 10733 Asia & Africa

Interview with Ismail Bashari

IRD: France in 1914 was quite different from the picture we now have in mind. Algeria, as one of the country’s provinces, gained independence in 1961. During years in the first half of the 20^th Century, colonized countries were under the control and domination of colonizer countries. Given today’s developments in some countries of Northern Africa, once colonized by Europeans, we see that the interest of European countries in the settlement of the disputes in countries such as Libya is greater than that of the US. Does this refer to a sense of colonization in those countries, or is it American politics that this time put the ball in Europe’s court?

In this context, IRD interviewed Ismail Boshra, an expert at the Strategic Research Centre of the Expediency Council on disarmament issues, and an expert on European issues.

IRD: To what extent do you agree that it is bewildering, given that American troops are involved in Iraq and Afghanistan, the US is not willing to play a role in Libya’s developments and has assigned this duty to the European Union?

IB: American strategy is defined in such a way as to direct two wars simultaneously in two critical areas. Currently, given that the US is quite involved in Afghanistan and less so in Iraq, it considers it unsuitable to open a new front for U.S. forces. Therefore, because the U.S. predicts that if it is involved in Libya, it may fail to avoid the conflict, it urges Europe to intervene and make war.

The French, having more interests in North Africa in general and Libya, the former Italian colony, in particular, than the US, it considers itself still with rights in this country. But this intervention can cause war, but there is an inclination toward restrictions and interdictions for Qaddafi to ultimately resolve Libya’s issues.

I think that the European Union is attempting to negotiate an agreement with the Security Council, and now it awaits approval of the EU to launch a no-fly zone plan agreed by Europe and the United States. In other words, NATO is now involved in Afghanistan and if Libya is added, conflicts will be greater. Thus, in Libya’s case, NATO is more willing to launch no-fly zone plan than to act directly.

IRD: Is launching a no-fly zone plan proposed by the Arab League and also agreed by the EU an appropriate solution to end the clashes in Libya?

IB: Libya is a very large country, so its residential and habitable areas are on the margins of the Mediterranean Sea. So controlling the area is a good way to control the massacre in Libya.

I think if a no-fly zone is instigated in marginal areas of the Mediterranean Sea, such as in Benghazi, it will be quiet useful. If this plan is launched, NATO navies can approach Libya’s shore and target Libya’s aircraft in case of a violation.

IRD: Given what you mentioned, if Libyan aircraft are targeted, will it make it a war?

IB: If a no-fly zone is announced, Libyan planes are never allowed to fly. As you know, during the time of Saddam Hussein that law was applied to Iraq: in the northern Iraq, southern Iraq and Kurdistan, Iraqi aircraft were not allowed to fly. Saddam also obeyed due to being afraid of the consequences. If the UN issues the license for Libya, no aircraft can fly. Once this law is enforced, airplanes cannot fly.

IRD: Can it be claimed that due to the fact that on the one hand, in each of the EU members such as France and on the other hand, in the US, there will be elections, U.S. and European countries are cautious?

IB: Elections in any country and especially in the U.S. play an important and determining role in international issues, and certainly adopting positions and interference in regional developments will impact their elections. But in countries that do not play a role on the international scene, internal issues will play a decisive role. Although domestic issues are usually more important for the people in the US, international issues will be inevitably effective. Resolving any international problems will help the current US president win the next election.

IRD: What is Europe’s position toward the countries colonized in the past?

IB: It may be rooted in investment in the colonial countries. In other words, many of these capitalists did not draw out their capital from countries after those countries became free and independent. For example, this happened in Algeria, with all speaking French, or in Tunisia, greatly under the domination of France. It can be concluded that there are still colonial traces. Another example is Libya, the former Italian colony, where the cultural influence can obviously be seen, but economic issues also matter. Due to those reasons, there will be more willingness in countries like France and Italy to influence or intervene in the movements in North Africa.

Finally, I should add that there are the French-speaking countries in Africa, considered as France’s Commonwealth, while England gathers all its former colonies in the British Commonwealth as allies. This indicates that inclinations of the colonial period exist in the culture and economic form in stable colonial countries.

Interview with Ismail Bashari is an expert at the strategic research centre of the expediency council on disarmament issues and an expert on European Issues