Fog Surrounds Canada's Commitment to Libya

How will we know when Canada's role in Libya is over when its job was never made clear in the first place?

Canada has committed its military to the NATO mission in Libya for another three months, a period that will surely be one of great transition as fighting winds down, forces hunt for Moammar Gadhafi, and elections are prepared to find his replacement. The Edmonton Journal's editorialists welcome the mission extension, saying, like Liberal Leader Bob Rae, that “Canada went into this mission with NATO and the United Nations and it shouldn't leave until NATO leaves.” Being in Libya to merely fulfill our treaty obligations is a weak reason to keep flying sorties over Sirte, especially as it clears the way for indefinite military intervention so long as it has NATO's OK. But that doesn't mean that Canada's diplomatic presence won't be sorely needed in the coming months. Tripoli hasn't collapsed into chaos like Baghdad did after the ouster of Saddam Hussein, the Journal notes, but “there are regional rivalries to resolve, there is tension between those Libyans who want a secular government and those who want a more Islamist government.” Also, there are a lot of weapons in the hands of the public. Lots of weapons. Strengthening the civic institutions in Libya – the courts, police, electoral offices, and the bureaucracy – is the surest way to make certain that the country doesn't succumb to its internal conflicts. Finding a way to draw down Canada's military presence as its diplomats take on more heavy lifting ought to be the immediate foreign policy aim for the Harper government.

Scott Taylor takes a moment to remind us in The Halifax Chronicle Herald that some of Libya's cheerleaders might have put the cart before the horse in proclaiming victory once Tripoli fell, as here we are a month later with Gadhafi still at large, skirmishes continuing in at least two cities, and no clear idea of when NATO will decide its job is done. “While there is no doubt as to the eventual outcome of this one-sided fight, each day Gadhafi loyalists continue to resist surely undermines NATO’s self-proclaimed moral authority to effect regime change in Libya,” says Taylor. Plus, it lessens the chance of reconciliation between pro- and anti-Gadhafi forces, which could lead to flare-ups between the rival factions well into the future. The prolonged denouement also casts a pall over the Conservative government's insistence that it would be a short and tidy affair, not the nine-month mission that it's become. We need standards by which we can measure the mission's success; otherwise, the word “victory” means little more than “we haven't lost yet.”

One measure that we would include on any such matrix of victory would be the prosecution of Moammar Gadhafi, assuming he can actually be found, of course. Mark Vlasic remarks in The Guardian on the utmost importance of bringing Gadhafi to justice, either in a domestic court, an international one, or a hybrid of the two. Vlasic advises that “we must accept that the best option for the Libyan people may not be the one that is pushed by the 'internationals.'” That could very well mean having Gadhafi arrested, tried, and sentenced in Libya, despite the wishes of the International Criminal Court to have him tried in The Hague. “Only a national court, or truth commission, may provide the accountability and closure of seeing the former tyrant or his henchmen before a local tribunal,” writes Vlasic, pointing to lingering resentment in Serbia over the fact that former president Slobodan Milosevic was never tried for his crimes at home. When it comes to justice, then, perhaps the members of NATO can simply provide the means to prosecute Gadhafi, then get the hell out of the way while the Libyans do the rest themselves. Given how they interpreted their "responsibility to protect," though, we wouldn't count on it.