The NATO intervention in Libya in 2011 consisted of a military intervention following the 1973 United Nations Security Council Resolution intending on eradicating attacks against civilians as well as implementing sanctions against Gadaffi and its parties as those acts were associated with crimes against humanity (Hehir, 2013). However,some could dispute the genuine reasons for the intervention in Libya. Governments from South America and Asia have argued against the Responsibility to Protect as this concept could be used as an excuse where powerful states carry out forceful actions against weaker states (Heybolt, 2007). In order to do so, I will be exploring relevant theories to provide an understanding on political systems and NATO's decision to intervene including neorealism and liberalism. To do so I will be looking into the previous and present relations between Libya and states in order to establish reasons for a final decision on intervening in Libya and ways in which the intervention was carried as well as its impact on Libya and states part of NATO through liberalist and neorealist pespectives.
The primary aspect of classic realism explains the human nature as being the root cause of state leaders increasing their power through strategic decision or actions which will be in their own interest (Griffiths, 2007). However, neorealism focuses on the structure of the international system, which is characterised by anarchy, this means there's an absence of any central authority and each state is equal in the political system. Each states take actions according to their own interests and would not jeoperdise their own interests for other states' known as the 'self-help' system (Baylis, 2013).
However, liberalists agree with the theory of neorealists recognising the international system as anarchic, and having a decentralised international structure, the theories differentiate in terms of liberalists believing that the world could become a better place through education and morals. Liberalists suggest that interdependence between states could lessen possibilities of war, interdepence could be through a liberal economic system where states trade freely which would enhance better relationships between states (Hasenclever, 1997). There is also a concept of democracy decreasing chances of war, not necessarily because democratic states are less likely to be in war than dictatorship states but because democratic states are less likely to have war among one another.
When considering views of liberalists, humanitarian interventions could be justified in certain cases. Michael Waltzer disputes that states interventions could possibly be legitimised, it is however appropriate to intervene in other states if civilians' human rights are being violated including genocides and crimes against humanity (Weiss, 2013). These operations should be multinational coalitions and initated by the United Nations as it is believed that multilateralism would restrain powerful states from oppressing and act for their own benefits instead of fulfilling the humanitarian cause.
From this perspective the United Nations Security Council permitted to take military interventions in Libya in order to rescue Libyan civilians suppressed by Gaddafi's regime. After coming to power the 'Libyan Revolutionary Council' led by Gaddafi distestablished the monarchy that was previously present and instead established a new Libyan Arab Republic from 1969 to 2011 (Wright, 2012). Gaddafi's regime provided free health care, education irrespective of genders and supposedly free housing, however the 'The Revolutionary Council' were not capable accomplishing this promise. During Gadaffi's regime civilians income rose by more that £7,000, the standards of living were good, but that came with a price as civilians were persecuted by Gaddafi's regime followed by a questionable set of foreign policies. Ultimately, in 2011 an expansion of the 'Arab Spring' arose in Libya with the Anti Gaddafi protestors known as the 'National Transitional Council. The protests were not peaceful as the government responded with atrocities as well as menacing of continuous bloodshedding (Chomsky, 2013).
Looking into liberal lenses, the multinational coalition felt obligated to rescue the oppressed from a non-democratic and unfair government. As a result, in March 2011 NATO proceeded an intervention against Gaddafi's regime to protect civilians from further persecution, five months later Gaddafi was overthrown from presidency even though som of his strong holds such as his native city-Sirte were still proving resistant (Campbell, 2013). The final capture of Sirte's stronghold in August 2011 then initiated the killing of Gaddafi which ended the 'Libyan Arab Jamahira's' era.
However, it could be argued that the legitimate motivation of NATO's intervention could be to pursue their own political goal which may undermine the initial objective to protect civilians. Despite NATO's precaution to avoid hitting civilians such as 'round the clock serveillance' in order to know civilians' life schedule and relying on 'precison' weapons to ensure civilians safety (Turner, 2015). Eventhough, from a different perspective there has been reports of heavy civilian killings by a NATO spokesman with many claims that civilians were in kiled in buildings as well as civilians killed due to missed fire missiles. Gaddafi allies also stating that civilians ended up being the victims of this intervention. Following these claims, the Libyan Health office additionally reported 1,108 civilians killed by air strikes with 4,500 who were wounded.
Considering the fact that NATO fired an estimate of more than 9,000 airstrikes demnonstates that it would be difficult to avoid civilians from being hit with the United Kingdom contributing to more than 1, 400 airstrikes which make up one fifth of total airstrikes. Additionally, NATO did not only fire Gaddafi allies but also fired General Musbah Diab's house which killed several women and children (Mueller, 2015). The Human Rights Watch confirmed an estimate of seventy civilians killed as a result of these attacks, however the New York Times comfirmed a larger scale of civilian killings stating that civilians' houses, shops, schools and community buildings had suffered from the airstrikes (Chivers, 2011). It also states that no legitimate actions were taken assure civilians safety and security.The prevention taken to protect civilians through these attacks could be questionable which would further instigate controversial theories around the real motive of NATO's intervention as the primary reason could be to establish a new Libyan democratic state.
The liberalists idea of intervention in cases of crimes against humanity, could be argued by neorealists as similar case in the middle east broke out in this era- the 'Arab Spring' and little if not no intervention took place in those countries. The reason for the quick and immediate actions of NATO are not clear, several scholars would label this intervention as a 'Right to Protect' indoctrination (Focarreli, 2011). The intervention did not take place for humanitarian reasons, however the intervenion was based on neorealist theory, states taking action for their own interests as Libya as state possesses several natural resources such as petroleum, natural gas and gypsum which are resources that NATO states largely depend on. Also, considering Gaddafi as a threat due to being highly influencial, Gaddafi winning the war could be sponsoring Libya towards extremism resulting in terrorism and Libya possessing nuclear weapons could also have been a motive for the immediate intervention.
NATO could argue that intervening in the Libyan war was justified as mass killings and breach of human rights were carried out by Gaddafi's regime and by following the ethics of the United Nations Security Council these actions were appropriate as actions were intended to protect civilians. It can however be contested when looking at the facts through realist ideas. Libya being an essential aspect to European commodity market would explain NATO's interest in Libya. Libya possesses the most amount of oil in Africa with more than 46 billion barrels of oil reserves (US EIA, 2011). Libya had also planned by 2020 to expand oil reserves to 3 million barrels per day and to increase the production of natural gas in order recover from more than ten years of international sanctions (White, 2015).
As realists would agree oil being the central focus of European governments, statistics show the dependency of European states on Libyan natural resources. An estimate of 80% of Libyan oil were bought by Italy being the first primary user followed by France, as well as the United Kingdom and Spain (Evans, 2014). Following the success of expanding its natural Libya exported an exclusive amount of natural gas to Europe. Prior to the critical situation, the International Monetary Fund stated that estimations had been carried out, estimating Libya's oil growth by fifty percent in 2012.
Additionally, through realists perspectives NATO's intervention could be a strategy to prevent Libya from sponsoring terrorism just like the Libyan government thirty years ago. With the history of Libya's terrorist actions such as bombings in Berlin, and attacks in America it is evident superpowers would find an opportunity to attack the Libyan government (Yoo, 2014). NATO being made of super power states would suggest that the intervention in Libya was carried out to not only establish a democratic state but to also increase power in terms of control. As a result, NATO has been criticised by many European states as at the end of the cold war, French and German governments had suggested to that Europe should be made independent from the American military (Belkin,2012). There was later an agreement from the German and French government to establish a European union in order to have an independent military away from America encouraging an only European military force following the European structure.
When thinking about these facts it is evident that NATO could be questioned in terms of power, super power states making decisions to act on weaker states. The Libyan intervention itself has only been considered through super power perspectives human rights. These human rights standards have first of all been set by super powers who are influencial in terms of decisions been taken; if these decisions are accepted, only the super powers' interest is at hand resulting in weaker states being oppressed by superpower states through multilateral interventions, decisions and sanctions which could affect a states economic condition (Forsythe, 2006).
In conclusion, as an initial thought the NATO intervention in Libya could prove challenging in terms of understanding the real impact this has had on the state involved. After the intervention despite NATO being asked to prolong the remain in Libya by the new government to ensure the state's structure the Security Council still decided to remove NATO from this operation after Gaddafi's death. And this is where NATO's real motivation comes into place, as the initial reason for the intervention was to provide aid to Libyan civilians as they were suffering from atrocities. However, ten days after Gaddafi's death the UN agreed that killing Gaddafi was sufficient to ensure civilian's safety.
And this is possibly the reason why neorealism would be the most appropriate theory to justify NATO's intervention in Libya, when taking into consideration the evidence superpower states's interest. Firstly, the interests that European states would obtain from Libya's natural resources due to the fact that if Gaddafi won there would be a possible removal of oil and its natural resources which would result in the European economy suffering (80% of Libyan oil been exported to western Europe). As well as Libya sponsoring terrorist acts, not forgetting its weapons of mass distruction.