Criticism 2011 military intervention in Libya

protest in belgrade, serbia on march 26, 2011 against military intervention in libya



protest in minneapolis, united states on april 2, 2011 against military intervention in libya

some critics of western military intervention suggested resources—not democratic or humanitarian concerns—were real impetus intervention, among them journalist of london arab nationalist newspaper al-quds al-arabi, russian tv network rt , (then-)leaders of venezuela , zimbabwe, hugo chávez , robert mugabe. gaddafi s libya, despite relatively small population, known possess vast resources, particularly in form of oil reserves , financial capital. libya member of opec , 1 of world s largest oil producers. producing 1.6 million barrels day before war, 70 percent of them through state-owned national oil corporation. additionally, country s sovereign wealth fund, libyan investment authority, 1 of largest in world, controlling assets worth approximately us$56 billion, including on 100 tons of gold reserves in central bank of libya.

accusations of imperialism on part of nato , west voiced many leaders of states had traditionally aligned communist bloc , subsequently russia, including: iran s supreme leader ayatollah khamenei (who said supported rebels not western intervention), venezuelan president hugo chávez (who referred gaddafi martyr ), , president of zimbabwe robert mugabe (who referred western nations vampires ), governments of raúl castro in cuba, daniel ortega in nicaragua, kim jong-il in north korea, hifikepunye pohamba in namibia, , others. gaddafi himself referred intervention colonial crusade ... capable of unleashing full scale war , sentiment echoed russian prime minister vladimir putin: [unsc resolution 1973] defective , flawed...it allows everything. resembles medieval calls crusades. president hu jintao of people s republic of china said, dialogue , other peaceful means ultimate solutions problems, , added, if military action brings disaster civilians , causes humanitarian crisis, runs counter purpose of un resolution. indian prime minister manmohan singh critical of intervention well, rebuking coalition in speech @ un in september 2011. italian prime minister silvio berlusconi, despite substantial role country played in nato mission, spoke out against getting involved: had hands tied vote of parliament of country. against , against intervention end in way no-one knows , added wasn t popular uprising because gaddafi loved people, able see when went libya.

russia s foreign broadcasting service, rt, has postulated nato intervention may have been motivated gaddafi s attempts establish unified federation of african states use gold dinar currency , demand foreign importers of african oil pay in gold. despite stated opposition nato intervention, russia abstained voting on resolution 1973 instead of exercising veto power permanent member of security council; 4 other powerful nations abstained vote—india, china, germany, , brazil—but of group china has same veto power.

moreover, criticisms have been made on way operation led. according michael kometer , stephen wright, outcome of libyan intervention reached default rather design. appears there important lack of consistent political guidance caused particularly vagueness of un mandate , ambiguous consensus among nato-led coalition. lack of clear political guidance translated incoherent military planning on operational level. such gap may impact future nato s operations face trust issues.

in 2015 through 2016 british parliament s foreign affairs select committee conducted extensive , highly critical inquiry british involvement in civil war. concluded threat civilians had been overstated , significant islamist element in rebel forces had not been recognised, due intelligence failure. summer 2011 initial limited intervention protect libyan civilians had become policy of regime change. new policy did not include proper support , new government, leading political , economic collapse in libya , growth of isil in north africa. foreign affairs select committee saw no evidence uk government carried out proper analysis of nature of rebellion in libya , selectively took elements of muammar gaddafi’s rhetoric @ face value; , failed identify militant islamist extremist element in rebellion. uk strategy founded on erroneous assumptions , incomplete understanding of evidence . former prime minister david cameron responsible british policy failure.