The confusion surrounding the regional and international positions vis-à-vis the handling of the Libyan crisis, is not only encouraging Colonel Muammar Gaddafi to proceed with his war against his citizens, but might also contain the momentum of this powerful storm sweeping the Arab countries one after the other. It is as though the Libyan leader is fighting on behalf of many “colleagues” who are besieged by the angry people, or whose people are preparing to follow in the footsteps of the Tunisians and the Egyptians. This will undoubtedly prolong the sufferings of the Libyans and lead the country toward a dangerous situation, and might encourage a counter-revolution in Tunis and Cairo, whose prime minister officially recognized the attempts undertaken by the remnants of the ousted regime to restore the pre-January 25 situation or spread chaos. Confusion is also surrounding the ranks of Gaddafi's oppositionists themselves. They want Arab and international support in the face of the regime, but with conditions. They want to see a no-fly zone imposed over Libya, but do not want a military interference, knowing that the imposition of a no-fly zone is a purely military action which might prompt – in light of certain circumstances or at a specific point in time – a military action on the field going beyond the monitoring of the airspace. German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle put it well when he warned against the threat of sliding toward war by saying: “The no-fly zone is not like putting traffic lights. It is an attack with bombs, missiles and weapons.” Washington has severed its ties with the regime and President Barack Obama had his say when he called on Colonel Muammar Gaddafi to immediately leave, holding the world responsible for the prevention of massacres in Libya similar to the ones carried out in Rwanda or Bosnia. Consequently, Gaddafi's regime can no longer be dealt with, no matter how long it were to remain in power. In the meantime, the American position has become critical and necessitates measures that would ensure the hastening of the regime's departure. However, the American military and intelligence circles seem to have more reservations in regard to any measure that would carry a direct interference. Indeed, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates opposes the dispatch of troops or the staging of any military interference, as he is suffering from the consequences of this interference in Afghanistan and Iraq. On the other hand, many officials in the intelligence apparatuses are warning against the Colonel's ability to suppress the revolution in light of the absence of any drastic and efficient intervention to uproot the regime, as it was done with Saddam Hussein. Clearly, there is more than one viewpoint inside the American administration. Some do not wish to become involved in a new military action, while President Obama ran in the presidential elections with a slogan that is still being faced with high sensitivity within the American circles, i.e. the opposition of the war in Iraq. So, how can he prepare for a new war which he might not deem necessary to topple Gaddafi's regime? Moreover, the American reluctance or slowness may aim at pushing Europe – France, Britain and states south of the continent – to the forefront and the confrontation, to get them to take matters into their own hands and assume their responsibility in protecting the southern gate that is open to illicit immigration and all sorts of smuggling, from drugs to the weapons and elements of terrorism. However, Europe, which also announced a blunt and unrevoked severance of the relations with Gaddafi's regime, is not in agreement over the measures that should be adopted to hasten its departure, as there is a clear discrepancy between France's position and Germany's position among other European states. Indeed, some are insisting on getting a legitimate international cover for any military action, knowing that a few years ago, the United Nations ratified the principle of international responsibility for the protection of the innocent from violence inside a sovereign state. In other words, it gave some sort of legitimacy to foreign intervention to prevent exterminations or the blunt violations of human rights. For his part, the late French President Francois Mitterrand had called at the beginning of the 1990s for interference to protect any people from the threat of extermination, regardless of the state's sovereignty over its soil. But due to the superpowers' ideological and political differences and the conflicts over the positions and interests, obstacles are continuing to face the international consensus over the justification of the violation of the sovereignty of any state. Moreover, some states are finding it difficult to justify to their people the dispatch of troops which might suffer human and financial losses, in order to defend another people seeking help to get rid of a tyrannical and oppressive ruler. As for French President Nicolas Sarkozy, who is trying to lead his partners in the European Union toward positions which some are reluctant to adopt, his enthusiasm is not distant from the domestic situation in his country, as the opinion polls clearly reveal the retreat of his popularity. He is well aware of the damage that affected his status and image due to the hesitation of his diplomacy toward the Tunisian revolution, and is still recalling what happened to his former foreign minister due to her positions toward President Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali's regime. Consequently, he is now trying to compensate for that position which was lengthily tackled by France's politicians and journalists, and in regard to which the least that was said was that it did not belong to the heritage of the French revolution. Furthermore, France cannot show any tolerance at the level of the conflict which has been ongoing on the Dark Continent for decades, at a time when it is trying hard to maintain its interests – at least in Northern Africa. Still, Sarkozy's chances of getting an African and Arab “legitimacy” for an interference in Libya may not be better than the chances of the attempts to earn international legitimacy at the Security Council. Indeed, the reliance on a legitimate cover from the Africans is like allowing the latter to handle their own affairs the way they dealt with the Somali problem, with the Zimbabwe and Robert Mugabe problem or at best the way they are handling the new problem in the Ivory Coast where the entire world – including Africa – has recognized the legitimacy of Alassane Ouattara as president in Abidjan, but “President” Laurent Gbagbo is still in the presidential palace. In the meantime, the country is divided between the Southern camp and the Northern camp, and not one day goes by without seeing the eruption of armed clashes between the two. In this case, neither the African handling solved the problem, nor the international recognition of the opposition's leader hastened Gbagbo's departure! So, why would Gaddafi, “the king of the kings of Africa,” fear any other fate? As for the Arab League, it could not publicly stand in the face of the people's will. Some in it sided with the revolution and modestly opened the door before the international community to act against Tripoli, but it was clear that many states - fearful of ending up in the position of Gaddafi's regime – could not approve any form of interference. The question that is now on the table is the following: Is such an Arab position enough? Is the position of Arab League Secretary General Amr Moussa enough, although in the past – before the Tunisian and Egyptian revolutions – he always had a reserved position taking into consideration what he referred to as being the consensual “Arab stand,” i.e. the position of all the member states and of course Cairo? Now, after he engaged in the movement of change in Egypt and as he is getting ready to run in the presidential elections, he has become more liberal in expressing his viewpoint, considering whoever supports the revolution in Egypt cannot hesitate to support it in Libya… even if in the absence of an Arab consensus! In addition to all these factors, America and Europe are afraid of getting involved in a direct military interference that might raise the concerns of the sides engaged in the current Arab revolutions and so that it is not said that the West is behind these actions, thus rendering the local sides indecisive in regard to supporting the movements of change. Moreover, the direct field backup could turn into a weapon in the hands of the regimes that are continuously warning against the West's attempts to restore the policy of colonialism, in order to gain control over the Arabs' wealth, oil and strategic positions. Did we not watch Gaddafi as he warned against the return of colonialism? And before that, did we not hear Yemeni President Ali Abdullah Saleh opposing the interference of the American administration and President Obama in person “as though he has nothing more important than to follow what is happening in the Arab world and to issue instructions”? In this context, concerned circles in America and Europe are shyly expressing fears from the “future,” i.e. from the forces that will inherit the regime in Tripoli. Indeed, if Tunisia and Egypt which enjoy the minimum level of infrastructure and military, civilian, partisan and unionist institutions seeking to induce change are facing major difficulties, what will be the case in a country such as Libya that has never known any of this infrastructure and institutions? Some of these circles are even expressing real fears toward the exposure of the situation and the collapse of the obstacles in the face of the spread of extremist fundamentalist movements, which might create an unexpected crisis for Europe and the entire North African region. In light of this situation, there does not seem to be an imminent solution for Libya. And the suffering might extend with an opposition positioned in the East and supported by defecting army units and different tribes, and in the West, Colonel Gaddafi - who will not hesitate to lead the country toward tribal civil war that might threaten it with division - with his security brigades and some tribes that have been and are still benefitting from the regime's offerings in exchange for their alliance with it. Regardless of the measure which will be adopted by the international community, it will not be able to settle the conflict at the required speed, unless the United States and Europe continue to pressure Gaddafi to secure the minimum level of protection for the Libyan people, offer the necessary support to the opposition's National Council, back up its fighting military forces with arms, facilitations and intelligence information about the movements of the regime's brigades, and provide the fighters with training, military plans and equipment that could ensure equilibrium in the balance of powers.
