As high-level meetings took place across the globe on the Libyan crisis last week, the diplomatic activity has provided few clues as to how things will now unfold, writes David Tresilian in Paris The International Contact Group formed to give political direction to the management of the Libyan crisis met for the first time in the Qatari capital Doha last Wednesday a day before a meeting of NATO foreign ministers in Berlin also convened to discuss the crisis. Yet, while both meetings insisted on the need to continue the current NATO-led bombing raids in Libya, carried out under UN Security Council Resolution 1973 that authorises the protection of civilians caught up in the conflict, neither indicated a clear way forward from the current stalemate in the country. According to NATO statements at the weekend, since the beginning of the NATO-led operations on 31 March, some 3,600 air sorties have been carried out over Libya by coalition forces, with 200 or so a day being carried out on 14 and 15 April. However, in the absence of NATO forces on the ground or adequately armed and trained Libyan rebel forces, pro- Gaddafi forces have succeeded in reversing early rebel gains, leading to what has become a de facto division of the country and a military and political stalemate. This was if anything underlined earlier this week with the news that international aid agencies had begun to evacuate people from the besieged western Libyan city of Misrata, which is surrounded by pro-Gaddafi forces engaged in shelling the city. According to the final communiqué of last week's Doha meeting, those present, who included members of the NATO- led coalition as well as the UN and other international organisations, "were united in believing that Gaddafi's continued presence would threaten any resolution of the crisis." One day later, the final statement of the Berlin meeting also said that "Qadafi and his regime have lost all legitimacy" and "strongly endorsed" calls for Gaddafi to step down from power, while at the same time not making the end of coalition military action conditional on Gaddafi's leaving power. The Berlin statement said instead that NATO-led actions over Libya would continue until attacks on civilians had ended, the regime had withdrawn its forces from all occupied towns and cities and humanitarian access had been granted to the Libyan population. In a further development last Friday, US president Barack Obama, British Prime Minister David Cameron and French President Nicolas Sarkozy, the latter two having taken the lead in support of the NATO-led actions in Libya, published a letter in various international newspapers in which they said they were "united on what needs to happen to end" the Libyan crisis. "Our duty and mandate under UN Security Council Resolution 1973 is to protect civilians, and we are doing that," the letter read. "It is not to remove Gaddafi by force. But it is impossible to imagine a future for Libya with Gaddafi in power... It is unthinkable that someone who has tried to massacre his own people can play a part in their future government." Taken together, the documents issued after last week's international meetings seemed to signal an intention to make the removal of the Gaddafi regime an avowed aim of the NATO- led military intervention, with the Obama, Cameron and Sarkozy letter saying that "so long as Gaddafi is in power, NATO and its coalition partners must maintain their operations so that civilians remain protected and the pressure on the regime builds." While UN Security Resolution 1970 refers the situation in Libya to the International Criminal Court for investigation, opening up the possibility that senior figures in the Libyan regime may eventually be tried for human rights and other violations, UN Security Council Resolution 1973 does not mention regime change, instead authorising "all necessary measures to protect civilians and civilian-populated areas." Previous attempts at mediation in the Libyan crisis, such as that carried out by the African Union earlier this month, have assumed that Gaddafi or his sons would remain in power while talks take place to find a resolution to the conflict, though these conditions have been rejected by the rebels. While statements made after the latest round of meetings on the Libyan crisis, as well as in last week's Obama, Cameron and Sarkozy letter, have emphasised international agreement on the way forward in managing the conflict, these have not necessarily succeeded in papering over disagreements both within and outside the NATO-led coalition, which may widen as the conflict continues. According to reports in the British press last weekend, Britain and France, which have carried out the lion's share of the NATO-led airstrikes since last month's withdrawal of the US from a combat role, are at odds over whether a new UN resolution would be required in order to remove Gaddafi from power. While the Obama, Cameron and Sarkozy letter seems to indicate that a new resolution is not required, there have been doubts expressed in both countries about whether this path can be defended, especially since international criticisms of the NATO-led actions have been growing. Speaking at a meeting of the BRICS group of countries -- Brazil, Russia, India and China -- in Beijing last Thursday, Russian President Dmitri Medvedev said that the "UN Security Council Resolution on Libya must be complied with and not interpreted to suit the interests of individual countries." According to comments reported by Russian news agencies, "the resolution authorised a shutdown of the airspace over Libya to prevent an escalation of the internal conflict. But what we are having now in Libya is actually a military operation which is being conducted in the air as well and which already involves NATO. There is not a word about this in the UN resolution." In addition to such external criticisms, there have also been tensions within the NATO-led coalition itself over how to break the stalemate and the extent of the contributions made by each of the coalition's 16 members, only a minority of which have taken part in the military strikes. According to reports in the European press at the weekend, Britain and France face increasing isolation within NATO for their stance on the Libyan conflict, with pleas for military support from other members of the alliance at the NATO foreign ministers meeting in Berlin last week falling on deaf ears. Quoting French Foreign Minister Alain Juppé to the effect that NATO was "not doing enough" to enforce the no-fly zone over Libya or carry out associated airstrikes, the London Financial Times wrote last week that such comments might be seen "as an early attempt by the French government to defend itself against the charge that it should never have rushed into what may be an unwinnable war." Both France and Britain are believed to have been privately pressing the United States to rejoin NATO military actions in Libya in an effort to break the current stalemate, the US having withdrawn from a combat role at the end of March following a speech by US president Barack Obama on 28 March in which he announced that the US would henceforth be playing only a "supportive role". Whatever the way ahead in the Libyan conflict may now turn out to be, a new spirit of realism seems to have taken over the columns of French newspapers up to now supportive of the no-fly zone and NATO-led bombing raids. In its front-page editorial at the weekend, the French newspaper Le Monde wrote of the "growing embarrassment that has surrounded the international intervention in Libya." There was a danger, the newspaper said, of the conflict becoming increasingly drawn out, leading to disagreements in the coalition and even the possibility of failure. In statements that seemed to contrast with official insistence that Gaddafi must step down before the Libyan conflict can be resolved, the newspaper commented that "four decades [of Libyan history] have been marked by the oldest despot still in power in the Middle East or North Africa" and that the effects of Gaddafi's rule would take time to undo. With this in mind, "the way forward in Libya is likely to be a complicated one, and it may necessitate certain compromises, such as the somewhat vague inter-Libyan dialogue evoked in Doha by the International Contact Group," Le Monde commented, perhaps recommending a political solution to the conflict in which Gaddafi or his sons at least temporarily remain in power.
