To bomb or not to bomb? That is the question, or at least it has been a major one for most Western governments in recent weeks: in other words, is the military option the only remaining card in order to protect the Libyan population from a potential bloodshed by Khadafi? Far from solving the crisis in Northern Africa, the positive answer to that question – notwithstanding the doubts of key countries such as Russia or Germany – has opened the path to a number of other equally disturbing dilemmas for the near future. What will come next, for example? Are air operations sufficient in order to ensure the safety of Libyan civilians, or will ground operations be subsequently needed? And to say it all, what is the real target of the so-called “Odyssey Dawn” operation: the enforcement of the “no-fly” zone over Libyan skies, the pacification of the country in order to avoid a calamitous civil war, or the overturn of Khadafi’s regime? If such are the questions on an “operational” level, those underling them on the political and legal ground are perhaps even more complex as was the famous Hamlet’s doubt: does the “international community” – meaning in most cases a more or less vast coalition of countries – have a right to intervene militarily when another country is seriously breaching the fundamental rights of its own citizens? And if it is so, to what end should the consequent action be targeted: the “adjustment” of the human rights situation or the overturn of the government itself? And who exactly should take as well as enforce those decisions? Imperfect as it is, public international law still lacks precise answers to those key questions. Last but not least, even assuming that the greatest ethical concern for human rights justify such an intervention, then why are Western governments dedicating so many energies to protect the Libyans, and so few attentions to the repressions that are going on in other countries such as Syria, Yemen or Bahrain? Are there human rights “more human” than others?

Clearly, there exist no evident or agreed answers on such complex philosophical, political and diplomatic questions: one can only witness the number and scope of ambiguities that the current NATO-led operation in Libya entails. What is crystal clear, instead, is the weight of Western, and particularly European, responsibilities in the current situation. If a military operation has remained as the only way to liberate the Libyans from a miserable dictator, that is also because most EU governments have been ready to support politically and financially that regime in the past decades. Why is it so? Most of all, because business contracts have long come before any ethical concern in shaping European foreign policies – no matter the official discourse. More specifically in this case, a big part of the answer lies in the desperate need for hydrocarbures that our highly consuming economies need: with such limited reserves of gas or oil within the EU, governments cannot but look for fresh energy sources abroad, and be ready to any sort of compromise to obtain access to them. Rulers in Moscow, Tripoli or Riyadh have learnt very well how to turn those vital needs into concrete political or economic gains.

So how do you avoid such cynical blackmailing? Launching a military operation to overturn a regime that has become too nasty to be supported might not be such a brilliant idea. The only, real measure that Western governments should take to break such a vicious cycle, instead, should be to launch their own internal revolution in response to the Arab ones. Clear as it is that oil, gas and other hydrocarbures are soon going to be over, that they are harmful to the environment and human health, and that on top on that they can have such perverse effects on international relations, Europe should simply lead the world into a real energy revolution – one intended to decisively replace our dependence on limited and polluting resources with a pattern of supply based on local and renewable energy sources. If they really want, governments in Europe – and across the world – possess all the relevant policy instruments to bring about such a radical shift without doing any harm to their economies, and possibly even boosting some sectors such as infrastructures, education and research. If there is one thing that young Europeans – besides any social or political barrier – care about, that is a sustainable future: the guarantee that their generation will be able to carry out their dreams and aspirations in a healthy society respectful of its environment. If Europe is in search for a mission, there it is a major one. Only if it accepts it, will it have demonstrated that it has learnt the lesson that Libya is teaching us.

Simone Disegni

This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it