fbpx
Politics Foreign Affairs Culture Fellows Program

The Arms Embargo on Libya

Who gets upset by the imposition of arms embargoes on countries in the throes of civil war? As one might expect, it is the people who want us to take a side in the conflict. Paul Wolfowitz is bothered that the arms embargo the U.N. has just imposed on Libya applies to the entire country: […]

Who gets upset by the imposition of arms embargoes on countries in the throes of civil war? As one might expect, it is the people who want us to take a side in the conflict. Paul Wolfowitz is bothered that the arms embargo the U.N. has just imposed on Libya applies to the entire country:

If that sounds absurd, it is exactly what the United States and the “international community” did at the outset of the war in Bosnia 19 years ago. The embargo on the Bosnians remained in effect for years, depriving them of the means to defend themselves, with the argument advanced that supplying arms to either side would simply prolong the war. In fact, what prolonged the war was the weakness of the Bosnians.

Er, no. What prolonged the war was the continued support for armed factions from outside Bosnia. The arms embargo was disadvantageous to the Bosnian Muslims in that the other factions in Bosnia had ready access to weapons from Serbia and Croatia, but the issue was never that the arms embargo as such prolonged the war. One thing that prolonged the war was that all of the parties to the conflict had goals that were far more ambitious than they had the strength to realize. Obviously, it was the lack of an effective arms embargo that helped the war to continue for years.

The Bosnian arms embargo formally penalized all sides, but the embargo didn’t prevent arms supplies from reaching some of the factions. In retrospect, imposing an arms embargo on Bosnia seemed like the obvious, appropriate thing for outsiders to do, but it tipped the balance of the conflict in ways that some outsiders didn’t like. It’s no coincidence that the Westerners most frustrated with the arms embargo on Bosnia were/are the people who believed that the U.S. and NATO should actively take sides with Bosnian Muslims and Croats in the war. What they were interested in was not hastening the end of the war, which would have worked to the benefit of the Serbs, but instead they were interested in turning the tide of the war against the Serbs. The arms embargo got in the way of doing that, which is why American interventionists wanted it lifted.

Wolfowitz’s real objection to the current arms embargo is that there is one side in Libya’s civil war he believes that outsiders should be actively helping, and the arms embargo technically prevents that. However, if the goal is to limit the extent and duration of conflict, rather than to achieve a particular political result, imposing an arms embargo is reasonable. At the rate that the rebels seem to be taking over most of Libya with the weapons that they already have available from military bases and defectors, the arms embargo may not matter very much to the final outcome of the conflict. Nonetheless, it’s important not to fall for these phony objections.

P.S. It’s also worth adding that the arms embargo authorized by UNSCR 1970 specifically prohibits states from allowing the transit of mercenaries to Libya. It is possible that this prohibition will simply be ignored by other states, but it is directly aimed at halting one of the few supports for Gaddafi’s hold on power. Needless to say, Wolfowitz pays no attention to the significance of this provision.

Advertisement

Comments

The American Conservative Memberships
Become a Member today for a growing stake in the conservative movement.
Join here!
Join here