Who will pay for Libya’s military campaign?

In our previous post, we commented that one of the issues that concern us is the eroding connection between government and people. The onset of the military campaign in Libya appears to corroborate the issue. Critically, in addition to Libya itself, the obvious example here, the “no-fly-zone” military campaign is a multilateral example bringing together many leading governments. For some of us who read United Nations Security Council resolutions, we are aware that actions on the ground tend to differ from the grand and economic language adorning UN resolutions. However, the majority of people understood that the enforcement of a “no-fly-zone” would probably mean a very limited military campaign and not the broader military operation under way and just in its infancy. Appearances can be deceiving. Yet the failure of NATO to explain people coherently what exactly was meant by a non-fly zone, or to be more precise to explain the extent and scope of the military operation in Libya, only shows poor communication between government and people. Just a few days after the onset of the operation people are starting to think that what is unfolding is not exactly what they had in mind. Please note that we are not arguing about the rights or wrongs of imposing a no-fly-zone, but using this example simply to illustrate the growing gulf separating government and people. This issue will be amplified now that NATO has opened a new Pandora’s Box. With the dire economic situation across NATO countries (a noteworthy exception is Germany, which is not currently participating in the operation due to disagreements about the scope of the operation), who will pay for what is likely to be a lengthy military intervention? Democracy is a political system and not a natural virtue. It will take many years for Libya to make a transition to a fully fledged democratic system, i.e. after whichever Libyan armed faction wins on the ground with NATO assistance. Have we learned from Afghanistan and Iraq? Can ordinary people stomach further tightening their belts to pay for a new military campaign? Some explanations are in order. Sadly, it appears that the nations leading the military campaign cannot agree between themselves about what are the longer-term goals to be achieved in Libya, let alone communicating those goals to their citizens. People across the Arab world will understand the premises behind the NATO-led military campaign in Libya even less. It seems that Brazil, Russia, India and China, which abstained from giving their yes vote for a military intervention, are more in tune with people -even if they abstained for different political and economic reasons altogether. Oh yes, expect the private military industry to participate in the reconstruction of the country, but discussing this role belongs to a blog post a few months down the road.