Is the UN coalition force currently bombing targets in Libya in fact seeking to remove Muammar Gaddafi  from power?

By Richard Walker

The coalition’s political and military leaders deny this is their goal. They say their mandate is to protect Libyan civilians only. But if this is true then why was an administrative building in a compound including Gaddafi’s personal residence targeted last weekend? The bomb landed 50 metres from the tent in which the Libyan leader receives guests.

UN Security Council resolution #1973, passed last Thursday, gives the UN coalition the right to strike at targets which pose a direct threat to the Libyan people. It rules out a “foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory”.

Smokescreen

Muammar Gaddafi  has few friends in the international community these days. There is broad agreement in the West and in Africa that by attacking protestors in Libya he has gone too far.

What is less clear is how keen western and African leaders are for him to be removed from power. Or to be more candid, to assassinate him. To do this legally would require a wider mandate than that provided by last week’s UN security council resolution.

Significantly, the wording of the current resolution giving western forces their mission in Libya is “broad” according to international law expert Andre de Hoogh, from Groningen University in the Netherlands: The wording of the UN resolution is “broad because it (refers to protecting civilians) under threat of attack rather than (just) under attack… the difficult point is - it is one thing to protect civilians, it is another to attack the Libyan army”.

Attempted toppling

Was the attack on Gaddafi’s compound last weekend an attempt at regime change in Libya?

Andre de Hoogh : “I would certainly say so… if you specifically target locations where you think the leader of the country is then that seems to be directed towards regime change… but if you read the resolution it demands a ceasefire, an end to the violence, and that is what’s authorized… that is not the same as a military operation against the army”.

Coalition leaders are divided over what they are trying to achieve – even leaders within the same governments.

Russia’s President and Prime Minister duo, Dimitri Medvedev and Vladimir Putin, have openly broken ranks over the issue – the former defends abstaining from the UN resolution to intervene in Libya, the latter called it a medieval western crusade.

British Prime Minister David Cameron said on Monday there was no legal authority for regime change in Libya – but some of his ministers said air strikes could specifically target Gaddafi.

Unprecedented and unlawful?

In the past there have been UN resolutions designed explicitly to assist in the changing of a government – in the 1980s the UN asked for free and fair elections in South Africa which meant in reality bringing an end to its Aparthied government. But such action from the UN did not include the use of force.

Alternatively, there have been many UN resolutions written and passed permitting the use of force to protect civilian life, for example in several west African conflicts.

But has there ever been both - a resolution that permits the use of force and seeks to change a country’s government? Andre de Hoogh:

“Even though you’ve seen certain governments are unpopular, so certain measures have been directed against them, you’ve never had a resolution authorizing a change of government”.

Some observers suggest such a lack of precedent is inconvenient in assessing how a murderous government can be legally removed. Some believe the UN coalition may be creatively interpreting conveniently vague language to guage how much force it can use.