Libya: The Politics of Intervention

{
  "authors": [
    "Jessica Tuchman Mathews"
  ],
  "type": "legacyinthemedia",
  "centerAffiliationAll": "dc",
  "centers": [
    "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
    "Carnegie Europe",
    "Malcolm H. Kerr Carnegie Middle East Center",
    "Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center"
  ],
  "collections": [
    "Arab Awakening"
  ],
  "englishNewsletterAll": "menaTransitions",
  "nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
  "primaryCenter": "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
  "programAffiliation": "MEP",
  "programs": [
    "Middle East"
  ],
  "projects": [
    "Eurasia in Transition"
  ],
  "regions": [
    "North Africa",
    "Libya",
    "Maghreb",
    "Middle East"
  ],
  "topics": [
    "Political Reform",
    "Security",
    "Foreign Policy"
  ]
}

In The Media

Libya: The Politics of Intervention

As the international community pursues a range of activities to help end the violence in Libya, analysts and politicians should avoid creating a false dichotomy between imposing a no-fly zone on the country and doing nothing to prevent the deaths of Libyan civilians.

By Jessica Tuchman Mathews

Published on Mar 9, 2011

Source: Diane Rehm Show

As fighting in Libya enters its third week, there is increasing international pressure for the imposition of a no-fly-zone in Libya. Carnegie’s Jessica Mathews spoke on NPR’s Diane Rehm Show, arguing that the international community should not create a false dichotomy between taking a military action like imposing a no-fly-zone and doing nothing to help the Libyan rebels. There is a range of activities that the international community and the United States can take to build a multinational consensus and create a sense of pressure on Qaddafi and his regime. Such activities include sharing intelligence with the opposition members, airlifting in weapons, or creating safe zones to deliver humanitarian aid, among many other options.

Mathews pointed out that the United States should think carefully before stepping into an open-ended military commitment in Libya. The world is currently seeing the beginning of a gigantic historic moment, she said, and the United States may see significant changes in countries that have greater importance to U.S. national interest than Libya. Ultimately, it is crucial to consider the consequences of military intervention, Mathews argued. Such an intervention will have consequences that cannot be predicted and may raise expectations and set a precedent in the region that the United States will not be able to meet.

About the Author

Jessica Tuchman Mathews

Distinguished Fellow

Mathews is a distinguished fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. She served as Carnegie’s president for 18 years.

Recent Work

In The Media
Washington Already Knows How to Deal with North Korea
- Jessica Tuchman Mathews
Commentary
Trump Wins—and Now?
- Jessica Tuchman Mathews

Political Reform Security Foreign Policy North Africa Libya Maghreb Middle East

Carnegie does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.

More Work from Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

Commentary
Strategic Europe
The Uncomfortable Truth About EU Enlargement
Before the next wave of EU enlargement takes place, the union needs to grapple with thorny questions of how power is distributed among its members.
Emil Sondaj Hansen, Ditte Brasso Sørensen
Commentary
Emissary
What to Watch When Trump and Xi Meet in Washington
The real test may come after the leaders leave the room.
+1
Sheena Chestnut Greitens, Oriana Skylar Mastro, Yukon Huang, …
Commentary
Emissary
The Impacts of the Houthis’ Advance Could Extend Well Beyond Saudi Arabia
The Horn of Africa countries are among those facing a new security calculus.
Andrew Leber, Lesley Anne Warner
Commentary
Carnegie Politika
Will the Far Right Change Europe’s Russia Policy?
The European far right might fail to steer EU policy in the direction Russia wants, but they will create enough chaos inside Europe to benefit the Kremlin.
Dimitar Bechev
Commentary
The Denmark-Greenland-U.S. Agreement Needs to Stand the Test of Time
The new U.S.–Denmark–Greenland agreement will help Washington exert political, economic, and financial dominance under the guise of security. Yet, it acknowledged Copenhagen’s and Nuuk’s sovereignty on the island.
Marc Pierini

More Work from Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

Ukraine Poland Zelensky Tusk Enlargement EU

Commentary

Strategic Europe

The Uncomfortable Truth About EU Enlargement

Before the next wave of EU enlargement takes place, the union needs to grapple with thorny questions of how power is distributed among its members.

Emil Sondaj Hansen, Ditte Brasso Sørensen

Commentary

Emissary

What to Watch When Trump and Xi Meet in Washington

The real test may come after the leaders leave the room.

- +1
Sheena Chestnut Greitens, Oriana Skylar Mastro, Yukon Huang, …

Commentary

Emissary

The Impacts of the Houthis’ Advance Could Extend Well Beyond Saudi Arabia

The Horn of Africa countries are among those facing a new security calculus.

Andrew Leber, Lesley Anne Warner

Commentary

Carnegie Politika

Will the Far Right Change Europe’s Russia Policy?

The European far right might fail to steer EU policy in the direction Russia wants, but they will create enough chaos inside Europe to benefit the Kremlin.

Dimitar Bechev

Greenland United States Denmark Agreement Nuuk

Commentary

The Denmark-Greenland-U.S. Agreement Needs to Stand the Test of Time

The new U.S.–Denmark–Greenland agreement will help Washington exert political, economic, and financial dominance under the guise of security. Yet, it acknowledged Copenhagen’s and Nuuk’s sovereignty on the island.

Marc Pierini