Suhasini Haidar: Gunning for Libya

The Indian tricolour in Tripoli harbour – amid all the chaos and violence of Libyas current crisis – was perhaps the most incongruous image of all. Yet, it was also the most reassuring image for hundreds of Indians bound for the INS Jalashwa, the naval warship that had travelled ten days from Karwar port to take out the last of 15,000 Indian evacuees from the Libyan capital. Interestingly, India was one of the only three countries – Turkey and South Korea being the others – allowed to bring a military ship right into Tripoli. Countries like Germany, China, UK and Greece were made to wait on the high seas by the Gaddafi regime and allowed only to escort passenger ferries carrying nationals on board. India also got unprecedented clearances to operate 47 Air India sorties. This is one of many signs of Indias particular standing in this West Asian-North African (WANA) country.

On the streets in Tripoli, too, people go out of their way to acknowledge a special bond with "Al-Hind&", and come up to shake hands. For Gaddafis 40-year commemoration in power, the only non-African, non-Arab leader to feature in publicity material was Jawaharlal Nehru. In both the western and eastern halves of Libya, Indians are seen as reliable construction partners, a disciplined workforce, and its doctors and teachers are acknowledged as the best. As the West now circles its wagons around Libya, pushing through the UN Security Councils no-fly zone resolution, Indias decision to abstain from the vote is more than just a recognition of that relationship. It is pragmatic policy.

To begin with, the efficacy of a no-fly zone itself must be questioned. In the past week, Gaddafis regime has already taken back many of the towns claimed by rebels during the February 17 uprising. Though it will be difficult for him to finish his offensive on the rebel strongholds of Benghazi and Tobrouk without airpower, Gaddafi may be able to keep his grip on Libya for a while. This is, incidentally, not the first time that Benghazi, the seat of the oil-rich province of Cyrenaica, has revolted against Tripolitana since Libya was cobbled out of three separate regions in 1951. The February 17 revolution in that sense may have been triggered by the pro-democracy protests in neighbouring Egypt and Tunisia, but is as much about traditional rivalries and tribal history.

Secondly, Gaddafis Libya has weathered international strictures for decades, through the 1980s and the 1990s, and may not be as susceptible to the pressures of fresh sanctions. When the US and the UK decided to rehabilitate him in 2002, despite his role in the Lockerbie bombings and allegations of gunrunning to the Irish Republican Army, they were surprised to find a very strong economy in place there. The rapid business boom that followed and the flow of oil to the West since 2002 have ensured the Central Bank of Libya now holds reserves of approximately $110 billion, enough to shore up Libyan imports for at least three years. Meanwhile, the cost of bombing Libya, as the UN has now authorised, will be felt in terms of human casualties but also economically by the world, with the price of oil expected to stay at least $20 a barrel higher for a while, and it will also serve to strengthen the anti-West, nationalistic fervour among Gaddafis supporters. Ironically, it may also provide fertile ground for groups like Al-Qaeda, who dont have a toe-hold in Libya yet. After Iraq and Afghanistan, it seems inconceivable that the US would take such a step lightly.

And it is the US that will bear the greatest responsibility of strikes on Libya; at the UN Security Council, the resolution for a no-fly zone hung fire until Washingtons decisive shift in its favour. In addition, the move smacks of a Western double standard; on the same day this week that President Obama renewed his call for "Gaddafi to Go&", Saudi Arabian-Gulf Cooperation Council troops were pouring into Manamas Pearl roundabout to quell protests there. When six protestors died in the firing that followed, President Obamas reaction was to call the Saudi and Bahrainian monarchies only to advise "maximum restraint&". While those pushing for action against Libya have often spoken about Gaddafis bombarding of civilian areas, they have not yet provided proof of mass civilian casualties. Certainly, in eastern Libya, where the media was free to report, there have been no images of buildings or homes being bombed in Ras Lenouf, Ajdabiya, etc, Gaddafis forces have demonstrably unleashed their airpower only on oil installations, munition depots and rebel military bases so far. The US pressing ahead with action on Gaddafi without waiting for the UN special envoys report, but not for other Arab countries also snuffing out rebel movements, seems to prove the American maxim "he maybe a son of a gun, but hes our son of a gun&" in reverse.

Clearly, Gaddafi is no ones "son of a gun&" at present neither the Wests nor the Sunni Arab worlds that despises him. And yet, if this uncontrollable, part-mad, part-comic tribal dictator manages to live on as Libyas leader, India would do well to look beyond the narrow prism of regime change for its future relationship with the country and the people. Libya doesnt just have some of the best "sweet&" crude reserves, its geography makes it an important gateway to all of Sub-Saharan Africas resources, as well as the Nile Delta. In the past, India has been at the forefront of infrastructural projects in the country, bidding for oil refineries, road construction, and even the railway project that eventually went to China. It would be counterproductive for India to give up its unique positioning in Libya simply to be swept up in the train of the US and Europes interests there.

The writer is Deputy Foreign Editor, CNN-IBN. She reported from Tripoli during the current crisis