Nato may never get the chance to go this far again

In PROSECUTING the air campaign against the forces of Colonel Muammar al-Gaddafi there can be no doubt Nato far exceeded the action mandated by UN Resolution 1973.

Only in a reading so broad as to make a mockery of language could the phrase “all necessary measures to protect civilians” be taken to justify the punitive ground-attack sorties undertaken by assorted warplanes.

Indeed, it is only the ground-attack element of the mission that can really be considered the sharp end of Nato’s endeavours over the country. The “No Fly Zone” part of the resolution was quickly revealed to be unnecessary – what combat aircraft Gaddafi had were ancient and ill-maintained.

So, the question is: Will Nato ever get away with such a stretching of the international legal boundaries again?

Well, Gaddafi is an exception. The one world leader who could unite Saudi Arabia and Iran in hatred was never going to find many backers in the international community, other than a few misguided souls in the African Union countries.

Yet the fact of the matter is that countries such as Russia and China look at Nato from the outside and see a military arm of the US, albeit one that operates under an international banner – a banner they regard as political camouflage for Washington’s ambitions.

This is an interesting perspective, when from the standpoint of the UK, Nato is more clearly an organisation that lost an enemy – the Soviet Union – and has yet to find a role.

As to the future, it is worth considering, for example, what might happen if the Syrian unrest worsens, and even heavier military force is brought to bear on the country’s majority Sunni Muslim population.

Could Nato intervene? The simple answer is “no”. Outwith the practical considerations, which would likely see close ally Iran drawn into any such intervention on Syria’s side, and the potential for a wider regional conflict involving the Sunni Arab states that could result, China and Russia would simply veto any UN Resolution they saw as leading down the same path as Libya.

We may now have reached a point where any gain for Nato – and Washington – is immediately considered a loss for Beijing and Moscow, regardless of the circumstances, regardless of humanitarian considerations.

Another important point to consider is what exactly we mean by Nato? The air support to the rebels was largely provided by French and British aircraft, with a considerable signals, intelligence, reconnaissance and refuelling role played by the US military. Aircraft from Canada, Denmark, Belgium, and Norway are also known to have participated in ground-attack operations.

And yet again, Germany, Europe’s most powerful country and the one that could really act as a counterbalance to the dominance of the US in Nato, was nowhere to be seen.

At a time when the West’s moral compass is disturbed by the magnetic storm of recession, and more readily points to isolation than intervention, Nato’s successful support of the Libyan rebels is an important triumph for the organisation. And one it may never get to repeat.