There is no doubt that U.N. resolution 1973 is a success for the Prime Minister and re-establishes the credibility of the Foreign Office. It takes the pressure off Hague. It was not unanimous, but nobody voted against. The list of abstentions is impressive, however; Germany, Russia, China, India and Brazil. These countries either dislike getting involved in the internal upheavals of sovereign states or are uncertain both of the benefit and the outcome of military intervention in the Libyan Civil War.
The most significant development of all is the re-establishment of Anglo French military and diplomatic partnership as a decisive factor. This is very good for the prestige of both governments and provides an important alternative to the U.S., which arrived as a late backer of 1973 and is not planning to take part in the opening phase of any military action. We are therefore in uncharted territory. The last time Britain and France launched a war together was Suez. That did not have a happy outcome for them and confirmed America as the undisputed and dominant power in the West. Perhaps this is the moment when that epoch ends.
The best outcome is that this initiative has a decisive impact in halting the war and stopping civilian casualties. The best outcome of all would be the end of Gaddaffi’s rule as well. Should the initiative fail, many will say, especially in Germany, that failure was obvious from the start. Failure will make matters worse for Libyans. Worst of all would be an Anglo French military failure with casualties and rescue of the project by American military power, followed by an indecisive outcome and another endless conflict. Gaddafi might survive such a scenario, but Cameron and Sarkozy would not. Conversely if it works out, the war stops and Gaddafi goes, both will benefit significantly.
Meanwhile Bahrain and Yemen simmer and neither Egypt nor Tunisia have yet elected workable governments by a credible democratic process. What happens if things do not work out in one, or all, of these countries?