As the clamour rises for western intervention in the tragic civil war that is engulfing Libya NATO Watch, an organisation promoting a more transparent and accountable NATO, has prepared a briefing paper listing urgent questions NATO should be asking before considering any military action.

NATO leaders are divided on plans to enforce a no-fly zone over Libya. The NATO Secretary General has ruled out a NATO-enforced no-fly zone in the absence of a UN mandate. Should NATO be doing more than issuing press releases?  Or would it be better to leave the Libyans to win their battle with the Gaddafi regime on their own?  This briefing examines the options and pitfalls for NATO military intervention in Libya.

• What is the legitimacy and basis for supporting a group of rebels in the eastern part of Libya as the de facto ‘new Libya’?
• If this is a civil war, what separates the two sides?  Is it simply Gaddafi or do identity, geography and/or ideology come into it too?
• What degree of popular support does Gaddafi have in Libya?
• Does NATO have sufficient intelligence to mount an effective military intervention?
• What would an ‘effective intervention’ seek to deliver?
• What are the potential ‘blowbacks’ from intervention, including the likely impact on what has been until now a predominantly organic, home-grown democratic movement across the region?
• What are the potential consequences for Libyan citizens and the future of the R2P doctrine by non-intervention?
• To what extent should other actors and/or non-military instruments be applied first or in parallel with military intervention?
• What should be the triggers for military intervention and on whose authority should it be undertaken?
• Would the country (and region) be better off to the extent that whatever happens is a Libyan decision (and unequivocally seen to be so), not one made in Brussels, Washington or London?

Discuss this on the ReStirred Forum

Read more on the NATO Watch website