Libya: should anything be done?

[Coito ergo sum]

I agree. Something should be done in the Congo. That's my vote.

My vote is to mind our own business both in Libya and the Congo. Unlike Iraq under Saddam Hussein, those situations are not our fault, and we don't have any moral obligation to interfere.

I agree. That's why I worded my phrase that way. Something should be done. But, not by the U.S. The Belgians were the colonial masters. They ought to take some responsibility. Further, Rwanda and Uganda invaded it not too long ago. Maybe they ought to do something. Something ought to be done.

[sandinista]

I agree. Something should be done in the Congo. That's my vote.

My vote is to mind our own business both in Libya and the Congo. Unlike Iraq under Saddam Hussein, those situations are not our fault, and we don't have any moral obligation to interfere.

I agree. That's why I worded my phrase that way. Something should be done. But, not by the U.S. The Belgians were the colonial masters. They ought to take some responsibility. Further, Rwanda and Uganda invaded it not too long ago. Maybe they ought to do something. Something ought to be done.

Perhaps the corporations fueling the war through the Congo's resources should be held responsible.

[JOZeldenrust]

Wouldn't the "recognition" of the new government have to come from the UN? Or, do countries now, as opposed to 5 or 8 years ago, have the right to form a "Coalition of the Willing..." ?

I have no idea. A lot of international law is based purely on convention, though I suppose to act on a resolution it would need official recognition by the UN.

The coalition of the willing didn't act via a resolution, they just went for it regardless of international law.

Isn't that what France is doing by recognizing a rebel "government" on it's own? Going for it regardless of international law?

Moreover, the Security Council are not dictators of the world, nor does the UN Charter specify that international law is what the Security Council says. There is nothing in the UN Charter that would authorize 10 countries and 5 abstentions to authorize a war, unless it was coming to the defense of a member state who is exercising a right of self defense. The member state is Libya - the President of Libya is Qadafi.

I think countries can choose to recognize countries and governments as they like. Recognition of governments isn't governed by international law.

Sure they can - that's true. However, they can also go to war without UN approval without being in violation of international law. Recognition of governments is governed by international law, but it is not the sole purview of the UN. The UN is "a" source of international law, but it is by far not the only source of international law.

I think military intervention to protect a people from their tyranical rulers is justified, though caution should be observed. In the case of Libya it is quite obvious that the Lybian government is a direct threat to the Libyan population.

Likewise, I think it would've been reasonable to intervene in Iraq to protect the Iraqi people from Sadam Hussein. I would've supported an invasion of Iraq on those grounds. However, the invasion of Iraq was justified by suggesting Sadam Hussein had WMDs, and the CIA forged or misrepresented evidence to convince the world of this. An invasion of Iraq could've been justified, but the justification used was dishonest.

Part of the explicit reason - stated in the Iraq Liberation Act, and the Iraq War Resolution, was to protect the Iraqi people from Sadam Hussein. WMD was "a" reason to go to war, but not the only reason offered. A panoply of reasons combined were offered.

It's a bit surprising to hear you suggest that the reason to oppose the war in Iraq was because the justification relied on by the US at the time was wrong - but, that there was a good justification. If there was a good justification, whether it is the one considered most important at the time seems hardly relevant. It's like saying "had they said, 'we're going in for solely humanitarian reasons' then I'd have supported it, but since they offered a different reason in addition to the humanitarian reasons that I find unpersuasive, I oppose the whole effort."

I didn't "oppose the whole effort". I think the coalition of the willing did something that should indeed have been done a lot sooner, but I do mind that they were dishonest about their justification.

Moreover, I wonder what happened to the argument that the humanitarian reason is bullshit because there are humanitarian crises all over the world, and we don't intervene in them. Doesn't that argument fly anymore? I mean - my response to folks who said that was that we can't intervene everywhere, we have to deal with practicalities, and we as a nation tend to prefer to intervene where we perceive our national interest most at stake. Obviously, that same argument I made about Iraq can be made here - I just wonder why the same people who who were on the "we only intervene in humanitarian crises where oil is involved" team five years ago, are no longer making that argument.....

I'm not one of those people. I think it's regrettable that the international community has often not intervened in humanitarian crises. What reason they had for inaction I don't know, but I think it's unlikely that oil was the motive. If the US had wanted Iraqi oil, all they had to do was buy it. Because of the international boycot of Iraq, the US could've bought the oil for a pittance, no expensive war needed. Just because the international community has not acted in other humanitarian crises, doesn't make it a bad thing that they're intervening now. Indeed, it was a bad thing that they didn't intervene then.

[Warren Dew]

I agree. That's why I worded my phrase that way. Something should be done. But, not by the U.S. The Belgians were the colonial masters. They ought to take some responsibility. Further, Rwanda and Uganda invaded it not too long ago. Maybe they ought to do something. Something ought to be done.

Valid point.

Honestly, if the UK and France want to go to war with Libya, I'm not overly concerned either. My main worry is that it gives Russia an excuse to invade its old colonies from the Soviet empire if it wants to do that.

[sandinista]

I agree. Something should be done in the Congo. That's my vote.

My vote is to mind our own business both in Libya and the Congo. Unlike Iraq under Saddam Hussein, those situations are not our fault, and we don't have any moral obligation to interfere.

I agree. That's why I worded my phrase that way. Something should be done. But, not by the U.S. The Belgians were the colonial masters. They ought to take some responsibility. Further, Rwanda and Uganda invaded it not too long ago. Maybe they ought to do something. Something ought to be done.

To be clear, I wasn't promoting the invasion/occupation/intervention of the Congo, was simply stating that, to play off western military interventions as "humanitarian" (which is whats already happening on canadian state tv) is a lie, it's propaganda.

[Warren Dew]

Yes, "humanitarian war" does sound a bit oxymoronic.

[JimC]

I agree. Something should be done in the Congo. That's my vote.

My vote is to mind our own business both in Libya and the Congo. Unlike Iraq under Saddam Hussein, those situations are not our fault, and we don't have any moral obligation to interfere.

I agree. That's why I worded my phrase that way. Something should be done. But, not by the U.S. The Belgians were the colonial masters. They ought to take some responsibility. Further, Rwanda and Uganda invaded it not too long ago. Maybe they ought to do something. Something ought to be done.

To be clear, I wasn't promoting the invasion/occupation/intervention of the Congo, was simply stating that, to play off western military interventions as "humanitarian" (which is whats already happening on canadian state tv) is a lie, it's propaganda.

If it happens, then "humanitarian" would not be a complete lie. There would undoubtedly be other motives, but many people all over the world would be hoping for some form of intervention as a way to stop Gaddafi taking revenge against tens of thousands of his own people...

[Warren Dew]

Gunmen in civilian clothes kill dozens of protesters in Yemen:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 51486.html

[JimC]

Gunmen in civilian clothes kill dozens of protesters in Yemen:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 51486.html

Protesting in the Arab world today is a tad more dangerous than protesting in Oz in the 70s was, I must admit...

Although I did get punched in the face by a right-wing spectator to one demo....

[Coito ergo sum]

I didn't "oppose the whole effort". I think the coalition of the willing did something that should indeed have been done a lot sooner, but I do mind that they were dishonest about their justification.

Just to clarify, I wasn't picking an argument with anyone in particular. I mostly found it, in general, curious that the "save the civilians" argument is not being challenged like it was a few years ago when different personalities were involved. Sandinista's argument is not a bad one - If there is a worse crisis in the Congo, or Sudan, or in a dozen other places - why Libya? And, he made the same argument about Iraq. So, while I do not think that we have to always pick the worst the crisis, and I also think that practicalities have to enter into it and we can't address every crisis - but, because we can't address every crisis doesn't mean we address none of them. That's my position as to sandi's argument. However, I find that many of the same people for whom a humanitarian reason was not sufficient in Iraq, suddenly find military action in Libya to be totally justified, if not a moral imperative. I have a sneaking suspicion that the tact taken by MSNBC, CBS, NBC and ABC, and CNN, would be 180 degrees in the opposite direction if different personalities were involved in the Libya issue.

Moreover, I wonder what happened to the argument that the humanitarian reason is bullshit because there are humanitarian crises all over the world, and we don't intervene in them. Doesn't that argument fly anymore? I mean - my response to folks who said that was that we can't intervene everywhere, we have to deal with practicalities, and we as a nation tend to prefer to intervene where we perceive our national interest most at stake. Obviously, that same argument I made about Iraq can be made here - I just wonder why the same people who who were on the "we only intervene in humanitarian crises where oil is involved" team five years ago, are no longer making that argument.....

I'm not one of those people. I think it's regrettable that the international community has often not intervened in humanitarian crises. What reason they had for inaction I don't know, but I think it's unlikely that oil was the motive. If the US had wanted Iraqi oil, all they had to do was buy it. Because of the international boycot of Iraq, the US could've bought the oil for a pittance, no expensive war needed. Just because the international community has not acted in other humanitarian crises, doesn't make it a bad thing that they're intervening now. Indeed, it was a bad thing that they didn't intervene then.

You and I are in agreement here. The point about the US ability to buy the oil - I've been making that point since 2003, and I've been told I'm naive. The fact is, however, that Hussein would have sold us all the oil we wanted for a great price, depressing the world price of oil in the process. If it was oil we wanted, we could have gotten it. And, the result of the Iraq War was to increase the price of oil at the oil rig, and increase the cost of shipping, and increase the cost of refining and increase the cost of distribution. The result of fighting a war to allegedly "steal" oil was to make it more expensive. How that squares with the logic that we invaded Iraq to steal the oil has never been adequately explained to me.

[FBM]

Looks like something is actually being done for a change... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12795971

19 March 2011 Last updated at 15:11 GMT

French military jets over Libya

French military jets are preventing forces loyal to Libyan leader Col Muammar Gaddafi from attacking the rebel-held city of Benghazi, French President Nicolas Sarkozy says.

It is believed to be the first act of intervention since the UN voted on Thursday for a no-fly zone over Libya.

Western and Arab leaders have been meeting in Paris to agree a course of action to confront Col Gaddafi.

"Our air force will oppose any aggression," Mr Sarkozy said.

Hours earlier, Pro-Gaddafi forces launched an assault on the Libyan rebel stronghold of Benghazi, a BBC journalist witnessed.

However, the Libyan government has denied it is attacking.

'Stop the bombardment'

French aircraft have also flown over "all Libyan territory" on reconnaissance missions, French military sources said earlier.

The French Rafale jets took off from their base at Saint-Dizier in eastern France, a source told the Agence France-Presse news agency.

French reconnaissance jets are clearly scoping out targets in Libya. I would assume there have been special forces on the ground as well, assessing potential targets.

The planning parts of enforcing this UN resolution have been very complex - we may be talking about 100 planes involved - so once you begin enforcing that no-fly zone, you need to think about enforcing it 24 hours a day to ensure no Libyan jets get up in the air, dividing up the tasks and the bases that are going to be used.

British jets will be performing a range of tasks, with RAF Tornadoes aiming at targets on the ground, Typhoons performing air-to-air sorties, and Awacs planes and Sentinel R1s helping with mapping the ground and reconnaissance.

The supposition is that an awful lot of the operation will be based in southern Italy and the Mediterranean.
The planes encountered no problems during the first few hours of their mission, the source said, and the flights would continue for the next several hours.

Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte told journalists at the summit in Paris that he believed British, French and Canadian aircraft would launch the first airstrikes, the BBC's Carole Walker in Paris reports.

Asked if those strikes would take place later on Saturday, Mr Rutte said that was a possibility, our correspondent says.

The new UN resolution authorised "all necessary measures" to protect Libyan civilians.

The international community was intervening to stop the "murderous madness" of Col Gaddafi, Mr Sarkozy said.

"In Libya, the civilian population, which demanding nothing more than the right to choose their own destiny, is in mortal danger," he warned. "It is our duty to respond to their anguished appeal."

The rebels' leader had earlier appealed to the international community to stop the bombardment by pro-Gaddafi forces.

Reports from Benghazi suggest hundreds of cars packed with people were fleeing eastwards as fighting spread.

UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon says the world must "speak with one voice" on Libya.

Earlier, US President Barack Obama said forces loyal to Col Muammar Gaddafi had to stop attacking rebel areas or face military action.

"Gaddafi must stop his troops from advancing on Benghazi, pull them back from Ajdabiya, Misrata and Zawiya and establish water, electricity and gas supplies to all areas," he said on Friday.

[Coito ergo sum]

Are the French retreating yet?

[FBM]

Maybe they were flying away from the battle.

[Coito ergo sum]

"The way the U.S. acted was to let the Germans and the Russians block everything, which announced for us an alignment with the Germans as far as we are concerned," one of the diplomats told The Cable.

Clinton's unwillingness to commit the United States to a specific position led many in the room to wonder exactly where the administration stood on the situation in Libya.

"Frankly we are just completely puzzled," the diplomat said. "We are wondering if this is a priority for the United States."

On the same day, Clinton had a short meeting with French President Nicolas Sarkozy, in which Sarkozy pressed Clinton to come out more forcefully in favor of action in Libya. She declined Sarkozy's request, according to a government source familiar with the meeting.

Sarkozy told Clinton that "we need action now" and she responded to him, "there are difficulties," the source said, explaining that Clinton was referring to China and Russia's opposition to intervention at the United Nations. Sarkozy replied that the United States should at least try to overcome the difficulties by leading a strong push at the U.N., but Clinton simply repeated, "There are difficulties."

One diplomat, who supports stronger action in Libya, contended that the United States' lack of clarity on this issue is only strengthening those who oppose action.

"The risk we run is to look weak because we've asked him to leave and we aren't taking any action to support our rhetoric and that has consequences on the ground and in the region," said the European diplomat.

British and French frustration with the lack of international will to intervene in Libya is growing. British Prime Minister David Cameron said on Tuesday that Arab sentiment was, "if you don't show your support for the Libyan people and for democracy at this time, you are saying you will intervene only when it's about your security, but you won't help when it's about our democracy."

http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts ... n_on_libya

[JOZeldenrust]

Maybe they were flying away from the battle.

Around 16:45 GMT, a French aircraft fired at a vehicle in Libya. France claims they destroyed a target. I haven't heard any confirmation that these two statements from the French are about the same incident, nor have I heard details on the type of plane, vehicle or target, or confirmation from other sources.