Libya: should anything be done?

[Coito ergo sum]

The Libyan situation has the potential to become a long-term, bloody stalemate. If western forces only commit to the defeat of the Libyan Air Force, then the rebels would have a reasonable chance of hanging on to their present territory, but may not be able to advance. A protracted, messy war of attrition could follow, and/or a defacto separation of Libya into 2 zones for a long period of time...

I've been thinking about this. Resolution 1973 rules out an occupation force, but it does alow for the deployment of ground troops in other roles. The US has ruled out deploying ground troops, but other coalition partners haven't. Other coalition partners, preferably Arab countries, could provide ground troops to support the Libyan rebels. As long as those troops were under the command of the Libyan rebels, I think such an intervention would be both legal within the limitations imposed by resolution 1973, and something that could count on popular support among the Libyan population.

Resolution 1973 can't "rule out" an occupation force. Occupation becomes the legal responsibility of an invading nation when they disrupt the domestic government of the invaded nation. it's a "you broke it - you fix it" rule that's at the heart of the Geneva Conventions. You can't just blow shit up and dismantle the structure of a country and then leave it to fend for itself. THAT would be a violation of international law - Fourth Geneva Convention, For the Protection of Civilian Populations in Times of War.

[JOZeldenrust]

The Libyan situation has the potential to become a long-term, bloody stalemate. If western forces only commit to the defeat of the Libyan Air Force, then the rebels would have a reasonable chance of hanging on to their present territory, but may not be able to advance. A protracted, messy war of attrition could follow, and/or a defacto separation of Libya into 2 zones for a long period of time...

I've been thinking about this. Resolution 1973 rules out an occupation force, but it does alow for the deployment of ground troops in other roles. The US has ruled out deploying ground troops, but other coalition partners haven't. Other coalition partners, preferably Arab countries, could provide ground troops to support the Libyan rebels. As long as those troops were under the command of the Libyan rebels, I think such an intervention would be both legal within the limitations imposed by resolution 1973, and something that could count on popular support among the Libyan population.

Resolution 1973 can't "rule out" an occupation force. Occupation becomes the legal responsibility of an invading nation when they disrupt the domestic government of the invaded nation. it's a "you broke it - you fix it" rule that's at the heart of the Geneva Conventions. You can't just blow shit up and dismantle the structure of a country and then leave it to fend for itself. THAT would be a violation of international law - Fourth Geneva Convention, For the Protection of Civilian Populations in Times of War.

Authorizes Member States that have notified the Secretary-General, acting nationally or through regional organizations or arrangements, and acting in cooperation with the Secretary-General, to take all necessary measures, notwithstanding paragraph 9 of resolution 1970 (2011), to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, including Benghazi, while excluding a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory, and requests the Member States concerned to inform the Secretary-General immediately of the measures they take pursuant to the authorization conferred by this paragraph which shall be immediately reported to the Security Council;

Not occupying a country isn't the same thing as letting the country fend for itself.

[JOZeldenrust]

Now on Al Jazeera: the Libyan foreign minister announces that Libya has issued an immediate and total cease fire. Might it really be this easy?

No, that's Gaddaffi desperately trying to stop having his forces pounded from the air. It's nothing more than a stop-gap tactic. This was predicted last night soon after the resolution was passed. What will happen next ...?

The cease fire will prove to be a sham, international forces will start enforcing the no fly zone, and Gadaffi will claim it's Western imperialists trying to impose a colonial regime on Libya.

It was hardly a visionary prediction, but I don't get a chance to say this very often:

Called it!

[Warren Dew]

Resolution 1973 can't "rule out" an occupation force. Occupation becomes the legal responsibility of an invading nation when they disrupt the domestic government of the invaded nation. it's a "you broke it - you fix it" rule that's at the heart of the Geneva Conventions. You can't just blow shit up and dismantle the structure of a country and then leave it to fend for itself. THAT would be a violation of international law - Fourth Geneva Convention, For the Protection of Civilian Populations in Times of War.

As you pointed out earlier, the intervention is already against the Geneva conventions in the first place, so it seems pretty clear the forces involved don't really care about them.

[sandinista]

sandinista wrote:

Speak up in what sense? Overthrow the government without fear of reprisals? That doesn't exist anywhere. Any government will fight back if they feel the risk of being overthrown. I know this is a little off topic, and I do apologize, but this terminology interests me. Seems very vague.

In context, he said "turn out" the government, which I took to mean with the ballot box, not a violent overthrow, which indeed would naturally be resisted by a government. An attempt to violently overthrow a government is clearly wrong if an election is going to be held in the normal way, in the normal time, and citizens have the ability to choose an alternative.

If a government suspends elections, muzzles opinion and represses protest with force, then a violent rebellion against them is removing an illegitimate government, and can reasonably be supported by the international community...

Oh...the "ballot box", you are free to pick between two virtually identical "parties" which represent big business interests. I wouldn't call that democracy in any sense.

[sandinista]

The Italians "stoked" Qadafi? Fisk is such a tool, sandi. A lying sack of shit - almost everything I read from that guy involves some fabrication.

The last thing Qadafi was was the baby or puppet of the West. The West - first Italy and then the Brits - propped up the King that Qadafi overthrew. Naturally, in Fisk's world, we propped up the King and also Qadafi. The West was behind them both.

sorry CES, Fisk has more credibility than you.

[JOZeldenrust]

Resolution 1973 can't "rule out" an occupation force. Occupation becomes the legal responsibility of an invading nation when they disrupt the domestic government of the invaded nation. it's a "you broke it - you fix it" rule that's at the heart of the Geneva Conventions. You can't just blow shit up and dismantle the structure of a country and then leave it to fend for itself. THAT would be a violation of international law - Fourth Geneva Convention, For the Protection of Civilian Populations in Times of War.

As you pointed out earlier, the intervention is already against the Geneva conventions in the first place, so it seems pretty clear the forces involved don't really care about them.

I'm not sure it is. Gadhafi violated the Geneva conventions by using military force agains non-combatants. The UN is in charge of enforcing the Geneva conventions, so if the UN says the use of force by the international community is justified to protect the rights of the Libyan population, that's all there is to it.

[JOZeldenrust]

sandinista wrote:

Speak up in what sense? Overthrow the government without fear of reprisals? That doesn't exist anywhere. Any government will fight back if they feel the risk of being overthrown. I know this is a little off topic, and I do apologize, but this terminology interests me. Seems very vague.

In context, he said "turn out" the government, which I took to mean with the ballot box, not a violent overthrow, which indeed would naturally be resisted by a government. An attempt to violently overthrow a government is clearly wrong if an election is going to be held in the normal way, in the normal time, and citizens have the ability to choose an alternative.

If a government suspends elections, muzzles opinion and represses protest with force, then a violent rebellion against them is removing an illegitimate government, and can reasonably be supported by the international community...

Oh...the "ballot box", you are free to pick between two virtually identical "parties" which represent big business interests. I wouldn't call that democracy in any sense.

You're free to protest policy, and you're free to run for office yourself. You perceive a lack of diversity? Then do something about it.

ETA: I do think two party systems - like in the US or UK - make for an unhealthy political landscape. Both parties stand to gain from occupying the center of the political spectrum, so differences between the parties will be minute. Proportional representation largely fixes this.

[Warren Dew]

Oh...the "ballot box", you are free to pick between two virtually identical "parties" which represent big business interests. I wouldn't call that democracy in any sense.

Or alternatively the Soviet system, where you get to check off the single party that represents ... would you call that big business interests too?

[Gawd]

This is all about oil.

[JimC]

sandinista wrote:

Speak up in what sense? Overthrow the government without fear of reprisals? That doesn't exist anywhere. Any government will fight back if they feel the risk of being overthrown. I know this is a little off topic, and I do apologize, but this terminology interests me. Seems very vague.

In context, he said "turn out" the government, which I took to mean with the ballot box, not a violent overthrow, which indeed would naturally be resisted by a government. An attempt to violently overthrow a government is clearly wrong if an election is going to be held in the normal way, in the normal time, and citizens have the ability to choose an alternative.

If a government suspends elections, muzzles opinion and represses protest with force, then a violent rebellion against them is removing an illegitimate government, and can reasonably be supported by the international community...

Oh...the "ballot box", you are free to pick between two virtually identical "parties" which represent big business interests. I wouldn't call that democracy in any sense.

You're free to protest policy, and you're free to run for office yourself. You perceive a lack of diversity? Then do something about it.

ETA: I do think two party systems - like in the US or UK - make for an unhealthy political landscape. Both parties stand to gain from occupying the center of the political spectrum, so differences between the parties will be minute. Proportional representation largely fixes this.

I also agree that there are problems with a lack of political diversity which spring from a party (often a 2 party) system. Also, I concede that the large sums needed to run political campaigns these days can produce an unhealthy dependence of parties on the big money end of town...

However, in Oz, unions can make significant contributions to the party of their choice (Labour or the Greens), and the political landscape is changing as a variety of independents and smaller parties start flexing their muscles...

Problems within democratic systems need active work by thoughtful citizens, lobbying for change.

What they don't need is a violent insurrection by a fanatical minority...

[JimC]

This is all about oil.

Predictable, but myopic.

The Gadaffi regime happily sold oil to the west.

When the dust settles, so will the new guys, at exactly the same price as before...

There is no oil-related benefit that arises for the west from this intervention.

[Gawd]

This is all about oil.

Predictable, but myopic.

The Gadaffi regime happily sold oil to the west.

When the dust settles, so will the new guys, at exactly the same price as before...

There is no oil-related benefit that arises for the west from this intervention.

Yes there is. It allows the West to get the oil shipments back to regular sooner. The West doesn't care who is in power, just as long as the one in power can control things and keep the pipes flowing. History has shown that time and again, the West will happily do business with dictators. The West cares zip about what happens on the ground otherwise.

[Warren Dew]

However, in Oz, unions can make significant contributions to the party of their choice (Labour or the Greens), and the political landscape is changing as a variety of independents and smaller parties start flexing their muscles...

I don't know what the unions are like there, but here, union support is the second biggest factor making the democratic system corrupt.

The biggest factor, of course, is unintelligent or uninformed voters.

[JOZeldenrust]

This is all about oil.

Predictable, but myopic.

The Gadaffi regime happily sold oil to the west.

When the dust settles, so will the new guys, at exactly the same price as before...

There is no oil-related benefit that arises for the west from this intervention.

Yes there is. It allows the West to get the oil shipments back to regular sooner. The West doesn't care who is in power, just as long as the one in power can control things and keep the pipes flowing. History has shown that time and again, the West will happily do business with dictators. The West cares zip about what happens on the ground otherwise.

"The West" is not some monolithic power. It's made up of many milions of people with varying amounts of social and political influence, and varying motivations for their political decisions. In the past, those that simply want fast access to the commodities they desire have often decided the actions of large groups wielding great influence (such as countries, or even international alliances), sometimes because they had enough supporters, sometimes because they could ally themselves with people who supported the same course of action for different reasons. Wanting fast access to commodities in itself isn't a bad thing, though people might disagree what the maximum acceptable cost may be.

In the case of the international military intervention in Libya, I think some people who support the intervention are indeed motivated by a desire to secure the supply of Libyan oil. It's a weak argument for intervention, though, as both intervention and inaction are courses of action that leave the continued supply of oil quite uncertain.

There are other arguments for intervention in Libya, most notably the moral conviction that peaceful protesters for democratic change deserve protection from military force exerted on them by their government.