Libya: should anything be done?

[klr]

That's a good summation of some of the structural problems with the UN, not to mention the balance of power being based on the state of the world back in 1945. Daft, really ...

[Clinton Huxley]

That's a good summation of some of the structural problems with the UN, not to mention the balance of power being based on the state of the world back in 1945. Daft, really ...

'Tis daft - the French still having a permanent seat, ludicrous.

[Coito ergo sum]

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.

That's one likely possibility. But there are likely very few takers for the colonial argument, either inside or outside Libya. It will also be interesting to see just whose aircraft turn up over Libya in the next few days.

A good argument could be made for the "colonialism" aspect. The West clearly hates Qaddafi, and the US especially - over Lockerbie, etc. The US blew up the guy's house with cruise missiles. Why isn't this being assumed to be the US fabricating a reason to go in there and "finish the job" against a leader they hate?

As for colonialism - from 1911 to World War II, Libya was an Italian Colony, and Italy moved in so many people that by 1934 ITALIANS made up 20% of the population of Libya! In 1934, Italy imposed the Greek name "Libya" on their colony. Libya is another one of the countries that western Europeans just sort of "carved" out of the map more or less arbitrarily and for their own purposes (out of the Ottoman Empire - same way Iraq was just sort of "made up" after WWI). The Italians lost the colony in WW2, given their allegiance to Hitler and Mussolini and and their subsequent loss of the war. In 1947, Italy relinquished all claims to Italy, and after that the Brits and the French owned it.

Ostensibly independent in 1951, it was, for all intents and purposes, a British colony. Britain was heavily involved and invested in the Libyan government, and was involved in extensive engineering projects in Libya and was also the country's biggest supplier of arms from 1951 to 1969.

In 1969 - Muammar Qadafi staged a coup against the British, and ousted them and their puppet "King Idris."

Now, the British are spearheading, along with France, a "no fly zone" to assist the "rebels" against Qadafi.

Why wouldn't the war critics of 2003 to 2010 make the arguments that: (1) Libya hasn't attacked the UK or France or anyone else, (2) Libya has had nothing to do with global terrorism and renounced its nuke and other WMD programs, (3) the western countries are only looking to reinstate the colonialism that prevailed through most of Libya's history - even the name "Libya" is colonial, and (4) like in previous wars, the fact that a dictator is killing his own people is not sufficient to warrant military action? I wonder why there is silence from that group?

[Coito ergo sum]

That's a good summation of some of the structural problems with the UN, not to mention the balance of power being based on the state of the world back in 1945. Daft, really ...

'Tis daft - the French still having a permanent seat, ludicrous.

How the French were given a permanent place in the first place is difficult to fathom. They appease Hitler in the 1930s, and roll over for him like the proverbial French whore in 1940. Most of them affirmatively sympathized with Germany, and cooperated (Vichy, e.g.) with the pogrom against the Jews. They had Germany driven out of France mainly by the efforts of the UK, US, Canada, Australia and other such countries fighting the good fight, and then they're propped back up and given a seat at the adult's table?

Must've been for the wine and cheese...

[Pappa]

As an aside, since Libya didn't attack anyone, wouldn't military action against Libya be illegal, and the leaders of those countries guilty of war crimes?

The Security Council has no legal authority under the UN charter to authorize wars, except for UN action in defensive wars. It came to the defense of a UN member state in Kuwait and in Korea. Here, it's just going to bomb Libya, who has neither attacked nor threatened any other State.

it would seem that to be consistent, anyone who suggested one war was illegal because "so and so never attacked us..." ought to be screaming mad about another war against a country which never attacked us (or anyone else).

I've been thinking the same. They have a get-out clause though. If enough countries recognise the group fighting the Gadaffi government as the legitimate rulers of the country, then they can jump in go to war "legally".

I'm not sure why that would make a difference. If that's true, then the Qadaffi government, which is Libya in the UN, and which is in good standing in the UN - no resolution has declared Qaddafi's government NOT the lawful government, then on what legal basis do they side with the rebels?

Is it now legal to intervene in any civil war on one side or the other - all we need to do is have "enough" nations claim that one side or the other is the legitimate government?

It's always been that way. That's why France recently declaring the legitimacy of the rebel government was such a significant act.

[Coito ergo sum]

As an aside, since Libya didn't attack anyone, wouldn't military action against Libya be illegal, and the leaders of those countries guilty of war crimes?

The Security Council has no legal authority under the UN charter to authorize wars, except for UN action in defensive wars. It came to the defense of a UN member state in Kuwait and in Korea. Here, it's just going to bomb Libya, who has neither attacked nor threatened any other State.

it would seem that to be consistent, anyone who suggested one war was illegal because "so and so never attacked us..." ought to be screaming mad about another war against a country which never attacked us (or anyone else).

I've been thinking the same. They have a get-out clause though. If enough countries recognise the group fighting the Gadaffi government as the legitimate rulers of the country, then they can jump in go to war "legally".

I'm not sure why that would make a difference. If that's true, then the Qadaffi government, which is Libya in the UN, and which is in good standing in the UN - no resolution has declared Qaddafi's government NOT the lawful government, then on what legal basis do they side with the rebels?

Is it now legal to intervene in any civil war on one side or the other - all we need to do is have "enough" nations claim that one side or the other is the legitimate government?

It's always been that way. That's why France recently declaring the legitimacy of the rebel government was such a significant act.

Why wasn't it "that way" from 2003 to 2008? Why all the moaning about "they never attacked us," or "they had nothing to do with terrorism, " or "so what if he attacked his own people, they're doing that in countries, X, Y and Z?"

What I'm not getting is the difference. Now France wants to bomb a country - before, it said no because there wasn't sufficient evidence of "WMD" in Iraq -and Hussein's treatment of his own people was not sufficient. Now, we have a country who has never invaded a foreign nation and opened its doors to UN inspectors, disavowing WMD in all respects. Yet, now all we have to do is declare the government "illegitimate" and then it's o.k. to bomb? No war crime here? No violation of international law?

[Pappa]

As an aside, since Libya didn't attack anyone, wouldn't military action against Libya be illegal, and the leaders of those countries guilty of war crimes?

The Security Council has no legal authority under the UN charter to authorize wars, except for UN action in defensive wars. It came to the defense of a UN member state in Kuwait and in Korea. Here, it's just going to bomb Libya, who has neither attacked nor threatened any other State.

it would seem that to be consistent, anyone who suggested one war was illegal because "so and so never attacked us..." ought to be screaming mad about another war against a country which never attacked us (or anyone else).

I've been thinking the same. They have a get-out clause though. If enough countries recognise the group fighting the Gadaffi government as the legitimate rulers of the country, then they can jump in go to war "legally".

I'm not sure why that would make a difference. If that's true, then the Qadaffi government, which is Libya in the UN, and which is in good standing in the UN - no resolution has declared Qaddafi's government NOT the lawful government, then on what legal basis do they side with the rebels?

Is it now legal to intervene in any civil war on one side or the other - all we need to do is have "enough" nations claim that one side or the other is the legitimate government?

It's always been that way. That's why France recently declaring the legitimacy of the rebel government was such a significant act.

Why wasn't it "that way" from 2003 to 2008? Why all the moaning about "they never attacked us," or "they had nothing to do with terrorism, " or "so what if he attacked his own people, they're doing that in countries, X, Y and Z?"

What I'm not getting is the difference. Now France wants to bomb a country - before, it said no because there wasn't sufficient evidence of "WMD" in Iraq -and Hussein's treatment of his own people was not sufficient. Now, we have a country who has never invaded a foreign nation and opened its doors to UN inspectors, disavowing WMD in all respects. Yet, now all we have to do is declare the government "illegitimate" and then it's o.k. to bomb? No war crime here? No violation of international law?

Nono.... sorry, I should have been more clear. If the international community accept a rebel government as the valid one, and the newly validated government asks the international community to step in to help them in their civil war, then there's no breach of international law when they do step in.

[Clinton Huxley]

Last time we and the Crapauds had a little adventure in this neck of the woods, the damned Merkins pulled the plug. Hope they behave themselves this time.

[Coito ergo sum]

Nono.... sorry, I should have been more clear. If the international community accept a rebel government as the valid one, and the newly validated government asks the international community to step in to help them in their civil war, then there's no breach of international law when they do step in.

Except, the international community has not accepted the rebel government as the valid one. The rebels don't even have a government. Qadaffi's government is still the government with a UN delegation.

[Pappa]

Nono.... sorry, I should have been more clear. If the international community accept a rebel government as the valid one, and the newly validated government asks the international community to step in to help them in their civil war, then there's no breach of international law when they do step in.

Except, the international community has not accepted the rebel government as the valid one. The rebels don't even have a government. Qadaffi's government is still the government with a UN delegation.

Yeah, I know. As I said, France has and I think a handful of others have now too. If a load of major players do the same, the request to step in will presumably occur quickly. I have no idea if it will happen that way though, and as far as I can see they'd definitely be in breach of international law if they just decided to step in now.

[Pappa]

It seems the wording of the resolution is quite important here, it sanctions military action against all threats to civilians short of occupation. It sounds like they gave themselves a lot of room to maneuver.

[Coito ergo sum]

Nono.... sorry, I should have been more clear. If the international community accept a rebel government as the valid one, and the newly validated government asks the international community to step in to help them in their civil war, then there's no breach of international law when they do step in.

Except, the international community has not accepted the rebel government as the valid one. The rebels don't even have a government. Qadaffi's government is still the government with a UN delegation.

Yeah, I know. As I said, France has and I think a handful of others have now too. If a load of major players do the same, the request to step in will presumably occur quickly. I have no idea if it will happen that way though, and as far as I can see they'd definitely be in breach of international law if they just decided to step in now.

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..." ?

[Pappa]

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.

[Coito ergo sum]

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.

[Warren Dew]

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..." ?

Why "as opposed to"? The Iraq war was based on a security council resolution as well. It's basically the same situation, except spearheaded by a different set of countries.

What I think is interesting is the contrast between the UK and French position in favor of intervention, and the German and Italian position against it. Italians currently own a lot more of the oil producing assets in Libya; the UK and France may see a change of government as an opportunity to lever the Italians out and replace them.