ARAB LEAGUE CALLS FOR A NO-FLY ZONE IN LYBIA

@georgeob1,

The iraqi's didn't ask for intervention.

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

Well the EU nations have conferred and, apart from expressions of sorrow at what is happening, have pretty clearly indicated that they don't want to get involved either.

I disagree with this assessment, some nations (such as Germany) have expressed deep reservations about there being no legal basis for a war in Libya, and don't seem that eager to seek one either (or perhaps they realize the futility of such efforts unless the situation escalates). But others, such as France and the UK are looking for ways that they can help topple the regime. The main thing holding them back right now is said lack of legal basis as well as the lack of a clearly beneficial way to intervene.

So far the Dutch and the UK have both had soliders captured in Libya since this conflict began, the French reflexively recognized the ambiguous rebels and were then justly ridiculed (I like Germany's retort that the idea is to recognize nations as nations and not ambiguous groups) and while there are several nations very much interested in intervening this has unfolded quickly and they are being justifiably cautious. But the UK putting intel on the ground to try to contact the rebels and Italy rescinding a non-aggression treaty are good indications that at least a willingness to act might exist, if not a plan ready to implement or a consensus on what such a plan might look like.

It has only been a few weeks, just because Europe is not at war with Libya yet doesn't necessarily mean they lack the will to intervene, but perhaps just the will to do so reflexively, and without international consensus.

2 Replies

@Robert Gentel,

Don't hold your breath as the Bosnians did a decade ago - and that was in Europe.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

I am really struck by the very odd correlation of people and political groups that so bitterly criticized our intervention in Iraq who now appear to be eaager to intervene in Libya to overthrow a relatively small time and rather comic tyrant compared to Saddam.

Bush tried to sell a "war" and an "invasion", this is being packaged as a "no-fly zone". I want to see these hawkish liberals call it what it is: they are advocating a reflexive war against the regime in Libya without any international consensus or legal basis (the former of which may come soon).

The US military and the Obama administration were right to call for caution. People like Gen. McPeak calling some of the proposed solutions "dead easy" and folks like Kerry making ridiculous comments about how this would just mean "cratering" some runways were irresponsible and puzzle me too. However I'm glad that it seems the US is more wary (if only slightly) of invading other countries without any legal basis after the disastrous foray in Iraq.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

Jeeze, here we go again. There seems to be this automatic assumption that the Libyans are going to hate us if we do this. Fer chrissake, they're the ones asking for this.

I think they will find fault no matter what we do or don't do. It's easier to do nothing.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

That is a simplistic reductionism, the "Libyans" aren't, and only recently did a majority of the rebels begin to support . One of the things I think the most eager proponents of the invasion of Libya neglect is that despite reports of mercenaries Gaddafi still clearly retains significant Libyan support. Foreign intervention might provide the truth to the Gaddafi lie in the narrative he's been using thus far to maintain said Libyan support.

1 Reply

@Robert Gentel,

Robert Gentel wrote:

I disagree with this assessment, some nations (such as Germany) have expressed deep reservations about there being no legal basis for a war in Libya, and don't seem that eager to seek one either (or perhaps they realize the futility of such efforts unless the situation escalates). But others, such as France and the UK are looking for ways that they can help topple the regime. The main thing holding them back right now is said lack of legal basis as well as the lack of a clearly beneficial way to intervene.

If they are indeed "being held back" by the lack of a legal basis, then what is either their vaunted sovereignty or the much touted UN Charter worth? This is merely a convenient excuse for those looking hard to find one, (They weren't all that concerned in 1956, when they invaded Egypt. The "legal situation" was the same then.).

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

This doesn't yet resemble anything like that though, and I give you more credit than you do for learning from some of the recent history.

I would bet good money that if this develops into a genocide several European nations will be involved in the intervention.

1 Reply

@Robert Gentel,

Robert Gentel wrote:

I would bet good money that if this develops into a genocide several European nations will be involved in the intervention.

They had to be shamed into it in Bosnia - and that was in Europe.

I'm also very confident of their ability to be "held back" by "legal issues".

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

If they are indeed "being held back" by the lack of a legal basis, then what is either their vaunted sovereignty or the much touted UN Charter worth? This is merely a convenient excuse for those looking hard to find one, (They weren't all that concerned in 1956, when they invaded Egypt. The "legal situation" was the same then.).

Countries are not monolithic as you portray them and that a handful of leaders from those countries conspired to steal the Suez over half a century ago does not seem very relevant to me today.

And if you want to bash the UN again I'll just say this:

The reason it doesn't work is simple: the powers that be refuse to relinquish any power. And that starts with the US George as the biggest culprit blocking the creation of the legal instruments that would make such interventions easier. In short, while we have the might we prefer the old-world order of might makes right and our own national judgement. This is why we won't accept an I.C.C with real teeth and why none of the nuclear club old-school want to give up the stupid security council veto powers or alter it significantly.

It could work much better if we were willing to cede power that we have from military superiority in order to vest an international legal system with more authority but you aren't willing to do that, so I find it odd that you mock it for not working when you essentially want it that way.

1 Reply

@Robert Gentel,

The fundamental and obvious flaw in your argument is that America's refusal to cede sovereignty to the ICC has quite obviously not been the operative factor limiting its use. It has instead been the timidity and self interest of the very nations that proclaim their love for "the rule of international law" much as Aesop's mice loved the idea of belling the cat. The ICC is used only against friendless and impotent villians who pose no threat to the self righteous.

What has the ICC or the international law community done for Myanmar ? Tibet ? Zimbabwe? Iran?

When some of that happens you can ask to be taken seriously by serious people.

Robert Gentel wrote:

Countries are not monolithic as you portray them and that a handful of leaders from those countries conspired to steal the Suez over half a century ago does not seem very relevant to me today.

If enforcement of international law depended then, as it depends now, on the "behavior of a handful of leaders", then why would you rely on it?

2 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

Jeeze, here we go again. There seems to be this automatic assumption that the Libyans are going to hate us if we do this. Fer chrissake, they're the ones asking for this.

As did, I believe, some Somalians...or am I mis-remembering?

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

Quote:

The fundamental and obvious flaw in your argument is that America's refusal to cede sovereignty to the ICC has quite obviously not been the operative factor limiting its use. It has instead been the timidity and self interest of the very nations that proclaim their love for "the rule of international law" much as Aesop's mice loved the idea of belling the cat. The ICC is used only against friendless and impotent villians who pose no threat to the self righteous.

What has the ICC or the international law community done for Myanmar ? Tibet ? Zimbabwe? Iran?

When some of that happens you can ask to be taken seriously by serious people.

No. You're wrong. The question actually is: what could the ICC have achieved for the beleaguered citizens of Burma, Tibet, Zimbabwe & Iran (say nothing of Libya) IF it had had the support of all UN nations opposed to human rights violations?

While powerful countries withhold their support on the grounds of "sovereignty" interests, the ICC cannot possibly properly carry out its designated function.

You cannot fairly complain that the ICC is ineffectual based on this sort of record. The fact is, the most powerful UN countries have too often regarded their own particular interests as more important than human rights concerns.
Imagine how much more powerful ICC would have been with the united support of China, France, Russia, United Kingdom, and United States.
A whole different ball game.
And why on earth not?
Why should serious human rights violations come second to "sovereignty" concerns?

1 Reply

@dlowan,

When Mohamed Said Barre's government collapsed, the United Nations instigated the occupation of Mogadishu at the behest of George Bush the elder, newly crowned with his laurels from the first Gulf War. (The sudden and dramatic rise in oil prices contingent on that war was probably the straw that broke the camel's back for Barre's regime--he could no longer feed the clan militia's which comprised his military.) No, the Somalis did not invite us in.

Bush put an Admiral in charge of the operations in Mogadishu, and after Clinton was elected, that man was still in place. As is so often the case, newly elected Presidents suffer many nasty surprises--Somalia was Clinton's nasty surprise. This retired admiral conceived of the operation to take down some of the higher level officers of the clan militia lead by Mohammed Farah Aidid, then the most powerful single militia leader. Just about a week before, a helicopter gun ship had attacked a house where clan leaders had been meeting, killing dozens (?), and causing hundreds of heavily armed clan militia members to flood into Mogadishu.

It was against that backdrop that the "Blackhawk down" incident took place. The operation was ill-conceived and poorly executed in that it did not take into consideration the formidable forces loyal to Aidid, and did not take into account the altered mood and hostility in Mogadishu when the operation went forward. It was also the victim of the hubris of the military planners, who did not alert the Tenth Mountain Division, the major American military unit available, nor the Pakistanis, the major Muslim UN force in Mogadishu (who were a light armored unit perfect for extracting the suvivors). By the time those forces went out to rescue the survivors of the botched mission, the debacle had largely run its course.

I know of no one in Somalia who asked either for a UN intervention of ground forces, nor for major American military assets to invade Somalia.

0 Replies

@Robert Gentel,

Assuming that your initial sentence fragment means that only recently did a majority of Libyan opponents of Kadaffi begin to ask for western intervention, so what? You're offering a typical Craven straw man here--at no time have i suggested that Libya be invaded. As O'George and i have discussed, intervention by air forces might well cause the support Kadaffi has in the Libyan military to erode.

You're just assuming as a premise that your speculative remarks about being obliged to go in on the ground is true. You've not demonstrated that that would be inevitable, and it's not a sound basis for objecting to my thesis, which not only does not call for an invasion, but points out that the rebels don't want foreign troops to come in on the ground.

If there is anything simplistic in this argument, it's your insistence upon an unsubstantiated assumption that any intervention would necessarily involve troops invading Libya.

1 Reply

@msolga,

msolga wrote:

No. You're wrong. The question actually is: what could the ICC have achieved for the beleaguered citizens of Burma, Tibet, Zimbabwe & Iran (say nothing of Libya) IF it had had the support of all UN nations opposed to human rights violations?

Nothing, absolutely nothing. Who's the cop who would enforce ICC rulings against the military junta in Burma, the Chinese, Zimbabwe, or the Revolutionary Guard in Iran?

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

The fundamental and obvious flaw in your argument is that America's refusal to cede sovereignty to the ICC has quite obviously not been the operative factor limiting its use.

I am beginning to suspect you only have a superficial familiarly with the ICC and its history. Because of said concerns by the world's major powers about ceding power (sovereign power, if you will) the ICC's jurisdiction is limited in significant ways (see article 12, 13 here), often requiring the Security Council to refer a case to it in order for it to have jurisdiction.

And this kind of limit to jurisdiction and authority is directly relevant to this case. There was just intense negotiation to get the Security Council (with opposition led by China) to refer the Libyan events to ICC investigation and the resolution only passed with a last minute compromise that gave the Security Council the power to suspend indefinitely through a preambular Article 16 reference.

China led the opposition to an ICC referral and was worried this would set a "precedent" (likely being concerned about protests and the repression thereof of their own) and was initially completely rejected it until it was watered down. The fact that we just had to negotiate a watered-down investigation with a repeal clause makes it very clear that nationalistic concerns about rule of law encroaching on the powers that be in the status quo is very much a factor in limiting the mandate of the ICC in even now.

Quote:

What has the ICC or the international law community done for Myanmar ? Tibet ? Zimbabwe? Iran?

Such an odd argument is this wherein you oppose empowering the ICC on the basis of its lacking power (authority). You oppose giving it power because it has no power and that doesn't begin to make any sense.

Quote:

When some of that happens you can ask to be taken seriously by serious people.

I was talking to you, what serious people might you have had in mind? Are you talking about yourself in third person? That wouldn't be serious, it'd even be a bit silly. ;-)

And if you do deem yourself said serious person, I recommend availing yourself of the basic information about the history of the ICC as it relates to the United States. It is just plain and obviously uninformed to not acknowledge the US hand in the limitations of the ICC as it exists and the open US attempts to undermine the ICC.

I'll get you started with a quick example: in 2002 the US congress passed a law that bans military aid to the nations who ratified the treaty (with many exemptions, however) and began trying to strong arm nations into signing immunity agreements with the US. The United States even threatened to use its Security Council veto to cancel several existing UN peacekeeping missions if the Security Council did not grant Americans permanent immunity from the court.

It is foolish or historically unaware to argue that the US did not play a very significant role in the limitations of the ICC, during the John Bolton era Bush's administration fought the ICC openly and tenaciously. In its inception the US couldn't have made it clearer that it took a dim view of the institution and did nearly everything it could to neuter it.

Quote:

Robert Gentel wrote:
Countries are not monolithic as you portray them and that a handful of leaders from those countries conspired to steal the Suez over half a century ago does not seem very relevant to me today.
If enforcement of international law depended then, as it depends now, on the "behavior of a handful of leaders", then why would you rely on it?

What is this supposed to mean? In case it is somehow unclear, I am the one advocating that international law has greater rule of law and you are the one advocating that a handful of leaders of the super-powers hold this power.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

Assuming that your initial sentence fragment means that only recently did a majority of Libyan opponents of Kadaffi begin to ask for western intervention, so what?

I was making the point that you grossly simplify things when you say that the "Libyans" have asked for the no-fly zone and would thusly not object to it when in reality "Libyans" are not monolithic and this is itself a very disputed subject in Libya. If the significance is not immediately obvious to you I'll put it this way:

If only recently have the rebels begun to have majority agreement on this then it is likely that a significant portion of Libyans (who also include many supporters of the regime) do not.

Quote:

You're offering a typical Craven straw man here--at no time have i suggested that Libya be invaded.

You suggest that a no-fly zone be enacted and this would necessitate an aerial invasion of Libyan territory. My point is that you are advocating the commencement of a war, and if you object to the term "invasion" then that gives me some hope yet. We may disagree on what would be enough to constitute an invasion but my point (that you clearly disagree with) is that a Libyan no-fly zone would represent one itself, not that it would necessarily evolve into one.

Quote:

You're just assuming as a premise that your speculative remarks about being obliged to go in on the ground is true.

No. I am simply saying that a no-fly zone would be an invasion.

Quote:

You've not demonstrated that that would be inevitable, and it's not a sound basis for objecting to my thesis, which not only does not call for an invasion, but points out that the rebels don't want foreign troops to come in on the ground.

I've not ever claimed ground troops are inevitable, and ground troops are not the only tool an invasion can use. My point was that a no-fly zone itself would be an invasion of Libya.

Quote:

If there is anything simplistic in this argument, it's your insistence upon an unsubstantiated assumption that any intervention would necessarily involve troops invading Libya.

I never said anything of the sort.

1 Reply

@Robert Gentel,

I have already made it clear that i refer to those Libyans who are rebelling as the ones asking for a no-fly zone. If you want to be a lawyer about this, then you're just quibbling, and looking for something to argue about. I suggest that this is because your position is so weak.

Operating a no-fly zone is not an invasion in any reasonable sense of the word. Once again, you're just quibbling to support an otherwise silly position. If Kadafffi doesn't want to risk his air force assets, a no-fly zone can be enforced without a shot being fired. C.f. O'George's remarks about how keeping a fleet in the Med, without even enforcing or threatening a no-fly zone in Libya was effective in keeping Kadaffi's head down.

You claim you have not said that we would be obliged go in on the ground? What the hell does this mean:

You wrote:

Do you really disagree that if the no-fly zone does not work, and the situation escalates (this is what I meant by "go south" in case it was unclear) that we should not automatically be willing to put boots on the ground?

If we declare war against the current regime (which you agree that the no-fly zone is) then I think we are no longer neutral bystanders and have a responsibility to try not leave Libya worse off than prior to the whole declaring war on the other country thing.

I do not recall agreeing that operating a no-fly zone constitutes a declaration of war, and i have repeatedly pointed out that the rebelling Libyans have firmly stated that they don't want foreign troops in Libya. You have no argument, and now you're just quibbling in a pretense of having offered a cogent argument.

1 Reply

I'm going to make some things clear that ought to have been clear already. I do not see any reason why operating a no-fly zone would require bringing in ground troops, and the Libyans who are rebelling have made it clear that they don't want foreign troops in Libya. I was moved to start this thread, and to call for action for precisely that reason, and because the Arab League has called for a no-fly zone. I've despised that son-of-a-bitch Kadaffi since he took over in 1969, and was gratified to see him get his comeuppance at least twice. That was when he invaded Chad, and suffered a humiliating defeat. That is an instructive example, too, because the French offered to intervene militarily, and the government of Chad turned them down, asking only for French support. The French provided logistical support, and the army of Chad handed Kadaffi his military ass. The second instance was when the goofball came out with that "line of death" **** about the Gulf of Cyrenaica. That lasted about as long as it took carrier aircraft to reach and bomb Tripoli. Libya provides some of the best contemporary examples of having a profound impact on a rogue regime while maintaining a limited military commitment.

1 Reply

ARAB LEAGUE CALLS FOR A NO-FLY ZONE IN LYBIA

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know