Gaddafi in the past month has killed several times more people than all those countries put together have done in years.
If Yemen or Bahrain gets that bad, I expect there will be international reaction there too. Is it not reasonable to suppose that a bad end for Gaddafi in the near future will make extreme bloodshed in those countries less likely?
I don’t know about that. Besides, what’s the trigger point for how many people need to be killed?
I can see it going either way, especially since the US has a lot to lose if we piss off the governments in Bahrain (we lose our military berth there) or Yemen (civil war creates another Afghanistan). And it certainly isn’t going stop the Iranian government form crushing protests brutally.
The usa has abandoned that base.
This base? No.
That base. Yes. According to the London Times thus morning. Skeleton crew. Pay firewall so can’t link.
Other link
http://www.thetotalcollapse.com/u-s-navys-fifth-fleet-abandons-base-in-bahrain/
Where did we put the 5th fleet?
place.
The Times phrased it as a ‘neutrality’ step to distance the Usa from the ongoing brutality.
That makes me feel so much better. We’re “distancing” ourselves from the “troubles”. And you think we won’t be back once things calm down?
The entire dynamic of that region is changing. Not even the Pentagon knows what bases will be viable a year from now, but I am certain they are working hard to keep apprised. If Bahrain transitions to a more democratic state, we might go back. If the King cracks down to hard, especially with American-made weaponry, we lose too much political capital. All of the emirates and kingdoms of that region are making a hard calculus. They need American firepower to protect the Gulf, but they also know which side the Americans will ultimately support in terms of calls for democracy. At least this administration anyway. Their greatest fear is that the people are starting to believe it too.
I think the main reason the Enterprise left the Med is so that it can be on call in case everything goes tits up in Yemen or Bahrain. Hopefully those leaders are watching the missile strikes and realize they could be next.
How many protesters have to die? Too many in any case, but if it turns into a slaughter like Libya, the UN will passing resolutions for those areas also. Until then, we have to allow the internal dynamics to play out.
And looks like Syria is joining the party also.
The UN and the international community is going to have a very busy year.
We need to establish some sort of schedule for these guys to have their protests. Maybe each gets 6 months, and then another country gets its turn. Let’s start alphabetically.
OK, everyone. Queue up!!
Well, it’s bombs away. Let’s hope things work out all right.
Sure, this part is fairly well established, I think.
OK. I am a little unclear about what you mean here. Do you mean with or without Security Council authorization? Or do you mean that it is morally, as opposed to legally, justified? Maybe a clarification of your example of famine might help. According the the UN FAO, 23 nations currently have more than 5 million malnourished people. (It says that this is a conservative estimate.) Are you saying that other states are entitled to intervene in these states, without the consent of the state in question? Or do they first need Security Council authorization? Or does 5 million malnourished people fall below some sort of threshold? (Of course, I realize that in reality the likelihood of a push for such interventions in countries, most of which have no oil, is approximately zero. I am just wondering about the general principle that you feel should be in operation here.)
OK. This is something I am honestly curious about, having seen this morning footage of a rebel jet shot down, either by Gaddafi’s forces or friendly fire, depending on the news source. Does Security Council resolution 1973 apply to the rebels? And will the UK, France, the US, etc shoot down rebel planes?
Well, if you are asking this in a philosophical spirit, I lean towards an anarchist outlook on this sort of question myself. It’s just that regarding the nation-state system as we have it now, I would prefer to have a clearish set of guidelines for inter-state behaviour rather than having international law degenerate into a cloak of legitimacy behind which the powerful pursue their interests – not that it was ever much more than that. I hope in this case that the great powers pursuing their interests at least has the side-effect of making the Libyan people better off. I would just also like to see some barriers remaining to the strong trampling over the weak.
And poof, Arab League support vanishes into thin air
I didn’t write it very clearly. I mean with UN Authorization, that authorization allows foreign states (i.e., the UN) to intervene into the strictly internal affairs of the State in question with or without their consent. That was not the norm pre-1949.
re: Famine. In Libya, civilians are being directly targeted by the Government (the UN claims) and the UN is intervening to stop that. In other places, the indirect effects of fighting causes civilian displacement/lack of food/ect. The UN can authorize intervention to protect civilians in that situation too. To protect civilians from the indirect effects of war. With or without consent. Maybe I shouldn’t have said famine, but just lack of food/exposure to elements.
If it’s just famine, no fighting, then I still believe they could intervene without consent (I’m guessing here). I do know there’s an increasing value placed on human rights/humane treatment at the expense of a state’s sovereignty.
The resolution denies “any aircraft” from flying. That would include rebels (as written). Although, I can’t imagine a scenario where a (Western) UN plane would shoot down a (Muslim) rebel plane on purpose. I also can’t imagine a rebel plane flying without UN clearance. I’m not sure how much communication is going on between the two. To my knowledge, the rebels have not been accused of deliberately targeting civilians.
The no-fly zone/protection of civilians, is tactically useful, but also psychologically. Gadhafi’s military will realize they can’t win. When you can’t win, loyalty loses it’s luster. Non-loyal people don’t fight that hard.
I was asking philosophically.
Kadhaffy can win just fine without aircraft. Maybe he won’t be able to hold onto the entire country, but then you end up with a splintered state and multiple civil wars. WINNING!!
But he can’t win without an army. Resolution 1973 authorizes a no-fly zone, but it also authorizes a much broader “protecting civilians” by “any means necessary.” That means attacking anything, anywhere…not just planes in the sky.
The Gadhafi regime is over, whether a coherent insurgency continues after him…who knows.
I don’t think his regime is over. We’d have to send in ground troops to make that happen. All we did was set the stage for a “fair and square” civil war that could easily result in a splintered country and any number of failed states.
Gadaffy has no where to go. He has to fight to the end. He has lots of loyal troops. This thing could drag on for a long time.
I absolutely do not want American ground troops. We sent 70 million dollars of missiles the first day. His airforce has to be taken out or he will use it on his foes when we leave. We can not leave him with a big superiority. This thing will be a big mess.
The United Nations is an excellent organization in theory, however I wish it would do more to encourage peace amongst the people of the Earth, rather than constantly sending its ‘troops’ overseas to fight battles. How a country decides to treat its people is up to that specific country - not to a group of individuals from the other side of the planet.
Currently, the Libyan government is responding to a threatening stimuli. Is that really any different than the United States responding to, say, domestic ‘terrorists?’ The United States quashes these domestic ‘terrorists’ so as to limit the amount of instability they cause. The same thing is happening in Libya.
Again in regards to the United Nations - it should be actively trying to promote inter-national peace by way of words and not violence. It should be attempting to bring about a world where we can travel from here to there without the antediluvian concept of national borders. In short, it should be attempting to bring about a world where we as a collective group of peoples in the world work as an international commune, helping one another while disregarding race, religion, et cetera.
Which is it? Are “internal affairs” nobody’s business or everybody’s business?
First of all, the UN has no troops – countries may volunteer to send troops to various peacekeeping missions, or they may decline. It is totally up to the countries that may wish to participate. Second of all, the UN is not “constantly” sending troops to fight battles. The number of times that the UN has authorized countries to go to war in the past six plus decades is very small. Very, very small. Third of all, the whole point of the United Nations isn’t just to have a forum to let diplomats talk, it is " to develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights . . . [and] in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion."
So, slugger, you’re oh-for-three at the plate today.
Really. Did George Bush send F-16s in to New York City after 9/11 to strafe people in the street?
Perhaps you should read the UN Charter – it’s been around for 65 years, and with 180-odd nations already having agreed that the United Nations has a role to play in promoting human rights as well as authorizing the use of force to stop wanton killings, the odds of your view of what the UN should do being adopted isn’t very good. Your suggestions are not supported by its founding documents, the better part of a century’s worth of history, or by the membership of the organization.