To want us to butt out of Libya's business

[bupcakesandcunting]

I know there are reasons for why we probably can't or for why were are obliged to "help" but I have a bad feeling about this. I feel like we're poking at a hornet's nest with this one and we're going to get stung.

AIBU to wish that we could just keep out of this? Can any clever MNers with more knowledge talk about why we are obliged to help/what the consequences will be if we don't stop with the no-fly zone? I read that the Arab Leaague are a bit at us already and I don't think we should be annoying them, really. The whole thing worries me quite a bit :(

cumfy- I dont understand your post. We're not going to own those oil reserves whatever we do. All we can do is to try to secure supply. We'll still have to buy it at market rates

The international community has agreed that it has a "responsibility to protect" - this is based on the idea that state sovereignty is a privilege which is revoked if a state cannot protect its citizens.I'm pretty sure the UN has acknowledge that this is the case in Libya.

For all I know it could be about oil but I think r2p plays some part - I dont think anyone wants a repeat of Rwanda.

Funny how the atrocities in Zimbabwe go on and on whilst no one does anything...

"Funny how the atrocities in Zimbabwe go on and on whilst no one does anything..."

Not really. If the other African leaders were prepared to stand up and be counted and openly condemned what he's doing, there would be more pressure on the West to do something.

Also, is it really appropriate for the UK to go back into its former colony and start firing off rounds after they spent years fighting us to try to get us to fuck off. That would give Mugabe a fair bit of ammunition re "colonial masters" with which to rally support.

The Armed Forces certainly don't need the practise - the only thing this will highlight is the severe manpower and equipment shortages if this becomes a prolonged issue and other UN countries don't contribute or they withdraw their support.

For years there has been a convenient arms/oil trade between Libya and the UK/France/Italy. They are al concerned with maintaining this, but there is also more to this, it is not just about oil. There is a debate on this right now on the critical human geographers message board, that I am not great at following, but the general idea seems to be the arms/oil trade is important but there are other (complicated, over-my-head) factors at play too.

"the only thing this will highlight is the severe manpower and equipment shortages if this becomes a prolonged issue."

I can't see it becoming a drawn out thing. They've already said there will be no "boots on the ground"- i.e. air assaults only.

Mmmm, heard that one before! And the air assaults still require a tremendous amount of hardware and manpower to sustain, as does the naval support.

I think it is due to fear of terrorism. The UK government thought at the beginning that the rebels would win and Gadaffi would go so they started writing him off. Then gadaffi took control of loads of towns and the UK government feared he might remain after all. UK would then become a target as Gadaffi would not like the things Hague has been saying about him so he would have possibly ordered terrorist acts against the UK.

However if this is seen by the world as UK led it seems to me we will set ourselves up to be even more of a terrorist target.

It would be good if pressure could be put on countries like libya through sanctions etc rather than always having to resort to military action.

If our armed forces are being cut back so much the focus should be on defending the UK rather than initiating action around the world.

Libya was under sanctions from the mid-80s until 2004. It didn't seem to have much perceptible effect then, so I doubt it would have been effective now.

This is far more complex than simply 'all about the oil'. (Although oil is as important to this country as water.) Libya has been a strategically placed headache for forty+ years. If we'd simply wanted to control the oil we would have either bombed it into submission years ago or not bothered with sanctions (which mean they can't export much of the stuff). The world has alternated between sanctions and attacks in the past. Then, with Blair in the vanguard, we opted to go the constructive, appeasement route which held until Gadaffi turned his troops on his own people.

Other nations have equally poor human rights records but we're either on better terms with them (Saudis), or they're too big to attack (China) or they're a contained, localised problem that doesn't threaten our interests (Zim)

My understanding is that the Arab countries have been, unusually, asking the west to take action in Libya for a while now. They have been concerned about an increasingly unstable Gaddafi destabilising the entire region.

"Mmmm, heard that one before! And the air assaults still require a tremendous amount of hardware and manpower to sustain, as does the naval support."

Yes but once you've bombed the anti aircraft artillery, it's done. You don't have to keep bombing it. Also, I cant see the UN agreeing to more than the no fly zone and I cant see the UK government going against the UN on this (after last time) , so that's why I dont think it will be sustained.

All this really does is give the rebels a fighting chance. I still have major doubts whether they can get it together to become a credible alternative. Atm they're united by wanting Gadaffi out. Once that's happened, there's a risk that they fracture into competing factions.

I dont think it's going to end well, but I think by enforcing the no fly zone we're working towards the lesser of the two evils.

There's a strong undercurrent that China and Russia object because they're the countries most likely to act in similar fashion in their own countries under certain circumstances - Tibet, the Muslim minority in the north of China, Chechnya etc are all potential sources of internal conflict for them and if they give support here, they'll be subject to much more pressure domestically if they're ever minded to take arms internally in the future. So abstention was a real result from them as far as UN security council unity went.

And IMHO the drift from the Arab League nations is that Gaddafi is actually insane and they're all more than a little nervous about what he might do. So yes he called a ceasefire. Didn't stick to it for more than 5 mins though. Yes, he says stuff, but I don't think those who know him really believe a word of it. I'm not sure that we can necessarily expect rationally explicable behaviour from him. Some of the anonymous rebel Libyans they've had on have explicitly said they think he's raving, which leaves his delightful sons with a lot of influence...

"If our armed forces are being cut back so much the focus should be on defending the UK rather than initiating action around the world."

"Defending the UK" in the 21st century is not as simple as having pill boxes and naval vessels lined up on the South Coast waiting for an invasion. Threats are coming from much further afield and are often indirect. In the past Gaddafi financed IRA attacks and had the PanAm flight bombed over Lockerbie - directly attacking the UK and killing hundreds of our people. It could be argued it would have been a more successful defence of the UK if we'd properly dealt with Gaddafi 30 years ago.

"We definitely did not go in too early; too late more like it, but at least there's still time to protect the revolution."

I remember reading in the Observer a few weeks ago that the rebels were reluctant to let the West take the reins on this as they wanted it to be a true revolution, overseen by themselves, but it had been made clear to the rebel forces that we would step in if we were needed. In simple terms. Do we know if they ever requested our assistance?

Yes, they requested UN assisitance. The emphasis is that is has to be a 'Libyan Victory', however. So, even though we are helping them at their request, there is no plan to invade or occupy, as was the case in Iraq.

If we don't invade or occupy and we are "only" doing the necessary (ha ha!) bombing to disable Gaddafi's aircraft artillery, will this rile up Gaddafi any less? I mean, he isn't going to like it either way, is he?

"Yes it is all about oil".

No it is not all about oil.

"If we don't invade or occupy and we are "only" doing the necessary (ha ha!) bombing to disable Gaddafi's aircraft artillery, will this rile up Gaddafi any less? I mean, he isn't going to like it either way, is he?"

I'm kind of hoping he wont be in a position to argue. A dead dictator's a good dictator.......

Re China, I disagree that they wont condemn Libya because they're not too hot on human rights themselves, although that's also true. China, being as it is in the middle of a hugely successful transformation from Communist, agrarian pariah to legitimate trading partner and the world's second largest economy, does not want to rock the boat by getting into what it views as inconsequential scraps. China has no moral compass- it will do a deal with anyone, but it desperately wants to avoid pissing anyone off.

"he isn't going to like it either way, is he?"

Gaddafi's likes and dislikes are immaterial now. The point is that many of Gaddafi's supporters are only there because he's paying them to be there. The African mercenaries, for example, were getting $xxx per dead body. He offered ordinary people the equivaent of a month's wages to stay loyal. Despite this, some of his fomerly close colleagues have already deserted him. Air-force pilots, as we've seen, have scuppered their own planes or defected rather than attack Libyans.

The UN show of force not only protects the rebels but will also convince more waverers that it's safe to walk away.... thus leaving him and Said at a very lonely pity party. It's a strategy game now.

It's primarily about saving lives.

We have a legal obligation, under international law, to not stand by and allow somebody to murder and massacre their own people, if we can do something to stop it.

The UK, and most other countries, have broken this law many times in the past, and stood by and allowed massacres to happen. That shouldn't make a precedent though. We could do something this time, and we did.

Of course, then there is the ethical obligation. Would any of you stand by and watch someone be murdered if you were strong and powerful enough to intervene and stop it?

Since the UN went into Libya on Friday it's estimated by the UN that at least 3000 lives have been saved per day. That's 9000 people, not murdered. And counting...

It's difficult. When I lived in England, during the 2003 invasion I assumed they knew something we didn't. This time, and being happily resident in the Middle east, I agree that the UK does seem to have this idea that they should be able to dictate to other people, especially dictators. I am a bit thick and should know more about the world politics but I do wonder why vile dictators of poor, oil free countries are not invaded by US and UK. Here in the ME, there is some confusion as to the reasons for this but I have to say that the only people I hear slating the UK are the expats. US is another matter entirely, especially since Obama. Now, if there were an anti war demo in the UK and I was there I would definitely go along. The Arab League is always keen to be allied with the West which I thin is a bit sad. Our emir is a wise man who has put Qatar on the map and also helped a great deal in the peace process. I just hope that the population of the ME doesn't start to feel alienated by this support. This part of the world is so different, I wonder how a British Government can decide what is best. Leave them alone.

It's not the British Government deciding what is best. It's the United Nations, of which the UK is just one of 192 members, and the UN Security Council, of which the UK is just one of 15 permanent members (and one of 5 veto-holding members), and the UN Human Rights Council, of which the UK is just one of 47 members.

It's not perfect but the United Nations is all we have on this earth to bring the people of this earth into one room, sit down, talk and to make collective decisions on international issues. They weigh up the evidence of human rights abuses very carefully, at great length, and balance this hard evidence against international law, precedent, vetos and the country in questions own declarations.

Which other dictatorships have conducted massacres in recent years, which we have had hard evidence for (that stood up in the UN) and in which we didn't intervene?

If we left the Libyan people to their fate in this struggle we could also expect Al-Qaida in the Maghreb and similar groups to step in on the anti-Gaddafi side. They would gain credibility and influence and the West would be marginalised.

This isn't far away, though it may seem so to the UK. Libya is a short stretch of water away from the EU's southern border in Spain, France and Italy. Since we are all in a mutual defence pact (NATO) their interests in not having mayhem on their southern flank is also ours. So, once chaos descended it was always likely there would be some need to step in. I personally believe Gaddafi's threats over Benghazi because he has massacred his own people before e.g. a horrible purge of people he deemed ideologically unsound in 1973. His regime has endured because of his willingness to kill.