Is military action to aid another country ever the right thing to do?

[Chil1234]

In the past, reluctance to commit militarily in the Bosnia/Serbia conflict meant huge loss of life and showed that 'UN peacekeeping' is next to useless. No international forces came to the aid of the Rwandans when they were being massacred. The motives behind operations in Iraq and Afghanistan were controversial, complex, and have shown yet more pitfalls of military action. And in other situations like Zimbabwe, or China we take a different approach entirely. Now it's Libya

Is it ever right to intervene militarily in another country's internal affairs? Does there have to be a direct threat against our own country? Is it a good enough rationale to prevent a human tragedy or does there have to be more before we commit troops and resources?

Difficult one. For conflicts close to our borders, I do think there can be situations where we need to intervene.

However in the case of Libya, because of the history and the whole area is deeply suspicious of westerners I honestly believe us intervening (with or without UN support) will backfire big time.

The only option would be for the Arab states to form a coalition and intervene.

For Iraq & Afghanistan, that was just the UK doing anything to please our US masters.

The underlying question here is about intervention: there are a whole range of ways in which one country can intervene in the affairs of another, from trade tariffs, aid policy, sanctions, peace-keeping, no-fly zones, and invasion. Only some of these are jobs for the military.

The role of the UN is (or should be) key in this, as it is a means to reach international consensus and then ensure implementation of measures to reach the desired end state. It failed dramatically in the Balkans as there was no peace to keep in the first place, nations did not contribute the troops required and the mandate was not sufficiently robust.

Interventions are only ever to further the interests of the intervening country. Only reason Brits et al are hovering over Libya pontificating on whether to intervene is because they're afraid the revolution is going to be successful and the people will finally take over democratically. The UK/USA DO NOT want that. They'd much rather Ghedaffi or another tinpot dictator were in power to secure the oil supply etc.

Glasnost- I'd disagree. The UK dont fear democracy in Libya- they fear a long running civil war which would disrupt the oil supply. If there was a democracy, they'd carry on pumping the oil because why wouldn't they? A country that's a democracy is as likely (if not more so) to carry on producing/exporting oil as a totalitarian one.

On that basis, we should only intervene if we know that we can resolve things quickly in the favour of the rebels (pro-democracy). However, we don't seem to have a great track record in deciding when that will be the case (Iraq) so probably best to stay out of it IMO.

Well a new democratically elected gov could look askance at the countries which propped up Ghedaffi by doing biz with him. Eg ours. The oil supply and potential stemming of it is the only reason military intervention is being mooted.

If the title of the thread had referred to aiding oil as opposed to countries then we could've had a whole different and more honest debate.

I asked about aiding countries because the concern at the moment has a strong humanitarian element as well as quite legitimate fears about the security of oil supply. The rebels in Libya may be motivated but they are up against a professional, well-trained army - should they be helped and how? Humanitarian concern clearly can't be the sole rationale for intervention & hasn't been in the past or there would be military action in places as diverse as China, Burma and Zimbabwe. Concern about protecting oil supply has caused strategic mistakes in the past which may go against more military intervention in the M.E. - simply put, a Western alliance might not be trusted by the people being aided to leave once the job is done.

I wondered what, if anything, people thought would be the best way forward.

Sierra Leone?

I agree with niceguy.

And the Libyans would do right not to trust a Western alliance. Would you?

Chil: you would need to start by asking who are the rebels, and who can act as their representative. It's not really clear yet if we have a firm answer to either. Also, you would have to consider the type and purpose of intervention.

If politicians directed the military to act, then the provider (UN, NATO or other) is essentially joining a civil war, and invading the country against the wishes if its current government (loathsome as may be, but internationally recognised as the government). This is very similar to the situation of Iraq in the run up to military intervention.

If you thought intervention in Iraq was not legitimate, then I do not see how you could support action in Libya as things stand.

I find it strange that we now condemn a man who we were happy just a few months ago to sell arms to.

William Hague comes out and says that it is unacceptable for Gadaffi to use these british supplied arms to put down resistance.

What would happen if we all took to the streets, do you seriously think that the army would not be called upon to deal with riots and all out civil war in this country.

We have no right to involve ourselves unless we are absolutely certain that it is with the intention of protecting human life. Unfortunately our government is only concerned with securing oil supplies.

And if we are sure that our sole intention is protect human life, as you put it, is that justification enough for military action? Because wouldn't protecting one set of human lives inevitably lead to the destruction of others?

"Well a new democratically elected gov could look askance at the countries which propped up Ghedaffi by doing biz with him. Eg ours. The oil supply and potential stemming of it is the only reason military intervention is being mooted."

They'll keep selling- at the moment 85% of Libyan oil goes to Europe - who else are they going to sell to? Re-diverting oil sales en masse is too difficult/expensive and oil exports account for 95% exports and 80% government revenues. Any new democracy will be fragile as it will undoubtedly result in a crisis of rising expectations. Lenin once said that "the politics of bread are the politics of power"- eg. you've got to ensure that stds of living don't decline on your watch because lofty principles don't feed people.

I don't see the US getting involved in this- they only get 5% of Libya's oil anyway.

The issue here is WHY this intervention is being discussed. It's not in the interest of the countries being supplied oil by Libya to encourage the democratisation of the country. Also to halt the tide of revolt from sweeping across to Saudi Arabia. The interventions will be to ensure more of the same old or another totalitarian leadership.

We should be more honest in discussing these matters especially in the light of Iraq etc. Surely noone believes anymore that these interventions are ever for humanitarian purposes.

"It's not in the interest of the countries being supplied oil by Libya to encourage the democratisation of the country."

Why? As explained above, if oil is the issue, then political stability is the answer. Doesn't matter in what guise that political stability comes. Arguably, democracies tend to be more stable (or at least more predictable) than totalitarian regimes. Norway is a democracy and a totally reliable supplier of oil. I'm sure if Hague could click his fingers and overnight Libya becomes a democracy, that's what he'd do.

The west does not have the power to restore the Gadaffi regime; nor has it shown any recent inclination to do so. As far as I'm aware, there's not another totalitarian alternative on the scene. France has already recognised the rebel factions.

The problem is that at the moment, no real alternative has emerged for the west to support. That's the risk of becoming involved. If you remove the Gadaffi enemy, there's a risk that the rebels, commonly united under "we all hate Gadaffi" splinter into factions and you still have a civil war.

My idea of political stability and yours Bagged are obv out of synch. What's a totalitarian regime for me is political stability to the realpolitiking western governments who do business with them or need them to protect pipelines etc. A fledgling democracy in Libya would entail instability hence the interventions would be aimed at halting that nascent democratisation. Just my opinion - I could be wrong and would hope to be proved wrong for once on re. these so called humanitarian interventions.

Norway supplies very little oil compared to Saudi Arabia, Russia etc which are autocracies. Libya's more pertinent in terms of its strategic location in the middle east. Revolts are contagious as we've seen. God forbid the Saudis should go getting strange ideas.

The Saudis were meant to be on the march today but it's been quiet.

There is talk of trying to get kuwait and saudi to police a no fly zone.

I'm inclined to agree with Glasnost over democracy. The U.S has been stirring up the middle esst for years but these countries still don't have democracy. There is no will on the part of America to see democracy in the middle east because if the governments of these countries respond to the will of their populations it will mean a call for higher living standards, health care, access to a greater share of their countries wealth, if that drives oil prices that won't be popular with unclue sam. America has little interest in insuring the world is fed and clothed, only whether cheap oil keeps flowing its way. 5% doesn't sound alot but the American economy is reliant on oil for fuel, agriculture, growing bio fuels, you name it!

Hague only looks a prat because he was quick to suggest no fly zones and arms drops obviously not having gleaned the opinion of America first. That is why our foreign secretary looks lost.

Democracy and stability do not always go together.

China is a very stable country.

Democracy isn't the be-all and end-all. Strong institutions, such as the judiciary, are also vital. Look at the example of Russia in the late 1990s - elected government, but corrupt courts - not. Pace to do business for quite a while.

I'd be surprised if Saudi Arabia took a role in this - it has enough troubles of its own right now.

Democracy and stability do not always go together, I agree. It would be like saying that capitalism and democracy are one and the same. Most people believe the aims of capitalism is to feed the world and give people liberty. Wrong!

Actually a pure capitalist system means that people are driven to make choice based on limited information, ie advertising and the fact that governments are losing their independance because they are beholden to private business, whether it be for oil or food.

I am actually wondering why all the middle east has suddenly gone mad. Bread I guess, these poor people are bloody hungry and they know their leaders are not sharing the immense wealth.

Seems immoral to pay these countries for oil knowing they are starving their citizens. We have been selling arms to saudi and kuwait, do we seriously believe they wouldn't turn on their own population should the need arise.

No wonder our leaders don't know what to do!

Glasnost-no, I agree with you that for Libya to progress to a democracy is going to entail at least a period of massive instability, and I also agree that many fledgling democracies do effectively fail, but I disagree that the UK is considering intervention to try to shore up Gadaffi or replace him with another totalitarian regime. On that note, I don't think intervention would help because there is no obvious front runner to back.

Meditrina- I agree that some non-democracies are stable, but that they are prone to sudden flare ups, as we're seeing at the moment. Democracies tend to have more checks and balances, albeit new democracies can be pretty fragile.

I'd also argue that the reason China is so stable is because living standards for the majority of the population are on the rise, at least in urban areas.

China has been stable for many, many decades - long before living standards were rising. And it's only (short lived) protests in 1989 were also at a time of rising living standards. So I wouldn't say that it's something that comes with prosperity or conversely, that the poor aren't concerned with.

Democracies do not have more checks and balances: they have a different voting system. Unless you wish to expand the meaning of democracy (but that might be confusion).

The checks and balances are the strong civil structures like having adequate laws, a government which tends to acts within the law, and courts which can enforce the law. An example of this is pre-handover Hong Kong - no democratic process at all, but no-one too bothered about it.

I can see that Libya is topical, but the OP was about whether it is ever right to become too enmeshed in another country.

Is it really up to one group of people to enforce their view of society on another group of people, or are groups allowed to self-determine? Though that may lead to the dominant group in a unipolar world taking action (including military action) beyond its borders on the grounds of "regime change", despite that regime being legitimately constituted within the "target" country.

It is also worth noting in this context that a few friendly exiles do not necessarily transfer into a sustainable successor government. Such individuals may have the ear of the internationally dominant government, but do not appear to have the necessary backing of those who struggled in country for change.

I think the latter is an important factor in the difference between the successful "revolutions" of the former Soviet bloc (economic difficulties, but political success), all of which were home grown and none of which had outside aid during the revolutionary phase.

This even included the break up of some of the countries: Czech Republic and Slovakia being a good example. Yugoslavia - a recent "imposed" state, created by outsiders in the 1940s however, is a lesson in how it fails (only Slovenia detaching successfully). But worth noting that both Iraq and Yugoslavia were post-WW2 artificial creations - lines drawn on the map, and no real regard to the history and wishes of those whom lived there. Both remained stable under dictators, and crumbled, despite massive intervention, when the dictatorship ended (one precipitately under invasion, one more slowly but very bloodily).

Was it right for the West (ie the WW2 victors, now the P5) to impose their view on statehood on the map - pretty major interference in the role of statehood? Have many of the current troubles their roots in those postWW2 settlements?

Medtrina As soon as I wrote my post I thought 'Shit, what about HK?" .

Just on the "checks and balances," my thought process was that in a mature democracy, issues probably get addressed sooner, or at least become more apparent, because popular dissent isn't being suppressed. The situation in these countries is therefore easier to predict and the first recourse is the ballot box.

In totalitarian regimes, there's more risk of a sudden flare up, and popular dissent is more likely to present itself with rioting or other violent protest, so is more unpredictable.

I suppose my point was that I'm not convinced that the UK (with it's oil interests) would necessarily prefer a totalitarian regime to a democracy in Libya (given where we are now- i.e. shoring up the Gadaffi regime is an unlikely course of action), other than the fact that that democracy would probably be unstable for some time. I dont think a democracy would be less likely to sell oil to the west, but I accept that instability may result in production issues.

SWYM.

It looks as if Libya will be left to fight it out, now. It's so hard on the ordinary people. But there is something to be said for the long term that a leader genuinely emerges from within, and does so without external backing. The popular support for figures such as Aung San Suu Kyi, and a generation ago Nelson Mandela, was assisted by little more than sanctions and diplomacy.

I'm not sure we yet know who to talk to in Libya, and the international community bringing in an exile to lead is unlikely to be helpful. So without a prospect of what a future government would look like, the instability seems inevitable - assuming the rebels can win, which is looking less likely.

I agree- there's no obvious alternative with mass support. Hopefully one will emerge.

I'm just waiting for the conspiracy theorists to start with "Gadaffi, aided by the CIA and AL Queda, caused the Japanese earthquake to detract attention from the Libyan crisis"

France only want to go in to Libya to support the rebels to save face having publicly declared that Gadaffi is a naughty boy and they're not talking to him anymore. They've recognised the rebels, now they feel that they need to support them. They've interfered politically, now they feel they need to back it up with military action.

I don't think it's right to intervene uni- or bilaterally. I do think it's right for the international community which most of these countries profess to be a part of to referee and intervene where necessary. Given that the UN lacks a standing army of its own it has to rely on individual member states or associations of members states to do that, however they should only do that wearing blue berets and as part of a multilateral force. Otherwise it's just one member state marching in on another with the blessing of 190 bystanders.

The other alternative is for a local body, such as the Arab League in this case, to act, but the sum total of their action so far has been to tell the Security Council they want a no-fly zone.

However, the UN is spectacularly badly set up for military intervention. Here China and Russia are highly unlikely to agree, so that's 2 vetos in the security council, and therefore nothing gets done.