Libya

So the Americans don’t want to be involved.  The Brits have said, explicitly, that we’re not about regime change, just protecting civilians.  The French, in at the start and on the front foot perhaps for the first time since Napoleon, want everyone to be ‘gung ho’ about smashing Gaddafi’s regime.

Then there are the Libyan ‘civilians’ calling down air support, complaining bitterly when they can’t hear fighter planes in the sky, as if they’d paid for the fuel and the arms they’re carrying.  Like NATO is their own private air force.  And NATO, reluctant, but being pushed around by the US and UK/France to take the lead and take responsibility for the air strikes against Gaddafi.

And all this after the organisation that was set up to do this kind of work, the United Nations (UN) had singularly failed to do so, commanding not enough respect or influence over its members to get anything meaningful done – echoes of the failed League of Nations between the wars, which arguably contributed to the outbreak of WW (together with many other factors of course).

If we (the Brits) are now saying that this is not going to be over until Gaddafi is ousted, then policy has changed considerably: I would argue that it has changed enough for the whole subject to be re-visited by the UK parliament.  Clearly the last Labour Government would not have contemplated this – indeed they went against all advice in order to go to war in the first place in IRAQ, but the Tories have set great store by the fact that this action (enforcing the no-fly zone) was both right and ‘legal’ (a clear ‘nod’ towards the previous Labour regime’s actions).

I would argue that if we have changed the goals of this operation, the legality of it, in relation to UN resolution 1973, is no longer so certain and we must, therefore, take another look if the Coalition government is not to be dogged like their predecessors have been over their sojurn (ongoing) in the Middle East.

One thing that this second look might also consider, is the make-up of the ‘Civilians’ that we’re protecting and now actively supporting (proposing to anyway): are we sure we want them as near neighbours to Europe? Are we sure that in return for our support and help, they will be at least on respectful, friendly terms, regardless of whatever means of government they eventually install?
Are these people really campaigning for democracy? Are they that sophisticated? Or are they simply trying to secure better lives for themselves and their kids? I believe it’s the latter but I would certainly not criticise them for that – we all do the same thing in whatever ways we can after all. But the danger must be that they have been motivated to rebel and to demonstrate and to turn out for these completely understandable reasons, without their goals being in any way achievable.
Sure, a few leaders of the movement will secure a massive uplift in their lives when they get their hands on the levers of power, but will the lives of the ordinary people (brave people no doubt) who have got them there really change? Will the situation revert back to the power and corruption of those new people in power just as it has done since the Crusades of the 12th Century? Why is this time different?
It’s different because of new media and social media and the internet and better universal communications of course, but have the fundamentals changed? Is it not still the case that vested interests and nepotism and power and control, as the driving forces in all of these ‘wobbling’ countries will emerge anew, just with different characters at the helm? And the same characters under the yolk of different rulers?
And remember that these different rulers understand the power of modern communications – these are what got them their break in the first place – manipulating tens nay hundreds of thousands to demonstrate.  They might well feel that they need even more draconian powers in order to control tribal – and disappointed – masses in the future.
I’m not saying it’s easy, or that there is a simple solution – or even a solution at all, short of occupation and imposing our laws and values on people who don’t want them. God forbid another empire approach but we seem to be trying to apply our values and beliefs on people that we don’t really understand and who certainly don’t share our values or our views on fairness and ‘society’.
And now we’re sending in ‘advisors’ not to fight but to ‘help’ whatever that means. And we have shown our hand, that this will not be over until Gaddafi goes. Whoever said that – and it is now the universal mantra – is not a good poker player or even a good diplomat. It means, effectively, that we are at war with Gaddafi. Tell me it doesn’t?
It’s suddenly not as straightforward as it seemed when the ‘civilians’ were in danger of being swept away by Gaddafi. From a practical point of view, if the UK Government doesn’t revisit this in terms of legality and legitimacy it will be committing the same mistakes as the Blair Government and will, justifiably in my view, be subject to the same criticism that it has so pointedly aimed at Blair. It’s time to take a new look at this whole situation, not just because of Libya, but because there may well be many other similar situations coming forward in the very near future – Bahrain, Syria, Jordan, Egypt et al.