Leslie

I don't think it needed the likes of Gaddafi to warn us of the influence of Al Quaeda doing a "Carpe Diem" and attempting to make the most of the main chance!

That one is for TDW! It is his style after all!

Les

JTaylor

So given our discussion and given that your take appears, to my mind, to stack-up, why don't the UN go down that route? They could, couldn't they? We're at that crossroads. What, in your view, is the UN's end-game?

ALi-B

iTrader: (1)

Are you referring to Jimmy Carter or Tom Hanks

JTaylor

They are and the opportunity for the diplomatic scenario that DCI presents wouldn't have been available if the UN hadn't have intervened.

JTaylor

I believe it was Sylvester Stallone, with a horse and some SAMs.

DCI Gene Hunt

That's a good one. Honestly, I'm of the opinion that it doesn't have one, what I mean by that is that the UN hasn't adapted itself to manage issues such as we're witnessing in Africa and the Middle East.

If memory serves the General Assembly of the UN makes the decisions based on a majority (over two thirds majority?) and the Security Council acts on it - all members are bound to follow the decisions of the Security Council etc.

So in my mind the UN should already have observers on the ground in Yemen, Libya and Oman (who are all members) and issues should be getting back through the Security Council to the General Assembly, being addressed and subsequent amendments put in place to prevent it all kicking off and ensuring peace etc., etc..

But it's not happening that way, it's kicking off first and then very reactive and politically motivated responses are being put into effect post the event, pushed on by some of the permanent members of the Security Council (Britain, China, France, Russia, and the US).

End game, as I opened with - there isn't one in the UN... it's the end game for 3 permanent members of the security council, and that's to get rid of Gaddafi through force regardless of the consequence or cost.

JTaylor

Cool. Thanks for taking the time and effort, DCI, it's certainly given me a different perspective around the diplomacy and possible partition route. I'd wrongly excluded it because of what history has taught us about Korea, Ireland, Timor, Palestine etc. As you say, former Yugoslavia's a good example of relative success to date. The only question I'm left pondering is why the US, France and GB aren't, as is appears at the moment, looking to go down the diplomatic route that you offer-up. One can only speculate, I suppose.

JTaylor

I agree.

David Lock

Looks like the West are backing the wrong side at the moment.

No boots on the ground aside from CIA of course.

dl

Leslie

Can't see the rebels winning as things are.

Les

JTaylor

It's very difficult to call at this point, isn't it, David? The more I think about DCI's notion of neutrality, enforcing both sides, the more it makes sense. Whilst it may not be advantagous in the short-term, if the policy was applied evenhandedly across the planet (it would have to be across the planet in order to be evenhanded) it would eventually put the UN on the right side of history.

All this presupposes that the Chinese and the Russians changed their mind and got behind intervention. If they didn't (and they never do) the whole thing's off owing to the everpresent spectre of 'legallity' and given their own track record on human rights, what legitamacy would they have?

My main reservation, and specifically in relation to Libya, is that the likely outcome would be partition. Which side would get what share of some of the best quality black-stuff on the planet, and would either side be prepared to give up half? Who would run West Libya? Gaddafi? That would be an even more unpredictable pariah state in place and Lockerbie could end up becoming a regular occurence. Who would run the East? Islamists propped-up by the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt? Progressive, secular democrats - this seems increasingly unlikely? Who are the credible candidates? Either way the tensions would be significant and on going. When would the UN pull out? Would it be spun as Western occupation by those who have a vested interest in doing so?

It seems, as it's playing out at the moment, that the UN are damned if they do and damned if they don't.

I wonder what Moussa Koussa will throw into the mix.

JTaylor

It was never going to be clean though, was it? What would be the purpose of the UN if it didn't intervene when a dictator states that he will show 'no mercy' to his people? It would become the League of Nations. Each of the measures that you're on record as stating should be a prerequisite to intervention were met.

David Lock

Tough as it may seem I really think we - the West - just have to let nation states get on with it and keep out of it unless the situation gets so bad that intervention becomes paramount. By this I mean stopping Rwanda type genocide or mass starvation in Africa or devastating natural disasters where we help a whole nation.

I don't think the Libyan crisis falls into this category. Saddam did perhaps because he had gassed tens of thousands so we are told.

Of course Gaddafi is an evil screwball but we have to leave the place to sort itself out. Perhaps make life difficult for him with sanctions and refrain from shaking his hand to help British business but that's about it.

That's just the way the world is.

dl

Leslie

I agree with DL.

I think it would be a big mistake to go any further than to maintain a no fly zone to protect civilian lives. Arming the rebels would be regarded as taking part in regime change and that would be wrong.

Another slant could be that Gaddafi is guilty of genocide and as such should face an international court. That would be down to the UN again of course.

Les

JTaylor

Gadaffi compared the rebels to rats, David, and is on record as saying he would go 'door to door, room by room' and show 'no mercy'. Setting aside the interest's of the West and the implications to Tunisia and Egypt if this had gone unchallenged, can you offer-up a moral justification for not intervening? If we did nothing given a set of conditions in which we could do something, what would be the point of the UN?

f1_fan

iTrader: (9)

You keep trotting out the same thing I am supposed to have said. My point is at least a UN resolution was sought and implemented this time. As for whether the Libyan people want our help or the Arab nations are happy as to our methods of implementing the resolution we don't know as opinion gets in the way of fact every time. From what I see on the news we are doing a lot more than enforcing a no fly zone!!!

What I do know though is that we as in the UK cannot afford this!

All this morality and these humanitarian ideals are very nice, but shouldn't we be looking after our own first. At the top of this forum is an appeal by a SN advertiser regarding a little girl who the NHS cannot treat, but America can. The NHS are putting no money towards the £70K required for the operation yet the country has money for £14million bombing missions to protect Libyan civilians. Sorry, but that is a case of misplaced priorities or of someone who is way too keen to be seen as a major player on the political World stage. Hello Cameron or should we say Tony Blair Version 2!

JTaylor

David appears to be saying that the UN should not have intervened and you have always maintained that it just and legal and have stated as much above. What is that you agree with about David's post?

JTaylor

I hear what you're saying and get the sentiment, it will garner some popular support among specific groups. Given your position, should we withdraw our status as a permanent member the UN Security Council?

David Lock

I think you are mixing up the morality of all this with the actual reality of world politics. Of course on purely moral grounds we should intervene although taking a hard-arsed stance one could envisage us being responsible for a civil war out there with thousands dieing whereas keeping the status quo would result in fewer deaths, tough as that may seem.

Morally there are far greater priorities than Libya - Zimbabwe, Burma, N. Korea, Somalia and Ivory Coast to name but a few where deaths far outweigh anything happening in Libya.

The West is stirring up a ME hornets' nest and it should stay out of it.

dl

Leslie

Regardless of DL's pronouncement. my post reveals my thoughts about the matter quite adequately. What more do you want?

Les

stanny_wrx

iTrader: (1)

hi just wanted to put my view accross i think its worthless anyone having an opion on the matter at the end of the day wether or not the goverment was elected or if people do not like the goverment that is in control at the end of the day they are the goverment they do run the country and what they say goes. so if they decide we go to war thats what we do we should be supporting our goverment/country/armed forces, my best friend is in the army he s done numurous tours in Iraq and afgan, i ve asked him many times if he agrees with the goverments decisions to go to war his response goes something like this
"when i signed up i was under no illusion as to what i was getting into i am here to support our country/goverment it is my JOB and the goverment is my BOSS no person agrees with there bosses all the time but when all said and done they get on with the job in hand just like i do its as simple as that"
So for me i support any war we get into and i just hope everytime our lads and ladies are out there on the front line for us as many of them come home safe and sound as can be.

tony de wonderful

That depends on your morality.

Not all morality is humanist, christian based etc.

The Romans had a morality of strength for example.

Why should the state be a moral force anyway....and what morality, values, ideology?

Maybe it's more realistic to not view the state as a moral or ideological force as per Machiavelli.

DCI Gene Hunt

.... responsible for a 'civil war', disagree on that point as there was already civil war with regard to the insurgent uprising between tribes. I think the danger is that by propping up one side against another we're very likely protracting the duration and increasing the potential for damage through arming them with modern weapons. I'd assumed (as others) that we were enforcing the cessation of conflict, whereas in reality we appear to be pursuing it as a goal.

David Lock

Perhaps this is an unkind thing to say but your pal chose to join the army and of course he is duty bound to go and shoot people or keep the peace when and where he is told to. And I would happily have a drink with him and tell him I respect him for what he does.

However that doen't mean the rest of shouldn't express our views if we think our government is wrong. The obvious irony being that we can express our opinions freely here unlike so many other places.

dl

stanny_wrx

iTrader: (1)

Could nt agree more with you fella but in the same respect i always have the feeling in this country that there are always people to quick to disagree with every decision made before looking into the facts all they pretty much want to do is A. cause an argument or B disagree cause agreeing would be just to easy. i agree with alot of the threads on here that GB is always very quick to jump in the deep end and get stuck in but sometimes it is justified we are seen to be a very reputibale country in the world we live in and if we were to keep turning a blind eye to these sort of situations we would soon loose that world wild respect

JTaylor

No, I'm not. I said "Setting aside the interest's of the West and the implications to Tunisia and Egypt if this had gone unchallenged, can you offer-up a moral justification for not intervening?"

Genocide in Benghazi and the maintenance of a murderous dictator. You're effectively suggesting that that would have been preferable to a civil war with the prospect (note: prospect) of an end to said dictator's reign. The UN was not set-up with that as its moral compass.

Because we intervened. Nonetheless, why are the places you mention "far greater" moral "priorities"? Additionally, and you know this:

Zimbabwe - China veto'd 2008 UN Resolution
Burma - Chinese client state
North Korea - Chinese client state

China is a permanent member of the UNCR.

Somalia - failed state. What military action do you propose?

Ivory Coast - I'd love to hear your ideas, David. What do you propose?

In Libya, the UN could intervene.

This is untrue. Mohamed Bouazizi's self-immolation stirred up the hornet's nest in North Africa and this spread to the Middle-East prior to the UN's involvement in Libya. This was backed, at the time, by the Arab League.

David Lock

Well you know best as you keep telling everyone

dl

JTaylor

Just interested in the truth, David.

dpb

Just shows how ridiculous the UN really is when the top members can effectively block actions against countries they see could earn them a lot of money in the long run

JTaylor

It's one hell of a debate, Duncan, that's for sure. On Libya, the abstentions by the Russians and the Chinese were as good as a 'yes'. Very rare. Of course it didn't stop Putin claiming it to be a "crusade", just to muddy the waters. It's why the whole issue of 'legality' is such a ball-ache - where the objectives of the five permanent members of the UNSC conflict, action either isn't taken or it's deemed 'illegal'.