Assorted leaders and media folk are ‘appalled', expressing their 'mounting concern' at the level of violence in Libya. The situation is said to be 'unfortunately' getting worse.
Is this the right tone? Should we not be urging the people of Libya to do whatever it takes to fight back against the grotesque clique and assorted mercenary gunmen who already have been turning their heavy weaponry against protesters?
Should we be 'concerned' that the regime is using so much cruelty? Or should we express our pride in and support for the Libyan protesters, whose defiant heroism is now so intense that these extreme methods are all the Ghaddafi regime has to offer?
Hang on. What are you saying? Isn't it easy or even shameful for you to sit far away and egg on poor unarmed people to charge at the regime’s bayonets in what might be a doomed act of defiance? Innocent people will die.
Yes.
But imagine if we were taken over by the Nazis, and the public en masse started to fight back, with hundreds or even thousands of people killed. Would we want the rest of the civilized world to 'urge restraint' and/or 'call for a new political process'?
I hope we would want well-intentioned outsiders to egg us on. Since it is better to die fighting for freedom than live in a cowed, sullen way indefinitely under slavery.
Let's hope that various quiet operations are under way to help get handy pieces of kit to core elements of the opposition, to even up the odds a bit.
What else might make a difference? Some serious people including former British Foreign Secretary Lord Owen have been calling for NATO or another external force to proclaim a no-fly zone across Libya, to stop the Libyan air force from being used against protesters.
This raises the key question of the legal basis for such an action, since (basically) what is standing between a NATO pilot who shoots down a Libyan pilot flouting the zone and a charge of murder?
And did (say) UK RAF pilots when they joined the RAF agree to risk their lives defending Libyans from other Libyans? Or did they think they only were agreeing to risk all to defend HM The Queen and the British people?
Hence we get back to the heated debates about whether international law accepts a Right to Protect, and if so who might use it and when. All of which leaves moderate, reasonable people like us in a dilemma.
On the one hand, when it comes to environmental issues we are told that we all live in one big Global Village and that we have responsibilities accordingly. Urgent action is needed now to stop huge numbers of people dying in the future because (supposedly) of climate change.
On the other hand, what about sizeable numbers of people dying now because of corrupt governments, warlords, and gangsters? Horrible as the scenes are in Libya, the numbers of deaths there surely are trivial when compared to deaths from regime-induced starvation and sheer misery in North Korea. What of our responsibilities towards these situations?
Aren't these problems all just too far away? Doesn't Afghanistan show the folly of such Western/international interventions? Why should we be the world’s policeman? We can't even sort out puny Kosovo.
And so the debate drones on.
Maybe the Libyan drama will compel President Obama and NATO to threaten to zap all military-style units loyal to Ghaddafi unless they return to barracks forthwith. This might be a case where 'Just Do It' overrides legal niceties.
Nevertheless, in some existential sense, perhaps it's 'best' in the long run if the Libyan masses themselves bring down the Ghaddafi regime without much significant outside help, even at a fearsomely high cost.
It's their country. Their dignity.
They must choose how high a price they are ready to pay for their freedom. The higher the price, the more they'll value and defend it thereafter?
Charles Crawford CMG served as British Ambassador in Sarajevo, Belgrade, and Warsaw. He is now a member of ADRg Ambassadors.
{jacomment on}
a global affairs media network
Libya: When Concern Is Not Enough
February 24, 2011
Assorted leaders and media folk are ‘appalled', expressing their 'mounting concern' at the level of violence in Libya. The situation is said to be 'unfortunately' getting worse.
Is this the right tone? Should we not be urging the people of Libya to do whatever it takes to fight back against the grotesque clique and assorted mercenary gunmen who already have been turning their heavy weaponry against protesters?
Should we be 'concerned' that the regime is using so much cruelty? Or should we express our pride in and support for the Libyan protesters, whose defiant heroism is now so intense that these extreme methods are all the Ghaddafi regime has to offer?
Hang on. What are you saying? Isn't it easy or even shameful for you to sit far away and egg on poor unarmed people to charge at the regime’s bayonets in what might be a doomed act of defiance? Innocent people will die.
Yes.
But imagine if we were taken over by the Nazis, and the public en masse started to fight back, with hundreds or even thousands of people killed. Would we want the rest of the civilized world to 'urge restraint' and/or 'call for a new political process'?
I hope we would want well-intentioned outsiders to egg us on. Since it is better to die fighting for freedom than live in a cowed, sullen way indefinitely under slavery.
Let's hope that various quiet operations are under way to help get handy pieces of kit to core elements of the opposition, to even up the odds a bit.
What else might make a difference? Some serious people including former British Foreign Secretary Lord Owen have been calling for NATO or another external force to proclaim a no-fly zone across Libya, to stop the Libyan air force from being used against protesters.
This raises the key question of the legal basis for such an action, since (basically) what is standing between a NATO pilot who shoots down a Libyan pilot flouting the zone and a charge of murder?
And did (say) UK RAF pilots when they joined the RAF agree to risk their lives defending Libyans from other Libyans? Or did they think they only were agreeing to risk all to defend HM The Queen and the British people?
Hence we get back to the heated debates about whether international law accepts a Right to Protect, and if so who might use it and when. All of which leaves moderate, reasonable people like us in a dilemma.
On the one hand, when it comes to environmental issues we are told that we all live in one big Global Village and that we have responsibilities accordingly. Urgent action is needed now to stop huge numbers of people dying in the future because (supposedly) of climate change.
On the other hand, what about sizeable numbers of people dying now because of corrupt governments, warlords, and gangsters? Horrible as the scenes are in Libya, the numbers of deaths there surely are trivial when compared to deaths from regime-induced starvation and sheer misery in North Korea. What of our responsibilities towards these situations?
Aren't these problems all just too far away? Doesn't Afghanistan show the folly of such Western/international interventions? Why should we be the world’s policeman? We can't even sort out puny Kosovo.
And so the debate drones on.
Maybe the Libyan drama will compel President Obama and NATO to threaten to zap all military-style units loyal to Ghaddafi unless they return to barracks forthwith. This might be a case where 'Just Do It' overrides legal niceties.
Nevertheless, in some existential sense, perhaps it's 'best' in the long run if the Libyan masses themselves bring down the Ghaddafi regime without much significant outside help, even at a fearsomely high cost.
It's their country. Their dignity.
They must choose how high a price they are ready to pay for their freedom. The higher the price, the more they'll value and defend it thereafter?
Charles Crawford CMG served as British Ambassador in Sarajevo, Belgrade, and Warsaw. He is now a member of ADRg Ambassadors.
{jacomment on}
