I am now opposed to what I wrote earlier. for an update see http://rgdinmalaysia.blogspot.com/2015/02/why-i-was-wrong-about-intervention-in.html
I SUPPORT THE PROCESS – The resistance in Libya requested help from the United Nations which passed Security Council resolution 1973 establishing a No Fly resolution. This was not a unilateral action and it is interesting to note that Russia and China abstained from voting rather than veto outright. This is exactly the way something like this should go down pursuant to International law. It wasn’t even America leading the process but Britain and France.
I SUPPORT THE MISSION – The Security Council authorizes whatever means necessary to maintain the no fly zone. Those who supported the resolution but don’t support the military action are just nuts. That would be like putting a burglar alarm in your home but when robbers come and it goes off, the police don’t show up. I support stopping Quaddafi from killing the rebels as well as any citizens caught in the middle.
I SUPPORT THE LIMITS ON THE MISSION – I don’t in any way support ground troops in Libya. However both Obama and the resolution itself implicitly are against that. I don’t think this will become a quagmire because the safeguards are in place. Plus there is not much stomach for another protracted war in the USA.
The bottom line this is a well defined mission to give the rebels an even playing field. In the end, Quaddafi will go which will be a good thing for both the Libyan people and the world. This is not George Bush bullying the UN with phony evidence to launch an imperialistic capitalistic war of America’s choosing this is using the United Nations finally for the goals in which it was intended. And by the way what about those who say this is about oil? Libya only provides about 3% of America’s oil imports. Might have been true in Iraq but not true here.
Here is some of the wording of Resolution 1973 (borrowed from Wikipedia)
§ demands the immediate establishment of a ceasefire and a complete end to violence and all attacks against, and abuses of, civilians;
§ imposes a no-fly zone over Libya;
§ authorises all necessary means to protect civilians and civilian-populated areas, except for a "foreign occupation force";
§ strengthens the arms embargo and particularly action against mercenaries, by allowing for forcible inspections of ships and planes;
§ imposes a ban on all Libyan-designated flights;
§ imposes an asset freeze on assets owned by the Libyan authorities, and reaffirms that such assets should be used for the benefit of the Libyan people;
§ extends the travel ban and assets freeze of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1970 to a number of additional individuals and Libyan entities;
§ establishes a panel of experts to monitor and promote sanctions implementation.
2 comments:
Well said, RGD -- have it exactly right. The mission is lawful, moral, and could not possibly be more justified; and the limits placed on the Mission by the UN Security Council are the right ones too .
..and by the way, Gaddafi was given the opportunity to step down, first by his own people showing they wanted him out --demonstrating in their tens of thousands even in the face of firing from machine guns, tank and artillery. Only when Gaddadfi continues his mass murders and had actually begun a massacres of the cities of Benghazi and Misrata (and had already completed such a massacre in the city of Zawiyia) did the UN act against militarily against him:: the right thing to do, but the action should have been taken sooner. Acting faster would have saved many thousands more lives. cojtiues -- and then by the UN,
Post a Comment