...Should the West Arm Libya's Rebels?

[amateur51]

The Chinese are pretty powerful now but I agree that there is a lot of historical baggage ...past empires and colonies etc. What I do disagree with is the blanket generalisation of the 'Western Governments' when others (Chinese and Russians) have equally dirty fingers. Much as I disagree with the mean-mindedness of those who are moaning about David Cameron and Sarkozy's pro-active leadership in getting the UN to sanction the support for the rebels in Libya. And if anyone bothered to read the financial press they would see that our involvement vis a vis oil etc is minimal.

Or perhaps the likes of am51 and mahlerei et al can't bear to agree that perhaps David Cameron has some principles? At least what he proposed had legal backing unlike dear old Tony. A far better target to aim at would have been South Africa for, at least in the early days of last week, being awkward about releasing funds to Libya. But where's the mileage in that? Can't have a poke at David Cameron there so they'd better ignore it.

If there wasn't a valuable oil asset to be protected & made available, I doubt very much if 'we' would have gone in so hard and so swiftly, BTS - to which 'financial press' do you refer?

Typical of someone with a late 20th century world-view, BTS is still stuck in 'left-right' mode - if you had read any of my earlier posts about Tony Bliar you would know that waving his deviousness and treachery in my face would provoke no surprise BTS.

Love the new footer, by the way BTS

[amateur51]

Why are you so bigoted? Do you not bother to read the papers or do you skate over anything that doesn't support your prejudices vis a vis David Cameron?

For example, Prime Minister's question time - June 2011 .But I believe we need to go further and today in New York, Britain and France will be tabling a resolution at the Security Council condemning the repression and demanding accountability and humanitarian access," he added. "And if anyone votes against that resolution, or tries to veto
it, that should be on their conscience." Plenty of other examples if you only bothered to look.

What's the budget, Dave? Where's the exit stretegy? How do you measure success?

You should ask these questions of a Sure Start scheme, BTS never mind a bloody war

[french frank]

Is it at all possible to discuss the issues without personalising the arguments? And by 'personalising', I refer to comments between persons posting here. After all, none of us posting here is of the remotest importance to the issue. Why promote us to being the main subject of your replies?

The current situation resembles the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in that the international community had, in both cases, a limited agenda: 1. to protect the civilian population during a civil war 2. to repel the Iraqis and kick them out of Kuwait, the sovereign state which they invaded.

The Libyan situation is part of a quite different context - that of the current 'Arab Spring' where undemocratic regimes have been being toppled.

International law does not allow UN members to attempt regime change, one of several reasons why latter Western intervention in Iraq was illegal and why similar military intervention to topple Gaddafi was not sanctioned.

Russia and China are irrelevant: there is no serious popular uprising there (and unlike Libya, in particular, the regimes are not centred on the personal power of one individual dictator).

Is the conflict in Libya clear-cut? No, because there can be no confidence at the moment that the various 'rebel' tribes and factions will unite to form a democratic and just system of governance. Until there is a government in place which clearly has the backing of the Libyan people, there can be no Western mandate to interfere. Nevertheless, it's not unreasonable for Western powers to prepare for the emergence of such a government.

Providing humanitarian aid is always a duty of the richer powers.

The Western economies are largely dependent on oil. Is it considered unjustifiable to attempt to secure supplies in an unstable world?

[Serial_Apologist]

Well, how about the freedom to live without the fear of being arrested, maimed, tortured or disappearing without trace? Or are those reasons not valid because there is no left-wing angle on which to preach?

You are stating without doubt that that is the ideological driver behind the revolution, BTS? I wish it were that simple...

[amateur51]

Is the conflict in Libya clear-cut? No, because there can be no confidence at the moment that the various 'rebel' tribes and factions will unite to form a democratic and just system of governance. Until there is a government in place which clearly has the backing of the Libyan people, there can be no Western mandate to interfere. Nevertheless, it's not unreasonable for Western powers to prepare for the emergence of such a government.

Providing humanitarian aid is always a duty of the richer powers.

The Western economies are largely dependent on oil. Is it considered unjustifiable to attempt to secure supplies in an unstable world?

Your first paragraph is the reason that South Africa has given not to recognise the Libyan rebels as the government of Libya, french frank, and their refusal to lift sanctions so that the rebels can get access to funds.

Your last paragraph above is important because it is clear that the Western economies should be making haste in reducing their dependence on oil: the technology exists but there is no economical/political imperative to press forwards to a solution.

"Is it at all possible to discuss the issues without personalising the arguments? And by 'personalising', I refer to comments between persons posting here. After all, none of us posting here is of the remotest importance to the issue. Why promote us to being the main subject of your replies?" Well, point taken french frank but on your own admission you don't understand comedy

[french frank]

Your first paragraph is the reason that South Africa has given not to recognise the Libyan rebels as the government of Libya, french frank, and their refusal to lift sanctions so that the rebels can get access to funds.

But I also suggested that preparation for the hoped-for stability made sense.

Your last paragraph above is important because it is clear that the Western economies should be making haste in reducing their dependence on oil: the technology exists but there is no economical/political imperative to press forwards to a solution.

Of course. But, first, that is true regardless of what happens in Libya; and second, it has to be a much longer term project than developments in Libya. As long as, in fact, the West has a reliance on the oil from unstable areas of the world, it will take more interest in goings-on in these areas than in areas where there is no oil. Objectively, I don't see that as necessarily sinister. What is/would be sinister is/would be manipulating events ante hoc (if there is such a term).

but on your own admission you don't understand comedy

A misquote. What I said was I detest comedy.

So far, I think western intervention has been pretty much in line with UN rules. The British politicians seem to have been not much more than inflatedly self-important in their pronouncements. The instant they start to issue instructions to Assad to step down they are losing credibility (if they had any left). I'm not sure, but I think the UK reporting tends to give the impression that we've been playing a more significant part than we have. France and Italy, at least, have played similar roles, haven't they? I imagine that this has acted as moral support for the rebs.

Mind you, history shows that when dictators lose power (or die) after holding disunited factions together, the problems can be severe (Tito).

[amateur51]

So far, I think western intervention has been pretty much in line with UN rules. The British politicians seem to have been not much more than inflatedly self-important in their pronouncements. The instant they start to issue instructions to Assad to step down they are losing credibility (if they had any left). I'm not sure, but I think the UK reporting tends to give the impression that we've been playing a more significant part than we have. France and Italy, at least, have played similar roles, haven't they? I imagine that this has acted as moral support for the rebs.

Mind you, history shows that when dictators lose power (or die) after holding disunited factions together, the problems can be severe (Tito).

Is that because Assad is in Syria, rather than Libya, french frank?

[Steady, she's been clear that she detests comedy!!]

Your point about Tito is well made, ff.

[french frank]

Is that because Assad is in Syria, rather than Libya, french frank?

Yes, Syria, am51 ...

[amateur51]

Yes, Syria, am51 ...

Yay french frank! Context is all!