As tyrannical regimes go, Libya is right there at the top and ranks alongside North Korea for the unpredictability of its ruler, the self-styled Colonel Muammar Gaddafy, who used to be referred to by Ronald Reagan as the Middle East’s ‘mad dog’.
Having given up nuclear weapons he is admittedly slightly better than Kim Jong-il, but we cannot know for sure that he has also given up chemical and biological weapons. In a country where tribal loyalties prevail and where the four main tribes occupy the main positions, Gaddafi’s own tribe occupies the top posts and much of his internal repression is carried out through a myriad of different state security institutions as well as a plethora of paramilitary units, recruited from abroad.
The country does not have a constitution, but is run by a revolutionary ruling council which has been in situ for 42 years and cannot be dismissed. There have been regular attempts at coups over this period, which have been ruthlessly put down and there are no evident pointers to a peaceful succession.
Gaddafi’s four sons have long been involved in jostling for the top position and foreign governments were betting on Saif al Islam (the second son) to take over the reins, as he was increasingly the acceptable face of the regime.
Saif al Islam al Gaddafi was awarded a PhD from LSE enticingly titled “The Role of Civil Society in the Democratisation of Global Governance Institutions”. He chairs the Human Rights Commission of Libya, and lest anyone doubt that he is therefore a soft touch, he was his father’s voice last weekend displaying a similar determination to stay in power through putting down the uprising till as he put it, the last man, the last woman, and the last bullet had been expended. He appears to be delivering on his pledge.
Several hundreds have died in the last few days, hospitals are overflowing and as a crackdown has started, anyone moving on the street is shot dead. Reports say that ambulances are also shot at to deter them from trying to save the injured. The air force has been mobilised to bomb civilian residential areas, and the reign of terror has started.
So what should be done now, that the country has descended into chaos?
While we may justifiably cringe to see the images of Tony Blair as the cheerleader for Gaddafi’s rehabilitation and we have oil and commercial interests there, this should not mean that we walk by on the other side. We should be clear that the UN Security Council, which met belatedly yesterday on the issue, takes up its responsibility to the Libyan people, as defecting Libyan diplomats have repeatedly asked it to. Freezing the Libyan regime’s assets would be a start as well as stringent sanctions against the country. The oil shortfall can be managed through increased production elsewhere.
But we should go further: enforcing a no-fly zone (such as that which saved the Kurds in 1992), to prevent the air force from bombing its own people. We certainly have the capability to undertake that task, and need to bring Russia and China on board in the Security Council to do so.
The most significant obligation that arises for the international community will come if there are more widespread atrocities by Gaddafi’s state apparatus against the people. This will invoke the United Nation’s Responsibility to Protect. The UN agreed to this set of principles after the genocide in Rwanda, and it has been reinforced by the General Assembly and the Security Council as recently as 2009. If a State is manifestly failing to protect its citizens from mass atrocities and peaceful measures are not working, the international community has the responsibility to intervene at first diplomatically, then more coercively, and as a last resort, with military force.
While we are not there yet, and we must hope that the mad dog will slink away, we in the West are at a crossroads. If we stand by and do nothing we will be sending a powerful signal to the Muslim world that our double standards are the norm, rather than the exception. As Liberals, we will be untrue to the very foundation of our political philosophy – that the solidarity of our common humanity crosses frontiers to protect even those we do not know.
Either way, the status quo is no longer an option.
Baroness Kishwer Falkner is Co-Chair of the Lib Dem Parliamentary Party Committee on Foreign Affairs.
Follow @LibDemVoice on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Aging, Development, and Living at High Altitudes (Oxygen Levels)
The Charge of the Light Brigade - A perfect analogy for the United Kingdom today
Lib Dems miss out by 4 votes in council by-election
New lunchtime concerts for 2025
A looming trade war?
Only 3 historical inaccuracies
Rare 1950s film of Thomas Cubitt's stuccoed streets in Pimlico
expats
Daniel Stylianou
David Raw
Nonconformistradical
13 Comments
All good stuff. But what if China vetoes a resolution at the Security Council? If we then supported a no fly zone would that not be illegal (under the same logic as we aply to the Iraq War)?
@Simon McGrath
And that’s the problem with the UN. There is generally a member of the Security Council with a vested interest (with Iraq it was France and Russia) that will stop them acting. This then gives the dictator in question the confidence to ignore the UN. The only two approaches left being unilateral action or standing back and doing nothing.
Just think how Isreal may have behaved if they did not know any UN action would be thwarted by the US ???
The UN security council is not fit for purpose and should be replaced.
It would be “illegal”, Simon. And I wouldn’t particularly care in the same way I didn’t care that there was an “illegal” bombing of Serbia in 1995 and 1999, and wish there had been one of Rwanda in 1994.
Good one, Simon, bringing in Israel to the matter. Given your evident obsession with her, I would have hoped you could at least spell her correctly.
~alec
Sorry, the second para was directed at “Steve”.
~alec
@Alec Macph
Sorry Typo. You try typing accurately on a samsung tab..
By the way I have no obsession with Israel. I am merely pointing out that the UN is a defunct organisation that can be ignored at will by any country with a permanent member as a backer or apologist. IMHO using the security council as the arbiter as to what is illegal or not when it has China and Russia as veto holding members is a joke.
I too would not care if action was taken without UN backing, but it would actually be more illegal than the Iraq War as there was at least an arguable resolution in that case.
Okie, I’ll let it pass. For those who don’t know though, said mispelling of Israel should raise as many suspicions of someone discussing Norn Ireland by referring to “Fenians” or declining “to condemn” some Real IRA attack. In other words, it’s a wolf whistle.
Keeping discussion concerning Israel as limited as possible, her authorities do what they do not ‘cos they’re bound by international legislation but ‘cos it’s what they want to do.
The problem with the UN is not the UN(G/P)SC but all the sharn on the floor of its Augean Stables. It’s that individual countries are considered to have equal voting/moral rights… that Sudan has the same clout of New Zealand. Compared to that, the PSC with three out of five being liberal democracies (even if one is French) is a paragon of virtue.
Libya is on and formerly chaired the Human Rights Commission for Valen’s sake! The UNHRC which hasn’t passed a single motion against a country in any African region (beyond expressing “concern” against Sudan), or South Asia and South East Asia… and only one [1] in the Middle East.
Falkner expresses a hope for a no-fly zone. I assume she’s considered the prospect of China/Russia (or France) vetoing it for purely venal reasons; and, if she aint, she’s not up to the job assigned to her. If this happened, what would she do? Say, okay, and leave Libya to Colonel Daffy Duck? Or push ahead?
I would hope the latter. If she did, where would that leave her on her presumed opposition to the “illegality” of Iraq?
There is very little binding international/UN legislation. The overthrow of Saddam was a consumation to have been wished for. That it was wrong-headedly planned does not excuse anyone who declares it “illegal” but glosses over the fact that the *binding* UN Resolutions were critical of Saddam (and persistently flouted by him).
~alec
[1] Last week, the Colonel was calling on Palestinian Arabs to ride the wave of Arab rage and rise against Israel [2]. Talk about it coming back to bite you!
[2] A certain K Meshal also was visiting him recently. Boy, the Palestinian Arabs know how to pick loosers.
Simon, yes, getting through agreement on the UNSC is difficult but not impossible. My point is that we should be going for it and since I wrote the piece on Tuesday night, it looks like there is renewed pressure for it at least in the US. Two reasons why we should try for it. One, it would be the right thing to do, and two, it would signal should there be similar violations elsewhere, the relevant dictator may well hesitate (or his airforce, might) if there was a realistic prospect of a no-fly zone being implemented. Additionally, Russia which is more problematic on this one, needs to be exposed for using a veto if it does. If we don’t go for it we will never have clarity.
Steve and Alec: Countries such as Israel flout UNSC resolutions because their voters let them get away with it, and yes, they have US backing. But they know that this is not a blank cheque position on the part of the US and work very hard to keep the US there. Also, I have just come back from Israel and the West Bank and can tell you they DO care about the UN as they are mounting a huge diplomatic exercise to prevent a unilateral declaration of independence on the part of the PA which the General Assembly might support.
Alec, If I accepted that countries behave in certain ways for ‘purely venal reasons’ then I would have had a rather wasted education and professional career. I am no UN romantic but it is the best thing we have, which is not to say that we should not try to reform or change it. As for unilateral action, in certain, limited cases countries have to take it and while it may weaken international norms, each case has to be judged on its own merits. As for illegal wars, I supported our intervention in Serbia-Kosovo and Sierra Leone, and have never considered the presumed ‘illegality’ of the Iraq war as watertight case. I am indeed a liberal humanitarian interventionist in the right circumstances, which is why I am keen to give teeth to the R2P.
In this case, it’s because they consider the presevation of their lives and safety to be more important than legal fetishes. I can see their point.
Gaddafi, Qahdafy or however his name is spelt is doing what he’s doing simply to preserve his own power.
In the same way that we’re told that Saudi and, until recently, Egypt had US backing? Or how the PA receives US backing, such as its deficit being underwritten? Or how not enough was done by the US to oppose Gaddafi?
You say you’re not a UN romantic, but then go on to refer to the anti-Israel resolutions – or any UNGSC resolutions – as if they’re legally binding. They are not. For the most part they are akin to advisory statements, and may be taken more seriously if there weren’t so many clearly antagonistic ones.
And that, absolutely, is the problem with the current UN. That a gaggle of the lowest economic preformers (excluding oil) and contributers, with hideous records on internal repression, can control the time and effort and moral energy of the organization. Although, the rot is not limited to attitudes towards Israel, as seen with a former SG whose company was heavily involved with arming the Interahamwe.
I have no objection in principle to a nation group declaring a UDI. They should expect to fund it themselves, and not expect continued payments. Abu Mazen (relatively unusual amongst professional Palestinians in that he actually was born in contemporary Israel) has just vowed to return all US monies with political demands attached, but he remains keen to cointinue having the deficit underwritten or the moribund economy kept afloat.
And that is another problem with the UN: that it has perpetuated a culture of welfare dependency amongst Palestinian Arabs.
It’s been known for years that Gaddafi was funding various subversive groups in Europe (as well as backing numerous coups in Africa), from the IRA to Nick Griffin’s NF, or Joerg Haider (Saif shared a flat as an undergraduate) to trot newspapers edited by Ken Livingstone.
The bloody nerve of the man. And I think similar of European Governments objectively funding rejectionist groups in the Palestinian Territories, or of otherwise minor political figures who examine events there in the minutae on funded trips (and I bet you didn’t go via Jordan, instead taking advantage of the Israeli infrastructure; and jollies like this have become more common since the security barrier went up, thus allowing protestors the safety of not being blown-up).
Even France?
I’m glad to hear that, but if you opposed Iraq for pragmatic reasons rather than the mantra of illegality, you’ll be in a minority in your Party. Some form of military intervention against Gadaffi is an option, but it would require the USAAF and a lot of swallowing of pride from those who rabbit on about illegal wars in order to accept foreign policy cannot be 100% Daz-white.
I also would hope that it would encourage increased funding for the British military. Heck, maybe we could demand contributions from the UN coffers.
As for sanctions, considering the fiasco with the Iraq oil-for-food programme, it would be best to keep the UN and certain British ex-MPs well away from it.
I also suspect many in your Party and its hangers-on would consider you to have “blood on your hands” for supporting the no-fly-zone in Iraq.
~alec
Alec,
Attacking Steve for making a typo is pretty rich when you can’t spell “loser”!
Critic, said mispelling of Israel generally is not a typo but suggestive of a pathological loathing of the country so deep that the speaker cannot even bear to write/say her name. But, as I said, I’ll accept that, in this case, it was as innocent as spelling her “Isarel” or “Israle”.
~alec
Alec, I don’t think we are going to agree but I will contribute this final point:
You say in response to my views about the UN that I may say that I’m not a UN romantic …
“but then go on to refer to the anti-Israel resolutions – or any UNGSC resolutions – as if they’re legally binding. They are not.”
I’m not sure what you mean by UNGSC resolutions. If you mean the General Assembly (UNGA), I agree entirely that they are non binding, which supports my point that Israel does care about its international reputation, to be so riled about a non-binding action. I don’t think UDI would involve a resolution and did not say it would.
You also say that Joerg Haider shared a flat with Saif al Islam – or that is the way I read it – when and where was that, as it is new information that is really interesting, and says more about his judgement.
Finally, your views that some in my party may see me as having blood on my hands: guess what, political parties comprise people with different views! Mine are clearly not so convergent from my colleagues as you make out, but then I suspect that you are one who belongs to a opposing party or does not really understand the Lib Dems. In my experience of 26 years the Liberal Democrats have more times than not taken the right position on foreign affairs in contrast to their opponents, who have left our country rather less credible on the international stage.