generalspeaking

Will They Or Won't They?

It cannot always be up to the United States to talk tough and act tougher. Other countries must, on occasion, take the responsibility. Particularly when the U.S. is already embroiled in action in Iraq and Afghanistan that it finds itself unable to extract completely from. Involving massive treasury outlays and troop, munitions, strategic technological strikes and diplomatic investments.

Along with the simmering resentment and targeting that emanates from such mired-in situations. It has become famously unpopular in the Arab street.

Since Italy, France, Germany and Spain are the economic beneficiaries through importation of 90% of Libya's oil exports, and Britain enjoys a well-entrenched trade relationship with the country, it should logically be they who are front and centre of the situation to seize the moment and create a protective protocol in aid of the country's insurgents against their bloody dictator.

And, in point of fact, it appears that England and France are spear-heading just such a military protocol. Putting it together theoretically, mapping it out on paper. Just in case, the situation continues to escalate into something far more sinister and far-reaching than appears at the present time. Of course, formulating a plan to enact a no-fly zone is one thing, executing it is another, since neither of those two countries is prepared to act unless UN Security Council approval results.

Russia and China have already indicated they feel intervention is inappropriate. The Arab League has issued a warning not to intervene. And they most certainly have no interest in doing so themselves, since many of those same countries are facing their own inconvenient and vexing anti-regime protests. The Gulf States have indicated they would welcome the imposition of a no-fly zone in protection of Libya's civilian population. Turkey would not.

"There should be a demonstrable need that the whole world can see, there must be a clear legal basis for such a no-fly zone and there must be clear support from the region, from the Middle East region, from the North African region as well as from the people of Libya themselves." British Foreign Secretary William Hague

NATO might conceivably be persuaded to step in to promote what the UN Security Council has not. It is conducting air surveillance to determine the extent of Libya's air flights and their targets. The "gross and systematic" violations of human rights, the bombing of civilians, the employment of foreign mercenaries all present as more than adequate reason to invoke the UN's "responsibility to protect" intervention.

The Libyan rebel fighters have no wish for any foreign ground forces to come to their rescue and in the process take their thunder. They shudder at the very prospect of a foreign invasion of their country, viewing the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan with great revulsion. They would appreciate, and have invited, a no-fly zone. Commitment to which would require foreign warplanes to target Libya's arsenal of warplanes and helicopters as well as air strips to neutralize their ability to bomb rebel-held towns.

And meanwhile, even while they are not committing themselves to any action, let alone support of the initiatives already taken by members of the European Union countries, the Obama administration, after its initial stern pronouncements of its expectations, have become suddenly mute and seemingly disinterested. They may become yet, however, involved in a more distant manner; jamming radio signals, airdropping supplies and weapons to the rebels.

NATO's future plans, meanwhile may also yet include "potential military options".

Labels: Africa, Human Rights, Troublespots

posted by Pieface @ Wednesday, March 09, 2011