Libya The Responsibility to Protect was the first real conceptual advance by the UN since the simple idea of Peacekeeping was devised in 1956 . Now its being tested by the Security Council to see if its a practical proposition. It’s a long way from the holy grail of how to intervene to protect people without violence It would be good to devise a method which was universally applicable for any humanitarian intervention , but we are nowhere near that .

As diplomatic problems go Libya is small and simple . The UN and its “coalition of the willing” might be able to manage it without too much collateral damage both physical and political . The coalition wants to be effective with minimal risk to its own personnel. Hence the air war with claims of precision bombing and missile strikes which as is clear from Kosovo & Afghanistan are not as precise as claimed by their makers.

There will be mistakes and civilian casualties which will make us all wince. Nevertheless what credible alternative is there which can halt Gaddafi’s army? Pragmatic muddling through may be the least worst alternative .

Real support from other Arab states is desirable especially if the UN is able to bring Gadafi and other Libyans to the negotiating table.
Out of this operation may come an intervention method which brings benign results at relatively little cost.

So lets support the present effort but keep it under critical review.
Keith Hindell

johnmorris Says:
March 24th, 2011 at 01:58 pm
Personally, I cannot support the use of war - ever - under any circumstances - as a method of keeping the peace. Violence only breeds more violence. Killing fellow human beings is absolutely wrong and fails to demonstrate the capacity of every individual to show compassion for every other. We must never stoop to the same level as an oppressor.

The Security Council resolution gave many pointers to the UN to action of the non-violent kind. We should be pressing for their implementation and not supporting “the present effort” with its “not too much collateral damage” (what is “too much”?), the known imprecision of bombing and “cruise missiling” and the “minimal risk to personnel” engaging in the war.

Bruce Kent’s position is civilised and pragmatic. Some points made in the
comment are taken up:

· A reference to ‘an urge to defend . . . those we support’ needs examining.
‘We’, our leading politicians, academics and government, embraced and
supported Colonel Gaddafi for years, so by the writer’s logic we should be
defending him.

· Similarly ‘an urge to defend ourselves’ does not apply here: he was no
threat to this country.

· “In the meantime Tripoli’s war against its rebels has killed many Libyans”:
it will be found that ‘our’ intervention has also killed many Libyans.

· “The other course advocated by Bruce Kent is Peacekeeping which works
sometimes but can lead to great disasters such as Srebrenica”: a book like
Ferguson’s ‘Not Them but Us’ has an excellent chapter on successful
peacekeeping interventions, which we must remember.

I think Bruce set out the outline of a civilised intervention framework on
which people of good will could build - if powerful vested interests, in
particular the oil and arms industries, can be kept at arms length.

I suggest the best way to accelerate progress on developing those mechanisms and that consciousness is to take SC1325 seriously and get a lot more women round the UN’s and the member states’ decision-making tables. Check out a new website: www.nowomennopeace.org.

The Security Council resolution gave many pointers to the UN to action of the non-violent kind. We should be pressing for their implementation and not supporting “the present effort” with its “not too much collateral damage” (what is “too much”?), the known imprecision of bombing and “cruise missiling” and the “minimal risk to personnel” engaging in the war.