Whatever Will Be...

We are bombing Libya and stuff.

Now, this has caused a raging discourse across the Internet (yeah, not just the Internet, but whatever), which has come down to a lot of griping and nit-picking and various this and thats. But it is a messy issue, that has been entered into with a great deal of speed and not a lot of planning. Let me outline some things.

1) UN Resolution 1973

"Authorizes Member States that have notified the Secretary-General, acting nationally or through regional organizations or arrangements, and acting in cooperation with the Secretary-General, to take all necessary measures notwithstanding paragraph 9 or resolution 1970 (2011), to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, including Benghazi, while excluding a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory, and requests the Member States concerned to inform the Secretary-General immediately of the measures they take pursuant to the authorization conferred by this paragraph..."

The problem with UN Resolution 1973 is that it allows for attacks against all ground targets that can be reasonably assumed to endanger civilians. This is essentially taking sides in a civil war. Now, as regards endangering civilians go, it has been mentioned that civilians will not cease to be endangered until Colonel Gadaffi is no longer in power. This is not an unfair point to make.

However, the remit does not extend as far as regime change, and the Arab League are playing dumb. A no-fly-zone, to them, means you can't fly in it. It does not mean you can drop hundreds of pounds of high explosives on people you dislike.

2) Regime Change

As stated, the remit does not apply to regime change, but some people accept that it is impossible to actually protect civilians since Gadaffi is a problem. This is a really big issue, and one that is messy and horrible. I'd love to see Gadaffi gone, but our remit does not, and should not, allow for regime change. Instead, what we're seeing is some Libyan's attempting regime change, and we are supporting those people by our actions of protecting them.

3) Oil

I saw this on Jody's blog, someone who I had a bit of time for, and still do. But lots of people in the left have started waxing lyrical about oil again. I think this shows a lack of analytic depth. Why does everything have to come down to economics purported by evil corporate capitalists. The world is not so black and white. Just as the left is convinced - as am I - that their great ideas are right, so are Liberal Democracies. They are not inherently evil, scheming Bond villains. They genuinely have a problem with people getting killed by their governments, but on the macro level they have to balance this between their realist, messy and not always pleasant concerns in International Relations. What we are seeing in Libya is someone trying to do what they think is the right thing. Oil has very little to do with it. Indeed, the price of oil has risen as a result of the no fly zone.

I have no doubt that someone somewhere is rubbing their hands together and cackling with glee, but we need to get away from chalking everything up to economic concerns. It is far larger, messier, and realistic than grabbing a few barrels of crude. People have made comments along the lines that other pro-democracy groups will not be supported in other nations. Of course they won't. But that is realpolitik winning over Idealism, it is not because these countries have nothing worth stealing. What we see in Libya is Idealism winning over realpolitik, something that rarely happens and is always tenuous at best. Remember, the international community does not like Libya very much, although it has attempted to engage with it, it is still a Pariah state. It has few friends in any sphere of influence.

What we are seeing in Libya, I think, is closer to Afghanistan in 2001. Many countries invaded Afghanistan or contributed directly or indirectly to supporting such an intervention, because it really had no friends and was easy to blame. The same is true of Libya, and if waves of unrest were not sweeping the Middle East, I'm sure the Arab League would be more in favour of regime change than they are currently. People need to realise that Libya is not Iraq, and even the Iraq war was based on realist security concerns, rather than oil. The sooner we can all stop harping off about Imperialism and resource grabbing, the sooner we can grasp the reality of the situation and help the people involved.

Jody also mentioned revolutionary armies invading from Tunisia and Egypt, fresh from their own revolutions. This is idealistic posturing as well. These were liberal revolutions, not workers ones. There isn't the same level of solidarity or idealism. On the surface of Tunisia and Egypt, I don't think a whole lot changed in the way people feel about things. It's just they don't get shot for feeling them anymore. There is no inclination to carry their freedoms further. They are just people sick of being abused, and now that has stopped, they have no reason to go looking for another fight.

4) To Me

Anyway, I don't think what happens in Libya makes a colossal difference. What happens in the Middle East, to me, doesn't matter. I might be being a bit morbid, nihilistic or whatever, but they are liberal democracies now. They're not really any closer to the utopia we're aiming for than they were before. Sure, it makes a huge difference to the people who live there, but in the grand scheme of things, why is everyone getting so excited. I'm adopting the 'Hey Sera Sera' defence. Whatever will be will be, and getting angry over a lack of analytical depth and intervening Western nations is quite frankly, pointless.

*And the formatting is gone. Somehow. As a result of the UN bit I copy pasted. Damn you, United Nations.