Unga-Link UK Interactive

UNA-UK London and South-East Region – Autumn Council Meeting, 17^th September 2011Discussion on the Arab Spring

Led by

Roger Hardy: Middle East and Islamic Affairs analyst with BBC World Service for over 20 years;

Author of The Muslim Revolt: a Journey through Political Islam available from Amazon;

Currently a Visiting Fellow at the LSE

And

Dr Firas Jabloun: Board Member of the Council for Anglo-Arab Understanding;

London representative of the Progressive Democratic Party of Tunisia;

Particular interests in Tunisia and Palestine

Roger Hardy was in Washington DC when the Arab Spring took off, totally unpredicted by him or anyone else.  The slogans in Egypt were both political and witty: “Bread and Dignity”; “Hurry up, Hosni!  I want to get home to my wife!”

The causes of the risings were broadly similar; the dynamics and outcomes are different in each place.  The Bread, Jobs and Dignity Deficit was universal and resulted in a sudden outburst of frustration which had been building up for decades.  In a region where 70% of the population are under 30, the first demonstrators were predominantly the Young and “wired up”; tweeting, twittering and using their mobile phones.  They were the catalyst but became a minority as others joined in.  Another common feature was Autocracy: family elites ruling without respect for the Human Rights of the common people.  Corruption was universal too; a self-perpetuating system which people finally resolved not to tolerate any more.

Roger Hardy sees the Arab lands in three categories. First, the Trail-blazers, where three regimes have been overthrown: Tunisia, Egypt and (as yet an incomplete transition) Libya. Second, the Brutally Repressed: bloodshed and oppression in Bahrain and Syria.  Third, the Rest: more-or-less stable situations with no serious uprisings, like Saudi Arabia. 

He thinks the Syrian regime is bound to survive despite the amazing courage of the demonstrators. The only thing that could overthrow them would be  a decision of military and security forces to change sides and this is most unlikely.  It is extremely difficult to know what is happening in that country.  Western politicians are rhetorically critical but there is no possibility of the sort of military intervention which turned the tide in Libya.  That intervention caused such heartache, grief and lack of consensus it is not likely to be a popular precedent for others.

Roger Hardy is sure the notion of Arab exceptionalism – that the Arabs will never enjoy freedom and prosperity – has gone forever. Our ideals and principles lead us to welcome and support the uprisings  – why should the Arabs continue to suffer under corrupt autocrats?  But our politicians are faced with difficult decisions as they react to the unforeseen events.  Of course, they want to be seen on the right side of history – but should that include supporting the overthrow of elites which have served our interests?   Does principle now trump interests?  Roger Hardy thinks the rhetoric of Obama and others has been “spinning into hyperbole”.

In practice, America’s “Freedom Agenda” has been quietly dropped.  Western leaders must recognise that our ability to help the Arab Spring, politically or economically, is in fact very limited.  Millions of Arabs want to believe that the West is “a man on a white horse” coming to rescue them but that is not going to happen.  The regime in Bahrain was challenged with nothing but words and words had no influence on them - or on Saudi Arabia, which has made Bahrain a kind of protectorate.  We need a coherent and believable approach to events in the Middle East and have not got there yet.

Firas Jabloun: the catalyst for the rising in Tunisia was a young man, Mohamed Bouazizi, prevented by a police-woman from selling his vegetables illegally in the street, setting himself on fire.  That was on the 17^th of December 2010, and the role of Social Media in what followed was crucial: huge demonstrations, one in front of the state capitol in Tunis, led to the departure of President Ben Ali on the 14^th of January 2011.  

As elsewhere, the uprising was led by young people who felt they had nothing to lose: no jobs, no prospects.    Years of bad development policies had produced a large economic and social gap between the people of the interior and those of coastal regions and it was the people of the interior who supported the first protestors. 

The Tunisian economy, above all the tourist industry, was badly hit by the financial crisis of 2008 and Europe’s long-delayed recovery.  The global economic crisis created the conditions for the mass uprising sparked by the death of the street trader but the roots of it all were much deeper, in years of corruption, injustice and growing frustration.  Firas Jabloun thinks Tunisia experienced a revolution for Dignity even more than for Bread – the motivation was more political than economic.

The wealth of the elite families in Tunisia is equal to a third of the national debt.  Resentment grew across the population with speculation that Ben Ali intended to further extend his term of office, or to install his son or his wife in his place.  The demonstrators came from all social classes, with placards reading “Yes to bread and water, No to Ben Ali”: they were prepared to suffer to be rid of him. 

A counter-revolution is still under way in Tunisia and the people have had to show great discipline and maturity in a period of chaos.  Elections for a new Constituent Assembly are scheduled for the 23^rd of October 2011.  Firas Jabloun hopes these will prepare the ground for better times.  We should not exaggerate the importance of extremists from either political pole – the conservative Islamists or the progressive (and secular) Modernists.  The road to democracy in Tunisia is still bumpy, but he is optimistic that the moderates from both sides will prevail. 

Question Time1.      Brian – Obama is losing popularity on the Arab street as the Turkish Prime Minister, Erdogan, is gaining it.  Why can’t Obama influence Israel’s Netanyahu to make meaningful compromises with the Palestinians?  What do the speakers think will be the attitude of the Arab street to the US?  RH wishes he could be more optimistic. It is an illusion to think that social-networking youth don’t think about political Islam anymore; or about American policy toward Israel.  The issues are all linked in the minds on the Arab street.  Western governments backed the dictators and don’t help the Arabs deal with Israel.  “At a certain point, talk of a Peace Process becomes indecent.”    FJ said Obama has never been popular in Arab countries – “the Arabs hate the United States; that is a fact.”  Any initial hope they may have had in Obama has gone.  Freedom for Palestine is the ultimate target of the Arab Uprising. 2.      Gurbakhsh – Do they agree that the economic interests of the West will prevail, and will not be endangered by the Arab Spring?  FJ thinks the West are playing catch-up, trying to protect their interests.  RH said that in the inevitable tension between principles and interests, politicians naturally try to have it both ways.  Clegg recently said the Arab Spring is very important and that it’s in our interests to support it.  “Up to a point, Mr Deputy Prime Minister.”  But rhetoric outstrips reality: Oil – Arms – Support for Israel – Suspicion of Iran – those issues are there now and will still be there in five years’ time, he is sure. 

3.      Joyce – What is the impact of political Islam on the new constitutions; especially regarding the role of women?  FJ In Muslim countries, political Islam dominates the conservative wing with a mix of radical and moderate opinion.  There is a huge debate going on about what constitutes Moslem and Arab identity.  The role of women and heritage are part of that debate.  Tunisia has a long history of giving women rights and they now enjoy equal rights.  He’s sure the tradition there is so firmly established that no opposition could change it.  It is a legal requirement that the lists for the forthcoming elections offer equal numbers of men and women as candidates, a ruling accepted by the Islamists.  Indeed, a woman heads the list of one group.  RH recently wrote a book about this, only slightly outdated by the Arab Spring.  The Islamists can read the tealeaves – they know that if they don’t get this right, they’ll blow their best opportunity for decades.  Young women have played a very significant role in the risings, and it would be very hard to get that genie back into the bottle. 4.      David  W – had read in full William Hague’s address at the Foreign Office (8 September) with its analysis of how bankrupt UK foreign policy has been in the last 10 years; quite shameful to us in part.  David asked the speakers to comment on a recent experience of his – organising a cultural exhibition and festival at a historic library in Alexandria, he found that the media people in Cairo weren’t in the least interested in it.  The organisers had to pay Cairo reporters to cover it.  Cairo is only interested in Cairo; and the media – BBC, Al Jazeera and the rest, only listen to their colleagues in Cairo. There is nothing about the regions in the Egyptian press; he reads it every day.   RH agreed: yes, the media are capital-centred; yes, in Iraq they sat safely in the Green Zone.  If we want broader coverage in overseas countries, we should write to our MPs to complain about the cuts to the BBC World Service.  In the Egyptian Arab Spring, the media focused on Tahrir Square and the heroic young people, some of whom died; others with scars on their backs.  But they were only part of the story and, RH argues, they were not “representative”.  FJ said no one “owns reality”.  There is a lot of dust in the Arab world now, there are many mixed messages coming from all over the place, nothing is clear.  He recently spent two weeks in Tunisia and found that people he spoke to gave a totally different picture of events from those on Facebook.   

5.      Mohammed – thinks Americans did and do have an important influence in the Middle East, for example on the Egyptian army.  Without American influence, the revolution in Egypt would have been much bloodier, and the intervention in Libya would not have happened at all.  Granted, not everything has been positive.  Were the lessons of Iraq really learnt?  Should we have pushed harder for a negotiated settlement in Libya or was the mission creep that has happened inevitable?  Roger Hallam – UNA-UK has had serious debate on the role of the Western Powers, including a resolution at the June 2011 conference.  External intervention should be based on the widest possible consensus at the UN and especially the relevant Region.  There was implicit criticism of what did happen.  But whether the NATO action led by Britain and France breached SC resolution 1973 was not debated.  Joyce – UN support for the R2P was welcome but it raises serious questions, and it need not always involve military action.  FJ said the West were totally out of the picture in Tunisia.  Ben Ali’s “escape” from the country surprised everyone.  But the West had been a factor in Egypt and Libya.  He doesn’t think purely peaceful demonstrations ever topple dictators, they are brutal.  The political situation in Tunisia made a change of regime possible – there was only weak support for it and strong opposition.  As for a negotiated settlement in Libya, “Gaddafi is a crazy person; you couldn’t negotiate with him.”  RH we need to recognise the limits of our influence.  Mohammed had mentioned the two exceptions to the general rule: (a) the Egyptian army – RH is more worried about the role of the army in Egypt than that of the Muslim Brotherhood.  They will be very tricky to handle.  When he was in Washington in January-February, the phones sizzled with American top brass speaking to their Egyptian counterparts.  Two messages were given: do not fire on the people; Mubarak must go.  It might have happened anyway – but Obama played that card; the only card he could play.  (b) The West’s intervention in Libya was and will remain exceptional in his view.  The drawbacks to military intervention are obvious. Sanctions are broken or by-passed.  Humanitarian intervention sounds simple but every case is different and hugely problematic.  6.      Mohammed – argued that not all Islamists are politically conservative and thinks that factional interests are what influence vital policies relating to oil companies, for example, and jobs.  There’s a spectrum of things.  FJ reaffirmed his view that political Islam is conservative, but conservative in different ways.  Their approach to political and economic matters varies; and both sides have their moderates and radicals.  For Tunisia, he hopes that the moderates of both sides will lead the country from the centre.  Politics is always about interests.  He’d welcome help from the West, but not interference.  Above all, he hopes that development happens from within Tunisia and so attracts positive interest from the West.  RH said people including politicians sometimes act contrary to their rational interests, e.g. the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and our “collective over-reaction to 9-11”.  Sometimes the fact an action is contrary to interests is only apparent in hindsight.  William Hague said again and again that we’re only acting in Libya to protect civilians in accordance with Resolution 1973 – then adds Gaddafi must go.  “It doesn’t square, mate.  It’s humbug.”  Humanitarian Intervention is really tricky. It’s worth remembering what Lord Caradon said years ago: there’s nothing wrong with the United Nations except its members.  What they do brings discredit to the Organisation. 

7.      David - The Assad government in Syria is defending a secular state against an Islamist opposition, and they are the main bulwark against Israel acting against Palestinians with complete impunity.  FJ does not agree that the survival of the Assad regime would be in any way helpful to the Palestinians; on the contrary.  The best and only effective opposition to Israel would be genuine democracy in Arab lands, reflecting the views of the people.  He hopes that Tunisia can demonstrate a success story – achieving consensus despite difficulties.  That could be an example for Syria to follow.  RH thinks the Assad regime is sure to survive because the military and security forces are united behind it: they will “sink or swim with the Assad clan.”  There’s no doubt that most people are fed up with the regime: the father of the present leader was even more utterly ruthless than the son (e.g. Hama atrocity, February 1982).  8.      Karl – Which countries should, could or are the people of the Arab Spring looking to as Role Models for inspiration?  Are the elites all intact?  What policies have been put forward to give Bread and Dignity?”FJ thinks Tunisia offers the best example for inspiration.  There has been no major change in Egypt, the military were and are still in control.  There has been no military intervention in politics in Tunisia. Bread and Dignity come with democracy, and that takes time. Members of the former elite are still around; it would be dangerous to get rid of them all at once.  A gradual dismantling of the old regime keeps things stable.  RH agrees that Tunisia is a good model and Egypt to a degree.  The people of Syria are an inspiration too, with their extraordinary courage.  Turkey too is an interesting role model; more so than Iran.  Yes, the ruling elites remain intact though in disguise.  There are no serious policies yet for Bread and Dignity and there is a deep distrust of the West.  Because of that, Egypt turned down the offer of a World Bank loan – but that won’t last.  Countries need popularly elected governments with a strong mandate to effect change. 9.      Wendy – Is the NATO intervention in Benghazi/Libya a good example of the R2P in action?  RH said that by NATO standards, getting SC Resolution 1973 and acting on it was astonishingly fast, though it was just in the nick of time.  Thereafter it was pragmatic: during periods of stalemate it was “let’s talk to Gaddafi”; if it seemed the rebels could win, “Gaddafi must go.”    

10.  Peter – Civil Society movements were very important in the peaceful democratisation of Eastern Europe and the fall of the Berlin Wall.  They don’t seem to be as effective in the Middle East.  What could we do?  FJ Civil Society Organisations have existed in Tunisia for a long time. They were harassed by the Ben Ali regime but are more active now.  RH the deep distrust of the West in Arab minds comes from a strong folk memory of the colonial period and living memory of our governments’ support for their dictators.  But it doesn’t apply to us as individuals.  We can all do something to help at some level; for example, have a cheap holiday in Tunisia or Libya. Roger Hallam concluded the discussion, recalling that the role of the Third Sector/ Civil Society is as important now as at the time of decolonisation, though we seem to have lost a lot of the resonance of that period.  We were taken by surprise by the Arab Spring and have no links with partners in the Arab world.  If we want to see development and positive change in the region, we should try to make such connections.

Thursday, June 16th, 2011

 by Keith Hindell

Bruce Kent was eloquent on May 30^th in his advocacy of peaceful methods to deal with Libya and I’m glad to say I agree with him that “those who oppose Gaddafi ( by which I assume he means civilians only) have to be protected”.  So the nub of the argument is how and by whom?  Bruce Kent thinks they could be protected by a peacekeeping force but not one with a “peace enforcement mandate”. But that’s hardly a current option as Gaddafi and his opponents can’t even agree on a ceasefire let alone negotiate a long term truce which might include UN peacekeepers.

Bruce Kent says “we” (the world? the UN ? the UK?) are in a “catastrophic mess” which I  feel is a colourful hyperbole.  Solving disputes and wars involving autocratic men of badwill (to coin a phrase) is a tedious, messy business which can take years.  If the UN Security Council had not stepped in fairly smartly to protect the insurgents Benghazi would have looked like Deraa in Syria, Srebrenica in Bosnia or the so-called “Safe Havens” in northern Sri Lanka in 2009. Benghazi would have been “catastrophic”… but for NATO.  In all these other cases the UN took no action while people died in their hundreds and thousands .

. Bruce Kent clearly feels ashamed to be associated with the UN/NATO intervention which he calls a “Western Christian imperialist adventure”. It’s only western because we have the resources and the backbone to step in to prevent disaster. It’s not Christian as it comes from the secular UN .  As to “imperialist adventure” the likes of the Jameson raid or suppression of the Boxer rebellion , we shall have to see but I wouldn’t expect any western nation to get an economic advantage which would compensate for the treasure expended. 

UNGA-Link promotes the vision of a world where Human Security takes precedence over State Security and the voice of The Peoplesis heard as of right within the UN system.

 One encouraging initiative which we have followed from its beginnings is the Global Partnership for the Prevention of Armed Conflict: GPPAC (pronounced G-pack).  It began with an NGO response to an invitation from the UN Secretary General.  In Kofi Annan’s report Prevention of Armed Conflict (adopted by the General Assembly and the Security Council in August 2001), he urged NGOs with an interest in conflict prevention to organise an international conference of local, national and international NGOs to consider their role and “future interaction with the United Nations in this field.” (Recommendation 27).   The European Centre for Conflict Prevention/ECCP, based in the Netherlands, took the lead in what became a global process of consultation and agenda-setting which culminated in a conference held at the United Nations in New York in July 2005. 

UNGA-Link was represented at the European Regional Conference in 2004 (see the final pages of the May 2004 newsletter for a report).  Over 900 representatives of conflict-prevention organisations from 118 countries attended the international event in New York (our report on that is in the October 2005 newsletter). 

The ECCP took on the role of Global Secretariat of GPPAC, in response to the need to coordinate peacebuilding activities around the world.   In January 2011, recognising the importance of GPPAC to their organisation and the need for a unified structure of governance, the ECCP changed its name to the GPPAC Foundation.   A successful application for funding has secured its future 2011-2015.   Do have a look at the GPPAC websites if reports of violent conflict are getting you down: www.gppac.org and the project with stories www.peoplebuildingpeace.org.

by Bruce Kent (reprinted from Islington Tribune of 25 March 2011) 

ONCE more a war has started with very little evidence that those in favour of it, or even some of those opposed to it, have understood the requirements of the United Nations Charter.   

The United Nations was set up in 1945 not to authorise wars but primarily “to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war…”  Nowhere in the Charter is there any agreement that a vote in the Security Council is enough to legitimise a war or military attack.   In Article 42 there is a very serious precondition before, as a last resort, any military action may be authorised.  

The Security Council must consider (that is, come to a reasoned judgment) that peaceful means of resolving a conflict “would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate”.   There is no evidence whatever that, once David Cameron started to push for a no-fly zone over Libya, any consideration of peaceful means of conflict resolution was on the international agenda. 

•          Were all possible economic sanctions imposed and enforced?  •          Was massive electronic jamming put into operation?  •          Were all oil and gas sales cancelled?  •          Was non-governmental intervention of any kind attempted?  •          Muammar Gaddafi at one stage compared himself to the Queen.  Perhaps the Prince of Wales might have been asked to try a peacemaking visit.  Flattery can have advantages. 

Now we are again in a catastrophic mess.   The countries which, for decades, armed and supported Gaddafi and ignored his human rights violations are now his enemies.   It will not be long before there are numbers of civilian casualties.  Arab support for what is going on is fading, and the whole venture will be cast as another Western “Christian” imperialist adventure and will not end up by protecting the insurgents.   

It is too late to lament what might have been, but there are still opportunities.   To start with the UN General Assembly could make clear its view of the legality of the current Security Council resolution.   We could make an immediate approach to the International Court of Justice with a pre-agreement to abide by any adjudication.  Cynical or not, Gaddafi has made a ceasefire gesture.   The countries which have mounted the air strikes should unconditionally promise a ceasefire at least for a significant period of time during which UN-brokered negotiations could start and a peaceful settlement based on democratic principles might be considered.   

There is already a UN special representative in Tripoli.   It may yet be possible to negotiate a UN-authorised peacekeeping presence not made up of Western forces.   Such a force would have a peacekeeping not a peace enforcement mandate.   Those who oppose the Gaddafi regime certainly have to be protected in Libya and abroad.  There might be some British Muslim leaders willing to take part in peacekeeping visits of their own to Libya, with a mandate to explore all opportunities.  This is, thankfully, not a conflict in which the use of nuclear weapons might be contemplated.   For whatever reason, Colonel Gaddafi, who was once on the nuclear weapon trail, abandoned it some time ago.   

Perhaps that is a piece of political rationality on which we might build.  As a minimum, we have now in this country to eat a very large slice of humble pie.   Our problem is that we have been brought up in a culture which likes to believe that war ‘works’ and can be made to work.   It actually often – at massive cost – has exactly the opposite effect to the one intended.   The fact is that we are not omnipotent and that the best we can ever do is to try to find paths towards the peaceful resolution of conflict. 

Popping cruise missiles into other people backyards is not one of them.• Bruce Kent, a former parish priest at St Aloysius in Somers Town, is vice-president of the Movement for the Abolition of War 

Gerry Judah’s The Crusader, at Imperial War Museum North - an image of the devastating impact of modern urban warfare.  The sculptor says it explores the violence of conflict against a perceived righteousness of purpose.

In church documents and the UN Charter, the proportionate and well-considered use of armed force is considered legitimate as a last resort and in self-defence.  Article 51 of the Charter qualifies the latter by saying “until the Security Council has taken measures to maintain international peace and security.”   

At the UN General Assembly’s Millennium Review Summit in 2005, member states agreed to a circumscribed “Responsibility to Protect” (see paragraph 118 of the August 2005 text).  Where national governments perpetrate or allow the mass murder of innocent citizens, the international community  through the United Nations is obliged to take all possible diplomatic, humanitarian and other peaceful means to put things right.  Where these fail, the UN Security Council recognises “a shared responsibility to take collective action in a timely and decisive manner”. 

NATO’s current bombing campaign in Libya, on the authority of Security Council Resolution 1973 (17 March 2011) is the current test case, welcomed by some and not others as seen in previous postings on this site.  The resolution passed with 5 abstentions (including China and Russia who withheld their vetoes) and no opposition.  It demanded an immediate ceasefire, authorised a no-fly zone over Libya and the use of all means necessary short of foreign occupation to protect civilians.   

Over a month on, how does the action taken look in the light of Just War principles? 

• Just Cause: considering all current cases of governments cruelly and violently oppressing citizens who dare to oppose them, was it right to take armed action against Libya’s?  Perhaps.
• Competent Authority: no question there – the UN Security Council.
• Comparative Justice: do the rights and values involved justify killing?  Does attempting to protect rights to life, civil liberties and the rule of law guaranteed under UN conventions justify killing? Perhaps.
• Right Intention: did those voting for Resolution 1973 believe they would thereby protect civilians, specifically those apparently about to be massacred by Gaddafi’s forces in Misurata?  Probably yes.
• Last Resort: could action have been taken before the point of extreme crisis to shift the course of events?  Probably.  And at the point of crisis?  Probably not.
• Probability of Success: this principle is meant to prevent the resort to force or hopeless resistance when the outcome of either will in all probability be disproportionate or futile.  At this stage, does NATO’s commitment to “protect civilians” by extensive bombardment seem to be succeeding?  Hardly.  After some weeks of the advantage passing from one side to the other, it now pretty clearly favours Gaddafi – unless the terms of the resolution are increasingly re-interpreted.  And is the resistance of the almost wholly untrained and scarcely armed people still referred to as “rebels” other than hopeless?  I don’t think so.
• Proportionality: this surely is the fundamental one.  Is the huge cost in lives, damage to property and military expenditure justified by the good we can expect as an outcome?  Surely not.  Do the people of Misurata prefer starvation under siege to the massacre Gaddafi threatened?  What do you think? 

At the outset, I had painful doubts about the wisdom of the military action.  Now I feel sure it was wrong.  And I now doubt the relevance of the old Just War principles to 21^st century armed conflict, but I’ll save comment on that for another day. 

Dr Ian Davis writes: 

The UN-authorised intervention in Libya has thrown up complex ethical issues of paramount importance, as well as misgivings about NATO assuming command of the military dimension.  It is an intervention that has both an overt face and a hidden face, and behind every rationalization seemingly another rationalization, often of quite a different order than the declared protection of Libyan civilians. 

What started out as an action that observed the majority of the norms of international law and multilateral consultation is now in danger of reverting to type. The heavy-handed application of unilateral US, French and British muscle and talk of regime change, arming the rebels and even assassinating Gaddafi risks breaking thefragile international consensus and many of the political gains secured through UNSC resolution 1973 – including the historic embrace of the responsibility to protect (R2P) principles agreed in 2005. 

With NATO assuming command of all military operations, the Alliance must stick to the letter of the UN resolution and R2P principles.

Five crucial steps are required: 

1. The use of “all necessary measures” to protect civilian areas from attack by Libyangovernment forces should only continue as long as the attacks on civilians persist or are threatened. 

2. Diplomatic efforts should be stepped up to achieve an early unconditional ceasefire and then work towards a lasting political settlement. 

3. NATO should abide by clear and transparent rules of engagement. 

4. Parliaments in member states should hold their governments accountable for NATO actions in Libya. 

5. Open and careful monitoring of civilian casualties. There was undoubtedly a strong anti-war case for staying out of Libya, but there was, and still is, a stronger pro-peace case for limited military intervention based upon a responsibility to protect civilians. But the limits of the Libyan intervention need to be clearly articulated and followed to the letter. 

The full article: NATO Watch Observatory No.20 – April 2011

http://www.natowatch.org/sites/default/files/Libya_-_NATO_must_stick_to_the_R2P_script.pdf

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 it’s being tested by the Security Council to see if it’s 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 Gaddafi 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 let’s support the present effort but keep it under critical review.
Keith Hindell

THE INTERNATIONAL COALITION FOR THE RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT (ICRtoP) brings together NGOs from all regions of the world to strengthen normative consensus for RtoP, further the understanding of the norm, push for strengthened capacities to prevent and halt genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity and mobilize NGOs to push for action to save lives in RtoP country-specific situations.

World Federation of United Nations Associations (New York and Geneva) is one of its members.  

See the latest Nato Watch News Briefing: 24 February 2011

Responsibility to Protect in Libya: calls for intervention intensify 

As UN experts denounce massive human rights violations in Libya, calls by civil society to halt mass atrocities have intensified . . .