But isn’t it equally callous to ignore other nations like Afghanistan, Bahrain and even Saudi Arabia?

I’m just waiting for that country to degenerate into a tribalist dung heap. Most of shooting isn’t done by human rights activists, but tribal miltia or ex military with allegiance to particular tribes. If gaddafi gets kicked out, which seems likely, they’ll carve that country up into small domains and shoot at one another to get the oil.

I hope 5-6 years from now someone will read this post and say a ha!

I just got to know (from the Daily Noise) that that several illegitimate family dictatorships, autocratic regimes, drug-fuelled banana republics, corrupt theocracies, war-torn hellholes, and all-around shitty countries…including 812 failed states, 534 Can’t be developed Countries and 4 intergalactic empires are now also opposed to the UNs military intervention in Libya.

What about the people of Baharain or Saudi Araibia? What happens when white-backed govts are also against their people ? What then ?

I am wondering why your theory was not applied to Rwanda.. Cos they do not have oil?? LOOK In 1994, when 800,000 Rwandans were slaughtered by the Rwandan govt and US/UN were simply watching the genocide. When the world begged for an involvement, this is what said by Bill Clinton: “Whether we get involved in any of the world’s ethnic conflicts in the end must depend on the cumulative weight of the American interests at stake..” This is sick man! Watch this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xON22c7pZ6c

I’m afraid that the Indian Leader of the House’s recent comments are incredibly hollow:

http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2011/sc10200.doc.htm

The terms of resolution 1973 are clear and India abstained. They take no responsibility for the slaughter of protestors and no responsibility for the air strikes at the same time. Regardless of the rights and wrongs of this action, it’s galling for countries to be so duplicitous in their complaints against duplicity! South Africa’s another example, where they voted for the resolution and now criticise the action.

Self interest is key to all countries, and does anyone really think that they want their governments not to act against their own self interest? China and Russia’s own internal difficulties in terms of the threat of internal revolt define (for them) a self interest in opposing external interference, so they in theory support the same elsewhere.

There are no clean countries in this regard, certainly not China. How about Sudan? Difficult to reach oil reserves in Darfur and hundreds of thousands of (black African) natives in that region, with the Chinese propping up the (Arab) government and supplying them with the arms used against the civilians of Darfur, killing thousands and displaying hundreds of thousands to camps where the women risk rape every time they go to collect water. When they finally start exploiting the resources, who will be first in line with the lucrative contracts, I wonder? A policy of non-interference indeed.

I really feel for italy in all of this. They’ve been quietly milking Libyan oil for the last few decades. All of that is getting screwed over.

@The Way of the Dodo

The significant increase in North African refugee and economic migrant numbers into Italy’s a new disaster waiting to happen. Things are going to get ugly and the far right parties are likely to grow significantly. Those post-colonial ties are going to haunt them.

@Carasek

I think at some point human interest is self-interest. Our world is so incredibly interlinked that things generally not being evil should have a knock-on effect for everyone.

sri lanka instead of opposing should just thank their lucky star that they didnt get the same treatment as Lybia. it was also bombing its own civilians.

but they didnt because there is nothing worth coming here for apart from beaches

Intervention for the sake of humanity is great, but ugly when it is for oil.

Gadaffi is a bad dictator, but the intention of the collation is not any better either. I don’t understand how the intervention can be glorified by associating it with humanity, which is obviously not.

Like others pointed out, these “humanity” interventions are against very selective regions and applies only to places where there is some financial benefit.

Here is a simple question. If the USA wants democracy in Libya, why not push for an election in Libya instead of asking Gadaffi to go?

it’s a real mess now. gaddafi’s forces just smashed the ‘rebel’ forces. They in full retreat. What will the coalition do now.

@anonymous ‘Gaddafi is a bad dictator, but the intention of the coalition is not any better either.’ That is one of the most ridiculous things I’ve heard for some time. The action comes at significant financial and political cost to all members of the coalition, with no clear benefit to them whatsoever, only the saving of Libyan lives which would otherwise be put to the sword and associated goodwill as a result. Self interest can include human interest and this is oddly one of the few recent examples where the motivations of the countries involved is pretty honourable: Kosova and Sierra Leone are two others that come to mind. Many people argued against foreign intervention in those countries; their citizens beg to differ.

I think it’s mere blinkered bias to state this is about oil over humanitarian reasons. Libya produces maximum 2% of the world’s oil production, and whether they sell it to China or the US, its sale increases supply thereby keeping prices as low as possible. Even with Gaddafi the oil was still flowing to the West (especially Italy) anyway, so there’s little to gain by this expensive military action, there may even be losses as many Western companies had lucrative deals lined up with Gaddafi’s regime that are now in doubt.

Plus, the Coalition made it very clear they won’t send in troops, so it’s a bit hard to see how they could possibly benefit directly from the oil anymore than they were before. China is playing a deceitful hand in that it has a massive problem (inflation) and yet it doesn’t produce much oil. So they need stability in oil prices as much as anyone else, yet are very happy to take a step back and let others pay for stability without risking their supposed neutrality.

Gaddafi was the world’s pariah, but after the second Iraq invasion he realised the winning hand was to be as open as possible about no longer pursuing WMD and improve ties with the West. It’s not just SL that sought close links – the UK, Italy and most EU nations did the same. They argued it was better to achieve mutually-beneficial stability and prosperity together. Until the uprisings and the slaughter of his people. It’s not mere conjecture: Gaddafi was killing his own people without remorse and those who oppose this Coalition action are saying that innocent blood is a price worth paying (by others) for a global policy of non-intervention.

Libya’s neighbours, the African Union and the Arab League, unusually called for an end to the repression and tacitly approved of (in some cases demanded) action against Gaddafi (difficult for them given most of them also run dictatorships and had accepted Gaddafi’s cash), just that they weren’t going to be the ones to do it. They are all hypocrites as they opposed the killing of fellow Arabs and Africans, yet with the exception of Qatar they did nothing about it.

It’s pretty clear that Gaddafi was never going to relinquish power or hold free and fair democratic elections, he said so himself and even went so far as to say he has no official power so he can’t do anything. The duplicitous approach by so many in rushing to condemn the Coalition no fly zone is galling, notwithstanding that opposition to their action may be perfectly valid. It’s very simple, without the air strikes, especially by the French early on, the people of Benghazi would have been slaughtered by tanks and artillery at the hands of Gaddafi and his foreign mercenaries. Debate whether stopping that was right or wrong, fine, but it’s a weak argument to condemn the action by the lack of action elsewhere. Comparisons with Rwanda are naive, as surely the lesson to take from that was that it was wrong for the international community to stand back and watch the slaughter of thousands (or millions)?

The complexity of the situation in the region is immense. That region is a powder keg at the moment and the actions over the next few months will dictate massive regional change – it’s not picking one country for financial interest as much as keeping up momentum for the dispossessed against oppressors, given the difficulty of close ties with some of the regimes in question. Whether using military intervention is the best means to this end is another matter, but nothing short of that would have saved the protestors in Libya. Your condemnation, their blood.

Dear Anonymous,

You said “Gadaffi is a bad dictator.” Does that mean that there are also ‘Good’ dictators? Also do you think that if USA asks Gadaffi nicely that he will have free and fair elections in Libya?

Libyan Foreign Minister Moussa Koussa is supposed to have defected to the UK.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12917315

…the 64,000 $ question is will G.L.Peries also someday do the same?

@indi,
I have nothing to contribute to this forum (I do, in fact. But I just like to keep my mind ‘unencumbered’ till I get to bad mouth the Indians tomorrow.

I noticed however you use the word ‘believe’ a little too often. You do a lot of believing. Not just religious belifs. You believe all kinds of religions, or one religion that you yourself invented. But you believe in lot of other things too – concepts, theories, conjectures that look like theorems, theorems that don’t exist, ideologies that only make sense in your dreams et cetera.

I was wondering whether you could do some believing for me, because I’m finding it hard to believe anything other than my own awesomeness, which is supported by the fact that I’m number nine in Shammi’s fantasy file (Dodo’s #3 and you’re #1). I really need someone to do some believing for me. I’ll pay you.

@shammi,
Oh please. You’re in love with my other avatar, the lesbian one.

http://www.asiantribune.com/news/2011/04/09/sri-lanka-under-rajapaksa-family-dominance-power-derived-through-problematic-polls-l

…well indi…still think demoCrazy and elections work in Sri Lanka?

In your Sunday leader column you say, “Right now Rajapaksa is a good king. ” Wow…I guess you must believe that Lasantha was killed by aliens?
Then you say, “If Namal took over the Cricket Board it might do better than today.” Wow…again. If you keep writing stuff like this the Rajapaksas’ might someday make you the head of Lake House…best of luck.

Loved the analysis. Just another point to add. The US would always bring sovereignty to the table whenever the UN attempted any probe on US activities (ICJ, commissions etc etc). The sovereignty card was played most heavily by the US diplomats during the 5-6 decades since WWII. They were the ones that elevated the concept of sovereignty and put it on a pedestal making in seem scared and now they seem to be being raped by China and the BRIC :) oh sweet irony

Libya: Gaddafi government accepts truce plan, says Zuma

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-13029165

the terms of the ceasefire look extremely unfair and in favor of gaddafi, but the rebels should accept it since they are about to get annihilated

TIME magazine has been Jilmarted!

Monies spent from the President’s secret account to become a powerful leader through TIME magazine

President Mahninda Rajapaksa has spent millions of rupees from a secret account entitled to him through his office in order to come among the top 100 powerful persons selected through an e-mail vote by the TIME magazine, reliable sources told Lanka News Web.

The main work on the project had been assigned to the supervisory MP of the External Affairs Ministry Sajin Vass Gunawardena and the coordination work had been given to a head of the President’s Media Unit.

Financial assistance had therefore been made available to foreign diplomatic missions and consulates to make the necessary arrangements.

The e-mail voting ended today (14) and according to the results, President Mahinda Rajapaksa has been placed at th 28th position while US President Barrack Obama is placed 41 in the list.

…taken from http://www.lankanewsweb.com which is blocked in Sri Lanka.

use this link to enter the site.
https://proximize.me/?e=no_hotlink

http://www.economist.com/node/18561107?story_id=18561107&fsrc=rss

[...] Gaddafi Was Cute (LIFE photo album) The classic Mahinda and Gaddafi pic Gaddafi’s 40 Year rule (TIME) Gaddafi’s Craziest Quotes (LIFE) [...]