The concern over the resolution stems from the soon-to-be-cliché phrase "all necessary measures" in paragraph 4, authorizing the use of military force to bring about the security of civilians. The phrase has been over-quoted in the media, becoming the bolded-headline across cable TV and newsprint the world over. Its out-of-context use makes it sound like the UN resolution has authorized some kind of military intervention on the scale of the first Persian Gulf War or the occupation of former Yugoslavia, or even the Korean War, all of which were UN-resolution authorized (a note on Yugoslavia in a moment).
In fact, the resolution explicitly prohibits "a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory" in the same sentence that authorizes "all necessary measures".
I understand the reservation of Americans to use force in yet another Muslim-majority developing country (many media sources are calling it a "Middle Eastern" country despite the fact that Libya is firmly an African continental state), indeed I share some of those reservations. Critics are also correct in pointing out that although we may idealistically want to support the interim rebel government "leading" the revolution from Benghazi, the council there may not be as democratic or ideal as we hope, and that the politics of these circumstances are not as simple as wild-eyed interventionists would love to think.
But there is something simple in all this: Muammar Gadhafi is a madman, a despot, and a murderer. He has made no attempts to hide the sheer scale of the violence he intends to unleash upon his people. He has said at different points that he would kill opponents "house by house", that the rebels were (in a haunting reference to the Rwandan genocide's language) "cockroaches" to be "crushed", and that "Libya will turn to hell" as he arms his people to slaughter the enemy and protesters who, for not loving him, "don't deserve to live".
This is not rhetoric to be easily misinterpreted. This is not simply parading for the domestic TV stations like North Korea's regular threats of "war"; this is a man who relished the opportunity to bomb civilian planes and support suicide attacks; this is a man whose iron grip has already slaughtered people in his nation; this is a man whose armies are as I write advancing on his opponents' positions, pillaging, raping, and murdering anyone who gets in the way of the great leader's will. Civilians supportive of the rebel uprising face harsh reprisal and slaughter if he is allowed to advance unchecked.
This is not an argument over if there are WMDs in Libya*
This is not a counterinsurgency against an invisible guerrilla enemy.
This is not a long-term occupation.
This is the United Nations authorizing the use of force and threat of force to get the madman's armies to pull back, or suffer debilitating consequences if he fails to observe the ceasefire order. The move will enforce an arms embargo to limit his armies' supplies and will shoot down his vital air attacks on rebel fortifications. It explicitly rules out the use of soldiers or armed troops to intervene directly anywhere in Libya, and places special emphasis on the participation of the Arab League, an organization comprising almost every country in North Africa and the Middle East.
The move has support by votes from European allies in NATO (Germany excepted), Arab League members (who formally suspended Libya from their organization and requested the resolution), as well as the African and Latin American representatives on the Security Council, with only abstentions from Russia (who has arms deals with the Libyan government), China (who has a long history of opposing foreign intervention of any kind), India, Brazil, and Germany (all three of whom are hesitant to approve international military force and who wished for more information before greater action). All of these nations' votes and arguments can be read in the UN report highlighted at the beginning of this post.
I support the actions authorized in the UN resolution because they entail limited measures against the Gadhafi regime. NATO members and the Arab League have agreed and are preparing to shoulder the burden of enforcing this resolution, meaning America's participation in enforcement will not be solo or unsupported. The President has already ruled out troops on the ground, but as the following NBC report shows, he is resolved to carry out the will of the international community, and with their support:
This time, the United States is a leader in global good, in rallying world leaders to support the protection of human rights and innocent lives, and is one among many nations participating in the sanctioning the deplorable acts of an insane dictator. The costs of inaction would have been morally reprehensible and on our hands, just as Rwanda and the Congo and Somalia are now, and this is a moment where America's might, is being used for the right.
No comments:
Post a Comment