Chris I believe that Biden was visiting Russia shortly before their abstention vote and was integral to getting them to sit the round out.
I think that Obama is being pragmatic and can see that this wave is still rolling across the Arab world.
Biden in Russia, ostensibly to discuss Russia’s WTO bid, and assist Russia in overcoming the final hurdles to entering the WTO, encouraged Russia to sit out a UNSC vote.
Facebook and Twitter have served up enough connectivity to allow this Arab wave to see solidarity and unity of purpose but I see this whole Arab wave as coming from their basic desire to stop some fucker standing on their throat.
Neither Facebook nor Twitter were involved in the vote for military intervention. And neither Facebook nor Twitter delivered the world this great steaming pile of propaganda:
I am honored to be in the timeless city of Cairo, and to be hosted by two remarkable institutions. For over a thousand years, Al-Azhar has stood as a beacon of Islamic learning, and for over a century, Cairo University has been a source of Egypt’s advancement. Together, you represent the harmony between tradition and progress. I am grateful for your hospitality, and the hospitality of the people of Egypt. I am also proud to carry with me the goodwill of the American people, and a greeting of peace from Muslim communities in my country: assalaamu alaykum.
[Chris, I’ve edited out the other 2000 words of that 2009 speech you pasted in. C’mon, be sensible please – RB]
Critics of the UN vote point out that the members who abstained – China, India, Russia, Brazil and Germany – include three of the five most populous nations in the world and account for nearly half of the world's population. They created an impact if they voted against the resolution. They could have stayed firmly on their principles and shown that the new world order, the multi-polar world is really coming into existence. Unfortunately, this did not happen.
Sorry, had to do a spot of work just now. Most poignantly Russell, assuming the western led intervention goes as far as to remove The Colonel, who will replace Brazil, China and Russia as major arms suppliers to New Libya?
That the three major arms suppliers to the Libya abstained to vote for a resolution involving an arms embargo, an asset freeze and military intervention is as relevant as all get out.
I don't see the UNSC as a dark conspiring bloc, it's as visible an indication as any of the moral integrity of the global marketplace.
It was almost 8 years ago to the day that we saw the invasion of Iraq, it will be interesting to see who Libya's main arms suppliers are 8 years from now. Where are Yemen and Bahrain in this discussion? Over what threshold does a massacre become genocide?
A hypothetical question that comes to mind for me, inspired by Conal Tuohy's well written piece on western imperialism and particularly this paragraph:
And yet … this time everything is different somehow. This time our bombing campaign will make the world a better place. This time the enemy leader really is a mad dog. This time we won’t divide them; we won’t plunder their resources; we won’t usurp their national sovereignty and foist new laws, financial systems, foreign investors, foreign police forces, new kings and military dictators onto them.
How British would Britain be today had China intervened in the English Civil War?
Based on this intervention, whatever is at stake in Libya could be perceived to be of more value to the UNSC than what Sudan had to offer. That Libya’s military is supplied by Brazil, China and Russia is surely relevant, as is the increase in gold and oil prices.
Brazil, China and Russia all abstained on the Security Council vote, so it’s counter-intuitive to suggest they had an interest in intervention.
I'm still getting the feeling you're under the assumption that these are details I'd missed in my initial summation. I hope you can reread that paragraph again. In particular the preceeding two sentences (quoted below*)
Again to clarify the paragraph you pulled me up on. Based on this intervention, UNSC members abstaining from voting for intervention in a conflict with a country who they deal arms to but whom has an arms embargo levied against is relevant to the spectrum of UNSC motives, relevant to what the UNSC as a whole represents and it's deeper priorities.
But here’s the thing: the UN, even the Security Council, isn’t some dark, conspiring bloc.
On the other hand, China and Russia – both arms-manufacturing nations – abstained.
*amongst numerous economic considerations. But to simplify it as such doesn’t seem to be the right tack.
And further to my initial summation:
b) serve as a staging ground for weapons testing without undue scrutiny.
American air force's newest acquisitions and has rotor blades which can swivel in order to allow it to fly like a helicopter or a conventional fixed-wing aircraft
Information I surely needed.
The United States Marine Corps began crew training for the Osprey in 2000, and fielded it in 2007; it is supplementing and will eventually replace their CH-46 Sea Knights. The Osprey's other operator, the U.S. Air Force fielded their version of the tiltrotor in 2009. Since entering service with the U.S. Marine Corps and Air Force, the Osprey has been deployed for combat and rescue operations in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya
Gaza? 2009 massacre of 1400 people anybody?
If you can list any more of the missed opportunities for intervention Christiaan, it would surely help to build a broader picture as to what distinguishes the Libyan conflict from the other genocides of say the past decade. I'm certainly a little disconcerted that our two key points of reference here are Iraq and Kosovo. When we've recently seen 1000s killed in less visible or relevant yet comparable conflicts.
If anything truly sticks out for me it's that here, for the first time in a decade, the US have total mandate to advance their WOT against a known terrorist leader and yet in another first, for whatever reason, aren't really nailing it.
But why be against one justified case of intervention (if that’s what this is)
To be fair to Christiaan, I don't think this is what it is. For my part it's more mystification as to what criteria necessitates intervention:
A perception and hence suspicion of hypocricy or at least double standards.
idealism, although not ideal is a necessity for progress.
Attributing the current actions to an oil grab is very counter-intuitive.
Not going there Don, Obviously the ultimate protection of oil production (given that crude prices have been increasing as the situation has deteriorated) would surely be a factor in the decision to intervene, amongst numerous economic considerations. But to simplify it as such doesn’t seem to be the right tack. Based on this intervention, whatever is at stake in Libya could be perceived to be of more value to the UNSC than what Sudan had to offer. That Libya’s military is supplied by Brazil, China and Russia is surely relevant, as is the increase in gold and oil prices.
Chris – what’s your point?
Akin with what Bart just mentioned Don.
Intervention shouldn’t happen in Libya because it wasn’t sustained in Sudan?
In these types of genocidal situations, intervention should always happen with to the fullest necessary relative measure, regardless of economic incentives.
Due to the nature of the fascism here I could not open this earlier:
Oh, and don’t underestimate foreign involvement, there are all sorts of behind the scenes deals going on: Gary’s Posterous
So my apologies Gary and Russell, that was one of the issues I was intimating, simply bad timing, nothing to be lambasted for.
The reason being, what Gadaffi was doing was abhorrent, and to have suggested a non-interventionist approach was to support his actions.
On February 23, 2011, Franklin Graham appeared on the TBN Network appealing for aid for genocide victims and terrorized peoples of the south Sudan. He stated that so far the government has killed 1.3 million citizens in the south only for the reason that they are Christians
"The Sudanese government and government-backed Janjaweed militia bear responsibility for the genocide in Darfur," it said, adding that they, along with indigenous rebels, had and continued to commit atrocities as the four-year-old war rages unabated.
"All parties to the conflagration committed serious abuses, including widespread killing of civilians, rape as a tool of war, systematic torture, robbery and recruitment of child soldiers," the report said.
I'm more than to happy to listen to other reasons/ theories for the UN's selectivity in its interventions.
such as having relatives in mortal danger?
An insensitive insinuation. No, such as:
Gaddafi at one point took the parachutes out of his aircraft and was only fuelling his planes to a certain level so pilots couldn’t cross the border or ditch them.
Apologies for my misspelling of tidbit above.
You may wish to consult the comment above yours.
Certainly Russell, there are some interesting titbits there, but fascism in itself has never been justification for any war.
Rather than having all the answers – or rather, the same set of answers – in advance, would it not be more productive to actually pay some attention to someone who’s been following events?
Had he posted before I'd written then that would have been possible. And to be fair the potential to generate profit (considering Gaddafi's $6 billion gold stash which has been recently moved to be in closer proximity to the southern borders) I'm finding your conflation of my ascribed economic motives with his more purely political motives a little dismissive. The UN tolerates fascism.