What's the point of the United Nations? Seriously, just consider that question for a moment. I'm not being flippant.
At its heart the UN is a response to World War II. It's an attempt by Nation States to create a forum which serves to limit the potential of future conflict on a global scale, and in so doing to protect the world from the kind of atrocities which inevitably follow the commencement of armed conflict. Noble aims, no doubt. And yet, when faced with armed conflict leading to humanitarian atrocity the UN proves itself incapable time and time again.
Why?
Well, ultimately the UN is a political organisation draped in the cloak of international legal authority. It's designed to facilitate horse-trading based on narrow national interests rather than high-minded principle. The decision making structures of its Security Council reflect a geo-political settlement that no longer exists. And we find that far from protecting people from the kind of atrocity it was established to prevent, the UN instead makes all the noises of caring while ultimately finding itself rendered impotent by countries whose respect for human rights is little different than one Muammar Gaddafi.
I'm not saying the UN should be abolished, far from it, but there are times when action is needed now and principle must be placed ahead of political expediency. Now is such a time.
A government's primary function is to protect its people. But nobody told Gaddafi. Instead, he uses guns, bombs and planes to murder the very people he is supposed to protect. And that, by any measure, is unacceptable.
Does that mean we should put boots on the ground? Of course not. Aside from anything else we simply don't have the capacity to do so, even were it a desirable option (which it isn't). But the West as a whole does have the capacity to take some action to limit Gaddafi's capability and give the people of Libya a fighting chance to establish a nation of their own design. A no-fly zone would be a first-step, supporting the rebels transparently could be a second.
The world is watching. And tyrants are wondering, is the West all talk and no action?
And while we're taking our time to answer that question, spare a thought for those who will die in the meantime.
Comments
IanVisits / March 10 2011 2:41pm
If you are in business and a meeting didn't deliver the result you want, you don't blame the room the meeting was held in, or the person who booked the meeting room, you blame the participants who attended.
Rather than blaming the UN - which is just a place to meet people - why not blame the people in the meeting who failed to come to a decision?
It wasn't "the UN" that failed to act - it was the individual governments of China, Russia, the USA, the UK, France etc.
Bill Quango MP / March 10 2011 2:54pm
Was going to post about the military aspect myself. But based on the pictures of Ras-Lanuf I asked a US military friend to look just at the rebel AA guns being shown firing on TV.
"AA guns should be integrated and provide supporting fire for each other with overlapping arcs of fire to maximize potential against aircraft.
The guns are too close and could probably be taken out with one strike. Normally you would want a couple hundred meters separating them to limit damage from artillery fire or one strike taking them out. Normally you would have a chest high sand berm in a u-shape with the open end to the rear to protect from shrapnel and small arms.
As for deployment, what purpose are the guns serving in this location? Is it a strategic crossroads or a likely air avenue of approach? If so placing them for best fire position is paramount. Based upon what I have seen on the news, most weapons have been placed haphazardly and if the Libyan forces were competent the rebels could be easily overrun by a coordinated combined arms assault."
The Libyan rebels are going to be defeated unless they get some help.
Whether that is air power or special forces advisers they need some support. Even I can see how amateurish their dispositions and defences are just from BBC news pictures. The first 'motivated' regular Libyan army unit that shows up will defeat them.
That should mean an end to the domino effect of falling Arab states for another forty years.
Stephen Gash / March 10 2011 3:00pm
At least Libya has not been left out then.
I suppose the UN has not let down the Copts in Egypt, Christians in Pakistan, Papuan New Guineans in Indonesia, Christians in Indonesia, Hindus in Malaysia, Christians in Lebanon, Hindus in Bangladesh, Ndebele in Zimbabwe, Christians and Pagans in Nigeria, etc?
The only things more useless than the UN are halo-polishing hypocritical Western media and politicians.
John B Sheffield / March 10 2011 4:18pm
I do believe that the UK has been slow in reacting at first with regards Libya, but I do feel that a lot of the problems lie more with our 24 hour news media who look for faults and make them seem much more serious than they are. In fact the announcement of the diplomats and SAS was far too advanced and could have put lives in danger, we have to understand in situations like we are currently in their has to be a level of secrecy.
I applaud the decision from France today to break off all ties with Libya and I will be most disappointed if we do not follow and endorse this lead. As regards the No Fly Zone the USA is playing a very dangerous game, our media may knock William Hague currently everyone in the Obama administration seems to have a different line, why?
The Free World can't afford to sit back as we seem to be doing and allow these innocent Libyans to be treated the way they are, a No Fly Zone needs to be ready to be introduced within days the West must show Gaddafi we do not play his type of games, currently he is winning his dangerous games! We know Russian will object at the UN, does this mean we sit back NO!
Tim Hedges / March 10 2011 4:48pm
It is not our job to prevent deaths. If we are talking abut addressing injustice, lets start by invading China, or at least with Zimbabwe and Burma. But we don't. Plenty of people die without us intervening, and unless we have a universal poiicy of intervention, let's just keep silent and leave these people to their own war.
Shane Greer / March 10 2011 5:37pm
Tim, so your position is that because we can't do everything, we should do nothing? What kind of country would that make us?
Al / March 11 2011 12:36pm
Why are we so quick in the West to pick sides and label one as 'good' and the other 'evil'? No-one elected the opposition leadership and there is absolutely no proof that they represent the majority of Libyans - aside from Western media who only present one-side of the arguement. We can't pretend that supporting them is for the sake of the people of Libya, it is clear we have our own selfish (oil) interests in mind.
Also, the moment the opposition picked up weapons and killed police, etc. loyal to Gaddafi they instigated a civil war. Videos of the rebels executing police somehow go unmentioned when we talk about Gaddafi's 'crimes against humanity'. The rebels can't now complain that they're out-gunned and being killed while hiding in residential areas - it is utterly hypocritical ... no-one is playing by the rules in Libya, no-one holding a gun is innocent.
Brian Barder / March 11 2011 11:32pm
Shane, I can't help enjoying the vigour of your writing here and of your long rant on Channel 4 last night. But it's all riddled with misunderstandings -- of the nature, function and limitations of "the UN" (I think you mean the Security Council), of the limitations of what political and diplomatic objectives can be achieved by military action, of the appetite in Washington (where alone a decision to intervene militarily in Libya would need to be taken) for getting involved in an attack on yet another Muslim Arab country in the middle east while still bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan, and (perhaps must egregiously) of Britain's capacities and role in the modern world. Why do you airily take it for granted that if "the west" sails into Libya with guns and rockets blazing, Britain must necessarily be involved at the heart of it -- or at all? Why Britain any more than Slovakia or Kazakhstan? Why do you take it for granted that if there's a bit of killing of foreigners going on anywhere, we've been elected to join in? -- indeed, according to Field-Marshal Cameron and Air Marshal Hague, Britain is not just itching for the fight, but actually leading the world pack in hyping everyone up for it? It's post-imperial folie de grandeur and it's time we began to face the rather humble reality about ourselves. There's something unpleasantly self-indulgent about demanding that other people go out and kill and get killed while oneself sitting safely at a computer in SW15 (or wherever), feeling all brave and morally superior. Time to grow up?
Sarah / March 16 2011 2:51pm
I couldn't agree more. I was telling my boyfriend last night that the war in Lybia has now become my evening entertainment, with no end in sight! This is going on and on and on. By the time the united nations decide on something, everyone will be dead.....job done! However, drag THAT reputation around with you, UN!