willing While many in America and around the world claiming no fly zone on Libya, for once the leaders of NATO, the U.S. government and its Ministry of Defense show a more reasonable prudence in front of an option which would constitute a real military aggression. The last thing you feel the need at this difficult time is another American-led military aggression against a Muslim country.
Fortunately, U.S. and NATO have made it clear they will not do a thing without a resolution of the Security Council.
And the UN resolution, it seems, will not, because neither the Russia nor China seem willing to allow one more American intervention. Not to mention the strong stand in contrast to Brazil, India and South Africa, meeting yesterday in New Delhi at the level of Foreign Ministers. The so-called "geopolitical realism" arrives at an embarrassing paralysis: Can not stand idly by, unable to move to intervene.
What amazes me is that all take for granted that if the UN decides an intervention, this should be by force under American command. It is surprising that the Western public opinion is never directly informed of the opinions and positions of Russia and China, but they're always talking through intermediaries, through the U.S. government. It is surprising that not even vaguely take into account the ability to apply it once the UN Charter, rather than seeing it constantly upset by the desire of Western powers.
The Chapter VII of the UN Charter, the governing military interventions in the event of a "threat to peace," provides neither a "coalition of the willing", or controls of individual countries: includes international armed forces under command of the UN itself.
Maybe if we think of action agreed, owned and operated jointly by the permanent members of the Security Council, rather than the usual unilateral acts of force, the position of Russia and China on the Libyan case is different. But the world has become so accustomed do to see litter of international law, that the possibility of applying it really is not even considered. It 'clear that while a NATO intervention, albeit backed by the Arab League, African Union or whatever, would raise strong aversion to a large Arab and Muslim public opinion, an initiative complies with the UN Charter would be much less controversial.
do not know if this solution, if possible, is the best you can conceive. I know it is a disturbing symptom of lawlessness that prevails in international relations, the fact that he did not even discuss.
If I then imagine the most desirable, then we look an impossibility. I would imagine that the Security Council to adopt a non-armed intervention: a massive, disciplined, well organized invasion of soldiers without weapons that intimin yield to Gaddafi. With the caveat that in the event of armed resistance would follow a massive military intervention and with the proviso that the only objective now is to organize free elections, regular, general, in which all political forces, including Gaddafi's party are eligible to participate.
These of course are just the fantasies of a visionary. But when it happens, as in this case, before the epochal drama, the realistic options of the "realists" are being debated in an alley blind, some visionary fantasies can buy a taste of meaningful sobriety. After all, the perpetual peace between France and Germany, including the abolition of slavery, women judges, including compulsory education, even democracy with universal suffrage, were once only a fantasy of visionaries. 
0 comments:
Post a Comment