The UN resolution 1973 permits the use of proportionate action to prevent attack upon, or the endangering of, the lives of civilians. Now call me a silly sausage it you wish, but surely providing the civilian populations with arms and ammunition will mean that they are no longer civilians because they have become combatants!
This would mean that they lose all of their protected status under the terms of the Geneva conventions and not only that, but by the potential for them targeting civilians loyal to Gaddafi would mean that they become a legitimate target under resolution 1973 themselves.
Simple or what?
And then we have the problem in that just as the US armed certain groups in Afghanistan which now are biting us on the behindside, which group can anyone speak for such that the arms won't be turned on the friendly nations that are overflying them now?
What a tricky game this diplomacy is - no wonder they keep getting it wrong!
Showing posts with label un resolution. Show all posts
Showing posts with label un resolution. Show all posts
Wednesday, 30 March 2011
Thursday, 24 March 2011
Libya - arming the rebels
Calls from Misrata late last night asking for,"Medicine, food and weapons," need to be responded to with great caution. For every person I hear who is positive and supportive of the action to stem the attacks against civillians there is another voice bemoaning the fact that we're in another war and there are some who believe Gaddafi's words about injuries to civillians elsewhere. The task is as sensitive in terms of publicity as it is militarily.
We have engaged in 'no fly' zones on a number of occasions over the recent past and this has been the precursor to us having boots on the ground, something that cannot (by resolution) and must not (by design) occur with Libya.
We do need to take a look at providing the people with the means by which they can live and treat their ill and injured but of course supplying arms would, in my opinion, not only be wrong but would also be illegal because it would be actively bringing about a regime change. Mind you, I have a sneaky feeling that there might well be some nations who would not have problems with supplying cash and arms to the rebels through the back door (read Col. Tim Collin's 'Rules of engagement' and you'll get a better picture of what happens behind closed door and in the dark in places like Libya !).
I have heard no talk of the ceasefire and dialogue in the same breath or calls to Gaddafi to engage in dialogue with those who oppose his regime and I wonder why? I have heard people muttering about 'targeting Gaddafi' and wonder why? Are those who are ruling the air hoping to see the man overthrown by military means? Are they hoping Hilary Clinton's half-arsed hope that Gaddafi is going to leave in the middle of the night and become an exile at Butlins, Bognor Regis is true and consider this to be little more than a waiting game?
The first objective has been achieved - command and control has been greatly limited, the air defence systems and the air force have effectively been silenced and the ground forces are aware that big brother is watching them and able, should they continue with the murderous intent, to slap them about a bit. There are still some tanks, troops and snipers who need to be dealt with and whilst the former are a fairly easy target, the task of fighting in built-up areas (FIBUA) is difficult and not one that is easily dealt with from the air (unless one is willing to accept colateral damage, which of course we are not).
So now, as I see it, phase two consists of FIBUA and diplomacy. We do need to see the tanks shelling the hospital in Misrata silenced and the snipers need to stop their work. The first is potentially possible for the air and the second, if reports that some of the SF troops are on the rebel side are true, should be a relatively simple task if they can move them in from Bengazi.
The diplomacy side is less visible but is, I am sure, going on in the background and we can only wait (and pray) until something is unveiled. What we mustn't do is provide those who wish tom undermine the action with the capital that comes from the naysaying and negative attitudes that some are succumbing to - this is a monumental action on the part of the UN and it needs to be made to work to set the Un on a better direction that that of past years.
Pax
We have engaged in 'no fly' zones on a number of occasions over the recent past and this has been the precursor to us having boots on the ground, something that cannot (by resolution) and must not (by design) occur with Libya.
We do need to take a look at providing the people with the means by which they can live and treat their ill and injured but of course supplying arms would, in my opinion, not only be wrong but would also be illegal because it would be actively bringing about a regime change. Mind you, I have a sneaky feeling that there might well be some nations who would not have problems with supplying cash and arms to the rebels through the back door (read Col. Tim Collin's 'Rules of engagement' and you'll get a better picture of what happens behind closed door and in the dark in places like Libya !).
I have heard no talk of the ceasefire and dialogue in the same breath or calls to Gaddafi to engage in dialogue with those who oppose his regime and I wonder why? I have heard people muttering about 'targeting Gaddafi' and wonder why? Are those who are ruling the air hoping to see the man overthrown by military means? Are they hoping Hilary Clinton's half-arsed hope that Gaddafi is going to leave in the middle of the night and become an exile at Butlins, Bognor Regis is true and consider this to be little more than a waiting game?
The first objective has been achieved - command and control has been greatly limited, the air defence systems and the air force have effectively been silenced and the ground forces are aware that big brother is watching them and able, should they continue with the murderous intent, to slap them about a bit. There are still some tanks, troops and snipers who need to be dealt with and whilst the former are a fairly easy target, the task of fighting in built-up areas (FIBUA) is difficult and not one that is easily dealt with from the air (unless one is willing to accept colateral damage, which of course we are not).
So now, as I see it, phase two consists of FIBUA and diplomacy. We do need to see the tanks shelling the hospital in Misrata silenced and the snipers need to stop their work. The first is potentially possible for the air and the second, if reports that some of the SF troops are on the rebel side are true, should be a relatively simple task if they can move them in from Bengazi.
The diplomacy side is less visible but is, I am sure, going on in the background and we can only wait (and pray) until something is unveiled. What we mustn't do is provide those who wish tom undermine the action with the capital that comes from the naysaying and negative attitudes that some are succumbing to - this is a monumental action on the part of the UN and it needs to be made to work to set the Un on a better direction that that of past years.
Pax
Monday, 21 March 2011
Libya - Maintaining the resolution
The object of the UN resolution regarding Libya was to prevent the loss of of civilian life, not to effect or support regime change. Sadly today Defence Secretary Liam Fox proved that he just might not have the nous or experience to be occupying the job.
The reason for this, in my view, is that the silly person responded to his interviewer (who must have been overjoyed at the easy prize afforded him) regarding Gaddafi being targeted:
"Well, that would potentially be a possibility but you mention immediately one of the problems we would have, which is that you would have to take into account any civilian casualties that might result from that."
The aim has to be to get a ceasefire in place and to have the two sides engage in dialogue. Killing Gaddafi would quickly see any support from Arab nations vanish and the people of Libya harden their stance against the Western aggressors and make Gaddafi's 'masters of colonial conquest' claims take on a reality that is at present unfounded!
The Command and Control, Communications and Intelligence part of the mission has gone well and resulted in a weakened air defence and command structure. The stopping tanks in their tracks (literally) has posted a warning note to those forces acting under Gaddafi's control that they should cease. That some forces are advancing and progressing is something that needs to be dealt with but caution is the key here.
It would be foolish to see the coalition forces become little more than air cover for the rebel forces and it would be wrong to arm or permit these forces from grouping and forming up to engage the government forces. What we need is to effect a ceasefire and to encourage both sides to engage in dialogue. And should there be, as part of the democratic will of the Libyan people, a change of leadership, then it should come from within and be free from manipulation and political/military subversion on the part of any alien government.
Foreign Secretary, William Hague, needs to be a little more circumspect as well! His ill-measured words this morning supported what Liam Fox has said and this is obviously not the aim of the Un resolution and solidifies the thinking that Gaddafi is, and perhaps will be, viewed as a legitimate target.
Look at the resolution chaps and bring about the outcomes dictated by it. Neither add nor fall short of the required outcomes and we will see this as a shining page on the part of the UN. Fail and we will see a hardening of the Arab/Western world divide.
And speaking of integrity and rules of engagement (RoE) - I see that British aircraft pulled off from a bombing mission because there were civilians present. This is the integrity that needs to be maintained and displayed.
Keep praying people
The reason for this, in my view, is that the silly person responded to his interviewer (who must have been overjoyed at the easy prize afforded him) regarding Gaddafi being targeted:
"Well, that would potentially be a possibility but you mention immediately one of the problems we would have, which is that you would have to take into account any civilian casualties that might result from that."
The aim has to be to get a ceasefire in place and to have the two sides engage in dialogue. Killing Gaddafi would quickly see any support from Arab nations vanish and the people of Libya harden their stance against the Western aggressors and make Gaddafi's 'masters of colonial conquest' claims take on a reality that is at present unfounded!
The Command and Control, Communications and Intelligence part of the mission has gone well and resulted in a weakened air defence and command structure. The stopping tanks in their tracks (literally) has posted a warning note to those forces acting under Gaddafi's control that they should cease. That some forces are advancing and progressing is something that needs to be dealt with but caution is the key here.
It would be foolish to see the coalition forces become little more than air cover for the rebel forces and it would be wrong to arm or permit these forces from grouping and forming up to engage the government forces. What we need is to effect a ceasefire and to encourage both sides to engage in dialogue. And should there be, as part of the democratic will of the Libyan people, a change of leadership, then it should come from within and be free from manipulation and political/military subversion on the part of any alien government.
Foreign Secretary, William Hague, needs to be a little more circumspect as well! His ill-measured words this morning supported what Liam Fox has said and this is obviously not the aim of the Un resolution and solidifies the thinking that Gaddafi is, and perhaps will be, viewed as a legitimate target.
Look at the resolution chaps and bring about the outcomes dictated by it. Neither add nor fall short of the required outcomes and we will see this as a shining page on the part of the UN. Fail and we will see a hardening of the Arab/Western world divide.
And speaking of integrity and rules of engagement (RoE) - I see that British aircraft pulled off from a bombing mission because there were civilians present. This is the integrity that needs to be maintained and displayed.
Keep praying people
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)