Egypt and the Middle East Thread 6

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

But Russia and China would be vociferous in their condemnation of such a multilateral group.

So what, if the alternative is a crazy guy doing mass slaughter in the streets? And in any case, we don't know that, and it might well depend on who that grouping was, and exactly what Gaddafi was doing at the time that led that group to go in. I'm not advcoating that now. I'm simply pointing out that even if it got to the point where most folks would want something done, the arthritic U.N. acts too slowly anyway.

[Altherion]

Actually, Medvedev has condemned Ghadafi in very strong terms, essentially accusing him of crimes against humanity. Thus, the only country that can stop the Security Council from acting is China. I'm pretty confident the UN will issue a weapons embargo and possible forbid the travel of members of the regime. I don't think they will try to close Libya's airspace though.

[Sophelia]

Actually, Medvedev has condemned Ghadafi in very strong terms, essentially accusing him of crimes against humanity. Thus, the only country that can stop the Security Council from acting is China. I'm pretty confident the UN will issue a weapons embargo and possible forbid the travel of members of the regime. I don't think they will try to close Libya's airspace though.

BBC's correspondant at the UN speculates pretty much same as you about the UN.

The only thing I can see still being suggested which might have some impact would be if the countries from which Gaddafi's mercenaries have been recruited agree to take some action, and recall the mercenaries somehow. I don't know which countries these would be and whether they would/could do that. Anyone else more clued up?

ETA: Quick research suggests of course nothing so simplistic. Nobody really even knows if there are definitely people brought in from outside, or whether these are people who have settled in Libya and gained citizenship and may be scapegoats or thugs, depending on point of view. (The second link explains the bond with Mandela a little more, among other things, really giving the view that the political map of the world is more decided by leaders' personal networking and military/monetary gifts than anything else :stillsick: )

[Padraig]

I'm simply pointing out that even if it got to the point where most folks would want something done, the arthritic U.N. acts to slowly anyway.

True. And that's why I said that if the US really wanted to do something it would skip over the UN. So I don't see any harm. Outside of the US, there is a certain amount of prestige attached to a UN SC resolution. Unlike a unilateral US position.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

True. And that's why I said that if the US really wanted to do something it would skip over the UN.

Oh, everyone tends to get really pissed at us when we do that, just on principle.

Outside of the US, there is a certain amount of prestige attached to a UN SC resolution. Unlike a unilateral US position.

Agreed, but since that shit takes too long, it's not much good in a situation where fast action is required. And I have to say, I'm rather disappointed nobody commented on my Eddings reference. Those books became unbearable to me because I just wanted someone to (slowly) saw the head off "Aunt Pol", which rather mirrors my view with respect to the U.N.. itself.

[mormont]

It seems kind of futile to me to criticise the UN for the fact that it's basically taking the same line as NATO, the US, the UK and indeed everyone else. Words of condemnation for attacks on civilians is as far as anyone has been willing to go on Libya, for various reasons.

[Padraig]

Oh, everyone tends to get really pissed at us when we do that, just on principle.

Then I don't get your point. Do you think people wouldn't get pissed at the US if the UN didn't exist? I understand your frustration at the US. But its like being frustrated at democracy. I haven't seen credible alternatives.

Things are still very dangerous in Libya. Gaddafi's son has claimed that their forces are holding back because they hope to negotiate a ceasefire. That's unbelievable.

But there is talk of a renewed assault on Zawiya tonight. Libya's ambassador to the UN has defected to the anti-Gaddafi cause. It was strange earlier on in the week when there was a schism between the ambassador and the depute ambassador.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Then I don't get your point. Do you think people wouldn't get pissed at the US if the UN didn't exist?

Actually, yes. Or at least not as pissed on principle. When bad things happen internationally, the natural reaction on the part of a great many people -- as evidenced in this very thread -- is "let's turn it over to the U.N. to handle", because that's what the U.N. supposedly was created to do. And if a country acts internationally outside the auspices of the U.N., it appears to be ignoring a supposedly "higher authority" established by the community of nations. That was the big-time cry from a great many people in 2002-2003 -- that an action is illegitimate precisely because it was not U.N. approaved.

In the absence of the U.N., multilateral operations would be the only way bad things would ever get handled. And because there would be no officially designated "higher authority", that particular criticism would carry no weight. The alternative would be either multilateral (or even unilateral) action, or nothing. So such actions wouldn't carry the same stigma of "ignoring" or "usurping" the role of the U.N. that they carry today.

[IheartTesla]

It seems kind of futile to me to criticise the UN for the fact that it's basically taking the same line as NATO, the US, the UK and indeed everyone else. Words of condemnation for attacks on civilians is as far as anyone has been willing to go on Libya, for various reasons.

The US government just announced it will impose sanctions on Libya and has suspended embassy operations (although the embassy is still open so talks could take place).

[litechick]

I'm not sure exactly what you are suggesting would be best. (Don't worry if you don't have time to answer. Just rambling to myself really :P)

I don't have a suggestion. I think Obama will do fine. My other point was really just unprovoked cynicism.

And so you should. That's what I was trying to say upthread. This guy is just unreal. He's such a train wreck and such a caricature.

If there were any justice in this world he would be taken out of power and forced into some kind of reality TV show for the rest of his days.

I would like for him to be confined 40 hours per week to an audience room where anyone could book an appointment and come in and tell him what they think of him--complete with pictures, graphs, and video.

[Slyfinger]

I would like for him to be confined 40 hours per week to an audience room where anyone could book an appointment and come in and tell him what they think of him--complete with pictures, graphs, and video.

Ouch. A mirror would be such an appropiate punishment. My inebriation is telling me that, aside from a death penalty, this would be the best... reconditioning for the crazy hat man.

But then again I'm drunk out of my mind and it took me 25 minutes to type this whole thing out. Then again, fuck the crazy hat man.

[KAH]

I've been trying to find this out too (though only in a lazy way). An Italian journalist writing for the Guardian reckoned that protesters and Gaddafi-fanatics were about 50:50 in Tripoli: presumably fewer of the latter in most other places. This article by an academic which I just found suggests he has about 20,000 hardcore fighters on his side (that's really not good at all).

That's an interesting article, and overoptimistic suggestions does not necessarily discredit what is served as facts in it.

In Gaddafi's place, I would prioritize Tripoli over everything else - as soon as he loses the capital, he's finished.

It does not matter if he has 20 000 revolutionary guards and a hundred thousand mercs and a hundred billion oil dollars; if he loses the capital, he has no way of keeping everything together, the logistics will unravel. Loyalists and mercs can't eat money, and they will abandon him if he can't supply them. There's already a lot of worry that the Libyan populace as such faces impending hunger because of the chaos that's gripping Libya - of course, that will be a worry for Gaddafi's opponents as well.

I guess Gaddafi might have enough manpower to keep Tripoli under wraps, but the downside for him is that he might hesitate to move these forces out of the capital. If he can supply and use the mercs effectively from Tripoli, his best shot is to take out the rebels piecemeal - that is alas still feasible, if difficult. As long as there is no good co-ordination among Gaddafi's opposition, he's still facing a lot of small opponents in stead of one big opponent, so there's still scope to take out some opponents and lure others back into the fold.

Basically, if he can't keep Tripoli quiet and orderly enough to keep the logistics going, he's gone...if he can pacify the capital, he's got a chance, but at this point my bet's that Gaddafi won't win this. I guess there might be an outside chance that he can retire into the interior of Libya and try a guerrilla war from there (I think Coco mentioned he has some support with the Tuareg population), but I don't think that will suffice to stage a comeback unless his opponents start fighting it out with eachother (which also, alas, is a possibility - lots of tribal rivalry going on).

I don't really think he will use chemical weapons, even if he's got any - I actually think he would have used them by now if that was an option.

[KAH]

In Iraq, the biggest refinery has been attacked and is burning. That's not going to be good news for oil importers...

Meanwhile, Iraqi protesters are not telling their government to go, but to get their shit together.

[Padraig]

There is no good reason why the East shouldn't be supplied with foods. It seems relatively peaceful over there. Its in the West where all the fighting is. The cities on either side of Tripoli (Misrata and Zawiya) seem to be in the hands of the opposition, although its tense there. There has been fighting in Tripoli also, so Gaddafi has generally been in retreat since this began.

My only doubt about the opposition is that I don't really know who they are. We know much of the army has defected but not sure are they actively fighting it out.

In the absence of the U.N., multilateral operations would be the only way bad things would ever get handled. And because there would be no officially designated "higher authority", that particular criticism would carry no weight. The alternative would be either multilateral (or even unilateral) action, or nothing. So such actions wouldn't carry the same stigma of "ignoring" or "usurping" the role of the U.N. that they carry today.

Ok. Fair enough. But in the globalised world we live, its inescapable that the UN woulnd't exist in some form. Somebody must have graphed the interconnectedness of the world over the last couple of centuries. We have got global corporations, global charities, global airline alliances, global sporting organisations, global TV stations...more all the time. Not having an organisation of national governments is an option? Not realy.

Realistically, you can only wish for a reformed UN.

And in fact, the US is often quite happy to defer to this "higher authority". In Libya's case, I don't think it really wants to get involved in a potentially messy conflict there.

[IheartTesla]

I imagine the problem with multilateral actions is that it will always tend to be slower than unilateral actions. Although I suppose the case can be made (for the US say) that any actions they take would have to be approved by their own legislative bodies which might also end up being slow. Or is that not accurate? It did appear as though US sanctions happened by executive order but military action like a no fly zone might be a different matter?

Anyway, the UN is too slow when it comes to events that require immediate action. I guess thats a fact of life we just have to live with.

Have any European nations imposed punitive sanctions against Libya? I know the UK stopped all arms and crowd control device sales. The real key would be stopping purchase of oil, EU members are the biggest consumers from what I understand.

[KAH]

There is no good reason why the East shouldn't be supplied with foods. It seems relatively peaceful over there. Its in the West where all the fighting is. The cities on either side of Tripoli (Misrata and Zawiya) seem to be in the hands of the opposition, although its tense there. There has been fighting in Tripoli also, so Gaddafi has generally been in retreat since this began.

My only doubt about the opposition is that I don't really know who they are. We know much of the army has defected but not sure are they actively fighting it out.

Well, if no one's paying, food generally is not supplied. Benghazi protesters may have control over the city, but Libya as an entity is non-functional right now. Those who depend on government paychecks and handouts are not receiving them anymore, fuel lines may be severed, etc. Peace alone may not be enough for the east to be properly supplied, unless aid is shipped in.

Of course, active fighting will exacerbate such conditions, so the west may be in even worse conditions.

[Sophelia]

Have any European nations imposed punitive sanctions against Libya? I know the UK stopped all arms and crowd control device sales.

Should have stopped decades ago.

The real key would be stopping purchase of oil, EU members are the biggest consumers from what I understand.

All I have heard is that Germany's Green party are calling for people to boycott petrol stations which are supplied by Libya.

Would refusing to buy Libyan oil (1) have a fast enough effect to worry Gaddafi in the next few days? and (2) not make the situation worse for the people of Libya?

[IheartTesla]

I just read on the Guardian live blog that Cameron and other European leaders have agreed to take harsh action against the Libyan regime. As KAH points out, the sale of oil may stop of its own accord because Libya is essentially a non-functioning country. So while it might be a somewhat symbolic gesture, the goal would be to 'peel away' members of Gaddafi's inner cohort who are in for the long haul that it is a losing cause.

About the no-fly zone, a lot of the callers into CNN's programme's from within Libya seemed to be in favor of it as opposed to boots on the ground deposing Gaddafi. But I think I heard France seemed to have some objections to it. Don't know what's up with that.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

In Iraq, the biggest refinery has been attacked and is burning. That's not going to be good news for oil importers...

Meanwhile, Iraqi protesters are not telling their government to go, but to get their shit together.

Refinery -- bad.

The other part isn't quite as bad, though. Violence sucks, but at least they're bitching about the goverment they elected, which really is no different what the rest of us living in democratic countries do.

[KAH]

Would refusing to buy Libyan oil (1) have a fast enough effect to worry Gaddafi in the next few days? and (2) not make the situation worse for the people of Libya?

Libyan oil exports largely halted already.

Gaddafi is probably more worried about continued access to his own private war chest (after his debacle with Switzerland, I guess he did not entrust them with his money anymore, but I am sure he has alternatives), which is bound to be multi-billion dollar sized.

As for the Libyan people, well, his supporters would receive their share from the war chest, and the opponents would receive nothing, so no big change for either party. Oil is used as a more long-term bugaboo by the likes of Seif - "No order - no oil - no money!".