The missiles were fired over the weekend when we were probably out having food with friends and good company. They were aimed at Libya after the United Nations Security Counsel passed a resolution that enabled a ‘no fly zone’ over Libya and also permitted member nations to use ‘all necessary measures’ to protect civilians in the country.
A quick refresh will explain why: Colonel Muammar Gaddafi (the spelling of his name differs and you may choose to use whichever suits) has ruled Libya with an idiosyncratic iron fist for more than 40 years. He has been at once bizarrely kind to (some of) the people and awfully cruel. The East of the North African country (which neighbours Egypt) has been long suffering at his hands and this explains why the ‘rebel’ (read: anti Gaddafi) forces amassed there first before attempting to move across the country. Remember our cheat sheet? You can refresh on some of the earlier stuff right there to get your head around it.
Operation ‘Odyssey Dawn’ began over the weekend. Here is how the SMH has reported it:
“The US, Britain and France pounded Libya with Tomahawk missiles and air strikes into the early hours of Sunday, sparking fury from Moamer Kadhafi who declared the Mediterranean to be a “battlefield”.
In the West’s biggest intervention in the Arab world since the 2003 US-led invasion of Iraq, launched exactly eight years earlier, US warships and a British submarine fired at least 110 Tomahawk cruise missiles into Libya on Saturday, the US military said.
A defiant Kadhafi said on Sunday in a radio address that all Libyans were armed and ready to fight until victory to defeat what Libya has branded a “barbaric aggression.”
Those missiles, by the way, cost anywhere between $600,000 and $1.5 million a pop so this doesn’t appear to be a frivolous exercise in making symbolic moves to counter an anti-humane Government. It was the real deal. Having said that, many have criticised the United Nations for acting too slowly when civilians in Libya where dying at the hands of or held by the Gaddafi regime.
The uprising against Gaddafi began on February 15 and has been growing in intensity with the regime invoking bloody retaliation measures against the rebels. The increasingly violent clashes and brutality of the regime finally prompted the United Nations Security Counsel to vote on measures to halt the violence. That vote carried 10-0 with member states. There were five absentions, notably from China and Russia which both have veto powers.
Top Comments
The funny thing (figure of speech) is that most of gaddaffi's money is probably invested in European countries, so essentially the freezing of his assets means he can't pull out all of the money out of European economies. And this is probably another reason why he has been tolerated for so long. I think the West has a habit of only undergoing early interventions if their is no economic repercussions. Here is an article that touches on the subject (Its a bit confusing, for me anyway, will need to read it a few more times to fully understand I think) - http://www.guardian.co.uk/c...
Anway, back to what I was saying...Why does the West continue to let evil dictators launder their people's money into their countries??????? I think this would be a good way to stop a lot of the atrocities in the world. Its like how supposedy Murbank (Egyptian former president toppled in revolution) was said to be the richest man in the world, apparently worth an estimated $80 billion!!!! WTF????).
Also, I was just wondering if you could let us know who are the UN Security Council member nations? And which ones voted yes and no. I don't think the US, France and Britain should be blamed (can't think of a better word) for the action taking place. Essentially they were the only countries who voted yes that are committed to carrying out what they have agreed to do.
As for whether the action is right or not. I am undecided. I knew that that the Libiyan's were trying get rid of Gaddaffi, but I have only just started reading about the situation to have an informed opinion on the matter.
On a whole different somewhat unrelated OMM matter, I am also African-born and was wanting to go and visit my family during Christmas holidays this year, but I think I will pass just in case all this action has a cascading effect. The last thing I would want is to be stuck in the middle of a conflict and have no way of getting out. A bit of a shame really as it has been well over a decade since I have gone back.
Ok Just looked up the Security Council Members, who knew Google would give me the answer I need...lol :)
5 Permanenet (only members with veto power - whatever the hell that means):
China
France
Russian Federation
UK
US
10 tempoarary (year ending in brackets):
Bosnia and Herzegovina (2011)
Brazil (2011)
Columbia (2012)
Gabon (2011)
Germany (2012)
India (2012)
Lebanon (2011)
Nigeria (2011)
Portugal (2012)
South Africa (2012)
More info here - http://www.un.org/sc/member...
The security resolution (and all others for 2011 so far) can be found here - http://www.un.org/Docs/sc/u...
can't find who voted yes or no or abstained besides Russia and China. But 10 members voted yes, which means some of The African members voted yes, which is a suprise as the African Union had wanted to send in a delegation in to have talks with Gaddaffi. Who knows how these things work???
Is there a limit on how many links we can put in a post? As I just spent ages typing in the members and their end dates (first world problem I know), and a couple of links to the security council website. I don't think I said anything bad. Can you retreive my post and put it up??? :)
Veto power refers to the ability to override the decisions made by the Security Council.
That is, regardless of what the final vote count is, if a country with veto power decides to vote against a bill, it can't be passed.
Oh, and by the way, China, Russia, Brazil, Germany and India were the nations that abstained.
There are many in the US who have little time for deferring to the authority of the UN. US excesses (and disasters) in the past should have made them cautious about intervening and thankfully, under Obama, caution has prevailed.
At least this time the intervention is backed by a reasonably solid UN vote and without US (or British) bullying.
Hopefully this bodes well for the future.