If anything the current action by the "Coalition" over Libya seems to be stretching the UN mandate (i.e. No Fly zone and protection of civilians).
1. The Coalition airforces have acted as the de facto airforce for the rebel. They have bombed Libyan troops that have not been engaged in actions against civilians (includes military barracks in the south and various ammunition stores) as well as retreating Libyan forces.
They have even attacked naval patrol craft of limited military value.
2. Coalition is looking at ways of arming Libyan rebels despite a UN resolution prohibiting arms sales. Clinton herself has said that it is legal.
3. Coalition is also discussing provision of private contractors (akak mercernaries) to provide "training and support" to Libyan rebels as a way to bypass "no occupying force" clause in the .
4. Coalition has attacked all manner of Libyan government infrastructure including Gaddafhi's palaces thus in effect trying to
effect regime change, which is also not part of the UN provisions.
Now the resolutions allowing a No Fly Zone were only passed because China and Russia abstained from the vote. In addition 3 other major powers are opposed to the action: India, Brazil and Germany. The Arab League was not happy with the level of intervention and countries ala Saudi Arabia have been quick to support current Syrian government to counter any further Coalition action.
In essence the Coalition is making a mockery of the UN Resolutions in order to facilitate it's own goals.
So with NATO now blatantly bending UN resolutions to its own political agenda, how willing will be the permanent security council members China and Russia to allow future interventionism by NATO?
I suspect the UN will go back to it's Cold War days of being a useless blab fest.
The other scary thing is that NATO is starting to see itself as some sort of global enforcer as opposed to a defence mechanism.
This will probably spurs the up and coming BRICs (Brazil, India, China and Russia) to further strengthen their own military and political capabilities to thwart NATO interventionism.
So this action as well as failing operations in Afghanistan and Iraq will probably cause more divisions around the world and lead to a a more antagonistic world as opposed to creating one where countries work together to create security.
It's also disappointing that Obama has gone down this road. I can understand the corrupt, slimey weasels that are Cameron and Sarkozy to have backed this action to prop up their electoral prospects, but I was expecting Obama to tone down the American interventionism.
|
