The War On Libya & The Responsibility To Protect

The moment you realise that you’re agreeing with those who’ve angered you to a point where spittle forms at the corners of your mouth as you’ve disparaged them as ‘crazy,’ and ‘imbeciles,’ is disquieting to say the least.

As the war drums started ringing their ominous tattoo in the corridors of the United Nations last week, it was with a great sense of confusion I watched as everyone I always agree with commentators, friends & Twitterati alike, cheered for a No-Fly Zone to be instituted over Libya. To put it plainly, as the Left started sounding like the Neo-Con war-mongering right. And when those I most vehemently disagree with started to express the opinion I held, that military intervention in Libya is a bad idea, well then I was truly disturbed.

Of course, it didn’t take much scratching beneath the surface to see that any agreement I had with the likes of the ANCYL was nothing but superficial, I do not believe that the “imposition of a No-Fly-Zone in Libya is meant to impose the West's takeover of Libya, because of its Oil endowments.”

In fact, to say – which I must admit I did a lot of on Twitter thanks to the brutality of 140characters – that I am against the military incursion in Libya, is misrepresentation of my opinion. Anyone who cast my lot with those who felt that foreign intervention in any form was wrong could hardly be blamed after the number of times I tweeted opinions similar to that.

In fact, for those holding that opinion, there is centuries of precedent. Since the advent of the nation-state, a states sovereignty being supreme has been a central notion in international relations, with the United Nations even entrenching that notion in their charter.

Of course all are entitled to their opinions, and as such I’d say, if not outright immoral, that position is at least amoral.

Again, that’s not a new idea. In 1948, two years later, recognising this, the United Nations espoused the first condition under which a state’s sovereignty could be impinged upon with it’s Genocide Convention.

Of course, what Gaddafi has done and continues to do despite his second declaration of a ceasefire in Libya is not genocide. Despite this, the vicious & brutal repression of a people seeking freedom from under the thumb of a dictator with a suspect handle of his mental faculties is near on just as odious. However, I still have my objections, or to be more precise, concerns.

My concerns with the Libya intervention are entirely on a point of principle; namely that military interventions on the grounds of humanitarian intervention though a principle fully and properly developed, is not applied equally.

In 2000, the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS) was founded and in 2001 released a report with the paradigm-shifting notion that the issue of humanitarian intervention should not be framed as a question of a ‘right to intervene,’ but rather as a ‘responsibility to protect.’

The UN took notice of ICISS’s report with an outcomes document which stated nations had a responsibility to protect their nations from “genocide, war crimes, ethic cleansing and wars against humanity” and by failing to do so made it the responsibility of the international community to do so. This report was ratified by all member states of the UN. However, the point where the problem became apparent was that this ratification was not legally binding.

In yesterday’s debate on Libya before the House of Commons, David Cameron called the decision of the international community to intervene in Libya a “breakthrough” and set a “precedent” in that it was the first time the UN had intervened in a nation based on the responsibility to protect.

If only this were true.

When asked if the international community is not intervening in Yemen, why should they in Libya, Cameron replied that “just because you cannot take action everywhere that does not mean you should not act where you can,” going so far as to quote Sadie Smith when she characterised that as the “why should I tidy my bedroom when the world’s such a mess theory of foreign policy.”

Cameron is right, failure to act in Yemen – and it is a failure – does not preclude action in Libya. However, his reply ignored the elephant in the room. It’s not so much a question of if they can intervene in Yemen – or Cote d’Ivoire and Bahrain for that matter – but a matter of do they want to? For as long as the ICISS’s report is not legally binding, guiding the United Nations where and when they have a responsibility to protect, the ‘why,’ question will continue to dog this and any other action the United Nations decides to take based on a responsibility to protect.

I may not agree that “war is a continuation of diplomacy,” but I am not anti-war. At times war has it’s place and is needed, and as Niall Ferguson wrote, “Make no mistake. Whatever the wording of the United Nations Security Council resolution, the United States (and the other allies) is at war with the Libyan government.” Though I agree that this is a necessary and just war, I am amongst the many who have been trying to answer the ‘why’ question, not at all believing that it’s out of an altruistic wish to protect the citizens of Libya.

If we believe that Human Rights are universal to all people, regardless of borders, we cannot deny that the international community has a responsibility to protect in certain instances and this is one. I wish I could fully support the action in Libya, to be frank, Gaddafi is an evil madman and I desperately want to. However, the only way all questions regarding what the ‘true motives’ behind this and other humanitarian interventions will be ended is if the application of a responsibility to protect is uniform, and that will only happen once the ICISS recommendations are made legally binding.

__________

For an in depth look at Humanitarian Intervention, ICISS and it’s report I recommend this Council of Foreign Relations paper: “The Dilemma of Humanitarian Intervention.”

The images for this post are of the USS Stout, launching a Tomahawk Missile from the Mediterranean on the 19^th of March and Obama receiving a secure briefing on the situation in Libya in Rio De Janeiro on the 20^th.

They're taken from AFRICOM’s flickr photostream which I'd also reccomend.

Barack Obama On Iraq: The Next George Bush?

Part of then presidential hopeful, Senator Barack Obama’s, platform was a steadfast promise to bring the troops home and pull out of Iraq. Though I was a supporter, I believed that the US had no choice but to remain in Iraq for a far longer term than what Senator Obama was selling to voters. But I was in on the secret. In all my infinite wisdom and jaded world weariness, I knew what Senator Obama’s true plan was. I knew that the Iraq war would never truly end. Yes, the war would ‘end,’ but with a long-term presence of American troops left in Iraq to ‘advise, assist & support Iraqi troops.’

In much the same way, Sarah Palin made the call on President Obama’s ‘hopey changey stuff,’ I made the call on Senator Obama’s electoral strategy on Iraq; rather than a bait & switch, it was a bait and hook. Show them what they want and give it to them, but with a till then unseen hook

Again, like Sarah Palin; I couldn’t have been more wrong.

Seven years, five months & twelve days after George W. Bush sat in the Oval Office and announced the start of America’s invasion of Iraq, Barack Obama sat in that very same office to announce the end of US combat operations in Iraq and reiterate the US’ agreement with Iraq to have a full troop pull-out by 2011. Perhaps remembering the ignominy that followed George Bush’s turn as a fighter pilot when he announced an end to ‘major combat operations,’ and stated the Iraq mission accomplished, the tone of Barack Obama’s address was far more sombre and presidential and far less John Wayne in the mould of Tom Cruise. Though Obama was being forthright in his campaign, however one has to wonder was this decision to pull-out is a decision many years too early, whether it is a decision that will one day come back to haunt Obama and but most importantly America.

The fact is, whilst there may be a largely irrelevant debate over whether this truly marks an ‘end’ to the US’ war in Iraq, or will that milestone only be truly reached in 2011 when all US troops have pulled out of Iraq, legally, and for all intents and purpose this US’ involvement in this war was finished, as promised, by Barack Obama when he made that address. As it ought to be, come 2012, Iraq will most probably not be an issue for Obama. However, undoubtedly part of Obama’s legacy, something that any US president holds dear and will fiercely defend, is this decision to end the Iraq War. Question is, though right now to America, this is one of the best things Obama has done, 5yrs, 10yrs down the line, will this be looked back on as one of the worst?

Despite the fact that the overwhelming majority of Americans support a troop pull-out, unlike Obama, polling also shows that Americans, neither believe that Iraqi security forces or the Iraqi government will be able to maintain the peace or successfully handle the political situation respectively. Having always had American troops to be the proverbial ‘security blanket,’ we can’t be certain just how the Iraqi troops will fare in handling Iraqi security. However, when it comes to the politics, the signs don’t bode well. Despite successfully holding elections earlier this year, Iraq, six months later, is still yet to form a government. Even more worrying is that much of the infighting between Iraqi politicians in forming their government is the very thing Barack Obama stated in his Oval Office address the Iraqi people have rejected; sectarianism, perhaps the greatest danger to Iraq’s future, which thus in turn presents a danger to America’s future as well.

Should the opinion of Americans be vindicated and the very tenuous peace, or rather, what passes for peace in Iraq fails to hold, what then? There of course, is the possibility that what America already sees as the ‘maligning influence,’ of Iran in Iraq may increase. In comparison to the worst case, and not at all far-fetched scenario, that outcome, would most probably be seen as a victorious. What most analysts fear, and some believe may occur, is that Iraq could become a failed state, particularly a failed state on the order of Somalia and Pakistan; a state where Al-Qa’ida has been able to gain a foothold and from there launch its operations. Even though the focus is on ‘home-grown terrorists,’ as George Santayana wrote, “those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” Yes, Al-Qa’ida in Pakistan is focused on Pakistan & Al-Qa’ida is Somalia is focused on Somalia, but on the 10^th of September 2001, general thought on Al-Q’aida in Afghanistan was that it to, was just focused on Afghanistan. The next day we all saw the danger they can pose regardless where they’re based.

The history books are littered with cases of the leaders who took decisive actions against the advice and warnings of many only to be proven to have miscalculated greatly, quite fitting, the most recent example is of course George W. Bush, who seven years, five months & eleven days ago to Obama’s address, decisively invaded Iraq. The arguments against a pullout in Iraq are far less widespread and in the face of the losses the US has faced in Iraq this is understandably so, nevertheless the arguments do exist. Despite the belief of those who support those arguments there is no way of knowing what will happen in an Iraq without the US, and we will have to wait and see if Barack Obama will come to rue sitting in the Oval Office to make an announcement on Iraq in as much as George Bush surely must.

Barack Obama: Homophobe in Chief…

Judge Vaughn Walker, in handing down his ruling on California’s gay marriage ban, Proposition 8, marked the 4^th of August 2010 as yet another historic day in the long battle for the recognition and protection of equal rights in the US. Whether they praised or decried the decision, across America reactions poured in recognising the historic nature of this ruling. Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, in her reaction recognised the two basic rights Propostion 8 violated, and referred to it as, “a stain upon the California constitution.” California’s Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, himself an opponent of Proposition 8, closed his statement saying, “Today’s decision is by no means California’s first milestone, nor our last, on America’s road to equality and freedom for all people.” From President Obama, the silence was deafening. The only reaction was the following statement from a spokesperson, “The President has spoken out in opposition to Proposition 8 because it is divisive and discriminatory. He will continue to promote equality for LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual & Transsexual) Americans.”

The reaction from ‘LGBT Americans,’ to that can be characterised overall being a resigned sigh. Murmurs of confusion and discontent on his LGBT credentials have tailed President Obama for a while now. Most of those murmurs, which are now escalating to outright denouncements, have been heard in primary from the LGBT media, but even now, the mainstream media is noticing this spreading zeitgeist.

As ­­­­­­­­­­­­­former Massachusetts State Senator,­ Jarrett Barrios, President of the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) questioning whether to accept an invitation to the White House’s first ever event commemorating the Stonewall Riots, the political coming out of the LGBT community put it: “The problem is that I haven’t been as excited as I’d like to be about President Obama. I’d been excited by Candidate Obama. His campaign invited people like me and my husband Doug…into has aspirational vision of America the possible.” In running for office, Barack Obama promised many things, some attainable, some not, but most, falling into a murky grey in-between area. As candidate Obama, his LGBT positions were progressive and sympathetic to the cause, but once President Obama, there has been a marked lack of action on many of these promises.

A sad reality is that in American politics, LGBT issues tend to fall into that murky grey area though there is one that isn’t; ‘Don’t Ask Don’t Tell,’ (DADT), the US military’s gay-ban. Whilst Obama using presidential powers may not be able to repeal DADT, as the repeal of this policy slowly makes its way through Congress Obama does have the power to stop its implementation, and has he? The answer to that question is a sad, expected and disappointing, no. With 80% of Americans being in favour of a repeal of DADT, scores of mainstream Republicans have also come out in favour of its repeal. This leaves Obama, who in public iterates support for such a move, and has the power to at the least to stop its implementation with the single signing of an executive order, having done nothing to support this policy.

As his time in office passes, the true image of Obama’s views on LGBT issues, despite his stated policies is starting to emerge, and the image, in light of his actions, and inactions, is a disquieting one. However, perhaps even more disquieting is the opinion, that, no, Obama is not putting forth a homophobic agenda, but rather is playing politics with basic civil rights.

In 1996, he is known to have been in favour of gay marriage. However, the higher his political aspirations have been, the further he has shifted from this unpopular position. In 2004, he then was quoted as saying he didn’t support gay marriage, and favoured civil unions, but only for strategic purposes (to advance the cause for equal rights). Though couched in politically correct language, the message is basic and as ugly as it always has been; separate but equal.

But the drift didn’t stop there. By the time he ran for office, he was stating that personally, he believed that marriage ‘is between a man & a woman,’ and that it is a ‘religious’ matter and a ‘state’ issue. Today, we are now in an even more perplexing position. By Sunday, Obama’s administration has to indicate whether it plans to appeal a decision to appeal a ruling that found an element of yet another odious piece of homophobic legislation, the Defence of Marriages Act (DOMA) unconstitutional. Disappointingly, the signs are that they will, despite, yet again, Obama’s official policy being that DOMA should be repealed.

In a memorable, though nonetheless contrived piece of dialogue, from The Interpreter, Nicole Kidman’s character opines to Sean Penn’s that she is ‘disappointed,’ in the politician the movie revolves around. He replies; “Disappointed is a lover’s word.” He’s right, ‘disappointed’ is a lover’s word. That ‘disappointed’ is a word that is often used in describing Barack Obama by the left of American politics and specifically the LGBT community is telling.

Whilst to call him ‘homophobe in chief,’ may be too early a call to make, and one to harsh to be ever made, the facts are as follows. Obama presented himself as someone who could be relied on to advance the LGBT cause, that his election to the Presidency and the passing of Proposition 8 came on the same night, lessened the blow of Proposition 8. However, nearing two years into his Presidency, it is time that some serious focus is placed on this image. He says the right things, but it’s time to recognise the reality; his inactions and most damning, his actions speak volumes. Perhaps it is time for the LGBT Americans to take that disappointment and channel it into a politician who will champion the LGBT cause with real action, not just one who does so with soaring, inspiring, yet ultimately and disappointingly, empty rhetoric.