Is the reason NATO's heartfelt concern over the rising Libyan death toll?
Courtesy of CNN, that appears to be the television sound bite to be dished out by NATO member politicians. Here's Simon Henderson (a senior fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy) on the rationale for NATO intervention in Libya:
"What's an acceptable number of civilian deaths? I don't know. Choose your figure," Henderson said. "At the very least, instead of having a casualty list certainly in the hundreds, possibly in the thousands, we don't want a casualty list numbering in the tens of thousands, or 100,000 or so."With all due respect, Simon, here's a figure for you: not-so-long ago NATO couldn't be bothered to lift a finger when approximately one million people were slaughtered in nearby Rwanda.
The below chart illustrates the real reason Libya's civil war matters more to the NATO powers that be than nearby Rwanda's:
 |
| (click to enlarge) |
Source: Economist
Exactly right. Intervention has no connection with civilian mortalities. I will watch this potential development with interest.
ReplyDeleteThe wheels of intervention are starting to turn. First stop, the media:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/01/opinion/01iht-edcotler01.html?_r=1
Sorry, forgot to add this from Brookings:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.brookings.edu/opinions/2011/0226_libya_shaikh.aspx
Good finds. Those two articles also frame an interesting juxtaposition of the United Nations and the Libyan crisis.
ReplyDeleteOn the one hand, the NY Times op-ed is advocating that the 'legitimate' UN Security Council enforce a no-fly zone over Libya and to formally recognize the Libyan rebels as the real 'Libya' nation.
On the other hand, the Brookings piece comments on the joke that is the UN's Human Rights Council, with a membership that includes not just Libya but also Bahrain and Saudi Arabia.
Can the UN operate with both legitimacy and trust on security matters given its deplorable human rights judgment? This seems to me to be a reasonable question.
My main point here simply is that trying to wrap moves such as a no-fly zone in the pseudo-legitimacy of the Security Council needs to be seen for what it is.
Well, it's been a couple of weeks, but it's all happening now. I think the US put the idea out there, let initial opposition run its (somewhat shaky) course, all the time lobbying for intervention. They've got their way. Only now it, as I suspect you anticipated, looks more like a full landbased intervention.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8388075/West-should-go-beyond-no-fly-zone-US-says.html
Still amazes me that so many 'liberal minded' have supported the implementation of a no fly zone with little or no understanding of the level of intervention that alone requires. Lives lost far away (and for a 'good' cause) are valued differently.