In a move preceded by acrimonious argument, the United Nations Security Council voted by 10 to none, with five abstentions, for a no-fly zone throughout Libyan airspace — and Libya caved in by announcing acceptance of the resolution as well as a ceasefire. The no-fly zone, from which aid flights would be exempt, is backed by authority to member states to “take all necessary measures” to enforce compliance; this is diplomatic code for military action. In addition, the Security Council has widened the existing U.N. asset freeze and arms embargo against Tripoli and called on member states to stop mercenaries going to Libya. An occupation force is expressly excluded. The resolution would almost certainly have failed had the League of Arab States (the Arab League), the African Union, and the Secretary-General of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference not already condemned Libyan violations of human rights and international law. Muammar Qadhafi's first response was, in fact, a mindless rant: he said “no mercy” would be shown to residents of Benghazi who resisted him and also threatened retaliatory targeting of all air and maritime traffic in the Mediterranean.
The possibility of air strikes against one's own people, combined with Mr. Qadhafi's imprecations, might bring to mind the widely publicised possibility raised in 2009 of Indian Air Force action against Maoists, which would surely affect civilians as well; this was quickly ruled out. The Libyan strongman's threats, however, were of a quite different order, especially in the context of his regime's acts of brutality against its own people. As for the U.N. Security Council, while its tough stance might have worked for now, the course of action indicated in the resolution is deeply flawed. Jana, the official Libyan news agency, has reported that government forces might cease military operations on Sunday so that rebels could hand over weapons; a “general decision on amnesty” has also been mentioned. It is not clear what kind of Libyan action would qualify as sufficient compliance for the resolution not to be implemented. A no-fly zone would not stop Tripoli's ground troops and armour from advancing on and attacking rebel-held areas; the 1990s NATO no-fly zone in Bosnia failed, with terrible consequences for civilians. Finally, the Security Council resolution has no clear political objective. Is it to protect rebels or all Libyan civilians? Remove Mr. Qadhafi in what will amount to regime change? Something else? The U.N. has not even waited to hear from its Special Envoy to Libya. External military intervention in Libya would be both wrong and disastrous. Given the murky circumstances, India has done well to express its reservations and abstain in the Security Council vote.
Keywords: UN Security Council, Qadhafi, Libya turmoil, political turmoil, political crisis, unilateral ceasefire
India should have said yes or no. What is that staying in between the rope , you have to go either way.... There was a space where India should have shown its leadership and respect to human beings. If this is the situation then what happens if India takes some strict measure again terrorist in Kashmir?
While imposition of a no flying zone is alright, any further military action by the west would be uncalled for and shouldn't be taken without the prior consent of the indigenous rebels. Its true that the rebels were the ones who first called for western intervention but for the United Nations it is important that their presence in Libya should be seen as a helping hand rather than an attempt to invade. Every action taken by them is being closely monitored and even a slight hint of invasion would turn the rebels against them.That would also undermine the basis noble cause -desire for social and political freedom -because of which the rebellion took place in the first place.So great discretion is required by the United States and other western countries in deciding further course of action.
Qadhafi's tyraany must be shown it's worthy place, I think UN had put forward the right step to put down the Qadhafi's regime. But at the same time it was quite thoughtful from Indian prespective to remain indifferent from this cacophony. It is not the time to give ethical point and proving to be myopic as India sees itself as one of the future power nation where for all the power it is dependent on Arab nations.
That fact that Quadhafi, Saddam Hussain, Kim Jong-il etc., are evil do not necessarily make David Cameron, Nicolas Sarkozy, Tony Blair, George Bush, Jose Alfredo Aznar Lopez, John Howard and their ilk angels. In fact, while the former group are tinpot dictators suppressing their own people, the latter form a more efficient and effective killing machine, plundering, pillaging, murdering and massacring innocent people on a massive, global scale with cluster bombs, depleted uranium, dioxin etc., and term civilian deaths with semantic obfuscation as arising from friendly fire and collateral damage.
It's certainly not a brave act from Indian government to refrain from voting and condemning the military invasion in the Libyan territory. It just reflects cowardice towards the grave situation the Libyan civilians and the opposition are facing and just to appease a particular sect for the sake of vote bank politics. Representing a responsible nation, the GOI should have supported the sanction and back the UN.
This is one more autocracy. West and US always conceal its interest behind their action and presenting/presented myth to the world. Example and Question-: Iraq was invaded on the concern of WMD. Result- hundreds of thousand of its civilian killed/died in military operation but where is WMD? Than if WMD has been not found hence question is, who is responsible/accountable for those hundreds of thousand lives (Babies, old people,Young boys,children,& women etc) who left this world. I condemn any action of against humanity, Yes i condemn Qadhafi action but in the mean time I condemn action of west also. Two wrongs can't be right. Why not they (US & WEST) prefer diplomacy on Libya for peaceful solution of their on going crisis? Can WEST/NATO assure that their action will not harm innocent? Can WEST/NATO assure their TOMAHAWK missile will differentiate wrong and right people? If really WEST want peace harmony and happiness in common men lives then they have to choose Africa and those nations where the basic requirement is not available for human life. If west is so concerned about innocent life than why they are not serious about Palestine? If really West wants to prevail justice, peace ,harmony and happiness then why they are not dismantling their Nuclear warheads? Our country stands with those who had reservation on military action. Our country has taken correct stand.
You cannot claim to be a world leader or wanting to be one and keep ducking on moral responsibilities. It is easy to abstain. What a great leadership that is - get kudos from both sides! For once real change is happening in the Middle East. India lost a valuable opportunity not only to prove itself as a leader by taking genuinely some side but also failed to support an action to assist the people seeking genuine change, democracy, freedom and better lives.
If anybody supports the use of force against Libya to stop massacre of civilians and pro-democracy fighters. Can you justify the double standards that these Messiahs of democracy practice.? Why did all these 'Leaders' keep mum when the Israelis were butchering Gazans in Jan-2009? Israel has never faced any Tribunal or Sanctions for War-Crime of killing more than 1500 Gazans , an overwhelming majority of them being women,old and children who were taking shelter in School/Hospital Buildings.
Qadhafi is an evil man. It is wrong to think of him as crazy. When will this newspaper warm up to the freedom craving native people of Libya? Even the Islamic and African nations have exhorted the UN Security Council to act decisively against Qadhafi. If outside countries do not intervene there would be genocide. Newspaper op ed writers need to remember what Krishna said to Arjuna: stand up and fight, and that is your duty! I hope you all do not think what is going on in Libya is a spectator sport. I hope India drops its 'Chaltha Hai' attitude and shows the moral clarity of Mahatma Gandhiji and Pandit Nehru at least in condemning the evil forces. The world's noisiest and most spectacular democracy should not be on mute alongside Russia and China -- the two countries that do not give freedom to its own people. Shame on this abstention vote from India.
As usual India has hedged its bets and your editorial perfectly captures it's ambiguous feeling regarding democracy and human rights. If India expects it to be taken seriously in the world as a democracy, it has to take a stand when human rights are violated as wantonly as in Libya. If we won't take a stand now, then when will we? How can India's word be taken seriously in Western democracies when we always hedge our bets, be it Burma, Egypt, Bahrain or Libya.
Seriously?! The situation is still unclear after decades of obvious oppression and misrule by Gaddafi family. That Libya's foreign representatives defected from the regime at grave consequences to themselves, doesn't provide clarity. What is super clear is that if nothing is done, the movement will be crushed and many innocent people will be sent to mass graves. As an Indian I'm ashamed to read such pathetic excuses for a pathetic position by Indian government. What's clear is a lack of a clear conscience that stems from tyrannical dealings that Indian government has with portions of its own population.
This NO FLY ZONE is the outcome of FAILED leadership and diplomacy. I don't believe that ITALY was used to its complete potential to exercise all the diplomacy options. You are right, in 1995, the no-fly zone did not stop the Srebrenica massacre. By knowing dictators, kind of psychos, this is a wrong STEP from UN, US, Britain and France, particularly against an armed dictator. The cost could be USD $300m per week, in this economy. Hope this will end soon and civilians will not be victims !!!
I beg to differ with THE HINDU on its opposition to military option in Libya. It is true that whatever happens in a soverign country is its internal problem , and no country has the right to impose its will on other countries. Having said that, the above cardinal principle can be re-looked under certain extreme, conditions when there is a possibility of human catastrophe or mass murder of innocent and unharmed people. I feel the West led by the US have taken the proper step in sending in combat planes into Libya after the due process of warning Qudhafi to adhere to ceasefire and desist from moving on a course of 'punishing his own people for their sins' , their only sin being , raising against him peacefully and asking him to go.As an eminent Daily which espouses the cause of democracy all over the world, 'THE HINDU' should not be seen to be supportive of tyrants and despots like the Libyan leader , in this case, since he has out-lived his time and should have made an honourable exit. i think Mubarak was quick to realise this and did the right thing by his people. I must add, however, that the US and West must step back after Qudhafi is thrown out and let the Libyans choose their own leader in a democratic process. Iam not sure, however, why US should be attacking a leader of the Muslim world, who openly declares Al-Quida as his 'Enemy' and a plotter to de-stablise his regime, since it will be in their(US) interests to keep him on.Looks like the strategic interests of US is taking a beating in the Gulf with the exit of the likes of Mubarak and Qudhafi from the scene, and if democracy flourishes in the Gulf , it will be at the cost of US national interests ,since 'anti-americanism' on the streets is very much evident in the Gulf , irrespective of any Arab country. I guess Obama should have better Advisers to tackle the Gulf conundrum....otherwise US may loose its foot-hold there, and that may have repercussions to the rest of the third world countries like India, since the 'energy oil, flows only from there.
India did well to abstain! India once again proved it has no world vision nor backbone and has failed to take the morally right decision. The move to abstain was purely driven by considerations of 'oil' and not wanting to risk a fallout with the oil exporting Arab nations. Depressing and totally unbecoming of a supposedly advancing democratic world power. India missed a golden opportunity to show its leadership on the world stage by failing to take the morally correct decision.
India wants to be part of the UN Security Council. If India is going to look at all sides of the issue, and be scared of the West, scared of the Muslim countries, scared of its neighbors and scared of Kashmir issue, and abstain from voting, then why does it want to be in the security council at all? India should have voted yes or no, not just abstain, to show the world that it is serious about taking part in world decisions.
Please Email the Editor