Why is the UN Taking Sides in Libya?

[Bill Thompson]

Why is the UN Taking Sides in Libya? From what I have seen the UN is being very anti-Khadaffi. Why is this? Shouldn't they stay neutral in this conflict?

 

[Darth Rotor]

Why is the UN Taking Sides in Libya? From what I have seen the UN is being very anti-Khadaffi. Why is this? Shouldn't they stay neutral in this conflict?

Are you familiar with the cult of the underdog?

It is how Israel accrued some international support in its striving for national identity, how Bosnian Muslims attracted aid from outside their borders, likewise the Kosovars. You might be surprised at how underdog Hamas plays against big bad Israel, in Persia or in numerous Arab states.

Those are just a few examples. There are others.

The UN has come out on the side of the perceived underdogs, but also, on the side of there being open elections. The UN has had a long track record of supporting valid and open elections, although sometimes it appears that the UN pretends that having an election means that democracy has arrived.

This is the same UN that put Libya, under the current despot's rule, onto the Human Rights Commission. If the Libyan people want to vote out their current political leader, at least the UN is being reasonably consistent to its principles to support the folks rising against autocratic rule.

 

[Bill Thompson]

Are you saying that the UN is backing the anti-government people in Libya because they are the underdog? That is messed up. Don't you think?

Whould the UN support the Symbionese Liberation Army in the USA?

And Open Elections !?! That is messed up too. So they are openly against China? So they are openly against The Green Book. That is way messed up, man.

Maybe the UN doesn't mean anything honorable anymore.

 

[Darth Rotor]

It is not my habit to be a defender of the faith UN waste of space on the East River so I'll leave you to your musings.

 

[MG1962]

Are you saying that the UN is backing the anti-government people in Libya because they are the underdog? That is messed up. Don't you think?

Whould the UN support the Symbionese Liberation Army in the USA?

And Open Elections !?! That is messed up too. So they are openly against China? So they are openly against The Green Book. That is way messed up, man.

Maybe the UN doesn't mean anything honorable anymore.

Maybe you need to stop thinking of the UN as an entitity and consider it more the sum of its parts

 

[Bill Thompson]

if Ghaddafi wins, there will be lots of awkwardness when he returns for another rambling speech in the UN. Then it will the majority of the UN nations that will look stupid.

 

[The Fallen Serpent]

Are you saying that the UN is backing the anti-government people in Libya because they are the underdog? That is messed up. Don't you think?

I think its human nature. The leaders of countries rarely go out and flat out say "I oppose human rights." Most everyone likes to claim they are on the side of rightousness. Libya is losing ground in the international court of opinion. The UN tends to swing with how world governments feel. If the world governments tend to feel that supporting Libya makes them look bad, the UN will tend to follow suit.

Whould the UN support the Symbionese Liberation Army in the USA?

Likely not. Even with the underdog status being in the Symbionese favor, few governments are going to relate to them or their cause. An underdog cause at the least need be relatable.

And Open Elections !?! That is messed up too. So they are openly against China? So they are openly against The Green Book. That is way messed up, man.

On paper, sometimes yes. In practice generally not. China is popular and powerful among world governments.

Maybe the UN doesn't mean anything honorable anymore.

It depends what you define as honorable. As a bastion of human rights, it has never represented that despite any internal claims otherwise. As a respect for sovereignty, it generally does so but not pefectly. Its mostly a system for sorting out the political will of the world's governments. Prior to the Cold War ending it rarely did anything at all since there was a clear line of antagonism set up into two poles that prevented meaningful cooperation. Since then it acts more often but again, the goals of various nations do not exactly line up. The baseline political will of the world governments is going to be by nature fractured and self-contradictory. Most every nation makes a claim to democratic principles, but the reality is far from these claims. The UN in turn reflects that. Libya is not losing UN support because it is engaging in specific activities, it is losing support because it is suddenly unpopular.

The UN, like any form of democratic body without liberal protections in place, ultimately represents popularity. In the case of the UN, it is the popular opinion of world governments.

 

[Leif Roar]

Why is the UN Taking Sides in Libya? From what I have seen the UN is being very anti-Khadaffi.

On the whole, I think the UN is being more "anti-bombing-your-own-people" than anti-Khadaffi per se.

 

[Bill Thompson]

On the whole, I think the UN is being more "anti-bombing-your-own-people" than anti-Khadaffi per se.

Then they are wrong. The USA kills its own people every year. Maybe every month -- I have not looked into the stats in Texas lately.

 

[The Fallen Serpent]

Then they are wrong. The USA kills its own people every year. Maybe every month -- I have not looked into the stats in Texas lately.

Texan executions rarely involve bombing. As a matter of issue, executions in the USA are brought up occassionally in the UN. This is generally drowned out by discussing the much larger problems of executions in China, Iran and a number of less impactful countries with much more severe systems in place than the US. At the least, US executions involve convicts of violent crime. The same is not true of most countries that continue to engage in regular executions.

ETA: I doubt no-fly zones over the US would have any effect on internal executions. US government actors bombing and shooting at citizens by way of aircraft is extremely rare, and are not under our systems of government sanctioned executions. Plus, we have this powerful expensive military. Who exactly is going to enforce similar sanctions on the US is being discussed for Libya? The UN may often take impotent actions, but it rarely takes impractical actions to the degree of provoking warfare with a country that could significantly threaten it. Yes, military might is an important factor in determing what activities the UN is willing to take against a country.

 

[Bill Thompson]

I think its human nature. The leaders of countries rarely go out and flat out say "I oppose human rights." Most everyone likes to claim they are on the side of rightousness. Libya is losing ground in the international court of opinion. The UN tends to swing with how world governments feel. If the world governments tend to feel that supporting Libya makes them look bad, the UN will tend to follow suit.
.

phaw. Politicians !

So they are just being political and going along with the trend rather than truly being correct.

I am not convinced that MOST of the Libyans are NOT on the side of Khadaffi. I think Khadaffi's behavoir is no different than what Abu al-Qasim Muhammad Hashim would have done. To say Khadaffi is a bad guy is to say Muhammad was a bad guy. To side against Khadaffi is just as bad as siding against Islam.

To us, protesting against the leader is s right. To Muslims, protesting aginst Muhammed is a death sentence.

But these policitians have not thought this thing out so deeply.

I don't think the protestors in Libya have a legit beef either. Khadaffi does not flaunt a lot of wealth and does not have any Swiss bank accounts. He has no yacht. No private jet. He is not burdening his population because he has a castle or palace.

I did the math. Libya's wealth evenly distributed among its population does not come out to very much. It is a miracle that they are not all living below the poverty line.

I think Khadaffi's supporters know this. I think he might win.

 

[The Fallen Serpent]

phaw. Politicians !

So they are just being political and going along with the trend rather than truly being correct.

Well, it is a political body.

I am not convinced that MOST of the Libyans are NOT on the side of Khadaffi. I think Khadaffi's behavoir is no different than what Abu al-Qasim Muhammad Hashim would have done. To say Khadaffi is a bad guy is to say Muhammad was a bad guy. To side against Khadaffi is just as bad as siding against Islam.

To us, protesting against the leader is s right. To Muslims, protesting aginst Muhammed is a death sentence.

Muhammad lived lived centuries ago. Khadaffi lives today. It is easy to compartmentalize and address someone who is today oppressing you while dismissing that someone you claim to follow might do the same as the person you oppose. Not all muslims agree with every interpetation of the Quran, even problematic plain text portions. There is no monolithic interpetation of islam that all muslims will follow. There are also muslims who take up the apologetics that Muhammed was a man of his times and only specific bits are respresentative of divine guidance. Sure, I think this is silly and illogical, but so is ignoring the reality that most muslims would not today abide by a 7th century Muhammed going about his 7th century practices. Its easy to dismiss the horrors of the past when no one alive today had met anyone who had met anyone who had suffered directly under those horrors.

But these policitians have not thought this thing out so deeply.

I disagree. It is not like they are going to catch a lot of flak for abandoning Libya during this crisis. Its not impossible if Khaddafi maintains his power and becomes popular again for him to be recognized and applauded by his world government peers. Hypocrisy is not often an obstacle in politics.

I don't think the protestors in Libya have a legit beef either. Khadaffi does not flunt a lot of wealth and does not have any Swiss bank accounts.

So? The protests are not even about his wealth relative to other leaders. It is about power sharing with in the country. Much of the opposition would prefer to have that power themselves.

I did the math. Libya's wealth evenly distributed among its population does not come out to very much. It is a miracle that they are not all living below the poverty line.

As far as economic indicators are, the situation was better in Libya than in Tunisia and Egypt despite massive unemployment. Libya is a country suffering under resource curse.What was worse, however, were indicators of corruption. This discrepancy between solid economic insurance compared to neighboring countries versus higher perceived corruption than in neighboring countries is seen as a possible explanation for the uprising. Protests can be about issues other than economic. Right now former Justice Minister Mustafa Abdel Jalil has declared the formation of a transitional government that will prepare the country for fair and free elections. Regardless of the validity and practical truth of these claims, economic concerns are not voiced as a central tenant in the uprisings.

I think Khadaffi's supporters know this. I think he might win.

I think he might win as well, but not because he is some modern day incarnation of Muhammed that muslims are willing to forgive any perceived corruption. Fair and free elections may even show he has majority support in the country. It is not impossible. At least some segment of Libyan society is willing to risk death calling for government reform. Considering they are literally risking death, why doubt their conviction? Muslims are just as complex and internally capable of compartmentalization as other humans.

 

[Thunder]

Why is the UN Taking Sides in Libya? From what I have seen the UN is being very anti-Khadaffi. Why is this? Shouldn't they stay neutral in this conflict?

the UN has chosen to take sides because Qaddafi is murdering his own people using the army and the air force.

Obama is right, such measures negates one's right to rule.

 

[Thunder]

Then they are wrong. The USA kills its own people every year. Maybe every month -- I have not looked into the stats in Texas lately.

the USA does not kill innocent American civilian protestors.

 

[leftysergeant]

Well, it is a political body.

Muhammad lived lived centuries ago. Khadaffi lives today. It is easy to compartmentalize and address someone who is today oppressing you while dismissing that someone you claim to follow might do the same as the person you oppose.

Muhammed, pbuh, had an all-volunterr force. Gadafi is relying more and more on mercenaries with no ties to Libya. Mercenaries are notoriously abusive of the rights of the citizens of countries which use them to maintain power.

A good historical example is the British rule of the American colonies.

Not all muslims agree with every interpetation of the Quran, even problematic plain text portions. There is no monolithic interpetation of islam that all muslims will follow.

From what I know of Gadafi, his policies seem to come straight from the Qur'an, with little reliance on the Ahadith. REligiously, he seems quite progressive. I would hope that whoever replaces him will also to some degree follow such a course.

As far as economic indicators are, the situation was better in Libya than in Tunisia and Egypt despite massive unemployment. Libya is a country suffering under resource curse.

Spot on.

 

[geni]

Why is the UN Taking Sides in Libya? From what I have seen the UN is being very anti-Khadaffi. Why is this? Shouldn't they stay neutral in this conflict?

Becauce no one likes Gaddafi.

Europe and the US don't like him because he had some interesting linkes to terrorist groups.

Arab states don't like him because they feel he's a clown who makes them look silly.

African states have been getted tired of him for much the same reason and most of the rest of the world doesn't care enough about him to support him.

 

[Tricky]

the USA does not kill innocent American civilian protestors.

Well, not since Kent State, anyway, and that was four people, not thousands.

But really, is anyone seriously surprised that the UN is opposing a man who has turned his military on his own people? And not rebel groups either. Almost all of his people. Yet another of MG's security forces has changed sides. I'm pretty sure even blind people can see the writing on the wall by this time.

 

[leftysergeant]

Well, not since Kent State, anyway, and that was four people, not thousands.

How well did that play out for the gvernment?

 

[leftysergeant]

Almost all of his people. Yet another of MG's security forces has changed sides. I'm pretty sure even blind people can see the writing on the wall by this time.

Looks to me like the local councils are stepping into the power vacuum in an orderly fashion. So far, so good. This looks promising.

 

[plumjam]

You would think the UN would be more supportive of Gaddafi; it being an umbrella organisation.