The intervention in Libya protects English interests and will prevent a massacre by the Libyan government.
To 18th Century characters like Francis Light in Penang and Robert Clive in India, and later Cecil Rhodes in Africa in the 19th Century, the colonial adventure and the pursuit of British supremecy in the race against other European powers must have seemed so rational. The devastation and societal disruption that Empire caused, despite the benefits accrued from introducing infrastructure, trade, businesses and Westminster democractic models, instilled a severe sense of guilt in the British people.
Military intervention in Afghanistan and Iran have been equally unpopular - not least because of a feeling that British interests were not being well served by such escapades.
The Coalition government's response to the plight of rebellious Libyan citizens faced with the prospect of a lethal onslaught from their tyrannical regime has been supported almost unanimously by parliamentarians. Yet according to a poll reported in The Economist, 53% of the UK general public is opposed to action in Libya if British forces "risk death or injury to protect Libyan rebels" from Gaddafi.
In the House of Commons debate preceding British involvement in Libya, David Cameron claimed that military action was "necessary, legal and right". Yet despite UN Resolution 1973 authorising engagement to protect civilians, an ongoing argument ensues about the legality of allied action in relation to Public International Law.
Public International Law is a law regarding a nation’s sovereign right to govern its own territory and enter into legal agreements with its partners, and the rules for waging war on other nations. Clearly opinions are bound to differ as to whether foreign powers have any right - despite UN Resolutions - to engage in military action on the territory of any independent sovereign nation. Despite the despotism or grotesqueness of that country's regime.
Of course there are humanitarian considerations. And after having done nothing or too little to protect civilians in Rwanda and Darfur, the international community does not want to appear complicit through inaction in another genocidal catastrophe. But then, the International Criminal Court (the Hague-based body which ordered the arrest of Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir, allegedly responsible for the rapes and deaths in Darfur) would take legal action against Gaddafi should he order the massacre of people in Benghazi or Tobruk.
However, Gaddafi's regime is renouned inside Libya for having delivered violent retribution on opponents throughout his government's existence, and the ICC has not acted before.
Unlike Rwanda, Darfur, Yemen or Tibet, many people suspect that this international involvement in Libya is driven by a need to maintain the free flow of oil supplies.
Britain needs oil. It doesn't produce enough of its own from the North Sea to satisfy domestic demand. Energy from alternative sources are at present either environmentally polluting (coal), susceptible to political disruption (Russian gas via the Ukraine), costly to produce (solar), problematic and inefficient (wind and wave), or potentially dangerous (nuclear). It would be very expensive and uncomfortable if the UK didn't maintain its supply of oil.
And yet somehow action to maintain the supply of oil is deemed by many sections of the general population in Britain to be wrong. Why?
Surely, involvement by the British government to prevent a humanitarian disaster in Libya, while at the same time helping to ensure that oil supply is secured, cannot be seen as bad. Irrespective of the niceties of international law.
It appears our country finds it difficult to proclaim its need to act in the national interest. Ever since our colonial and imperial escapades, we've been reluctant to state our case openly, plainly and loudly. We have an interest in doing what's right for ourselves. And we shouldn't be ashamed of it. In fact, quite the contrary.
No comments:
Post a Comment