What's the United Nations for?
If today we are stuck, it's not only because Europe is impotent, it's because at the Security Council, for now, China doesn't want any mention of a resolution leading to the international community's interference in a country's affairs...
All this apparent foot-dragging is making people doubt the whole purpose of the U.N.
The United States says it will , but the US ambassador to the United Nations, Susan Rice, says an air exclusion zone probably won't be enough to protect Libyan civilians from attack by Colonel Gaddafi's forces. Meanwhile Colonel Gaddafi's promise to destroy the uprising in Libya resonates ominously. The International Red Cross says it is from Benghazi because of fears that an attack by pro-Gaddafi forces may be imminent. Hanah Al Gallal, a spokeperson for the opposition National Libyan Transitional Council, told the that without international action:
It will be a massacre, it will be on the international community's conscience, it will be a stain on the international people... He will kill civilians, he will kill dreams, he will destroy us more and more.
She's not alone, this blogger fears the moment for action is
The time is running out, and people are giving up on the dream of removing the longest running brutal regime in the middle east
Britain's Foreign Minister Alistair Burt says it's time for action in support of the rebels in Libya, saying it's
Imperative that something is done, and something is done today
Many are questioning the point of the U.N. So what is it for? It tries to create a forum that serves to limit future conflict on a global scale. It is built on noble ideas, such as its doctrine for But does it succeed in protecting the world from the atrocities that come with armed conflict? Shane Greer says that the UN has because:
The UN is a political organisation draped in the cloak of international legal authority. It's designed to facilitate horse-trading based on narrow national interests rather than high-minded principle. (...) And we find that far from protecting people from the kind of atrocity it was established to prevent, the UN instead makes all the noises of caring while ultimately finding itself rendered impotent by countries whose respect for human rights is little different than one Muammar Gaddafi.
Is this fair comment? Mark Seddon says the U.N. are doing a . He points out that it has blazed a trail for the International Criminal Court to investigate war crimes allegations against Colonel Gaddafi. His assets have been frozen, and those of his family, effectively making Gaddaffi and his clan "house prisoners". As far as military intervention goes, Mark Seddon says:
Let's be honest, Libya is not in Europe. Military sanctions, unless agreed by the United Nations, should not include America and Europe. Indeed there is every indication that many Libyans don't want the West to become involved militarily, pointing to the disaster that was Iraq and the continuing disaster that is Afghanistan.
So is the U.N. able to protect the world? Or will it always be held back by narrow political interests? If the U.N. is all talk, what else can the world do to prevent atrocities?
