´óÏó´«Ã½

In light of the renewed debate over whether the NATO-led coalition on Libya should consider arming the anti-Gaddafi rebels, it's probably worth having another listen (start at 15'25") to the wise words of one of the world's acknowledged experts on these things, Professor Sir Adam Roberts, emeritus professor of international relations at Oxford University.

He was on The World Tonight last Friday, and this is what he said: "It's very problematic, given the arms embargo imposed by UN security council resolution 1970. But it is possible to make variations in an embargo, although history tends to show that usually this is not done through formal decisions."

orders UN member states to "immediately take the necessary measures to prevent the direct or indirect supply, sale or transfer to the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya ... of arms and related materiel of all types, including weapons and ammunition, military vehicles and equipment, paramilitary equipment, and spare parts ..."

Professor Roberts says it is possible to argue that the words "Libyan Arab Jamahiriya" refer either just to the government of Muammar Gaddafi or to the whole territory. But he also observes that the resolution (Paragraph 9c) does allow for exceptions: "Other sales or supply of arms and related materiel, or provision of assistance or personnel, as approved in advance by the [security council arms embargo] committee."

And there is a precedent, he says: Bosnia, 1995, when what had been simply a UN protection mission (remember UNPROFOR?) then adopted a much more aggressive posture following the massacre of thousands of Bosnian men and boys at Srebrenica and ended the Serbian siege of Sarajevo. "On that occasion," says Professor Roberts, "the UN did take sides in a conflict, and by doing so, helped to bring about the end of that conflict."

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?

Can the way you define a word make the difference between war and peace? If the word being defined is in a UN Security Council resolution, well, the answer is Yes.

You probably remember the famous passage in Lewis Carroll's Through the Looking-Glass:

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less."

"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."

"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be the master - that's all."

So here are two words that we need to try to define before we can pass judgement on the current military operations over Libya.

First word: "necessary", as in Security Council resolution 1973, which "authorises member states ... to take all necessary measures ... to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack."

Dictionary definition: "Necessary -- essential, indispensable, requisite, something vital for the fulfillment of a need." So who decides what is essential, or indispensable, or vital to protect civilians? Is it essential to kill Muammar Gaddafi? Vital to destroy his every last artillery piece or tank?

Second word: "threat", as in "civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack."

Dictionary definition: "Threat -- something that is regarded as dangerous or likely to inflict pain or misery." So, again, how do we decide when the likelihood of pain being inflicted has been lifted? It's not as if a likelihood is something you can photograph from a spotter plane: one day it's there; the next day it's gone.

But of course, it isn't about dictionary definitions at all, is it? I don't envy the poor lawyers going through the military target lists, deciding line by line, yes, this target is covered by the UN resolution, and no, this target isn't.

As always, it's about political will. So the real decisions will be taken in Cairo (headquarters of the Arab League), Brussels (headquarters of NATO), London, Paris and Washington.

There's really only one big decision they need to make: when to stop. Is Gaddafi's defeat, overthrow, or death deemed to be "essential, indispensable, vital" to the protection of civilians from the threat of attack? Or would a negotiated ceasefire do?

If unarmed civilians are killed by allied military action (and it should be noted that so far, there's been no credible, verifiable evidence that any have been), are the terms of the UN resolution still being adhered to? Can you claim to be protecting some civilians while killing others?

Those who argue in favour of the current military action say that the cost of doing nothing would have been far higher than the cost of enforcing Security Council resolution 1973.

The Middle East academic Professor wrote yesterday: "Pundits who want this whole thing to be over within seven days are being frankly silly. Those who worry about it going on forever are being unrealistic. Those who forget or cannot see the humanitarian achievements already accomplished are being willfully blind."

Those who take the opposite view argue that it is always a mistake to embark on military action without knowing how to get out of it; and that pledging to protect civilians in one country will inevitably lead to demands that you do the same in other countries as well (Yemen? Bahrain? Syria? Ivory Coast?)

Last night, NATO finally came up with a formula that will enable the alliance to take over control of at least part of Operation Odyssey Dawn within the next few days. But Turkey is clearly still deeply unhappy about it, and the Arab League is jumpy.

Unless something dramatic changes on the ground, we could well be in for a long haul. And it's not going to be easy keeping this hastily-constructed coalition together.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?

If there had been no statement from the Arab League backing the idea of a no-fly zone to protect civilians in Libya, there would have been no UN Security Council resolution 1973 (Russia and China would have vetoed it; the US would almost certainly not have backed it.)

And if there had been no Security Council resolution, there would have been no warplanes or cruise missiles attacking Muammar Gaddafi's military machine.

So it's worth looking in some detail at who exactly are the League of Arab States. There are 22 of them in total (21 at the moment, as Libya's membership has been suspended.) Total population: around 350 million; richest member (measured by GDP per capita): Qatar, which is also, on this measure, the richest country in the world; poorest: Somalia, which on the same measure is the world's fifth poorest.

When the League issued its statement calling on the UN to put in place a no-fly zone (Algeria and Syria voted against), the secretary-general Amr Moussa said: "It has one goal: to protect the civilian population."

The statement said nothing about wanting to encourage democracy or freedom in Libya, and you don't have to dig too deep to see why not.

According to the Democracy Index drawn up every year by the Economist Intelligence Unit, only two members of the Arab League (Lebanon and Palestine, which isn't even an internationally-recognised state) make it into the top 100 of the world's democracies.

That qualifies them, under the EIU criteria, as "hybrid" forms of government, some way below either "full democracies" or "flawed democracies". The remaining 20 Arab League governments are classified as "authoritarian".

According to the Index, drawn up by the think tank Freedom House, no member of the Arab League qualifies as free. Only three (Kuwait, Lebanon and Morocco) qualify as "partly free"; the rest are "not free".

It is possible that Egypt and Tunisia will emerge over the coming months into fully functioning democracies. The picture in countries like Bahrain, Yemen, Syria - and Libya - is still far too uncertain to be able to guess what kind of future lies in store for their people.

And of course, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, two of the countries that voted in favour of the Arab League's no fly zone statement, are also now providing troops for Bahrain, to help the government bring an end to the pro-reform protests there.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?

What's so special about Libyan civilians?

I ask the question provocatively, because it's being asked elsewhere following the start of air strikes against Muammar Gaddafi's forces in Libya.

What about civilians in Yemen? Bahrain? Syria? And if you want to look beyond the Arab world, what about civilians in Ivory Coast, slipping once again ever closer to all-out civil war?

When the wave of pro-reform uprisings began in Tunisia, thousands of people throughout the Arab world asked themselves: "Could we do the same here?"

And now that US, French and British warplanes are hitting targets in Libya, evidently hoping to destroy Colonel Gaddafi's military infrastructure, Arab leaders must be asking themselves: "Could they do the same here?"

For now, the answer seems to be that it's highly unlikely. A couple of days ago, I asked a senior Conservative MP, James Arbuthnot, chairman of the House of Commons defence select committee: "If Libya, why not Yemen or Bahrain?"

This was his reply: "That's a perfectly fair point. But just because we can't solve every problem doesn't mean we shouldn't solve this problem, which we can solve now ... We have to deal with this on a piece by piece basis."

On Friday, just a matter of hours before the first air strikes in Libya, dozens of anti-government protesters were shot dead in the Yemeni capital, Sana'a, and five were killed in the Syrian city of Daraa, close to the border with Jordan.

So far, there's been no suggestion that another UN security council resolution should be drafted, putting in place a no-fly zone over either Yemen or Syria. And in Bahrain, Saudi troops have moved in to help the government, not the protesters.

Diplomacy has always revolved primarily around considerations of self-interest. As the 19th century British prime minister and foreign secretary Lord Palmerston put it: "We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow."

So in Western capitals -- and with many misgivings, in Arab capitals too -- the calculation is that national self-interest is better served with Muammar Gaddafi off the scene. He has few friends in places that matter, and has made too many enemies during his 40-plus years in power.

The same is not true of President Ali Abdullah Saleh in Yemen, or Bashar al-Assad in Syria, or King Hamad in Bahrain. The Yemeni leader is (or was? He may be gone within hours, it seems) regarded as an ally by the US and Saudi Arabia, even if both wish he would do more to accommodate at least some of the demands of the protesters - and President Assad of Syria, while certainly no friend of Washington, is regarded by his fellow Arab leaders as a major figure to be treated with respect.

In Bahrain, King Hamad, and more importantly his uncle, the long-serving prime minister, Prince Khalifa bin Salman Al Khalifa, are staunch Western allies, and host the US Navy's Fifth Fleet.

So perhaps what's special about Libyan civilians is that their leader has too few friends. UN security council resolution 1973 authorises the use of force "to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack". But how, and when, that threat is perceived to have been removed remains unclear.

Meanwhile, other Arab leaders will be busy calculating about how best to protect their own interests. Stand firm, do whatever is necessary to crush the protests? Or follow the example of Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali in Tunisia and Hosni Mubarak in Egypt, and be swept away by the tide of popular protests?

• Bookmark with:
• del.icio.us |
• Digg |
• Reddit
• - What's this?

Same date, different prime ministers, different Arab dictators.

18 March 2003, T Blair: "This is not the time to falter. This is the time for this house ... to show that we will stand up for what we know to be right, to show that we will confront the tyrannies and dictatorships and terrorists who put our way of life at risk, to show at the moment of decision that we have the courage to do the right thing."

18 March 2011, D Cameron: "We should not intervene in other countries save in quite exceptional circumstances ... (but) we cannot have a failed pariah state festering on Europe's southern borders."

So have we embarked on another war without end? More than nine years after British forces joined the US-led intervention in Afghanistan, and eight years to the day since Tony Blair delivered his passionate defence in the House of Commons of his decision to commit UK forces in Iraq, are we once again going into battle with too many questions unanswered?

It has become a cliché to observe that all wars are easier to start than to end. UN security council resolution 1973, approved last night by 10 votes in favour with five abstentions (Russia, China, Germany, Brazil and India) states the objective of the Libya intervention clearly enough: to protect civilians and civilian-populated areas under threat of attack.

It authorises member states to use "all necessary measures" with the exception of a foreign occupation force - which is universally understood to mean Yes to air attacks, but No to troops on the ground.

Over the coming hours, we - and especially the people of Libya - will wait anxiously to see what happens next. Maybe some of those around Muammar Gaddafi will turn against him - but the key remaining figures in his regime are members of his own family, so it seems unlikely.

Maybe his forces will halt their advance towards Benghazi, at least for the time being. A siege is just as much an option as an assault.

Maybe US, British and French warplanes will start bombing his tanks and artillery pieces along the coast road. Maybe by mistake they'll hit civilians as well as military targets.

Maybe, maybe.

But I was struck listening to David Cameron's statement in the House of Commons this morning (apart from the fact that, this being a Friday, the place was virtually deserted) by how careful he was to spell out that this is a very different kind of operation, under a very different kind of prime minister, from the one we embarked upon eight years ago.

He emphasised the degree of regional support for military intervention - both the Arab League and the Gulf Cooperation Council have backed the idea of a no-fly zone. Not like 2003.

And he spoke of the "clear legal basis" for the action - an unambiguous Security Council resolution, with clear advice for the British cabinet from the attorney-general, which he said had been "read and discussed" by ministers this morning. He didn't need to spell out to MPs the differences from eight years ago.

So how will this end? No one knows. How long will it take? Same answer. If Gaddafi is defeated, overthrown, or killed, what or who will take his place? Answer as above.

Last Friday, during the discussion on the Arab uprisings that we recorded at Chatham House, I asked Sir Jeremy Greenstock, who had been the UK ambassador at the United Nations in the period leading up to the Iraq invasion: "As you watch events unfolding, do you say to yourself: 'Here we go again'?"

We didn't know then that within a week a strongly-worded Security Council resolution would have been approved - but Sir Jeremy replied without a moment's hesitation in the affirmative.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?

The debate over the no-fly zone idea seems to have been reduced to a simple Yes or No. But as from the respected military policy think-tank the Royal United Services Institute points out, there are other ways of helping anti-Gaddafi forces.

Supplying them with arms is one idea that's already been raised (although there seem to be some doubts about whether that would be legal given the arms embargo that's been imposed on Libya); but what about providing non-lethal assistance? Intelligence, expertise, communications equipment -- or even jamming the communications of pro- Gaddafi forces -- are all options.

But given what's happening on the ground, how much real difference would they make?

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?

According to figures collated by the Chinese research group Hurun Report and reported by , the richest members of China's National People's Congress, the closest thing China has to a parliament, are 15 times wealthier than their US equivalents.

The 70 richest NPC members are said to be worth a total of $75 billion. But the 70 richest members of the US Congress can apparently scrape together a mere $4.8 billion.

The richest member of Congress, Darrell Issa of California, was reported to be worth $451 million in 2009; he was, alas, outstripped by 38 members of the Chinese NPC.

I make no comment; I just thought you'd be interested.

(Hat-tip Isabel Hilton of )

• Bookmark with:
• del.icio.us |
• Digg |
• Reddit
• - What's this?

According to Richard Haas, president of the US think-tank the Council on Foreign Relations, writing in today's : "Immature or partial democracies are vulnerable to being hijacked by populists or extreme nationalists. A Middle East more influenced by public opinion could well be less willing to work against terrorism, or on behalf of peace with Israel. It is likely to be no more of a partner when it comes to providing oil at reasonable prices."

Is he right?

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?

I want you to avert your gaze for a moment from Libya - and try to focus on two much smaller countries further east.

Unlike Libya, they are not blessed with vast oil reserves. Unlike Libya, their leaders have names that ring few familiar bells in Western living rooms. But like Libya - and like many other Arab nations - they are now aflame with popular protests.

These two little countries are Bahrain (you'll need a magnifying glass to find it on a map), and Yemen. And when you've found them, you'll notice that they share a giant neighbour.

That neighbour is Saudi Arabia, which of course just happens to be the world's biggest producer of oil and is therefore of crucial importance to anyone who owns a car. That's why what's happening in Bahrain and Yemen is important - because what matters to the Saudis should matter to us.

So, what's happening in Bahrain? It's a tiny island off Saudi Arabia's eastern coast, linked to the mainland by a 25-kilometre causeway that enables thousands of Saudis to stream across every weekend to enjoy Bahrain's much freer atmosphere.

For the men there is alcohol, for the women there are shopping malls galore, and for the children there are cinemas. But Bahrain has a problem: its royal family, which holds virtually all the power (about half the members of the Cabinet are royals), are Sunni, whereas most of its people are Shia.

President Bush used to talk of Bahrain as a model Arab democracy: after all, it has a parliament, with an elected lower house, and a government which - at least in theory - is answerable to MPs. Women are allowed to vote and run for office.

But when I was there five years ago, I discovered that behind the gleaming glass and steel Gulf office blocks and the wide boulevards, there are ramshackle, fly-blown Shia villages, with pot-holed roads and rubbish piled on street corners. Young men hang around with nothing to do - because, as throughout the Arab world, youth unemployment is a major problem.

For the past month, thousands of protesters have been gathering in the streets to demand political reform. Some opposition groups are pressing for the resignation of the cabinet and a new
constitution - others want to go much further and get rid of the monarchy all together. The government has offered talks; so far, no progress has been made - and there are more protests planned for later today.

In an ominous development, last night there were, for the first time, sectarian clashes between groups of Sunni and Shia youths.

As for Yemen, where do we start? Yemen is where Osama bin Laden comes from and where al Qaeda was born. It's where Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the alleged would-be bomber of a flight from Amsterdam to Detroit in December 2009, was apparently recruited and trained.

President Ali Abdullah Saleh has been in power for more than 30 years, and, according to one recent analyst, presides over a government that is so corrupt that it would make the Afghan President, Hamid Karzai, blush.

Opposition protests have swept the country - the most recent development is that opposition groups are proposing a negotiated transition to a new government that would see President Saleh standing down before the end of this year.

Here's the point: if either Bahrain or Yemen descend into anything like what has happened in Libya - or if a Shia uprising in Bahrain, or a tribal revolt in Yemen, succeed in toppling the current leaderships - the Saudis will be terrified.

Today, Friday, is another key day. If there is serious trouble in either of Saudi Arabia's neighbours, watch out for a crackdown in Saudi itself.

I'm not saying you should ignore what's happening in Libya - but you should also be keeping an eye on what's happening elsewhere. In a special extended edition of the programme next Friday, we'll be trying to pull together some of the threads and attempting a preliminary assessment of this unprecedented wave of popular protest sweeping through the Arab world.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?