A Question About Libya
As of the 18th of March the UN Security Council, with Britain and France as key contributors, have announced that they will be taking military action to prevent the murder of Libyan civilians by Colonel Gaddafi's government.
However, very quickly after this announcement was made (suspiciously quickly some might say), Gaddafi declared a ceasefire in Libya. This comes hours after he was threatening to mount a stronger push on the rebel-held city of Benghazi, before the Security Council acted. It seems quite likely that this is a shrewd diplomatic move, so that Gaddafi can condemn them for taking military action despite his troops being under a ceasefire. It is this kind of trickery that presumably has gone some way to making a number of his people think that he is still in the right.
However, this article is more about an ethical question; is it wrong or right for Britain to join with other countries in getting involved militarily in Libya?
On the one hand, the majority of the British population would probably now say that getting involved in Iraq was a bad decision. Should the situation in Libya worsen, our involvement deepen and drag on, then we face the risk of losing many more of our armed forces, as well as spending resources at a time when we can ill afford to do so. There's a good chance that many people, especially the Labour party in opposition to our government, will be grumbling about this prospect.
After all, historically, these kinds of events have unfolded without interference. Going back to the earliest civilisations there have been revolts, both crushed and successful. It is simply progress, and it will continue as long as there are governments.
However, how can a government such as ours, or France's, or America's, sit and watch the bombing of towns full of civilians when they have the means to do something about it? Surely, no matter how much people complain about the strain on our economy, or the loss of lives of British servicemen and women, if you are in the position to decide whether or not to intervene, your conscience cannot allow you to look on passively. Is our economy being saved really worth more to us than Libyan lives? Probably, sadly, yes it is. It's human nature to be selfish about things close to home. As for our armed forces, without sounding insensitive, risking their lives in worthwhile conflict is their job.
Whatever happens in the coming weeks in Libya, it has been an interesting experience to live through a time which no doubt will become hugely important in the history of the Middle East and Africa.
Info World, Europe, UK & Wales Politics Rest of the World Politics
IMAGE: DragonArtz Designs
Related Articles:
3 Comments – Post a comment
SamuelPatterson
Commented 62 months ago - 21st March 2011 - 17:22pm
Interesting article, all though I can't help but feel it wise to keep my opinion to myself on this issue! Great article though :)
Tom_Bevan
Commented 62 months ago - 21st March 2011 - 18:38pm
it is amazingly difficult to make my mind up on this one- i see both sides of the argument but i think some small scale intervention is probably best. a full iraq-scale invasion is well out of order and i'm sure the tories wont be going for that after labour's subsequent downfall, but gadafi has got to go if libya has even a chance of stabilising
good article mr ramsden, not just great at reviews!!
the gamer
Commented 62 months ago - 14th April 2011 - 09:40am
this is a good article but why are we invading Libya to save Libyan civilians our soldiers are dieing to save them whats gonna change after there gone we should be helping awe allies not our enemy's civilians where losing thousands to save hundreds.