Aljazeera English reports on the Arab League’s call for the UN Security Council to impose a no-fly zone on Libya.
Most sources are calling the resolution unanimous, but Xinhua says that Algeria and Syria abstained.
Algeria has been accused by the rebels in Benghazi of helping Muammar Qaddafi.
Pepe Escobar, at Asian Times Online doesn’t think that there is any chance to implement a no fly zone supported by the UNSC. He thinks the BRICS countries will oppose that move, along with China and Russia; he seems to think that without the UN agreement the US won’t engage in what could lead to another war.
link to atimes.com
I agree with him. I think that the US and its Western allies will support the opposition, aka arm it and perhaps train it. This is no good news : if China does the same for the Khadafi supporters, it could easily degenerate in the first indirect war between the US and China for the control of oil ressources.
The only way to avoid such a drama is a strict embargo on arms for both sides and a total embargo on the Khadafi stronghold.
Concerning Syria and Algeria, our TV news channels said that they didn’t support the call of the Arab League; it was not clear whether they opposed or just abstained.
To understand Algeria’s position you have to put some context here:
The Algerian military regime based its legitimacy on the Algerian war of independance against France and which country is pushing really hard for the no fly zone?
if the algerian president back up a french military intervention ( it is what a no fly zone is)in a north african country ,against a north african population, he would be digging his own grave.
In addition to that,Nicolas Sarkozy’s ideology is not helping:link to time.com
link to avuncularamerican.typepad.com
link to realclearworld.com
This is what the Syrian’s are saying link to sana.sy
Based on these 2 para’s in that report, it seems like Syria, Algeria and Mauritania voted No.
Whatever the truth, it wasn’t unanimous.
“After putting the resolution to the vote, Ambassador Ahmad stated that Syria is not part of this resolution, as it rejects all forms of foreign intervention in Libya’s affairs out of its keenness on Libya’s territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence.”
“Following the announcement of the Syrian stance, Algeria’s Foreign Minister and head of the Mauritanian delegation asked for their countries’ stances to be registered against the content of the resolution because it has not addressed the remarks and sources of concern expressed by the delegations of Algeria and Mauritania at the first session.”
Come on Dr Cole. You’re the expert observer and informed commentator here. Faced with the facts as YOU see them tell us what the outcome in Libya will be one month from now and put us all out of our subjective misery.
I’d like to see Egypt (which imagine, perhaps incorrectly, to be far more powerful militarily than Libya) intervene either on humanitarian grounds or as an ally of the rebels or as a self-protective measure. But I’ve heard nothing of Egyptian intervention.
I wrote about Egypt coming to Libya’s rescue, humorously, here, but neither intervening nor remaining aloof is a clearly useful, safe, correct, etc., role for Egypt.
Even if this were unanimous, it is completely toothless! Everyone in the know knows that leaving it to the UN means nothing will come of it. I expect the same will come of US and EU efforts -unless one of the member countries undrtakes unilateral action. Most likeley we will get low level low profile arms supplies to the rebellion, but whether this will come soon enough and in suficient quantities I think is a big question.
Anti Gaddafi, forces have lost all the places they had captured to the superior power of Gaddafi.
West and Arab league will just give lip service for how to help anti Gaddafi forces. In the meantime, they will lose even Benghazi. Just keep your feet dragging.
The bottom line and simple reason not to help is ”Democracy in the Islamic countries is not in the best interest of the west or the allies of the west in the middle east.”