Blood On ‘Our’ Hands...

The most recent polls suggest that support for Great Britain’s military intervention in Libya is waning. The British Parliament voted 557 to 13 in favour of military intervention: a no fly zone over Libya. Members of Parliament should be representing their constituents’ opinions: this would suggest overwhelming support for the action in Libya. A poll conducted by ICM for the BBC has revealed that 38% of people support such military intervention, whereas 35% said that it was the wrong decision. This is a fairly even split and says worrying things about the way politicians represent their constituents. How can 557 politicians vote for military action if 35% of the country opposes it? Political representation is complex. If our present voting system can create such an extreme skew then it definitely needs overhauling.

The present figures suggest that politicians are prioritising their personal opinions over the views held by thousands of their constituents. Those politicians who are voting because of party allegiance are certainly not taking into account opposing voices: voices that are as strong as those calling for military action. The fact that this has support across many countries in the UN has given these politicians the confidence to push the agenda for military action. If the politicians in these other nations have voted similarly and under comparable circumstances, then this would result in strong support across the UN member states. If the eventual acquirement of continued and cheaper oil reserves is the ultimate goal in Libya for these nations, then it is no surprise that the political votes in these countries are going to become self-fulfilling prophecies. Which of the UN member states is uninterested in securing the future of its energy sources?

Perhaps this has something to do with ‘mission creep’. The majority of people are probably behind the idea of a no-fly zone – as it was first described. NATO jets would keep the Libyan skies free of Gaddafi’s jets: an air force that ultimately would destroy any chance the rebels have to take the country. Almost immediately NATO, amongst a great deal of controversy, started airstrikes across Libya and in the capital city of Tripoli, at great risk to innocent Libyan civilians. Attacks committed by NATO jets - that are supposed to be keeping the skies safe for the rebels - have resulted in friendly-fire incidents and rebel deaths. How long will it be before a UN, frustrated with the lack of progress made by a disorganised rebel force and confronted with public disillusion in the face of a drawn-out engagement in Libya, resort to putting ground forces into action? Undoubtedly a way will be found to achieve this without ‘strictly’ breaking the UN resolution.

The situation in Libya is troubling for a whole host of reasons beyond the collateral consequence of military intervention. After Libya, agreement across the UN will no longer carry the legitimacy it has (for example, in relation to the invasion of Iraq). It will have been tarnished by oil-driven motivations, the blood of innocent Libyan people and its seeming refusal to assist rebel elements in other countries throw off their dictators, simply because those countries have less to offer in the energy-equivalents of victory spoils. Countries cannot be invaded – even with UN agreement – on the basis of what their leaders ‘might’ do. Colonel Gaddafi is undoubtedly a very shady figure. When Libya is over, however, and no mass graves are found as evidence of his ‘actual’ dictatorial brutality (on scale that would necessitate an invasion by the United Nations), then we are all going to look very foolish and greedy. It is going to be ‘weapons of mass destruction’ all over again, except this time it will be the evident reality of the Gaddafi threat under scrutiny, and David Cameron in the dock rather than Tony Blair.