BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Switchboard >

Blair & Gaddafi

  
 
Loomis
21:06 / 25.03.04
Blair hails new Libyan relations

Tony Blair says Libya's Muammar Gaddafi is willing to join Britain in the fight against terrorism.

After shaking hands with Colonel Gaddafi at the start of the historic talks, the prime minister said there was real hope for a "new relationship".

People should not forget the past, they should move beyond it, Mr Blair said.

Thursday's Tripoli meeting follows Libya's renunciation of weapons of mass destruction in December. Mr Blair said such changes were "extraordinary".

The whole article here: BBC

What do people think about this? I don't really know enough about the politics to judge, but am sceptical about Blair's motives, given this little piece of information: "it was announced Anglo-Dutch oil giant Shell had signed a deal worth up to £550m for gas exploration rights off the Libyan coast."
 
 
Joetheneophyte
05:36 / 26.03.04
Before long Blair will be selling him weapons. Now that he has denounced the stockpiling of WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION, the good colonel can be trusted to BUY British and American weapons .....any he chooses


Isn't the world a great place?

Nothing wrong with Libya being welcomed back into the global community but the hypocrisy of Blair would not surprise me if before long we actually were selling arms to Libya
 
 
illmatic
10:46 / 26.03.04
Actually, there was something on the Radio about a major deal going through alongside this photo opp - it was something like a major air traffic conrol system, which would possibly be supplied by a major defence contractor. Rest assured Libya's is now open for Brit investment. They can have all the guns and bombs they want until we fall out with them again.
 
 
Morlock - groupie for hire
12:20 / 26.03.04
Newsnight made a rather good point last night, asking if there was any sign of commitment to clean up Libya's rather awful human rights record. The response was similar to: "Well, we had a long philosophical discussion about this, and basically, Gaddafi has his philosophy of how to govern a country and we have ours. The two do not agree."

So, you know, definitely a moral victory there.
 
 
Alex's Grandma
13:11 / 26.03.04
I don't have the newspaper to hand, but I think it was explicitly stated as part of the agreement that Libya would now be buying arms from UK companies. And this in spite of the fact that Blair " doesn't agree " with how Libya's governed, and in the same week that he's still insisting he was right to invade Iraq because ( wait for it everyone ) of the way S Hussein was running the country.

You just wonder at times if Blair's even vaguely aware of what a fool he appears, just how entirely unfit to hold public office. As someone said above, it's fine to have Libya back in the international community, but really, could the way it's been done have looked any more sleazy, any more underhand, with Blair banging on about the fight against terror, a fight, incidentally, he's not qualified to be a part of, since he quite clearly and demonstrably doesn't understand about the nature of intelligence
 
 
Not Here Still
15:17 / 26.03.04
NO ARMS TO LIBYA!

That is to say, we can't sell arms to Libya yet; there's an EU embargo on such a deal going ahead.

However, it's not all bad news for the military industrial complex; as well as the much-vaunted Shell deal, the Guardian reports: Britain's leading defence manufacturer, BAE, is also said by British officials to be in advanced negotiations to supply civilian aircraft equipment to the country.

Senior British officials made clear this could quickly lead to lucrative defence contracts if - as seems increasingly likely - the EU lifts its arms embargo against Libya. Tripoli is understood to be keen to buy night vision equipment for troops and military aircraft radar systems.

We're also helpfully going to train Libya's troops, as this is not, as far as it appears, covered by the embargo. This should bring back fond memories to Colonel Gaddafy - who trained in Britain himself back in the 1960s.

This EU arms embargo embargo seems a pesky little thing though, doesn't it? What could be done about it?

Well, the Toronto Star and other papers have been chatting to some people, it seems:

Blair's aides said ...Britain would, in time, push for lifting a European Union arms embargo.

Of course, maybe Libya may be less of a terrorist state than we at first thought. Maybe Mr Blair has been listening to some of those who suggest there were problems with the Lockerbie trial which led to a Libyan man being jailed for one of the worst terrorist attacks in Europe. Maybe he, too, now believes that there is something odd about the conviction of Abdel Baset al-Megrahi.

Or maybe we're just looking to make yet another quick buck out of The War Against Terror. And since Libya is our frined now, it can't and won't change its mind. Friends don't change their minds - ask that nice Mr Hussein who helped us in the fight against Iran.

If you know where he's now being kept, that is.
 
 
Ray Fawkes
14:01 / 27.03.04
Right, right.
You people are amazing. If Blair were vocally opposed to Gaddafi, calling for an end to his brutal reign, you'd be calling him a warmonger. If he makes a peaceful gesture and starts talking about business dealings (as one would with an ally), you say he's a hypocrite and an idiot.

I ask this: what should he do, in your opinion?
 
 
Char Aina
15:25 / 27.03.04
i'm with fawkes.
in the international community, we need more friendly approaches.
fuck, we need them because otherwise we'll end up being in a state of fued, no bugger backing down because of 'history'.
yeah, the cynic in me knows that blair has his reasons.

i lilke to think that his reasons dont matter shit to me, as long as his actual decisions benefit the world in a way i appreciate.

and i dont see how
Blair " doesn't agree " with how Libya's governed, and in the same week that he's still insisting he was right to invade Iraq because of the way S Hussein was running the country

necessarily indicates that blair is

entirely unfit to hold public office.

its all about playing a global game, and he's not stupid.
he knows he has to appear one way to some, another to others. he knows that he is contradicting himself on policy, he's aware that it matters about as much as exactly who sold all the guns to the terror regimes in the first place.(one caveat; this may come home during SH's trial. i doubt it though.)

pragmatic and underprincipled man, maybe.

not a fool.
 
 
Loomis
15:50 / 27.03.04
If he makes a peaceful gesture and starts talking about business dealings (as one would with an ally), you say he's a hypocrite and an idiot.

I ask this: what should he do, in your opinion?

My problem isn't so much with the fact of having business dealings with Libya, but with the type of business. Making money from selling weapons to an unstable country (or any country really ...) is not something one should be proud of imho. Nor is making fortunes for oil companies by poisoning the environment. If Blair wants to go to Libya and sell timeshares for cottages in the Lake District, he can go right ahead.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
16:16 / 27.03.04
"We people", Ray? You mean everybody on Barbelith except you, who are thus ipso facto lacking in the political acuity and understanding that only you possess? Well, that certainly suggests that I should respect your opinion...

The correct, in terms of an ethical foreign policy, approach seems absolutely clear. Blair should welocme and encourage Libya's return to the international community, one part of which is continuing to press it to improve its human rights records. Arms should not be sold if there is a significant possibility that those arms might be used against its own citizens, or in wars of aggression. Col. Gadaffi should be encouraged with the carrot of international credibility to improve the lot of his people, most of whom live in poverty in a massively oil-rich nation. Infortunately, of course, by defying the UN the US and the UK have devalued the coin of the international community, the effects of which have yet entirely to shake out.

As for the handshake and the visit - nations across the world seem to manage to interact at the UN without goodwill visits. Until clarification can be delivered regarding Shokri Ghanem's comments on the Lockerbie bombing and the murder of Yvonne Fletcher beyond assurances allegedly but not publicly delivered by Abdul Rahman Shalgam (Obviously, I know nothing of these issues, and have no idea who any of these wights may be, as one of "we people". In fact, I am just randomly banging keys here while drooling), it strikes me as in poor taste for the British Prime Minister to perform a goodwill visit and to shake the Colonel's hand; have I missed a public declaration by Col. Gaddafi that the statements in his country's deposition to the UN remain unchanged? If anything, it might be seen as suggesting that one can, as long as one lines up against WMDs and supports in some way the War on (ahem) Terror, one can get away with other behaviour with impunity. This is not, IMHO, a good message to send out, and in the long run is not likely to breed happiness. This should be seen as the beginning of a process of engagement with Libya, and instead it seems to be giving the impression that it is the end. Reconciliation is ceratinly better than conflict, but it is also rather better than appeasement, and some broader foreign policy practices appear to be being neglected here in the name of a quick win. Hopefully this will not have unfortunate consequences, but it doesn't strike me as the best step forwards.
 
 
admiraladz
10:15 / 28.03.04
Carrot/Stick .. Cart/Horse .. Chicken/Egg

"If anything, it might be seen as suggesting that one can, as long as one lines up against WMDs and supports in some way the War on (ahem) Terror, one can get away with other behaviour with impunity. This is not, IMHO, a good message to send out"
-I'm Starskey, he's Haus

But in the current political climate of Spain withdrawing it's support for the War on Terrorism and showing a possibly weak underbelly of a deomcratic system that can be 'influenced' by terror, IMHO the signing up of such a high profile "rouge nation" to the worldwide coalition AGAINST terrorism can be nothing but good. Hands have been stretched across the water, and I am sure that before weapons start being shipped there will be a few more such meetings in which human rights and political agenda will be discussed.

To not consider this reconcilliation is to reject the truth that we are no longer simply citizens of a city, or a particular country - we live in a planetary civilisation. And if your house catches fire you just have to get out, even if you don't have any other place to live.


"entirely unfit to hold public office. its all about playing a global game, and he's not stupid. he knows he has to appear one way to some, another to others. he knows that he is contradicting himself on policy, ...pragmatic and underprincipled man, maybe. not a fool."
- toksik

In any sensible and civilised society the desire and drive to become Prime Minister/President should automatically preclude your ability to do so - there must be something seriously wrong with someone who wants to put themselves through all this sh*t just to gain political power and influence!

"Emancipate yourselves from mental slavery...Won't you help to sing these songs of freedom? .. Redemption songs."
- Bob Marley
 
 
Lurid Archive
10:33 / 28.03.04
Spain ... showing a possibly weak underbelly of a deomcratic system

Staying calm, staying calm. And moving on.


I think that most of us can agree that it may, at times, be for the greater good to show diplomatic warmth to unsavoury leaders. In a concerted effort to substantially improve human rights in Libya, and with due sensitivity to the victims of previous terrorism and a probationary period before the sale of arms, this would be a positive move. As it is, it is hard not to be sceptical of Blair's motives and agenda. It is still probably for the best, I think, despite my reservations. Diplomacy and negotiation are the best way forward and while this is a faltering step forward, I'm hoping that it is a step forward nonetheless.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
12:23 / 28.03.04
War on Terrorism and showing a possibly weak underbelly of a deomcratic system that can be 'influenced' by terror, IMHO the signing up of such a high profile "rouge nation" to the worldwide coalition AGAINST terrorism can be nothing but good

Very quickly, and ignoring the question of democracy and terrorism in Spain, which has been discussed elswhere... if you want to learn a bit more about this, Admiral, try here.

Not the "War on Terrorism" - the War on Terror, which is a specific set of foreign policy initiatives driven by the current government of the United States and includes the invasion and occupation of Iraq. This is supported by a "worldwide coalition" of nations including the UK, formerly Spain, sort of Turkey and Eritrea. This is *a* worldwide coalition, not *the* worldwide coalition. Other multinational coalitions with a brief against terrorism include the United Nations and the EU. Spain remains fully committed to battling against terrorism, but no longer supports the set of policy initiatives described by the War on Terror. I know it's a bit difficult to get your head round, but that's why the marketing guys at the White House came up with the phrase in the first place - it's an attempt to trademark being opposed to terrorism, and suggest that only those participating in the War on Terror as defined by the US are actually opposed to terrorism.

To return this to the topic... as such, I don't see an enormous amount of value in Libya being recruited to the War on Terror. I do see an enormous amount of value in Libya becoming opposed to the sponsoring of terrorism and the sheltering of terrorists, and to its readiness to share intelligence with other nations, all of which is part of a general campaign against terrrorism which is distinct from the War on Terror. To do so will indeed require careful diplomacy and careful negotiation - far more, in fact, than simply ignoring, as AdmiralAdz has, questions such as Ghanem's comments on Lockerbie and Yvonne Fletcher in the interests of being able to point out a muslim nation that supports the aims of the War on Terror, rather than which is opposed to terrorism more generally.
 
 
Ray Fawkes
14:26 / 28.03.04
Haus, the oversensitivity of your response is not unusual, but it isn't necessary. "You people", as in "those of you who have posted in this thread so far, in substitution for a list of your names," not "everybody in barbelith except me." Do I really need to clarify that? One would think that years of discussion here would determine whether or not you respect my opinion. It seems, from your comments here and elsewhere, you afford me exactly the same respect as any who don't share your opinion.

Blair et al should begin the process of peace-building with Libya, and on that we both agree. However, you're suggesting the current approach is one of appeasement instead of reconciliation, and I don't see that. Who, exactly, is appeasing whom?

"Human rights" is typically a breaking-point issue with nations in the international community. It suggests a global policing of soverign states - something that you and I might be in favor of, but is anathema to certain governing styles. Whether or not we have the right to press other states into satisfying our expectations on the matter is, I believe, at the heart of a very modern confusion. How, exactly, do we guarantee that nations are treating their citizens fairly? This brings me back to my earlier comments: if friendly engagement is hypocrisy and violent coercion is barbaric, what's left?

On the sales of arms between nations in peacetime: I have yet to see anything that suggests it's ever a good idea. Those weapons tend to have a nasty habit of ending up in the hands of enemies, and the global war trade is doing untold economic damage to almost every nation in the world. It is, also, a deeply ingrained industry - one that almost every country's leader is loath to consider abandoning. That, perhaps, is its most subtle and dangerous aspect - it makes a lot of notional money, so nobody wants to give it up.

To say that selling arms to Libya is a bad idea seems a smaller part of a blanket statement: selling arms to anybody is a bad idea. That the statement is true goes nowhere towards answering the question I put forward.

Col. Gadaffi should be encouraged with the carrot of international credibility to improve the lot of his people, most of whom live in poverty in a massively oil-rich nation.

Yes. Here you and I agree - although I'd suggest that Blair's handshake is an embodiment of that carrot. He's showing him how easily that credibility can be leant.

Infortunately, of course, by defying the UN the US and the UK have devalued the coin of the international community, the effects of which have yet entirely to shake out.

I would argue that the currency of the international community's influence is already pretty weak, considering that the UN has consistently and utterly failed to satisfy its first mandate: the prevention of war. Couple that with the tendency of the UN to issue statements of dubious value instead of taking direct action and to bog itself down in resolution/veto cycles, I don't see how much can be accomplished without defying the UN.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
15:35 / 28.03.04
Ray, I give your opinions every iota of the respect they deserve. Your habit of treating those who disagree with you like children I do not respect, and I saw no reason for the crude and condescending tone of your first post to this thread. I trust that your disapproval of my adoption of a similar tone demonstrates a willingness on your part to abandon this in your subsequent discussion.

Do you have a postion on Shokri Ghanem's announcement re: Lockerbie and Yvonne Fletcher? This strikes me as a fairly important distinction between reconciliation and appeasement, and one which has a significant bearing on what exactly is being rewarded here - a willingness to engage with the international community and international law or a willingness to disavow WMDs and sign up to the War on Terror (for which see earlier). Probem with this in turn is that it doesn't necessarily send the right signals to other Islamic republics about the weight and worth of engagement with the international community.

On the UN I suspect we differ. Certainly the veto is a fundamental issue that needs to be resolved, and certainly it could do with a greater commitment of men, materiel and money from the most powerful nation in the world, a nation which professes itself committed to world peace. However, in this case I don't see its failure to prevent war as particularly important - we are talking about negotiating a return to the international community. At the moment we have two international communities, in effect - one represented by the UN and one represented by the US and a number of allied states, these two having rather different aims and methods. The UN, IMHO, are perfectly positioned to broker the normalisation of diplomatic relations between the US, the UK and Libya, which action might also help to bring the "coalition of the willing" and the UN back onto better terms.

So, while I am very happy to see Libya's relationships with the UK being normalised, I don't see this as the ideal timing or the ideal method for it to be done.
 
 
Ray Fawkes
03:32 / 29.03.04
Haus,
I believe that Ghanem's announcement re: Lockerbie is a particularly well-placed one, and a diplomatic act in purest terms. His statements about Ms. Fletcher's shooting is perhaps less so, but does serve a distinct purpose of politic: to make it clear that her death was not something the nation should be expected to take responsibility for - redifining it as a simple act of murder, rather than terrorism. I can see the distinction here - Ghanem's statements are an attempt at reconciliation, while Ghadaffi's stated opposition to WMD can be construed as a sort of appeasement. Of course, one might argue that any hint of appeasement from a man with Mr. Gadaffi's past is something like a tentative step towards reconciliation - no less valid, potentially, than Ghanem's act - but yet to be fully realized.

Given the suspicion with which many Islamic republics treat international credibility (especially in the modern definition of the term, which is often construed as "western credibility"), I'm not sure any reconciliation can be expected to meet with full approval at this stage.

While we may not agree on the function of the UN or its problems, I can say that I fully support the notion of a greater commitment of funds, manpower, and material from all members - not just America. Given the luxury to fantasize, I envision a United Nations that requires the donation of a significant proportion of a nation's diplomatic and military forces to a global policing unit before said nation earns a vote on the council. And yes, the veto system really needs to be given a serious once-over.

Isn't negotiating the return of an excluded nation to the international community implied in the mandate of preventing war? I honestly think that the UN should be the organization to broker this sort of negotiation - but their history is one of consistent failure. Due to the structure of the UN, it generally tends towards a story of too little, too late, too often vetoed out of relevance.

I believe that the second community you name, spearheaded by the United States, is a response to the perceived failures of the UN, and is (because of the very nature of the shortcomings for which it seeks to compensate) unilateral because it fears the delaying effect necessitated by consensus decision-making.

To return to the topic as presented: It appears to me that Libya is being welcomed back towards (if not into) the fold by Blair. If relations are normalized, we must expect that the attendant business dealings will appear - as distasteful as those might be to some of us. Can we welcome them back into the international community without offering up the trade they (seemingly) desire? If we do, are we hypocrites? Can we expect them to be happy with an arrangement like that? If we don't, are we fools?
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
10:27 / 29.03.04
I'm not entirely sure that we are talking about the same announcements by the same Ghanem. I was thinking of his claim on the 24 February on British Radio that Libya as a state had no responsibility for the Lockerbie bombing, or for the murder of Yvonne Fletcher. This in contrast to the content of the letter to the United Nations, and I can't see it as a positive piece of diplomacy, rather than a piece of brinksmanship. Official sources have of course disowned the statement, but they have not to my knowledge done so publicly, which means that No. 10 has had to release their own story assuring us that he didn't mean it really, and then send Tony Blair to gladhand the leader of a régime whose position on the acts it claims to have accepted responsibility for and turned away from remains decidedly foggy. We also have yet to see if cooperation from the Libyan authorities with the latest team from the Metropolitan Police exceeds that of the frankly embarrassing 2002 enquiry.

So.... unanswered questions, and again I find the timing of the trip unfortunate. However, I certainly acknowledge that it would have been a bugger to reschedule.

As a possible side topic, how is this playing in the Islamic world? An encouraging sign that accord can be reached, or a reminder that the only way to avoid potential military action if you are an oil-rich nation is to knuckle under, show some shell casings and make nice on TV with Western leaders?

The discussion of the comparative efficacy of the United Nations and the Coalition of the Willing is, I think, outwith the scope of this discussion, but might make an interesting thread. Perhaps we could start with the success of the United Nations in reducing to nothing Iraq's stockpiles and production facilities for WMDs without recourse to an invasion?
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
10:49 / 29.03.04
I'm all in favour of diplomacy as war by other means. ANY other means are an improvement, as far as I can tell.

And yes, if we want "rogue states" to reform, we have to embrace them when they choose to do so. So on that count, I'm all for this.

However...

aside from the military/industrial complex angle to things, the Shell oil bounty, all the free market fun to be had...

...did Blair have a single word to say about human rights abuses in Libya to his mate Muammar?

As far as I know, he didn't.

Begging the question... at what point does a rogue state become our friend, if it's a question of right/wrong (the way T&G seem to be dividing the world right now?).

In other news... neither the US nor the UK has a problem with China shock.
 
 
Ray Fawkes
11:36 / 29.03.04
Haus,
Please forgive my foggy memory. I recalled the letter to the UN claiming responsibility and promising compensation, not Ghanem's statement that Libya was simply buying peace. You're right about that one.

Still not sure the question I raised has been answered, though. If we continue to exclude a nation like Libya from diplomacy and trade, can we expect them to be friendly? And if we don't exclude them, are we fools for being friendly with them?
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
19:54 / 30.03.04
Hmmm... but that's questionable logic, isn't it? You're assuming that a binary state exists between a) complete integration into the international community and b) exclusion therefrom, and that these are the only options, and also that any inclusive act has to take place at the point when it has taken place. You are also assuming that there *is* an international community, while simultaneously arguing that the spinoff international community has been necessitated by the inability of the United Nations to take action.

So.... if one accepts all of the above premises, then one cannot possibly criticise the actions as they have been taken. However, I do not think that one has to accept all of the above premises.

So, we can possibly say that as an ideal it is good for all nations to be a part of an international community. It is good, arguably, for all nations to trade equitably (although this is not quite what happens in upstream oil, but leave that aside also). However, since neither of these conditions are actually the case, a degree of doubt exists. Some fo these doybts, for example, may surround the timing of the reconciliation, the method of the reconciliation, and the message the reconciliation is sending out.

*A* message this reconciliation seems to send out is that the Western allies are more interested in providing oil markets than in actually enforcing the conditions under which Libya was meant to be returned to the fold in the first place (see the quite important Shokri Ghanem discussion above). Also that the lure of being able to display some success in the global quest to eliminate rogue WMDs, even when those WMDs are rather a long way away from the WMDs that were *meant* to be the issue.

So... hugs and puppies are certainly good, and I am as happy as the next man to see Libya struck off the list of nations that my be a problem, even if it has been done so having been starved into submission. But if you are going to take a firm line on terrorism one very good thing to do is not to shake hands with a man who has not yet clarified in public the most recent disavowal of guilt for the terrorist actions the stated regret for which formed the basis of the argument for reinclusion, and if you are going to try to convince cynics in one's own nation and abroad that oil is not a significant motivator of the foreign policy of the Coalition of the Willing, then embracing a nation under such dubious ethical and statecraft conditions while waving in the upstream boys is not a great way to go about it.

So, it's nice to have Libya back, but the circumstances and the PR have been pretty ineptly managed, IMHO.
 
 
Ray Fawkes
04:47 / 31.03.04
So, it's nice to have Libya back, but the circumstances and the PR have been pretty ineptly managed, IMHO.

Hmm...is it nice to have Libya back?

As you've stated, there's some confusion as to which community, exactly, Libya's being welcomed into, why they're being welcomed back, and what it all means.

By a certain logic, every nation in the world should, ideally, become a part of the global international community, and should be allowed to participate equally in trade. That community should include or exclude nations by a process of consensus, based (one would hope) on an assessment of the nation's stated and demonstrated policies with regards to their citizenry, their fellow states, and the aforementioned global community.

I would argue that this logic leads to a rather aggressive promotion of conformism, enforced (notionally) by threat of exclusion (as demonstrated by the UN's use of sanctions) or threat of military intervention (as demonstrated by the US-led coalition).

Strangely, though, it seems to be the basis of the position of many who are opposed to enforced conformity. This is where my original statement on this topic was sourced: we aren't happy when a nation like Libya is befriended (because they don't deserve it, or we're doing it for the wrong reasons), and we aren't happy when one of the international communities lays pressure on a nation like Libya (because people are harmed).

So: are those of us who are opposed to enforced conformity arguing in favor of isolationism? Usually not: something is to be done about unjust or inappropriate behavior, but complaints are raised by every apparent available option.

Frustration lies this way: there is an imperative to do something when a state perceived to be oppressive, aggressive, or unjust - but our options are all, to some degree, distasteful, and many people aren't willing to countenance any unpleasantness.

And yes, I do believe that being a member of the international community (either an ideal or one of the existing choices) is a binary option: to suggest that a nation should be allowed partial benefits of membership is just another exclusionary tactic - much like the current veto system in the UN, which allows a small number of nations elevated status that affords them (and only them) to frustrate and ignore the concerns of those who aren't part of the "veto circle". Nations are either in, in which they enjoy full benefits and partake in full responsibilities of membership, or they're out - and have to watch as borders are drawn up on the arbitrary terms of the "in".
 
 
Morlock - groupie for hire
12:18 / 31.03.04
I would argue that this logic leads to a rather aggressive promotion of conformism, enforced (notionally) by threat of exclusion (as demonstrated by the UN's use of sanctions) or threat of military intervention (as demonstrated by the US-led coalition).

No. Again with the polarisation, when it is just not warranted. Sanctions are an extreme (and quite pointless) measure of punishment for behaviour considered aberrant, but not one that can only be avoided by conformism. And you military intervention argument holds no water for anyone who refuses to see two-and-a-half nations as an international community.

There is a difference between expecting nations to abide by some basic standards (eg human rights, international law as mentioned above), and expecting a nation to conform, ie behave identically to that of another, more powerful nation.

Yes, it is difficult to apply useful pressure to a sovereign nation to correct policies you feel are unacceptable. But if you ignore that option entirely you end up with that binary, with-us-or-against-us system, which you have yourself suggested doesn't work either.

The sanctions could have been merely eased, or lifted, without Tony inviting the guy for a sleep-over. Gray areas.
 
 
Ray Fawkes
15:21 / 31.03.04
Conform (as defined by Merriam Webster)
1: to be similar or identical. also, to be in agreement or harmony. Used with to or with
2a: to be obedient or compliant. Usually used with to.
2b: to act in accordance with prevailing standards or customs.

Enough grey area there, I'd say. Since the internet is an automatic manufacturer of straw men, I'll state my intent explicitly: I was referring to definition 2b.

And any argument involving military intervention doesn't depend on the size of the community intervening - only their military strength. As we saw throughout the latter half of the twentieth century, two nations are perfectly capable of holding the entire world hostage, provided they have the might.

The sanctions could have been merely eased, or lifted, without Tony inviting the guy for a sleep-over. Gray areas.

Wait a minute. So the problem here is not the easing or lifting of sanctions on trade, but rather the appearance of friendliness? Doesn't the act of easing sanctions suggest the softening of contrary stance anyway? If it doesn't come with a declaration of friendship, it looks like capitulation. "We still don't like your behavior, but we'd like to trade with you...so we'll ease those punitive sanctions."
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
20:45 / 01.04.04

Wait a minute. So the problem here is not the easing or lifting of sanctions on trade, but rather the appearance of friendliness? Doesn't the act of easing sanctions suggest the softening of contrary stance anyway? If it doesn't come with a declaration of friendship, it looks like capitulation. "We still don't like your behavior, but we'd like to trade with you...so we'll ease those punitive sanctions."

To an extent, yes, I think that the appearance of friendliness *is* the problem. This is harder to gauge than financial considerations, but it is nonetheless a fairly important issue. My sole problem with the detente with Libya as it has been practiced is pragmatic; I think it sends out the wrong message. One of the wrong messages is that a nation's prime minister can publicly rescind an acknowledgement of culpability for sponsoring acts of aggression and still present its dictator for a photo op, if that nation has something the Coalition of the Willing wants, in this case a chance to show some empty shell casings and/or a shitload of oil. At the same time, it suggests to nations and people with oil reserves that they are going to get the same indulgence, and to nations and people who have not encouraged terrorism that they are not going to be rewarded for this because they do not have anything to offer in the way of good WMD news or upstream projects. It's poor statecraft, which serves extremely short-term goals. Blair probably made the best of a bad lot, but there was nigh-on a month to get it sorted and all they got was a reassurance through diplomatic channels that he didn't mean it really. Unless I've missed something, which is of course entirely possible.
 
 
Morlock - groupie for hire
14:51 / 02.04.04
Ghost, you were arguing that the only options available to an international community trying to create some kind of international standard of state-behaviour were *agressive* conformism through the threat of sanctions, or direct military intervention. And that since membership of an international community is binary, the support of such a community leaves us with no choice but to resort to aggression whenever we want to encourage our standards outside that community.

Unless I'm still misreading your post. Which is entirely possible.

So: are those of us who are opposed to enforced conformity arguing in favor of isolationism? Usually not: something is to be done about unjust or inappropriate behavior, but complaints are raised by every apparent available option.

I was hoping to show that there are rather more options available than just your two.

And on the topic of friendliness, yes, I think that is exactly the point. The response should be in some proprtion to the effort made by Libya to address the complaints against it. All the complaints.
 
 
Morlock - groupie for hire
14:52 / 02.04.04
Shit. Sorry about the echo in here.
 
  
Add Your Reply