dagblog - Comments for "Arab League Endorses No-Flight Zone Over Libya"

Ian Buruma op-ed:Obama gets

artappraiser — Tue, 15 Mar 2011 08:10:45 +0000

In reply to Arab League Endorses No-Flight Zone Over Libya

Ian Buruma op-ed:

Obama gets it right

Obama's seeming inaction over the protests sweeping the Middle East is exactly what he needs to do - that is, nothing.

By Ian Buruma, Al Jazeera, March 14, 2011

http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/03/2011310143920573136...

Algerian and Syrian

artappraiser — Tue, 15 Mar 2011 01:08:41 +0000

In reply to AA, did you see the reference

Algerian and Syrian position

Cavaet: I'm far from an expert on this area of the world. You probably know more than me.

The standard cynical explanation would be the mean tough dictators are all for an isolationist standard of sovereignity because it means no meddling in dictatorships.

But there's a problem with that--they are all basically dictators, and they are not supporting each other.

I would like to suggest something else going on here as well. Syria and Algeria are basically very ancient countries with deep nationalist cultural feelings among the populace (like Egypt as well.) The gulf oil states are modern creations, more Islamic and tribal in past culture than anything else. What is the basis of their culture is their vision of an Arab if not international ummah? They care less about nation states than they do about their fellow Muslims in a place like Libya? To Saudis, the Libyans are brother Muslims, to Syria and Algeria the Libyans are foreigners who are also Muslims?

Not for nothing is King Abdullah referred to in the Saudi media as The Custodian of The Two Holy Mosques. Haven't checked it out but I wouldn't be surprised to find there's some fatwas out from state favored imams calling Gaddafi kafir or apostate or some such.

Edit to add:

See the Saudi "occupation" of Bahrain news, which I did not know about when I wrote the above.

Also I forgot to make this point: Isn't it kind of loony on its face for Syria to argue that the status quo makes for "stability." Arguing sovereignity is at least logical; isolationism, letting what happens happen, is logical, too. Saying leaving things to sort themselves out means stability strikes me as kind of delusional. Not without genocidal level action does a Libya with Ghaddifi still in power stay anything near what one could call "stable." But that doesn't surprise me coming from al-Assad, he does seem to have a similar "the people love me" delusion.

A follow up on that mystery

artappraiser — Mon, 14 Mar 2011 23:05:35 +0000

In reply to Arab League Endorses No-Flight Zone Over Libya

A follow up on that mystery flight of Libyan envoy to Egypt story. Cavaet: it's an anonymous Libyan diplomatic source:

Egypt rejects Gaddafi request for military help

13/03/2011

By Khaled Mahmoud

Cairo, Asharq Al-Awsat- A Libyan diplomatic source has revealed to Asharq Al-Awsat that that the official in charge of provisions and supplies in the Libyan Army, abruptly left Cairo for Libya last Thursday after a quick 24-hour visit.

According to the source which spoke to Asharq Al-Awsat on the condition of anonymity, the Libyan envoy Maj. Gen Abdul-Rahman al-Sid met with members of the Supreme Council of the Egyptian Armed Forces, but not with Field Marshal Tantawi, chairman of the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces, who assumed power in Egypt after the fall of the regime of former President Hosni Mubarak. The source added: "The Egyptian officials handed the Libyan envoy a written message in a closed envelope, and he immediately left Cairo for home along with Ali Marya, the Libyan ambassador to Cairo. It appears that the Libyan envoy's mission was not successful." It is not clear whether Field Marshal Tantawi's failure to meet with the Libyan envoy was a political stance expressing his rejection of the way Gaddafi is dealing with the Libyan people, or because he had other urgent engagements. Also, no official statement was made on the talks held by Gaddafi's envoy, who is the highest ranking Libyan official to visit Cairo since the eruption of the popular protests against Gaddafi's regime on 17 February.

Libyan oppositionists and dissidents told Asharq Al-Awsat that Colonel Gaddafi sought to persuade the Egyptian authorities to supply his forces with weapons and ammunition to make up for shortages faced by his forces, which have been waging fierce battles in various Libyan cities for three weeks against revolutionaries.....

http://aawsat.com/english/news.asp?section=1&id=24492

I too doubt a no-fly zone

artappraiser — Mon, 14 Mar 2011 22:59:21 +0000

In reply to With Gaddafi's forces

I too doubt a no-fly zone would stop them

Recent developments indicate it would be basically symbolic, "for show" as they say. Because it won't stop things like helicopters and it won't stop any of the techniques Gaddafi's using now successfully. From a lot of what I've been reading, I sense that's why Gates is cranky about it, he doesn't want to end up using actual resources for a "for show" program.

From what I've been reading, I do think a lot of the rebels want it, and the few photos of signs saying they don't are being overplayed in the liberal blogosphere. They want it as a sign of international support, to put money where mouth is about freedom and dictators, that the international community is being self serving only.

However, one has to look at the Saddam example. Wasn't the coalition basically doing that "for show," too? It was unlikely he was going to use his airforce to bomb Kurds. It just gave that area psychological protection.

It's quite possible that the Arab League was only playing the "all cards on the table" game like everyone else.

And overall it must be kept in perspective that the dictator is a loony bird where traditonal pyschology will not work.

With Gaddafi's forces

acanuck — Sun, 13 Mar 2011 23:03:21 +0000

In reply to Point taken acanuck. The

With Gaddafi's forces regrouped and on the move, I too doubt a no-fly zone would stop them. The one force that could quickly step in, and turn the tide, is the massive Egyptian army. They would need an Arab League mandate to do so, with the justification being to prevent the slaughter that would ensue if Qaddafi triumphs. I could even see them open to such action, since it would cement their popularity even further with Egypt's pro-democracy movement.

But it would definitely take a green light from the Arab League. Maybe Algeria and Syria could be persuaded to go along, on grounds that Arabs policing their own region is so much better than having some European or western power (like say, France) intervene. Clearly someone has to intervene or the rebels are sitting ducks. Under no circumstances, however, should the U.S. even think about playing that role.

Point taken acanuck. The

Bruce Levine — Sun, 13 Mar 2011 12:30:22 +0000

In reply to Of course Algeria and Syria

Point taken acanuck. The precedent for foreign intervention is something any country should be concerned about. On the other hand, the other nations in the Arab League presumably share the same concern and came out on the side of the no-fly zone. In any event, I just don't know if the no-fly zone would make a difference at this point. One can only imagine what's in store for the rebels and anyone perceived as their supporters after the shooting stops.

Of course Algeria and Syria

acanuck — Sun, 13 Mar 2011 04:48:24 +0000

In reply to AA, did you see the reference

Of course Algeria and Syria are worried about any precedent for foreign intervention in their own countries, Bruce. (Algeria has an even more active insurgency than Syria.) At least, after voicing their objections, they let the motion pass.

The African Union is even more resistant to the idea of no-fly zones -- again for obvious reasons. I'd be very surprised if the UN Security Council authorizes a no-fly zone, though it's probably the only thing that could tip the balance in favor of the rebels. And prevent what's shaping up as a bloodbath.

AA, did you see the reference

Bruce Levine — Sun, 13 Mar 2011 00:34:07 +0000

In reply to Arab League Endorses No-Flight Zone Over Libya

AA, did you see the reference in the Times' article to opposition to the no-fly zone by Syria and Algeria:

Although the Arab League resolution was considered to be the position of the entire body once it passed, there had been opposition, especially from Syria and Algeria, who argued that foreign intervention would destabilize the region.
Syria’s ambassador, Youssef Ahmed, said Arab states should oppose any step that “violates the sovereignty, independence and unity of Libyan territory.”

I have no idea whether a no-fly zone will prevent the carnage we're hearing about in Libya, but I find the Algerian and Syrian position to be absolutely incredible, i.e. that the region will be destabilized by a no-fly zone authorized by the Arab League. I don't know much about Algeria's internal situation, but I would bet that Vogue's favorite dictator in Syria is probably thinking more about himself than he is the rebels in Libya, and the Arab street throughout the region.

The Arab League is always so

NCD — Sun, 13 Mar 2011 00:11:59 +0000

In reply to Arab League Endorses No-Flight Zone Over Libya

The Arab League is always so willing to let the US save them from their own Arab brothers and fellow despots.

Don't Saudi Arabia and Egypt have a big enough Air Force to put a check of the Colonel? Benghazi is right next door to Egypt and their Air Force is not currently employed. I think even a few big bombs on his bunker in Tripoli would extinguish the Colonel's eagerness to slaughter his own people.