Why we shouldn’t intervene in Libya

Views from the five countries that abstained on UN Resolution 1973.

When last week's UN Security Council Resolution 1973 was passed – enforcing a no-fly zone over Libya and authorising member states to "take all necessary measures" to "protect civilians and civilian-populated areas under threat of attack" – only five countries chose to abstain, rather than support it.

Given the consensual nature of the exchanges in this afternoon's Commons debate, it's worth seeking out the views of Brazil, Russia, India, China and Germany, whose early reservations may soon become more commonplace. Whilst it could be argued (with the exception of Germany) that they have an anti-west foreign policy agenda, or corrupt regimes to protect, many of the points they make are being echoed throughout the general populace.

So, here is our rundown of who abstained, and why.

Brazil

Brazil's permanent representative to the UN, Maria Luiza Ribeiro Viotti, said:

We are not convinced that the use of force as provided for in operative paragraph 4 of the present resolution will lead to the realisation of our common objective – the immediate end of violence and the protection of civilians.

Russia

UN Ambassador Vitaly Churkin stated:

We participated actively in the discussions on the draft resolution. Unfortunately, work on this document was not in keeping with the Security Council's standing practice . . . In essence, a whole range of questions raised by the Russian Federation and other Security Council members remained unanswered, questions which were both concrete and legitimate, questions regarding how the no-fly zone would be enforced, what the rules of engagement would be, and limits to the use of force would be. Furthermore, the draft was morphing before our very eyes, transcending the League of Arab States' initial stated concepts . . . Introduced into the text were provisions potentially opening the door to large-scale military intervention. Through the negotiations of the draft, statements claiming an absence of any such intention were heard. We take note of these.

Prime Minister Vladimir Putin has since said that he is "concerned about the ease with which it has been decided to use violence" and that the resolution reminded him of "medieval calls for crusades".

India

Deputy Ambassador to the UN Manjeev Singh Puri said:

We do not have clarity about details of enforcement measures, including who and with what asset will participate and how these measures will be exactly carried out . . . The financial measures that are proposed in the resolution could impact, directly or through indirect routes, ongoing trade and investment activities of a number of member states thereby adversely affecting the economic interests of the Libyan people and others dependent on these trade and economic ties . . . Moreover, we had to ensure that the measures will mitigate – and not exacerbate – an already difficult situation for the people of Libya. Clarity in the resolution on any spillover effects of these measures would have been very important.

Of the supposedly indiscriminate air attacks that have been taking place over the past few days, a New Delhi statement said:

India views with grave concern the continuing violence, strife and deteriorating humanitarian situation in Libya . . . It regrets the air strikes that are taking place. The measures adopted should mitigate and not exacerbate an already difficult situation for the people of Libya.

China

UN Ambassador Li Baodong stated:

In the Security Council's consultations on Resolution 1973, we and some other council members asked some specific questions. However, regrettably, many of those questions failed to be clarified or answered. China has serious difficulty with part of the resolution.

China, as a permanent member of the UN Security Council, could have blocked the resolution altogether, but because it attached "great importance to the relevant decision by the 22-member Arab League on the establishment of a no-fly zone over Libya" (the League initially supported the motion), the Chinese chose merely to abstain instead.

A Chinese foreign ministry spokesperson, Jiang Yu, explained:

We oppose the use of force in international relations and have serious reservations with part of the resolution.

However, now that the Arab League has criticised the air strikes, claiming they are beyond the remit of the resolution, China could step up the rhetoric. Jiang Yu has already said that "China has noted the latest developments in Libya and expresses regret over the military attacks on Libya".

Germany

This is the most interesting case, as Germany was the only EU member state to abstain. It would seem that memories of war and imperialism are still too contentious when handling a situation that actually or potentially involves both.

UN Ambassador Peter Wittig said:

We should not enter a military confrontation on the optimistic assumption that quick results with few casualties will be achieved.

Whilst Wittig stated that Germany recognised the plight of the Libyan people, he also argued that Berlin sees "the danger of being drawn into a protracted military conflict".

Guido Westerwelle, the German foreign minister, defended his country's position:

The impression that Germany is isolated in Europe or the international community is completely wrong . . . Many other countries in the European Union not only understand our position, not only respect it, but also share it.

Liam McLaughlin is a freelance journalist who has also written for Prospect and the Huffington Post. He tweets irregularly @LiamMc108.

Getty
Show Hide image

The economics of outrage: Why you haven't seen the end of Katie Hopkins

Her distasteful tweet may have cost her a job at LBC, but this isn't the last we've seen of Britain's biggest troll. 

Another atrocity, other surge of grief and fear, and there like clockwork was the UK’s biggest troll. Hours after the explosion at the Manchester Arena that killed 22 mostly young and female concert goers, Katie Hopkins weighed in with a very on-brand tweet calling for a “final solution” to the complex issue of terrorism.

She quickly deleted it, replacing the offending phrase with the words “true solution”, but did not tone down the essentially fascist message. Few thought it had been an innocent mistake on the part of someone unaware of the historical connotations of those two words.  And no matter how many urged their fellow web users not to give Hopkins the attention she craved, it still sparked angry tweets, condemnatory news articles and even reports to the police.

Hopkins has lost her presenting job at LBC radio, but she is yet to lose her column at Mail Online, and it’s quite likely she won’t.

Mail Online and its print counterpart The Daily Mail have regularly shown they are prepared to go down the deliberately divisive path Hopkins was signposting. But even if the site's managing editor Martin Clarke was secretly a liberal sandal-wearer, there are also very good economic reasons for Mail Online to stick with her. The extreme and outrageous is great at gaining attention, and attention is what makes money for Mail Online.

It is ironic that Hopkins’s career was initially helped by TV’s attempts to provide balance. Producers could rely on her to provide a counterweight to even the most committed and rational bleeding-heart liberal.

As Patrick Smith, a former media specialist who is currently a senior reporter at BuzzFeed News points out: “It’s very difficult for producers who are legally bound to be balanced, they will sometimes literally have lawyers in the room.”

“That in a way is why some people who are skirting very close or beyond the bounds of taste and decency get on air.”

But while TV may have made Hopkins, it is online where her extreme views perform best.  As digital publishers have learned, the best way to get the shares, clicks and page views that make them money is to provoke an emotional response. And there are few things as good at provoking an emotional response as extreme and outrageous political views.

And in many ways it doesn’t matter whether that response is negative or positive. Those who complain about what Hopkins says are also the ones who draw attention to it – many will read what she writes in order to know exactly why they should hate her.

Of course using outrageous views as a sales tactic is not confined to the web – The Daily Mail prints columns by Sarah Vine for a reason - but the risks of pushing the boundaries of taste and decency are greater in a linear, analogue world. Cancelling a newspaper subscription or changing radio station is a simpler and often longer-lasting act than pledging to never click on a tempting link on Twitter or Facebook. LBC may have had far more to lose from sticking with Hopkins than Mail Online does, and much less to gain. Someone prepared to say what Hopkins says will not be out of work for long. 

0800 7318496