Maybe saving the lives of civilians by taking away their fundamental political agency is the real problem with UN-NATO interventions, rather than some hidden economic self-interest.
The west’s military-political strategy against the Gaddafi regime echoes its flawed approach to Afghanistan and Iraq, says Paul Rogers in this, his 500th weekly column for openDemocracy.
The military intervention in Libya now threatens the Arab democracy risings. This makes diplomacy and demilitarisation essential, says Mark Taylor.
Full militaristic intervention cannot be justified on the grounds that this is a ‘just war’. We are then left with the option to intervene militarily in a smaller way or not to intervene militarily at all.
For the sake of Libyan society as a whole, women must play a more equal and visible role in shaping it.
If the opportunity can be seized to help more people to build prosperous lives of liberty in their own countries, perhaps Europe’s Islamophobes will be able to stop worrying about immigration or insecurity.
In the end the prospects for democracy depend on whether the rebels can mobilise support politically throughout Libya. The problem with the military approach is that it entrenches division. Our preoccupation with classic military means is undermining our capacity to address growing insecurity.
The United States and European intervention in Libya leaves open key questions about the future of western power in the wider region, says Godfrey Hodgson.
The diplomatic context of the anti-Gaddafi war is different from that of earlier western military interventions in the Arab world. But its motives, methods, silences, and falsities are all too familiar.
The international war over Libya began on the late evening of 19 March 2011. Its meaning depends on the angle of vision - and what happens next.
The Gulf Co-operation Council, whose normal work is to consolidate and promote oil interests, would do well to remember that just last week it admonished Gaddafi for using force against his fellow citizens.
