Libya and regime change

Lord Soley

At last! I feel as though I have been a lone voice calling for the international community to accept the principle of removing the most brutal dictators from power – or regime change as it is now called. Now it seems to be increasingly accepted as the statement from Obama, Sarkozy and Cameron indicate.

As I have pointed out before on this blog and in debates, it is not a new idea and it is not just a western concept. The Indian Government removed the East Pakistan government from what is now Bangladesh; the Vietnamese removed Pol Pot and Tanzania removed Idi Amin.

The struggle is like the campaign against the 19th century slave trade. Strongly opposed by many at first but it came to be seen as morally correct. The campaign against extreme dictators is similar. Yes – There are definition problems but no one can have many doubts about the extreme cases. Our problem is redefining international law to allow it to take place – just like we redefined the law relating to the slave trade.

6 comments for “Libya and regime change

  1. Matt
    18/04/2011 at 9:57 am

    If you’re willing to go into the front line, m’lud, then good on you …

  2. MilesJSD
    18/04/2011 at 1:53 pm

    The lord feels he was a “lone voice”
    i.e. quite outside of his many different memberships of groups and organisations the which evidently are not “calling for (‘)the international community(‘) to accept removing the most brutal dictators from power –
    i.e. to accept ‘regime change’ as it is now called” (but by whom ? –
    I certainly don’t follow or recognise such vapid valueless loose-ended vaguenesses as undefined and directionless “change” “regime” or “principle”

    in fact maybe the only Brit who is such a member looks like being de-facto the UK PM Cameron –
    to whom alone the lord could have made his call,
    since Cameron, Sarkozy and Obama as a Tribunal have – in-dictated – (in their Role as, or on behalf of, The International Community) – has become absolutely and urgently necessary.
    Our “problem” is not merely to “redefine international law”
    (that is the problem for the United Nations)
    (mark you, “redefinition” also is pusillanimous, when what is needed is scrutiny-and-scrapping, and a peaceful-revolution scale of new Law-making, wide but simple-and-to-the-point);

    new laws need to be constructed and implemented firstly by the British People and our Parliamentary-Representatives and last-resort-defenders;

    Why ?

    We have no other sane choice than to look to our, and especially to ‘The’, common future;
    in which ‘sustainability’ without a primary overarching and underpinning foundation of Sustainworthiness has already become anathema, on any timeframe.

    It is no good waiting for Military ‘Peace-Making’, Political-Policies, Economic Equations, and “the Goodness-of-God”, to reveal that our human-civilisation and human-individual ways are not sustain-able, nor to go on accepting Leaders’and Governments’ courtroom adolescent-level excuse “It seemed like a good idea at the time, m’lud”.

    Perspective-wise: Individual-Capitalism is as ‘evil’ as Brutal-Dictatorship*.
    * The ‘White’ world’s consumption of the Earth’s total Resources is more than the whole of the rest-of-the-world put together;
    and therein furthermore the ‘White’ world’s extinctioning of Living Lifesupports, and its Destructivity of Non-living non-renewable resources, is more than the rest-of-the-world’s:
    and within this ‘White’ world, the USA** alone consumes and destroys almost 75% of the whole world’s aforesaid Living-Lifesupports and Non-Renewable resources.
    ** That the USA deserved to be brought to book Internationally, from long long ago, does not negate that Saddam Hussein went about it the wrong way;
    but it does make the ‘White’ world look life-threateningly-greedy,
    and ‘cowardly’ ‘bullying’ also, alas!


  3. Twm O'r Nant
    18/04/2011 at 7:40 pm

    Ecuador removed its own drummer boy president
    by impeachment, of which it is rightly proud.

    They now have probably the world’s most cogent and internationally aware presidents of all the world’s presidents, and on some subjects, in greater depth than Barak Obama. They were both at Harvard as Law students.

  4. maude elwes
    19/04/2011 at 11:35 am

    Libya, and the entire escapade, is one of the biggest fairy tales in reason for war ever pushed onto the British and European public since Iraq. It’s another wash out and must have been known to be before its onset.

    The war mongers in government, both sides of the House, are hell bent on impoverishing this nation in every way they can.

    How do we ever rid ourselves of them? That is the only answer to the collective problem we now live through.

  5. Gareth Howell
    19/04/2011 at 7:11 pm

    Libya, and the entire escapade, is one of the biggest fairy tales in reason for war ever pushed onto the British and European public since Iraq.

    Believing that we are all basically war mongering people and that the principle of Pacifism is a good one may be a starting point.

    Globalism and the decisions of the UN which makes some attempt to enforce worldwide “Law”
    by way of Resolution, is not an easy thing to call.

    The remarks made by the noble lord Anderson in the debate on Libya led by the foreign affairs minster in the house of lords, lord Howell, were far more relevant than those of the Minister himself, who seemed content to gloss over any involvement in debate of UN resolutions at all.

    Lord Anderson had good reason to remind the
    chamber of the complexity of UN Resolutions
    at the time of the Iraq War, and the word
    may loom much larger as time goes by.

    Iraq resolutions were passed retrospectively
    to give the force of law to what a number of countries mainly UK/US had already done,
    namely to invade Iraq. The term “De facto”
    was used.

    The unrest sweeping the Arab world is not something that any one person or one country can control. It is much more of a “movement for political change”.

    If it is blatantly obvious that one notorious dictator is doin wot he dinna ought, then the temptation for mere mortals hoping to do something positive and “good”(!) really is too great to resist.

    It is easy to be a pacifist if you don’t hold political/ministerial office. Almost impossible to be one, if you do.

    And what is more, like poor old Knight of the noble lord of these columns, with a conscience about it too. As a minister of war he took some responsibility and he also takes the blame, possibly trying to absolve himself along the way.

    • maude elwes
      21/04/2011 at 7:59 am

      @Gareth Howell: Pacifism has nothing to do with it. Common sense and insight is all that is needed. Poste haste.

      Presently, we have no reason to be at war anywhere in the world. We are not being attacked or physically threatened in any way. The single most important job of ‘our’ government is to protect and defend the people of ‘this’ country. What goes on elsewhere is the domain of those in that elsewhere place. We are not the world enforcers and our government is not paid for by tax payers here to take on that role.

      You cannot pretend it is difficult to call, it simply is not. What our government needs to concentrate on is the condition of life here. It needs to get down to sorting out the problems that are to do with the people of this country and the people here who pay their bloody salary are looking for and expecting them to do just that. If they want to play war games and be in the fray of other nations activity then move off to the other nations where their interference is wanted and paid for by those people of that country. And quick sharp.

      The British people, as a whole, not a few, are sick to death of spending their hard earned cash on those who have their sights elsewhere. Emulating the USA is the craziest route to follow by anyones thinking.

      If the British are not the main objectives of politicians here then those same politicians must remove themselves from British office and make a life for themselves on some other shores.

      Otherwise, they will be forced out, one way or the other.

Comments are closed.