The United Nations Security Council approved a measure on Thursday authorizing “all necessary measures” to protect Libyan civilians from harm at the hands of forces loyal to Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi.This move could result in the greatest victory for the United Nations, and the internationalists, or it could lead to their undoing as keepers of the peace and impartial judges of nations and rulers. There are many pros and cons of an international intervention in Libya. Many things can go wrong. But if Gaddafi is defeated without much struggle then obviously the history books will judge the decision to take out Gaddafi very favorably.
The measure allows not only a no-fly zone but effectively any measures short of a ground invasion to halt attacks that might result in civilian fatalities. It comes as Colonel Qaddafi warned residents of Benghazi, Libya, the rebel capital, that an attack was imminent and promised lenient treatment for those who offered no resistance.
The UN's resolution raises new questions. If Libya is the new standard for international intervention, then what other war-torn country will be handed the same fate by the UN? Can the Security Council rule to halt air strikes and drone attacks by American forces on Afghan civilians and Pakistani villages? Obviously that will never happen because the U.S. has a veto vote.
Andrew Sullivan asks if the U.N. has more authority than the U.S. Congress:
The United States is, we are informed, about to declare war on a third deeply divided, chaotic and violent Muslim country. The Congress has not voted; the president has not explained; a thorough debate has not taken place. On what basis can a president simply decide such a profound question? Is the UN Secretary-General now more important than the American public or Congress?For good or ill, national sovereignty has been thrown out the window. But it can't stop with Libya. What about the tyrants and state murderers in Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, America, Israel, Iran? If Gaddafi gets the axe, who will be next? Will the U.N. support an international war on the Mullahs in Iran in the name of saving protesters and overthrowing a dictatorship?
Who gets to decide that the whole world should go to war with a single country - international bureaucrats and military machines, or the people? What kind of democracy is this? How is the United Nations qualified to decide matters of war and peace? Whatever happens now, whatever course history may take, one fact can't be changed: The U.N. has crossed the Rubicon.
