Libya's UN mission asks world to defend Libyans from Gadaffi

Libya's UN ambassadors have joined the ranks of Libyan diplomats around the world to denounce Gadhafi's brutal crackdown on the popular uprising across the country. The entire Libyan UN diplomatic has appealed to the Security Council to defend their countrymen from the crackdown.
Dabbashi urged the international community to impose a no-fly zone over Libya to prevent mercenaries, weapons and other supplies from reaching Gadhafi and his security forces.

Dabbashi also said he was not resigning.

The diplomat says the Libyan delegation is also urging the International Criminal Court to investigate possible crimes against humanity committed against the Libyan people during the current protests.

Libya's UN ambassadors are calling for leader Col. Moammar Gadhafi to step down.

(Image: Colonel Gadaffi is a great leader!, a Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike (2.0) image from quinnanya's photostream)


  1. Is there anything we can do as regular citizens of America, GB, or any other country? I’ve written my senators urging them to put in a word with the State Department (though since it’s Shelby and Sessions, I’m not holding my breath).

    Are there any relief organizations that are trying to help in Libya and Bahrain or any of the other countries that are facing violent opposition for protesting? I don’t have a lot of money, but I would be willing to donate.

      1. I seem to remember reading somewhere that contracting mercenaries is illegal and will draw the ire of numerous alphabet agencies. That was a long time ago, though. Maybe it’s different since the Bush administration.

    1. Save your money for now. There’s little that can be done while bullets are flying. When the dust settles there will be plenty of relief organisations that’ll be in need of your support.

      What you can do today is read up on how and why our politicians and multinationals have been propping up this regime for years and years despite Gadaffi being the world’s number one terrorist supporter.

  2. Does Libya have any important us bases there? No? Ok we’ll help then. Sorry Bahrain.

    The secret of US foreign policy, talk about freedom and such but always side with “stability” in the end. When it finally falls apart act surprised and enjoy a couple of generations of people pissed at you for keeping them opressed for decades. Spend billions on antiterrorism efforts. Repeat.

    Short term thinking has worked wonders with Wall St also.

  3. As of eight days ago, anyway, the Enterprise was in the Mediterranean. I assume it didn’t go through the Suez during the recent Egyptian business. We (I mean the United States Navy. Not the “International Community” who — curiously — has no aircraft carrier handy) could shut down Libyan air space in about an hour if we chose. I wish we would.

    1. Though it sounds appealing, the use of force by outside powers often causes more problems than it solves.

      It would certainly give Colonel Tarquin a way to pint at invidious foreigners as the reason for the protests.

    2. No carriers from the ‘international community”, you say?

      Any British, French, Russian, or Chinese carriers about?

      Getting itchy, wishing to be involved in other people’s wars?
      Spending whose money? Money taken from which other projects?

      1. Getting itchy wishing to avoid having the Libyans shoot rockets at protesters, yes. I see plenty of upside and fairly little downside to such an action. I’d be thrilled if the British or the French or the Spainish Armada did something about it. I won’t hold my breath. We’re not the only country that can do this, but we’re the only country who might.

        And the marginal cost to the US taxpayer of imposing a no-fly zone over Libyan is almost nothing.

        1. Some would argue that the USA’s prior conflicts with Mr Gaddhafi renders any such forceful action on the part of the USA impolitic – regardless of the justice or merit which such action would have.

          The same principles and arguments which served to prevent American or indeed other foreign military action in Egypt or Bahrain would also seem to apply to Libya.

  4. macegr, hiring mercenaries (paramilitary) to assist probably won’t help the situation. Plus it doesn’t exactly fit into the grand scheme of crowds chanting, “peaceful, peaceful” unless they change it to “peaceful, peaceful – but we got some guys with guns behind us so watch it”

  5. I’m reacting only to the request by certain Libyans asking for it, but a no-fly zone — no helicopters, no fighter planes — could do quite a bit to keep the death toll down if the Libyan Air Force is still following orders. It’s not the same thing as meaningful intervention.

  6. I wonder what the odds are of an emergency UN Security Council meeting to provide a legal framework for foreign intervention? It’d be nice if the world could come together and at least agree to allow non-combatant operations to be flown in Libyan airspace. Air drop food and whatnot, gather some intel. It’s risky, but if it is done openly and publicly it could improve the situation.
    Or we could treat Gadaffi and crew like we do other terrorists and just send in the drones…

    1. Considering that China holds a veto, I’d say about a billion to one.

      I mean, the nations of the UN did not agree about the Iraq matter, and Libya in contrast is experiencing “internal difficulties”.

      These serial protests in the Arab world are not an “inter-national” thing, oddly enough – no borders are being crossed, and these protests/disputes aren’t about lines on maps separating do differing countries. Kinda refreshing in that way, actually.

      But that character makes legal, militarily effective, international intervention in these matters very very difficult.

      1. The UN did at least agree on an inspections regime for Iraq, even if the US fucked it. The UN did also run aid programs prior to the “coalition of the willing”. What I’m talking about is more akin to these things; it would have to be entirely conducted by non-combat forces and have no direct military objectives. I have this whole radical new theory of warfare I could go on about for hours. But in this instance, basically you just drop food and communications equipment with a friendly little note explaining that these are gifts from the people of this planet and that we are a bit worried and would love to hear from them. If China wants to veto something like that, perhaps being the exclusive provider of the communications equipment would make them reconsider. It’s the sort of grandiose diplomatic gesture that would earn them massive global respect while simultaneously promoting Chinese industry. It’s clear that the existing Libyan government will inevitably lose power to the Libyan people, China (and the other major powers) could easily improve their reputation in Libya by standing peacefully with the Libyan people.

  7. I’m sure some would argue that. I’m not arguing for military intervention elsewhere in these uprisings. The fact is that we have nothing to lose, really in the case of Libya. We’re no friend of the Ghaddhafi regime so if he hangs on somehow, our intervention isn’t a big loser. If it lets a new regime come in, it probably is at least net neutral. We’d have a much much different case to make almost everywhere else given US support of various Arab autocrats.

    1. If there were that kind of intervention, the world would say that the USA is using a moment of Libyan internal weakness and distraction to steal Libya’s oil, or the control of such.

      Wouldn’t they?

  8. Probably. But what if it were done as I suggested? Simply to keep the Libyan Air Force from being brought to bear on the protesters? Would that be so horrible? Seems like a good use of US force to me. When it comes to US foreign policy I am, mind you, completely indifferent to the opinions of all national governments save about ten of them. If it were done to limit the manuvering of Ghaddafi, I’ll risk the sternly worded condemnation of Venezuela or Syria or the PRC.

  9. The only reason I’m commenting is to point out I’ve used that particular stall with that graffiti.

    1. The US: willing to invade countries that aren’t clamoring for democracy to bring it to them, but not interested in ones that want it.

  10. “The slaughter in Libya is appalling. There’s a U.N.-approved doctrine, “Right to Protect,” that in extreme circumstances the international community can use military force to prevent a leader from killing his people. I suggest that Egypt and Tunisia invoke Right to Protect and bomb air strips from which Qaddafi warplanes are taking off.” Nicholas Kristof posting today

  11. I guess it’s just utter cynicism, but I have to ask: Might there just possibly be the slightest chance that these diplomats are switching sides for less than brave and noble reasons. I mean, it’s not like Gaddafi can reach out and get them at this point, but there very well may be repercussions if they return to Libya after loyally serving Gaddafi.

    Same with those pilots…glad they left, but they didn’t have many good choices. As privileged, well-educated members of the military, they may not be looked on so kindly by the next govt.

    I hate to sound so jaded, but by the time these people switched sides, it was not hard to see which way the wind was blowing.

  12. I am totally against this imperialistic violation of Libyan airspace that the U.S. has selfishly not started yet.

    (There, now I’m ahead of the curve.)

  13. whoever helps will get oil & arms sales – I am really surprised that they are not more countries lining up to help!

Comments are closed.