Tudor Rickards
The United Nations security council votes unanimously to introduce sanctions against Colonel Gadaffi in the interests of protecting the rights of its citizens. The move seeks to avoid the controversies over the interpretation of legitimacy of military actions in the Iraq conflict
The Washington Post reported [Sat 26th Feb 2011]
The move came as President Obama for the first time called on Gaddafi to step down, deepening the Libyan leader’s international isolation as he struggles to contain a revolt that threatens his 41-year rule. It also marked the first U.S. vote in support of a Security Council referral to the International Criminal Court, which the United States has not joined.
The article also conveyed a White House announcement of the contents of a telephone conversation by President Obama to Germany’s Angela Merkel in which the Presedent was quoted as saying
“when a leader’s only means of staying in power is to use mass violence against his own people, he has lost the legitimacy to rule and needs to do what is right for his country by leaving now”
The international support for the UN resolution
The United Nations is often forced into actions which demonstrate the near-impossibility of a genuinely united position regarding means as well as ends. In this case there seems more of a consensus than is often the case.
The resolution is further strengthened by the defection of Libya’s delegation to the United Nations. The article goes on to quote Libyan envoy Abdurrahman Mohamed Shalgam who wrote to the Security Council president noting that his delegation “supports the measures proposed in the draft resolution to hold to account those responsible for the armed attacks against the Libyan civilians, including [through] the International Criminal Court”
More violence in Tripoli
In a separate bulletin, [Saturday 26th Feb 2011] The Post reported further accounts of State-supported violence against protesters in the Lybian capital Tripoli
Unedited news story
The above is a summary of a fast breaking global issue
Click for regular updates
Hi Tudor,
It is very interesting times in the Middle East where I am currently stationed, but I also have quite a controversial point to make.
I live near to Bahrain and we regularly visit as a family, and with all the media ref Bahrain you would be well advised to avoid Bahrain as it comes across as a Country in turmoil with deaths reported.
I ask though that when we have a demonstration in London and it becomes violent, does the country come to a standstill or even the city? The answer is absolutely no and that was exactly the same case I personally witnessed in Bahrain which wasnt shared by the Media.
On the day of the violenece in Bahrain, we entered intothe country with no concern at all. Had a lovely full english breakfast, with my wife and 2 young children. Spent the day as a family looking for a new property though of course the area where the protesters where situated had been cordoned off as you would expect by the authorities. That night myself and my wife went for a lovely chinese meal, again with no concern for our safety. That next morning we set off for home, passing the pearl roundabout where the battle between police and protesters had occured with fatalities, and had a breakfast at the Mall no more than 500 meteres away from the Media story.
How much does Media effect our opinions and choices?