Posted on

Oil war or humanitarian mission?

I’ve woken up today to hear we’re in yet another war to protect oil supplies, this time in Libya.

What’s actually happening is that a bunch of dodgy people are trying to take control from the existing a dodgy government by force of arms. The UN (a label of convenience) is weighing in on the side of the anti-government faction that controls the oil fields (or did yesterday, things are moving fast). The excuse is that they’re protecting civilians.

Now this is something of a civil war. There are four groups involved. Firstly there are the government forces. They’re not civilians and it’s their job to protect the state. If we had an armed uprising in the UK (such as the IRA), the state army is there to protect the government. The Libyan army likewise.

The second group are the anti-state “army”. Actually they’re not an army; they’re several groups of civilians with guns and bombs. The state army is defending the state against them, as would be expected. Is the UN protecting these “civilians” from the state army? It looks like it; or more specifically the UN is providing military support to this groups, against the government.

The third and fourth groups are the pro and anti-government civilians. By siding with the anti-government lot (simplistically, those in the east) you could argue that you’re protecting those civilians, but as you’re not (apparently) protecting the pro-government civilians in Tripoli from the rebels, it’s a very thin argument.

All governments in the region are dodgy (Israel is the only real democracy as we know it). The rebels are dodgy. It’s a dodgy place, and there are dodgy people around. It’s the way things are, and we should be leaving them alone. Otherwise we’re imposing our version how things should be on someone else. But unfortunately a lot of these places are financed by the oil we’re dependent on buying from them, which is what makes Libya a special case (along with Iraq).

Pretending that it’s a “no fly” zone for humanitarian reasons, basically siding with the rebels, is a scandal. If we’re going to war we should be honest about the reasons, not making them up after the event (like Blair and Bush). And if they think they’re backing the right horse with military support and they’ll be rewarded later, they know nothing about the culture in that region. I’m not even sure they’ve backed the right horse; Gaddafi’s government doesn’t roll over easily.

Posted on

Cameron on Gaddafi – it’s personal

I’ve just watched David Cameron being interviewed about the situation in Libya. He’s saying things like “Stop Col. Gaddafi”, and “Col. Gaddafi is brutalising his people”, referring to Libya’s stated compliance with a ceasefire.

This is worrying. Col. Gaddafi isn’t attacking civilians, repressing his people or doing any of the other things David Cameron and Barak Obama are accusing him of. HE is sitting in an office. Elsewhere in Libya there are people with differing interests fighting each other. It’s called a civil war.

When our politicians refer to such problems in terms of a specific personality, such as Col. Gaddafi, Saddam Hussein or even Adolf Hitler we’re in for trouble. It’s not one person creating the situation, but a sizeable group of people with a vested interest. They’re missing the point. Or more likely, they’re hoping we’ll miss it.

Posted on

Alternative Voting

I’ve just had a very nice chap on the ‘phone asking me if the AV campaign could count on my support in the forthcoming referendum. I told him that would be premature.

AV is attractive, but so is the existing, tried and tested system that has done us fairly well for nearly a century. Prior to that we had a similar system, except that women weren’t allowed to vote. This was probably wrong, but made sense at the time as women haven’t always been as clued up as in modern times (which was definitely wrong). Going back further we’ve had systems where (crudely put) only the best educated in society have had a vote, to various extents.

The idea that democracy is good, and therefore more democracy is better, doesn’t really hold water. Democracy was popularised by the ancient Greeks in Athens, but even back then they could see the problems (Plato’s Republic is an interesting read, and Socrates was a smart guy with a solid handle on it).

The good thing about democracies is that they allow you to boot out a bad government, which is why we must keep them. But do they get you a good government? I’d say, based on the evidence, that the more democratic you get, the worse the worse decisions the government is likely to take.

The AV camp keep pointing to Australia as a working example. If this is the best they can come up with, we’re in big trouble. Just take a look at Australian politics in action and you’ll see what I mean.

Another of their arguments, to quote the Electoral Reform Society, is that it “Penalises extremist parties, who are unlikely to gain many second preference votes.” They don’t back this up with research, so here’s an anecdote about the BNP (argue amongst yourselves as to whether they’re what was being talked about).

In the 2010 elections, talking to voters (especially in the less well-off and looser-tongued areas) the subject on the BNP came up. “They make a lot of sense and I’d vote for them if I thought it would do any good…” was a message I got quite frequently, in spite of the pariah status imparted to the BNP by the media. This was followed by “but I don’t want Gordon Brown to get back in.”

And there’s the rub. The AV camp believes people will vote positively with AV: vote for who they really want. What they don’t realise is that, at present, a lot of people are voting against who they don’t want, more than anything else.

So how will “extremist” parties fair under AV? Pretty well, I suspect. People would have voted for the BNP with their first choice, and against Gordon Brown with their second. The Electoral Reform Society idea that extremists will be disadvantaged needs some justification.

It’s not just me that thinks this, however. Take another minority extremist party, the Greens (they want to do some pretty extreme things with the economy); what do they reckon? Well their conference voted to back AV and they’re actively campaigning for it. If the Electoral Reform Society is correct then surely the Greens would be wiped out. That scenario doesn’t seem to bother them overly.

On the other hand, the sake-up that minority parties could bring might be just what we need as a society. Remember, you don’t need end up with an MP from such a party, but the realistic threat they might get in is bound to influence the policies of the main parties. For example, in the general population there is a majority to bring back hanging (never mind the issues involved with multiculturalism). The educated liberal elite in the main parties are always putting the brakes on the death penalty when the idea comes up, but if AV really does give the people a purer voice, things may get interesting on this any many other issues.

Posted on

No Fly zone in Libya is a bad idea

EU Foreign Ministers are planning a No Fly zone for Libya to protect anti-government protesters, and Russia has decided to stop selling the Libyan government arms. No one should have been selling arms in that part of the world, but “no fly” zone?

Let’s be clear – a no fly zone involves either words (which won’t work) or attacking Libya to enforce it.

The Libyan government is fighting armed protesters/rebels and fighting back. It’s their prerogative. A no-fly zone would obviously help the rebels because they don’t have an air force. The UK government is doing various things to ingratiate itself with the rebels, probably because they’re close to the oil fields. But is this wise?

Gaddafi’s lot are as odious as they come, but we now seem to have an agreement to leave them alone and they’ll leave us alone. Blair decided this in 2004, visiting the Mad Dog in Tripoli and making peace (forgiving him); to their credit the Conservatives weren’t so keen. But is anyone stopping to think what the rebels might be like? Based on previous experience, they won’t be terribly friendly if they win.

This is something the Libyan people need to decide. If we get a “no fly” zone it means attacking Libya and taking sides in what could turn out to be a civil war. We should be careful what we wish for.