The Big Question: Is the West right to intervene in Libya?

What a turbulent answer this question will produce. This issue was addressed in last Sunday's The Big Questions on BBC1 and I found myself agreeing with almost everybody that spoke. Even when each view was opposing each other.

There are two strands to this debate. Either it is right that we intervene and put a corkscrew in Colonel Gaddaffis explosion of "no mercy" against his people. Or it is wrong as we have no right to intervene with foreign affairs.

One could be forgiven for thinking Tony Blair was back in Number 10. It's a very Blairite policy to intervene and meddle in other countries affairs even though our own doorstep is not clean.

As usual the punch and judy political commentary has been viral on the internet but simultaneously it is unsurprising. The Right say we should stay away and focus on our own problems whilst the Left say we cannot standby and let this massacre go on.

Here are a few points to ponder on to make your decision on whether intervening is right.


On a moral/human angle to know full well that a leader is destroying his own people should rattle the chambers of the most hardest of hearts. Countless people are said to have died since this conflict began weeks ago and more are still at risk. If somebody (or the West) does not intervene now more innocent blood will shed in the name of upholding a 21st century dictator.

On the other hand, people have said who are the West (particularly UK) to hold the moral compass at Libya when it was the UK who have supplied arms to Libya. Think about it. The very suvillians we are "saving" are being killed by weapons the UK have sold to Libya. Rev Peter Owen-Jones made a very valid point on The Big Questions when noted that when natural concern or love for a human being is surpressed by the opportunity of trade there is a question of hypocrisy over what the West does.

He also said how democracy cannot be enforced with a gun. He said if that was to happen "then that taints the very nature of what it is to be democratic". To be honest I agree. It is like double contradiction that the West who relishes in having the status of being "democratic" is being undemocratic by forcing democracy on an undemocratic nation.

But again, there is a divide in the people of Libya. Of course Gadaafi has his cult followers amongst the Libyan people but there is the other half who have seen the air strikes by the Western coalition as a blessing. I recall one BBC journalist on the ground in Tripoli saying how the Libyan rebels were shouting in the street "thank you Obama, thank you Cameron" in the streets. If this is the case then why should it be such a bad intervention?

Oil.

It is the buzzword surrounding the intervention of the West. What is the true motive for intervening? Afterall, several dictators have come and gone including those who tortured their people. Some are still here... *coughs* Mugabe*coughs*. But what is it that Mugabe has to offer that a country that Libya doesn't? Nothing. And that's exactly why they would never interfere. What about Rwanda, I hear people cry. What about Rwanda? Rwanda gives the West no commodity of such high value than that of oil in Libya. The situation in Rwanda is considered to be genocide - this isn't but should it matter the motive? Innocent deathhs are innocent deaths right? Iraq Part 2. If this was happening in Nigeria, arguably, the West would be inside Nigeria quicker than you can say "200 dollars a barrell". If this was happening in Iceland? Well, it's debateable.

But some will say North pole to South Pole, East or West. The West has matured and developed it's foreign policy enough to intervene in any situation regardless of the country and what commodities are so valuable to USA, UK and France.

Professor of Politics at University of Surrey, Sir Michael Aaronson, said that there is a third way out of this situation. One which, in my opinion, has definitely been overlooked. Gadaafi's followers and the rebels should sit down and talk to find a way to stop the fighting. This would be ideal but did this fly out the window during the revolution in Egypt? The electricity of revolution is being conducted and passed from country to country in the Arab world. There has been so much fighting and very little talking. Whether the latter would work is an interesting suggestion to explore. Maybe with the "power" of the West it just might be able to stand.

I've thrown some ideas out there for you to ponder over that I have come across since reading up on the Libyan conflict. I, myself, still have not made my mind up about whether it is right for the West to have intervened. It is such a delicate and complex subject where each strand of the issue is vital drawing to a conclusion - hence my consistent ambivilance.