Gaddafi – the new Saddam
Colonel Gaddafi of Libya is a dictator who has ruled his country by personal decree since 1969. His regime has followed the standard playbook for establishing totalitarian rule. He controls education, eliminating the study of foreign languages so citizens cannot readily engage foreign ideas, and schools promote Gaddafi’s thoughts. He keeps the military weak and underfunded but his own private army well trained and strong. He appoints family members to key economic and political positions. Dissidents are executed, often publically. He uses terror to control dissidents and even hosts terrorist training facilities in Libya. The media refers to him as “Brotherly Leader and Guide of the First of September Great Revolution of the Socialist People’s Libyan Arab Jamahiriya”. He promotes the idea that “the people” control Libya and that he stepped down from leadership many years ago. In a 1973 speech he proclaimed his 5 points for Libya.
- Suspension of all existing laws and implementation of Sharia
- Purging the country of the “politically sick”
- Creation of a “people’s militia” to “protect the revolution”
- Administrative revolution
- Cultural revolution
Currently he is loudly proclaiming that his people love him, even while he is attacking and killing his own people who protest his rule.
Due to the violence and death the world is ready to get involved. The UN Security Council has approved a “no fly zone” over Libya, which is intended to ground the Libyan airforce and prevent them from attacking rebels. The US has sent war ships to the area. The United States is debating how they can support the rebels, prevent innocent bloodshed, and ideally remove Gaddafi from power. There is concern that they could exit Iraq only to end up in Libya.
Do you think it is appropriate for the UN to interfere in a civil war inside Libya? Political and economic sanctions seem unlikely to have a significant impact on Gaddafi. Should western democracies attempt to overthrow leaders in other countries? If you support the military intervention of the UN, why do you?
Khadafi image courtesy of Shlomo Cohen / Israel, Politicalcartoons.com
Gaddafi data scraped out of Wikipedia
keithpenner 
Really really good question. This will take some thought! Ummm…let me get back to you! 🙂
What the UN is all about is uniting nations, the countries involved in the UN are not just focused on their own countries. These countries want to reach out and help other countries. When they see a country like Libya in trouble, they should step in. The UN is not ‘overthrowing leaders’ and taking too much control of other countries than they should, because Gaddafi is not a leader. Gaddafi is a dictator who is struggling to maintain the iron grip he had on his country, the country that is now trying to pry themselves out. Wouldn’t it be wrong for the UN to stand aside and do nothing while Libya fights to throw off opression? The right thing to do is to protect the citizens and keep their flawed ‘leader’ from harming them and killing the good that is going on there.
I agree with your statement, because the UN is all about bring countries together. The power would be centered on the oppression of Gadaffi and let rise a new power in which may be better than the current one. Which may lead to a better start if the UN can help it.
I believe that the UN should step in and help Lybia against the oppression of Gaddafi. In this case; like the reoccurring events that have recently happened in the middle east, most of the leaders have peacefully agreed to step down and let take form a new government. In this case, there is a stubborn, unwilling, selfish leader whom controls the country to his likings. I personally think the UN should step in even more and help the rebels fighting to take over the harsh dictator that is in place.
I agree with some of what has been mentioned by Carlissa and Jon. From my understanding, Gaddafi has committed war crimes against his own people and therefore is punishable by the International Court of Justice. The question of “should western democracies attempt to overthrow leaders such as Gaddafi” should be focused less on whether or not Gaddafi is guilty, but more a question of who should interfere and how.
Since Libya is a member of the United Nations, it would seem obvious that power be temporarily granted for the United Nations to remove Gaddafi and establish a transitional government. At the same time, this war is not simply between Gaddafi and his people, it is also a civil war comprised of many tribal factions who are killing each other as well. Due to this potential for future instability, I do not think that the UN can justifiably side with “rebels” unless they are willing to comply with peaceful negotiations and work unilaterally.
I also feel uncomfortable when I read comments such as: “the UN is all about bringing countries together”. The UN has a poor track record in Africa, and the current situation is more cumbersome than ever before.
I keep thinking about Thidwick, The Big Hearted Moose, by Dr. Suess. How many more countries can we help? Eventually, we are going to need help. You made great points. Thank you.
Good points Sam! The UN could definitely improve a lot more, I overlooked that. I do think that they can stop more rebels from being killed though, so whatever help the UN can offer will be useful.
The sooner we realize that the United Nations should pull out from taking political stances, the faster the UN will truly have impact. The name “United Nations” is extremely misleading, because it is not the collective views and abilities of the accepted nations, and it should never be. In the words of Lord Acton, “power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely.”
What the UN needs to establish itself as an arbiter (not an arbitrator). Right now, it’s more like an uninvolved parent. Essentially, everyone goes griping to the UN and tries to get their way, and nobody ends up satisfied, the UN included.
Carlissa’s suggestion of protecting the Libyan people is exactly what the UN should be doing – focusing on the humanitarian side of the conflict. To engage in Gaddafi’s dismissal and government creation has proved itself to be faulty planning previously.(Incidentally, the US provided Saddam with weapons to overthrow the previous regime. The US later showed support for Gaddafi when Britain was about to help the Libyan royal family take back power in the early 70s. We must also take into account that the US wields significant power in the UN – it’s Congress has gone insofar as to create a Task Force on how to reform the UN for “efficiency.”)
But that begs the question – what do we do with Gaddafi? The harsh reality is, that we must let the Libyan people fight for themselves. To fight on their behalf would weaken their zeal. Take the examples of any strongly established nation – South Korea, Germany, Japan, US, Canada, – just to name a few. At each nation’s creation, there was a war, but the pride of victory gave way to national unity, and it is that feeling that ultimately keeps a system of checks of balances. It is a necessary struggle in order to truly establish peace within the nation.
Bringing a dictatorship to an end is always a messy job often causing the deaths of hundreds of people. The question is: what is the best method to doing it? In this case with Gaddafi he is neither dieing nor decreasing in power so the only way to get rid of him may be to have the UN intervene. Although the recovery of Iraq is slow, I believe that they will eventually recuperate. There is really no other way to end a dictatorship now a days but to involve the UN. I agree with Sam in saying that the UN should get rid of Gaddafi and set up a new functional government that actually listens to the people’s needs and acts upon them to make a positive difference. But also I think that it’s important that Libya does not become dependant upon the UN for everything. I hope that one day Libya will be a free and independent country where it is ruled by democracy. In addition to that I think what would really make a difference if the whole nation of Llibya turned to God. Over the years it has been shown that countries with Christian influences have been more successful than countries that did not have that influence.
I’m definitely liking this post. It wouldn’t just solve a huge issue, it would cause people to realize which way is the right way based on Libya’s example.
Woot Shelby!!!! I could get behind an idea like: Libya should turn to God…. that could be really awesome now a days as you put it.
I also wonder if the African Union will be getting involved. That would probably help.
ps. I have the best avatar. Kinda like the droid from the Incredibles but better and sketchy.
Gaddafi…
In a way this is kinda like a small version of Hitler. This guy has totally taken over the country. He is a dictator who has killed many of his own people. I think in a situation like this the UN has the right to step in. The UN has not been particularly successful in other situation but in a time of dire need the UN has the support Libya needs. The civil war in Libya will keep building and the government will continue to fall unless someone helps. Im sure the people would want to deal with this, but when the government has taken away all power it is next to impossible. I agree with Jon and Shelby, when reoccurring events keep happening someone must step in. The UN can help Libya not in just political sanction but by standing next to the people and bringing back rights and freedoms. People are going to die and this is a tragedy but imagine how many more will die if we leave Libya in this state. We should pray for Gaddafi and for the truth of Jesus to be somehow translated into his life and decisions.
I agree with you completely, Shelby. Having the UN come in helps establish peace that is obviously not there. Same with what is happening in Iraq. The U.S. has stepped in and is trying to bring peace to a country of war. The fact that the UN has the guts to stand up to Gaddafi is good enough for me. Who wants a gross man like that running the country? The people of Libya cant fend for themselves, and if someone is able to protect them, then so be it. If Canada was being bombed by Stephen Harper, I’m pretty sure we would all want help to stop the madness.
This guy reminds me a lot of a religious leader or priest of the past. They would extort money from people based on something that the people had zero understanding of, and they would eliminate the opportunity for the people to gain this understanding by cutting off language.
I think that in regards to the UN’s involvement, they are doing the right thing in this situation. They are being the person in between between the bully and the victim. Punches are going to be thrown, but hopefully in the end, peace will be restored.
Good word, Jon. I like your analogy, and, your gift to link similar examples is clear.
I personally believe that the UN needed to get more involved in this situation since the rebel Liberians are clearly being slaughtered by the dictator Gaddafi in this civil war. His oppression needs to be ended, but the Liberians are unable to do so without outside help from the UN. The UN needs to either negotiate a peace step down and distribution of Gaddafi’s reigning power or forcibly remove him from reigning power with UN military forces.
Gaddafi does indeed deserve to be overthrown. If he is not brought down we can expect thousands of people to suffer and die at his hands.However, how can we just go in and overthrow his government? how is he different from the dictators in Burma, China and all of these other places with totalitarian governments that oppress their people? Arguably the main reason we are intervening in Libya in the first place is not because we are interested, it is because we have interests (oil). Libya is currently united(more so than usual) against Gaddafi, but if we intervene and threaten their sovereignty, it is entirely possible that we will be painted as the invaders and bad guys, and Libya will back Gaddafi to save their country. Not to mention the only way to beat Gaddafi is to kill him, and as christians we are commanded not to do that.
I wonder where the “Gaddafi Precedent” might lead. What would happen if the UN formulates a resolution recognizing a Palestinian Authority’s unilateral declaration of statehood–a declaration that would include Israel’s giving up every territory claimed by the Palestinians? Suddenly millions of Israelis and hundreds of cities, towns and settlements would be on UN recognized Palestinian land. Susan Rice US ambassador to the UN, Samantha Powers, Senior for Multilateral Affairs in the US Security Council, and Hillary Clinton, Secretary of State all hate Israel and love the Palestinians. Could we a no-fly zone over what is now Israel and what would then be Palestinian territory? Planes under UN direction shooting down Israeli planes and destroying Israeli tanks?
Jack