UN enters into the fight for Libya

Muammar Gaddafi air forces strike anti government rebels
Image source: AFP and The Australian 

Within hours of the passing of a UN resolution authorising military action against Muammar Gaddafi's forces, western nations are preparing air strikes against the despotic Libyan dictator. The UN has authorised military action to prevent Gaddafi's forces from completely crushing civilian led rebel opposition, which only weeks ago, looked ready to topple the Gaddafi government. So far, Britain, France, the United States, Norway and Qatar are countries that have pledged support to enforce the no-fly zone. The French government has indicated that it will start to militarily intervene within 'hours', and Britain's prime minister, David Cameron, has announced that Tornado and Typhoon jets have been placed ready to take action against Libya. The Arab League of Nations has been calling for weeks for the no-fly zone. But it appears that for once, the UN has answered, and done so quickly. Libya's response has been confusing: Muammar Gaddafi's claimed he'll take Benghazi within hours, his Son has claimed the family will hold Tripoli, and Libya's Foreign, Minister Mussa Kussa has declared a ceasefire. Basically, Libya is in turmoil, and the situation changes by the hour.

Despite the ever changing position of the Libyan government, it has been outstanding how fast the UN has reacted to the situation. While it may have taken weeks for the resolution to come about, when it comes to international co-operation and military intervention, it usually takes several months. But the UN functioned effectively this time, because there was a universal consensus that a no-fly zone was needed. Debate was had, thought it didn't bogged down. No country within the security council voted against the proposal, five only abstained. For P5 countries like Russia and China, the use of their veto power would have decimated the resolution, and most likely dragged out debate on the issue for months. While countries like Germany and Poland have indicated that they won't assist in the efforts to enforce the no-fly zone, their acceptance of the international communities wishes to intervene in this matter has been critical assisting the passing of this resolution.

The UN security council resolution has authorised "all necessary measures" to ensure the safety of the Libyan people. Surprisingly, this resolution is more than just a no-fly zone. A no-fly zone gives the ability for the 'international community" to ensure no aircraft (Libyan or otherwise) to fly above Libyan territory. However the UN has authorised "all necessary measures"except the use of ground forces. This means that missile strikes and aerial attacks on Gaddafi's forces is legal.

However by the UN taking such an aggressive approach towards the Libyan situation, it may in fact, only assist Muammar Gaddafi in rallying civilians to fight against both the 'West', and the rebells. As with most North African and Middle Eastern nations, there is much anti-west sentiment. Governments, like Gaddafi claim that 'the west' is an invading force, corrupting the youth of Libya, destroying their culture, taking over their economy; basically causing anything that is bad within society. To outsiders, it sounds pretty bonkers. And that's because it is. But western nations haven't been perfect in their dealings with Arab and North African nations themselves. The US, despite putting a trade embargo upon weapons trading with Libya, it has happily allowed such trading via proxy through Egypt. The risk of the UN taking such a hardline stance against the Libyan dictator is that it gives something for Muammar Gaddafi to point to as 'evidence' that he was right all along. There is also the danger of causing further oppression to the Libyan people. Airstrikes, no matter how targeted, don't always kill exactly who they're intended to kill. As the civilian death toll rises, more and more Libyans who sat in the middle of the war and was neutral to both sides, will start to side with Gaddafi. Civilians will chose whichever side kills the less, and if that's Gaddafi and his forces, then the UN's efforts will backfire by strengthening the dictators regime.

Though there are also practical difficulties in establishing a no-fly zone in Libya. There is firstly, the complication of the 'cease fire' that  Libya's Foreign Minister, Mussa Kussa has announced. It will have to be seen whether all of Muammar Gaddafi's forces will adhere to this change in policy, or even whether Gaddafi and his family will adhere to it themselves. But secondly, there is the issue in being able to enforce a no-fly zone. Libya's military is highly outdated. They have fighter and bomber jets, but they're old cold war jets that have been made by the US. If they are even sent up into the air, they will be easily shot down. The only circumstance in which they could be used, would be to fight against those enforcing the no-fly zone. And if the Libyan army is successful, it will cause a lot of pain and loss of face for the UN. But Gaddafi has irregularly used these jets thus far, because the Libyan army uses helicopters instead. Fighting rebel groups are easier with helicopters. They're easier to manoeuvre and redirect in small scale warfare, such as taking over certain towns. But US jets aren't good at shooting down helicopters. Fighter jets fly too high and too fast to be able to combat low flying helicopters. So the US and major countries such as France, who will be enforcing this ban, don't have the technological capacity to fight on the Libyan army's level. Solutions will be found to this problem, but it means that combat between the no-fly zone enforces and the Libyan army will most likely be closer, meaning casualties are more likely to be higher than expected on the NATO side.

The UN has responded well to the international communities calls to implement a no-fly zone upon Libya. Muammar Gaddafi must not be able to stop a revolution from occurring by killing his own people. As the head of the Libyan state, he has a duty to protect his people. When he can no longer do so, other states are justified in acting to ensure civilians are kept safe. The UN, significantly encroaching upon Libyan's sovereignty, is rightly doing so when the consequences of not acting is that either a dictator succeeds, or anarchy rules. The situation in Libya is most likely going to get worse before it gets better. But hopefully, this no-fly zone will speed up the revolution that's been waiting to occur, and do so whilst shedding the least amount of blood.

Links: 
Libya announces immediate ceasefire, calls halt to military operations - The Australian
UN clears way for no-fly zone - ABC PM program

The colonel charges ahead - The Economist 

France says military action against Libya will come 'within hours' - The Telegraph

Military strikes on Libya within hours: France - ABC news

The inane sport of criticising politicians' sincerity

Gillard's 'sincere' response to the floods,
albeit with a prop. Image source: The Australian

Julia Gillard welled up in Parliament yesterday over the disaster that has been the Queensland floods. Tony Abbott was confronted by Channel 7 news reporters, asking for a response to his "shit happens" comment about the death of an Australian soldier in Afghanistan. Yet again, politicians are being judged on their style, spin and acting abilities, rather than the policies they are proposing. Politician baiting is becoming a tabloid sport; catching out unsuspecting politicians about their personal lives and minor gaffes, in order to elicit a response to make the front line-up of the nightly bulletin. It is a sobering thought to think that such insignificant trivialities about our politicians is what interests the general populous the most; and ultimately influences the way they vote.

After Gillard's condolence speech in Parliament yesterday, some political analysts and commentators are claiming that Gillard is finally showing her sincere and warm-heart to the flood victims. Others are more sceptical, claiming that this is just an elaborate act. People seem to be genuinely concerned about Gillard's lack of emotional response whilst she had been touring the flood affected areas. In a pure political sense, Gillard's emotional and personal response to the event shouldn't be of relevance; only her policy actions. Gillard welled up whilst reflecting on what had happened during the parliament's official condolence. Though even that is of little relevance. The PM personally cares. It's a nice thought, but it is not one that is fundamental to the overall objective of her job: to lead a government reconstruction effort. It doesn't matter how moved, touched and emotionally responsive Tony Abbott is to the Queensland floods, if his methods of reconstruction are subordinate to Gillard's. Furthermore from this, it is disgusting for the public to expect specific emotional responses from political leaders during times of crisis. Not everybody cries when they tour the aftermath of a natural disaster. Not everybody cries when they meet people who have been physically and emotionally traumatised and are desperately seeking assistance. Lots of water in Queensland, shouldn't correlate to lots of water around the eyes. Everybody has their own unique way of coping with grief, loss and trauma. Tony Abbott didn't well up in front of a TV camera, though no comment has been made about that!

Tony Abbott's recent gaffe of "shit happens" has called into question how genuine he is about the death of Australian soldiers in Afghanistan. Both sides of politics are very humble and sincere when it comes to Australian soldiers who have died whilst overseas. It is political suicide not to be. So under no circumstances, whilst Tony Abbott was chatting amongst Australian and US soldiers in Afghanistan, would he ever be flippant or disrespectful to any deceased Australian soldier. However "umm....well sometime shit happens doesn't it" sends a different message. It's one of flippancy and disrespect. Thus it is great for a short clip on the 6 o'clock news. Though such a comment was not taken out of context, only the "act" of him saying it was. Abbott would never utter such a phrase in Parliament or at his local church, but when having a casual chat out in a desert with Australian combat personal, Abbott changes his vernacular and actions to "extra blokey" mode.

His response however, to Channel 7s Hollywood-esque surprise interview, was completely inappropriate and personally damaging. Whether it be rage, surprise, or fear of answering a question that will make him look guilty, a Julie Bishop death stare for over 20 seconds is never good. His curt response of "you got the answer you deserve" highlighted how out of control he was within that situation. It was inappropriate of Channel 7 to accost him in such a way, though it is a politicians job to answer tough questions. He didn't answer this one, or deflect and avoided it well. It is ironically timed that Abbott should fall upon his own sword after chiding Gillard for her "tin eared" response to the Queensland floods. But such footage of Abbott saying "shit happened" shouldn't have been repressed, like the Liberal Party did with footage of Abbott shooting a firearm with Australian soldiers. They claimed it would "send the wrong message". Political parties shouldn't be able to control the public image of their constituents if they're running for office, and if that is what the public (regrettably) wants to know about.

What is becoming increasingly clear however, is the media and publics fixated attention on Gillard and her appearance. If she is not being criticised for a lack of crying and being emotional, the Australian or a tabloid will criticise her ever changing hair or whether she carries a purse. Even her dress was criticised whilst she toured flood affected Queensland towns. Since Gillard is a woman, whose dress sense will alter unlike the standard suit and tie for men, in the eyes of the public, there is more to critique. If Gillard is being too masculine in her dress sense and attitude in the chamber, she will be criticised for being bullish. Though if she lacks the "effeminate capabilities" of crying, she doesn't have a heart. Whilst never explicitly exploiting her gender in her campaign to become PM, people are happy to do that for her. Amanda Vanstone's only positive comment about Julia Gillard on Q&A (7/2/11) was that she was "a role model for young girls to look up to and say.... I can do that". If all young woman have to look up to is a PM being constantly criticised for her appearance as a result of her gender, then it doesn't offer much encouragement for ambitious young females wanting to enter the world of politics.

Julia Gillard's tears in parliament yesterday may be genuine, or they may have been put on after much criticism about her emotional response to the floods disaster. Her political commitment to help reconstruct Queensland however, is sincere. Tony Abbott's choice of phrasing whist talking to soldiers in Afghanistan was a strategic act. Though his political position of respecting the family and dignity of Australian soldiers killed in action, is sincere. Politicians act. But when the public deeply care about appearances and spin, the substance starts to get lost. This inane sport of critiquing the theatre of politics and judging the politicians of their performance, is damaging to government, and ludicrous at best. Don't text in your views about Gillard or Abbott's media performance. This is politics, not 'Canberra's got talent!'.

Links: 
Tears flow as Julia Gillard gets real - National Times

Flood victims bring Prime Minister Julia Gillard to tears - The Australian 

PM defends response to flood - The Age

Gillard the actor: Q&A Question 7/2/11 - Q&A website
Reporter asks question, Abbott loses it - National Times

Abbott's frozen fury lingers beyond his words - National Times

Levy turns flood reconstruction into political mess

Gillard and Bligh tour QLD flood areas
Image source: The Herald Sun

Despite a natural disaster that cost numerous lives, uprooted thousands of Queenslanders and left them homeless, and a reconstruction effort that will take years to complete, it is good to see politics in Canberra hasn't changed much. Both Liberal and Labor are squabbling at each other and all who will listen about how the other side isn't playing fair. Now they're turning to the popular kids - Oakshot and Windsor - to pick sides and tell the others they are wrong. For all the talk of a "mateship tax" and politicians keeping one eye on the "Lodge", the efficacy of the tax itself is being ignored. Instead, angry talk back listeners and radio hosts like Niel Mitchell are deciding on the validity of the tax, based on its popularity. No matter how the Gillard government plans to raise funds for the reconstruction effort, some people will be unhappy. But a longer term approach to disaster recovery funding is what really needs to be discussed.

The first step the government took to addressing the financial pitfall for the Queensland floods was winding back and cutting down on "Green investment" spending. While such actions were necessary, amongst some circles, it remains unpopular all the same. Julia Gillard herself may not believe (or want to acknowledge) that the floods of Queensland, NSW and Victoria can be attributed to climate change, but a reduction in "Green investment" won't make the flood waters rise. A lot of the Federal government's environmentally friendly initiatives have cost a lot, yet delivered little. The danger that exists in withdrawing funding from environment initiatives, is that the funds won't return. Once government coffers start filling up, new promises will be made in other areas, and the funds will go there.

The political debacle over recovery funding that has ensued, is paying little attention to the actual methods the Gillard government is doing to assist the recovery effort. Both Gillard and Abbott have done their fair share of hugging and 'meeting and greeting' flood victims in front of media packs. But it is the mentioning of the word 'tax' that is causing an even bigger stir amongst the opposition and tabloids. Reducing funds to existing schemes and delaying promises is one thing, but instituting a tax is laden with politically damaging connotations. Abbott was quick to put on the rhetoric about a tax not being about "mateship", but a cover up scheme for a government that is spending too much. Yet for all the spin and hot air, the tax itself is economically credible. The government must spend money on reconstructing Queensland's savaged infrastructure. As Queensland is a major industrial and mining hub of Australia, it makes economic sense to rebuild roads and rail that once were the economic lifelines of Australia during the GFC. Yet even principally, the Federal government should assist. As a Federation, each state assists others in times of need; it is the very essence of our federation. Otherwise we would be a cluster of 9 different independent States.

People may be outraged that they have already given to Queensland flood relief funds, yet that money only goes to helping people directly after the event (through relocation and clean up costs), not rebuilding roads, rail, hospitals and schools that have been washed away. Funds for the reconstruction need to come from somewhere, and raising revenue by adding a levy to income tax, at this point in time, appears to be the most economically sensible method. While NSW Premier Kristina Keneally claims that such a levy will put too much pressure on households and mortgages, this tax won't affect such pressure. By legislating such a tax, the RBA can clearly see funds exiting the market and slowing down the economy (because as people pay more tax, they spend less). Hence the RBA will defer increasing interest rates, because the Federal Government will be (inadvertently) correcting the economy cycle. At the end of the year, tax or no tax, families and households will be relatively the same. It is a question really of whom will be taking money out of your pay packet: the Government for rebuilding Queensland, or one of the big banks?

The political squabble and concern for people's hip pocket aside, one of the popular kids in the school that is the Australian parliament, has raised a valid point. Rob Oakshott believes that a national disaster reconstruction fund should be established. As natural disasters sporadically occur within each century, a more structured planned system in financing the recovery effort needs to be established. Every time a disaster occurs, whether it is a cyclone, flood or bushfire, the government's bottom line and spending promises are compromised in order to pay for the clean up and reconstruction. Gillard's flood levy may pull Queensland out of the mud this time, but it doesn't guarantee funds for any other disaster that could occur within the next few years. The real debate that should be occurring, is whether the flood levy should be transformed into an established "disaster fund" levy. That way, funds (or partial funds) will be on hand in times of National and State crisis. As politically dangerous taxes can be, Australia may continue to place itself in financial danger if it doesn't acknowledge and plan for future events like the Queensland floods.

Links: 
Flood levy does RBA's job - The Age (Business Day)
Flood levy to test Gillard's leadership - SMH
Levy flushes out a nation of heartless bastards - ABC 'The Drum'

Gillard faces battle for flood levy support - ABC Online

All bark but no bite - National Times

No excuse for floods tax: Abbott - The Australian