No Fly

It sounds so peaceful – quiet airspace, like the day after 9 – 11.

The United States and its Western allies launched air strikes against Libya, says the news.

I haven`t been able to find the complete UN resolution, but the BBC has an analysis.  http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12782972  Nowhere that I can see does it specifically mention air strikes, but it does speak about protecting civilians and bans flights in the airspace.  Certain countries have interpreted the resolution in their own way.

Of course, what has been happening in Libya is horrible, but what we should do about it is not simple.  All I have are questions.

In the movies, missiles hit their targets, unless they are shot at the good guys; in real life armaments are not so infallible.  What happens when the first missiles miss the intended target and hit civilians?  And what if a Libyan plane is shot down – where will it crash?

Oh no, explain our leaders, this is nothing like Afghanistan or Iraq, we aren’t sending ground troops.

What happens at the next G8 meeting when police start beating up protesters?  Will the United Nations take a hand and will other countries consider stepping in?

It doesn`t seem likely that Gadhafi will step down in Libya, so how long will the airstrikes last?   The BBC website I mentioned above says that military experts believe ``the air force is not the decisive element in his (Gadhafi`s) armory.``  So what real difference will the no-fly zone make to the rebels.

On the other hand, there seem to be people who support Gadhafi in his own country, so what do we hope to achieve?  ``Protect a threatened people``?  How will these airstrikes do that when the rebels are still being attacked on the ground?  How far are the ``allies`` willing to go?  I don`t know what the answers are to any of the questions, but none of what is happening right now appears right to me.

Suppose I`m wrong and perhaps Gadhafi is killed as are his main leaders.  Perhaps the rebels can take over the government.  Will it be a peaceful takeover, or will chaos result?  They will need all kinds of help setting up another ``western`` approved state.

 Al Jazeera English, says on its website, ``the overzealousness of certain Western powers like Britain, France, and as of late, the US, to interpret the resolution as an open-ended use of force is worrisome.``

Oxfam`s web site says, ``If military action is taken by the international community on the basis of the UNSC resolution, it is essential that this is designed and implemented in a way that maximizes the protection of civilians.``  When has any military action ever really done that?

Fragility

Like so many of us this morning, I’ve been watching the horrible news from Japan, and of course it brings home how precarious is our hold on life, how thin the veneer of safety.   I visited Japan a few years ago, flew into Osaka and then took the Shinkansen train and a bus to the southernmost island where my son and his partner were teaching.  I’m glad they’re in relatively safe Halifax now; though it seems southern Japan wasn’t affected directly this time.  Still, a disaster like this affects everyone eventually in one way or another.

Japan seems as if it’s one of the most prepared countries as far as this kind of event, for example, with changes years ago in their construction methods so that buildings sway instead of crack.  Still, I guess when the earth shakes that hard and then a tsunami inundates, there’s not a lot you can do.  Millions of people will be homeless, without power.  Others will be dead or injured.  Given what’s happened in other recent major disasters, I’m sure people will send whatever help they can, but it’s going to be a long road to Japan’s recovery.

It seems to me that globally we’re not nearly efficient enough at dealing with catastrophes.  There is something called Global Disaster Alert and Coordination System (google it) and something else called Relief Web.  Still, when I reflect back on what did and didn’t happen in Haiti (and still isn’t) I can’t help but think we’re just not coordinated enough as far as getting help to the people who need it.

Makes me think of all the money we waste on wars and weapons that we could be spending on solving other problems.  We have amazing technology, people with all kinds of skills.  With so many people in Haiti still homeless why hasn’t more debris been cleared away (couldn’t countries send  trucks and bulldozers), and some of those empty shipping containers littering various landscapes been used for housing?  There could be better disaster data bases coordinating supplies, agencies, and people with skills all over the world.  Navy ships could be outfitted as floating medical facilities instead of carrying armaments.  We need engineers, medics, and builders instead of soldiers.

Then there’s those burning oil refineries and the iffy nuclear reactors.  More reasons for investing in green technology.  I could go on ranting, but I won’t.

Canadian Writers Speak Out on Copyright