Foreign Minister John Baird’s welcome entry into Libyan diplomacy is marred by Canada’s assumption, shared by most, but not all, NATO states, that military engagement in Libya somehow includes the prerogative to select winners and losers.
Just two weeks after nuclear-armed India and Pakistan agreed to further
talks on reducing tensions between them,[i] renewed terror attacks in Mumbai threaten to unravel the gains made. But, contrary to the Globe and Mail’s alarmist headline, “Enraged Indians blame Pakistan,”[ii] the Indian government is actually showing restraint[iii] – a welcome approach encouraged by a remarkable Canadian-led dialogue process involving senior Indians and Pakistanis.
Protecting civilians in Libya was never going to be a simple assignment. Getting Libya on a path toward stability and a society characterized by democratic participation and respect for human rights obviously promises to be a lot more difficult. From the first attacks on Libyan dissidents, there was never any doubt that violence and the exercise of military power would be significant factors in unfolding events, but force was never going to be decisive.
The importance of diplomacy to resolve the Libyan crisis received prominent attention in this week’s debate on extending the protection mission in Libya,[i] but the Government still hasn’t bought into one basic reality – that right now the more urgent work in Libya is for diplomats, not bombers.
There was all-party agreement in March on the House of Commons motion[i] in support of Canadian participation, for three months, in the UN-mandated protection mission in Libya, and while there are not sufficient grounds for withdrawing that support now, there is an urgent need to shift from bombing to talking.
Does the responsibility to protect doctrine (R2P) provide cover for unilateralist and imperialist adventures by major powers in pursuit of their
own interests? A new conference report[i] argues the opposite – that R2P’s strict requirement for UN-authorized collective intervention actually represents the reinforcement of multilateralism over unilateralism.
It is potentially one of the most far-reaching recent nuclear disarmament developments – in 2010 the NPT Review Conference renewed the international commitment to pursue “a Middle East zone free of nuclear
weapons and all other weapons of mass destruction.” Of course, it will turn out to be one of the biggest impediments to broader disarmament progress if that commitment is once again ignored.
A conversation with David A. Welch, CIGI Chair of Global Security and Interim Director of the Balsillie School of International Affairs, on civil society and peace advocacy.
A new report from Oxfam, Protection of Civilians in 2010: Facts, figures, and the UN Security Council’s response (Report), offers a clear and disturbing account of the devastating impact of war, but goes on to present a compelling set of recommendations designed to enhance both national and international protections to vulnerable civilians.
UN resolution 1973 authorizes states to take all necessary measures[i] to protect Libya’s civilian population, but given that “all necessary measures”
is essentially UN-ese for military force, the one absolutely essential measure
needed to protect civilians in the long run, diplomacy, is largely ignored.