It may be a strange notion to some in Europe, but making it absolutely and unequivocally clear to everyone that you cannot murder one of our citizens with impunity... would seem to make it less likely that they would be murdered in the future.
Actually it's not so strange - for example Britain expelled the Libyan diplomats after the killing of
Yvonne Fletcher, and eventually forced the Libyan regime to pay compensation to her family. Plus the long siege of the Libyan embassy did a lot to 'embarrass' the Libyan government (or at least publicise what a bunch of thugs they were/are).
Now you could claim that this isn't enough, but it's hardly letting them murder with impunity.
However I was responding to the notion that Europe ought to 'do something' about the crisis in Libya today. As it happens quite a lot
is being done - it is happening slowly, and a lot of what is happening is subject to the ice berg effect - most of what is going on is happening "under the surface".
Part of the problem is there is a lot of resistance to interfering in the internal affairs of another country at the UN - and specifically within the UN Security Council (and more specifically yet, China and Russia). Without UN approval, nobody in Europe is going to send troops in - which is understandable given the over 2,500 years of warfare and tension between Europe and the Middle East.
As it happens, the UK and France appear to be taking the lead over tabling a proposal at the UN to impose sanctions, a travel ban, freezing of financial assets, and eventually prosecute members of the Libyan regime for cimes against humanity.
The trouble, of course, is that wars tend to spread so much misery among the innocent that the past tendency to start wars lightly against the countries of the Third World has led to the Western world being hated there in some quarters, and at least to some extent deservedly.
So the answers are not easy ones, even if my emotions might incline me to react like the veriest jingoist.
War is always a poor option. Sometimes it is a less poor option than anything else, but remains a poor choice.
It's too easy to get involved in a decades or centuries long tit-for-tat. To illustrate this, look at the history of little incidents involving the US and Libya :-
- Libya makes ridiculous territorial claims in the Gulf of Sidra.
- The US perfectly legitimately but perhaps a bit provocatively decides on a naval exercise in the Gulf of Sidra.
- Libya sends out a couple of aircraft to intercept, which get shot down by US aircraft.
- In revenge Libya blows up a disco in Germany killing 3 people (2 Americans) and injuring hundreds.
- In retaliation, the US bombs Tripoli and kills 60 Libyans (including 15 civilians).
- In what was probably initiated as revenge, Libya blows up a US aircraft over Lockerbie killing 270.
Now there's no doubt who is in the wrong here - it's Libya. There are those who say the bombing of Tripoli was a touch over the top, but it was perfectly justifiable.
However there's two sensible things to do with a mad dog (and I'm thinking of Gaddafi of course) - make sure he's secured penned up, or shoot him. Poking him with a stick because his bites annoy you is perfectly justifiable, but not very sensible.
