Posts Tagged ‘Libya’

The boat people aren’t just our problem. They are Africa’s problem, also

April 25, 2015

Sent to the Daily Express 23/4/15

The Mediterranean boat people are coming from sub-Saharan Africa. i.e. Somalia and Eritrea.

By-passing Egypt and ignoring Saudi-Arabia, they are motivated to negotiate the likes of the Qattara Depression to reach the fartherest part of Libya and then risk a dangerous Sea voyage.

Modern telecommunications means that many must be aware, by now, of events in the Mediterranean.

Such strong motivation means that trying to stem the flow seems as futile as the attempt to prevent Jews reaching Palestine in 1946.

Parceling the migrants out to various European countries may be possible but not necessarily desirable for the countries they are leaving, or the countries they are sent to.

Creating a safe zone in Libya can only be a stop-gap solution, as the Libyan’s may react to such an imposition in the same way as Palestinian’s reacted to a safe zone (Israel) for Europe’s Jewry.

Long term, the solution is to make their own homelands safe.

It can’t be done without the support of The West but the rest of The World needs to play its part, particularly Africa.

Political direction must come from neighbouring African countries, such as Kenya, which is already suffering from the effects of armed incursions.

African countries can’t just shut their borders and expect the West to sort it.

Leave Iran alone, unless you have proof that they are going to attack you.

March 4, 2012

In Foreign Affairs, my inclination is towards non-intervention.  It maybe that this is a consequence of my education and the combination  History and Current Affairs lessons that I received from mainly Officer class, Oxford educated teachers.

Whatever  the case may be, it chimes with advice that my father gave me, which was to never come between husband and wife.

When the disputing sides reconcile their differences, they’ll divert their anger towards you.

Recent forays into other nations’ internal politics seem to bear up this advice. Despite the claims of our political leaders, the recent adventure in Libya has not endeared us to them.

The only possible excuse for assisting Libya was if Gadaffi  was funding the real IRA etc. The only excuse for declaring war on Hitler was that we knew, long term, he would turn his attention to us and already had his plans laid out (the Baedecker tourists).

No action should be taken against Iran, unless they commit an overtly hostile act. Sabre rattling doesn’t count.

express: why Gadaffi?

August 28, 2011
I was not happy about our intervention in Libya but at least it hasn’t cost us the same sort of sums as have Iraq and Afghanistan.
The principle of non-intervention in other countries’ domestic situations is a sound one and the fact that it seems to be being applied to countries such as Sudan, Syria, Bahrain and many others suggest that Libya was a special case.


Perhaps if our Government was a little more trusting of the British people, then they might be able to offer a better justification than the obviously untrue altruism being portrayed, with its reliance on being a humanitarian mission.
If this was the entire basis for our intervention then we would be involving ourselves in the other countries mentioned and Mugabe would have ceased breathing decades ago.


That this was intended as a regime change has been authenticated by William Hague’s absurd refusal to affirm or deny the fact on the BBC, Sunday morning, and by Edwina Currie’s bland assumption of that self-same fact a mere thirty minutes later.
Why not simply state that we wanted Gadaffi out of office and state the reasons? 

Was he attempting extortion, through threats to fund terrorism (there seems to have been a recent upsurge in IRA activity)?
Was he actively supporting Al Qaeda against Saudi Arabia and those Arab nations, who seemed to support Western intervention?


At present, the Government and, therefore, the British people are being presented as hypocrites; trying to avoid charges of war-mongering. Charges which will be made by our enemies, anyway.


Tell the truth and shame the devil. Trust the people with the full story, whatever it is, and gain our respect.



RIP Question Time

June 10, 2011

sent 10/6/11

I am depressed.
The BBC’s Question Time used to be an opportunity for members of the Public to put awkward questions to politicians.
This provided the entertaining spectacle of watching politician’s squirm as they tried to offer up their tutored responses, only to dig themselves deeper and deeper into the mire, until rescued by a chortling David Dimbleby.
Alas! no more.
Last night saw two important questions, for which many of us would like to have seen some intelligent explanation given, simply pushed aside.
Both questions were couched in terms of the cuts being made in public services.
The first was about overseas aid and the second was about the incursion into Libya’s domestic problems.
At first, it seemed that we might get a bit of squirming, as the Government representative trotted out the rapidly clichéd phrases of “Hard decisions” and “bare cupboards”.
The debate was quickly hijacked by Germaine Greer, assisted by Charles Clarke.
Apart from Charles Clarke’s facile deviation into the suggestion that giving away money bought us friends, the totality of the response lay in claiming that it was our moral duty to give away money and to protect some of the Libyan people, from the rest.
Every attempt to pose a relevant point, querying this view, was met by an increasingly indignant assertion of it being our moral duty to venture deeper into national debt to pay for these policies.
David Dimbleby’s reference to India, about these foreign Government’s not considering it their moral duty to look after their own people and put their interests above those of other nations, was simply ignored and battered down by further moral indignation.
Peter Hitchen’s confrontational manner made it difficult to pursue the point raised about our right to intervene in Libya and prevented anyone from querying why such arguments could not be applied to scores of similarly placed countries, where despots were murdering those who opposed them.
If Question Time is to become simply a platform for the more, strident and vocal members of the chatterati, then it loses its point.

who’s the fiscal daddy?

April 9, 2011
Patrick O’Flynn did a good hatchet job on Ed Balls, whose assertions seem no more than political jibes.

However, the case put forward, about the Coalition’s fiscal acumen being what the Country and the Taxpayer need, looks totally off-whack, when considered in light of the extra burden placed on us by Dave’s largesse.

Ireland, Pakistan, Portugal, Greece, Libya.

No doubt these would have been just as much a burden, if Labour and the two Ed’s (not better than one) were in power but as I feel a bout of belt-tightening and penny counting coming on, I feel even less supportive of either party.

The only consolation about our two party, first past the post, state is that we needn’t worry about the situation that Obama faces, in America, where his opposition party could effectively disable executive functions.

arab league request on Libya

March 13, 2011
Version printed in Daily Express:
Arab world should keep Gaddafi’s forces grounded
THE Arab League has called on the UN for a no fly zone over Libya on the assumption made that it would have tube implemented by -Western democracies.°
However, why should this be the case? Many Muslim states have air forces equal to or better than that of Colonel Gaddafi.
Why doesn’t the UN instruct these nations to undertake this role? Were it to happen, Muslim fundamentalists. would find it very difficult to whip up any anti-Western hysteria.
There would be no need for aircraft carriers as Arab fighter jets could be based in countries bordering Libya.
A final question: can the West even spare the jet fuel these countries have in such abundance?
My original (not a lot of difference)
The Arab League has called on the UN for a no-fly zone over Libya.
The assumption made here is that such an action would have to be implemented by Western Democracies but should it?
Many Muslim States have air forces equal to or better than that of Gaddafi.
My understanding is that they all speak Arabic, in some form, and, if these countries were instructed, by the UN, to undertake this role, Muslim fundamentalists would find it hard to whip up anti-Western hysteria.
These States would not need aircraft carriers as bases as they should also be able to call on countries bordering Libya for facilities.
Finally can the West spare the jet fuel that these countries have in abundance.


March 4, 2011
Let’s hope that Cameron takes on board the warning provided by Kevin Toolis.

It is, however, disappointing that it can be seen as necessary that the people in charge of our  Country need such advice.

In this case, it shouldn’t have needed a Middle East expert to explain the truth of the matter and it doesn’t need an Islamic fundamentalist to think that Oil interests may be driving such policy decisions.

When Maggie had us take back the Falklands, against American wishes, it was a popular action, because we were cast in the role of the Big Brother bouncing The Argentinian Bully.

When Blair took us into Iraq, it was as the Big Bully’s hanger-on, taking the little lad’s dinner money.

We have no interest in Libya’s problems. In police parlance, it’s a domestic dispute, and we should be advising Obama that even if America sees itself as the World’s policeman, he should ignore the sabre-rattling of Pentagon Hawks.

If there are British Nationals at risk, then past History suggests that an attempt at surgical extractions are much more likely to meet Global and Domestic approval.

Printed version (Daily Express)

Gaddafi ‘s people should be left to sort things out.
LET’S hope that David Cameron takes on board the warning by Middle East expert Kevin Toolis, who says we should leave it to the Libyan people themselves to decide Gaddafi’s fate (“Cameron cannot . go into Libya with all guns blazing”, March 2).
We have no interest in Libya’s problems. In police parlance, it’s a domestic dispute and we should be
advising President Obama that even if America sees itself as the world’s policeman, he should ignore the sabre-rattling of Pentagon hawks.