Four reasons why NATO's actions in Libya aren't a modern 'crusade'

In the run-up to military operations over Libya, and since, NATO and the West have been criticized for acting immorally, if not illegally, with an eye to seizing control of Libya’s oil riches. The following four points show that nothing could be farther from the truth.

3. The international community wanted this. Just look at Somalia.

It is a little reported fact that when the international community was considering an arms embargo and no-fly zone for Libya, calls for the same action with respect to another African nation also were on the table. On Oct. 15, 2010, the African Union asked the UN Security Council to impose a naval blockade and no-fly zone on Somalia. Unlike Libya, however, the international community has to date been unable to muster the necessary political will to do so.

In this perspective, the approval of Resolution 1973 that has led to NATO action over part of Africa must be considered particularly significant and by no means a foregone conclusion. The fact that the Resolution also contains no predetermined timeline for the re-authorization of its enforcement measures similarly communicates a strong message of intent on the part of the world community.

3 of 4
You've read 3 of 3 free articles. Subscribe to continue.
CSM logo

Why is Christian Science in our name?

Our name is about honesty. The Monitor is owned by The Christian Science Church, and we’ve always been transparent about that.

The Church publishes the Monitor because it sees good journalism as vital to progress in the world. Since 1908, we’ve aimed “to injure no man, but to bless all mankind,” as our founder, Mary Baker Eddy, put it.

Here, you’ll find award-winning journalism not driven by commercial influences – a news organization that takes seriously its mission to uplift the world by seeking solutions and finding reasons for credible hope.

Explore values journalism About us