Sanctions on Lybia? Yes! But there are sanctions and sanctions
Obama's first move was to call Prime Minister Erdogan of Turkey while French President Sarkozy was there on a visit, and tell them he wanted sanctions. Of course, they both agreed. The very next day, the United Nations Security Council produced a sanctions resolution backed by just about every member country, probably a first in the annals of United Nations history.
On February 24, the minute all those Americans who wanted to leave Libya had safely escaped, President Obama bandied about sanctions. That's the favourite threat used by our political class on both sides of the Atlantic whenever war is out of the question.
One can only applaud the international community for its reaction to the bloodshed in Libya. Anyone who's followed the unfolding of the tragedy on Al Jazeera, as I have, will have seen Colonel Muammar al Qaddafi at his worst on Tuesday, February 22 in a raving 80 minute speech, threatening death to his own people. There can be no doubt the man is bloodthirsty, out of touch with reality and out of his mind.
No one wants to invade Libya to restore peace or save lives, so sanctions are the answer. Okay, I can live with that. But there are sanctions and sanctions: only those that directly hit Qaddafi should be used; meaning a freeze on his assets, an interdiction to travel, bringing him to trial for crimes against humanity, a ban on arms sales to Libya. All of that is fine, but not a trade embargo that would only hurt the man in the street and leave Qaddafi unharmed.
It would seem the UN is going in that direction. For the sake of the poor Libyan people, I hope it keeps going that way...