New Case for a Humanitarian Intervention

The United States and the European Union are calling for a "no-fly zone" over Libya as a way to thwart government attacks on revel forces and Libyan citizens. The Security Council has approved the action, with Russia and China abstaining from the vote-however not vetoing the action. This is an interesting occurrence, because in a way, it is a humanitarian intervention, albeit not the kind that was utilized in Kosovo, Somalia, or Sri Lanka. The no-fly zone, which is already implemented as France is already underway in patrolling the skies, is not directly intended to kill Qaddafi-backed forces, although this will probably will occur, but rather as a way to prevent Qaddafi from using aerial bombings - something that the rebel forces cannot defend against. And as in the video below, a jet was already shot down over Benghazi, although it is unclear how it was downed.

How the US and other EU states will participate remains to be seen. Qaddafi is obviously not happy, and has written letters to both Obama and France, the UK, and the UN (collaboratively), claiming that intervening in Libyan domestic affairs will only hurt the region and Souther Europe. If the US gets involved, they may try to mission creep into Somalia, but this is HIGHLY speculative, and this observation comes from un-credible news reports such as this.

Below is a video posted on the BBC that shows a Libyan fighter jet shot down and talks about the no-fly zone humanitarian intervention

Holding Off Migration

Alexander Betts' Global Migration Governance rouses the interest in a governance scheme that will regulate and protect global migration, something no international institution does or can do. Betts says that no one state can address this problem in isolation and thus there needs to be a multilateral agreements to implement migration governance. Currently individual states utilize their power over their own migration processes and issues, such as America's visa system. But global migration governance (GMG) will regulate not just states but also non-state actors whose characteristics are transnational. There will be no 1 size fits all policy because different areas of migration require different rules and way so of thinking. For example, corporate immigration, i.e. the moving of employees to different countries for work reasons is quite different from migrants moving to different countries in pursuit of new jobs and new lives. Within GMG, there will also be trade offs of economics, security, and rights for a new system of regulation, and most importantly will we need a paradigm shift in the way states think about migration. A change in the paradigm opens up the ability to talk about common issues and interests that states have in the migration field, as opposed to what they have against each other.

GMG is not about controlling migration, however. Yet controlling migration is the hot topic in Europe currently, as countries like Italy and France fear the rise of illegal migrants and asylum cases from the violence in Libya, Tunisia, and other countries that are part of the spillover effect of 'democratic uprisings in the Middle East and North Africa. The United States has also been involved in controlling the migratory process in North Africa, helping both France and Italy fly Egyptians out of Libya so they would not try to escape to southern Europe. Other people in Libya, who came for work and are waiting to go back to their country of origin, were not so lucky to be flown out by Western governments. Instead they have created a shanty town around the airport in Tripoli, hoping to leave once the violence subsides. Controlling migration is a risky business because it inhibits freedom of movement, an inalienable right bestowed on all people (or at least it should be, because obviously in countries such as North Korea, it is very difficult to emigrate). Perhaps then a global migration governance is something that is very relevant now, because it would better deal with the movement of people in conflict zones. These are the sticky issues that GMG would need to deal with, because promoting rights is not always in the interest of societal well being (i.e. 1 child policy of China) but on most issues, promoting rights is the best way to go.