Global actors in global agenda

In current post I am presenting a number of opinions of global actors on a burning contemporary agenda (Libya case).

Ministry of foreign affairs of the UK William Hague claimed that a land operation in Libya is not excluded though the resolution on Libya №1973 doesn’t undermine that.

Russian premier Putin made a comment on this resolution naming the intervention as “medieval crusade”. President Medvedev said that Putin’s comments on “medieval crusade” are  unacceptable ( ). Medvedev stressed that was his decision not to veto the resolution №1973 in the UN Security Council ( Position of Russia, thus, had been divided. Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Russia stated though:  «We call upon the proper states urgently cease violence. We firmly believe not to use the mandate, provided by the resolution which adoption  was very controversial  and aimed only at protecting civilians» (

Italian head of the Council of ministers Silvio Berlusconi claimed that “Italian military bases are in disposal. We are also expecting that our participation might be possible. I would like to calm down our civilians. Our forces have examined the potential of the army of Libya, missiles, and the conclusion is certain – there is such army that could somehow influence the territory of Italy. But we still are hoping that international community (western and Arabic also) will change its mind on regime in Libya”

French president Nicolas Sarkozy announces his famous speech on no-fly zone in Libya: “Planes are ready to intervene against any forces that are harming civilians. From yesterday France, the UK, the US and the Arab League sent forces at the absence of immediate ceasefire, and forces which are harming Libyan population, and immediately we will take military action, and this has been agreed by all the parties of this summit. Unfortunately, Qadhafi has ignored our call, therefore, his offence has been increasing. The Libyan people have decided to free themselves, and this has led to a great hope among all those who share the values of democracy, nut, unfortunately, this leads to risks. The Libyan people have to face so many challenges, people need our help, and they need our support, this is our duty. In Libya population is only demanding right to choose their own destiny in danger and facing death. We have a duty to respond. Libya belongs to Libyan population, that is why we are not going to decide their place for them. Their freedom is there’s. If we intervene supporting Arab people, this doesn’t mean that we will be imposing anything on them, but it is our social conscience that makes us not tolerate to such crises. Today we are intervening under the mandate of the UN with our partners, and especially Arab partners, we are doing this in order to protect the civilian population from the bloodshed carried out by the regime, which is carried out on their people, and this regime has lost all legitimacy.  We are allowing the Libyan people to choose its own destiny. It must have access to its own    rights and fight against this terror. And in order to avoid the worst, we invite Qadhafi to answer all the demands of the UN, and once the aggression stops, we will be ready up until this point. Alongside, European partners, Arab partners, as well as from the US have decided to assume this responsibility and take on  its role in history. Thank you very much” (

A famous expert on Balkans, Marco Gasic, claimed that such interventions have never been successful and today we are all witnesses to the desperate poverty and crime of Afghanistan, Bosnia, Iraq, Kosovo. Moreover, such interventions ended with one scenario – occupation by western allies of the territory and regional instability for a long period of time. But expert’s point of view on humanitarian aspect of the conflict – 20 tomahawks with depleted uranium were aimed at civilians in order to create demented smiles in mother’s wombs Marco Gasic also remembered that the Security Council resolution №1973 was aimed at constructive dialogue creating, not at Qadhafi death.  However, it is clear that allies are not interested in ceasefire, otherwise they would let the observers access the territory.

I fully agree with Gasic, that the change of regime is possible only through a long-term dialogue, and takes sometimes 5 years.  At the same time, in case with the Middle East, international community needed only 5 days.

In case of using these materials, add this URL: