UN backs a no-fly zone over Libya
This topic was discussed on 18th March 2011. Click here to listen to the programme.
UPDATE: 14:06 Story is moving quickly, David Cameron tells the BBC Col Gaddafi will be judged by his deeds not his words after the announcement from the regime of an immediate ceasefire. Check out the latest here http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12776418
UPDATE 12:38 GMT Libya's Foreign Minister says his country is committed to accept the UN Security Council resolution, and so has decided an immediate ceasefire and the stopping of all military operations.
Coming in on the train this morning, everyone was reading the same story. The headline: 'UN backs a no-fly zone over Libya'
What does that mean? Well, it's not completely clear what form the intervention may take, but we do know the resolution backs "all necessary measures" to protect civilians short of an invasion. Read the full text here. You might be interested to know the resolution passed 10-0, with Brazil, China, Germany, India and Russia abstaining. Are you from one of the countries that voted for it or abstained? Please do get in touch.
The BBC's Caroline Wyatt interprets it like this:
"The UN resolution is so broad it allows military action against all threats to civilians - so could even involve bombing Col Gaddafi's forces on the ground if deemed necessary".
All eyes are on France as the Agence France Presse news agency is reporting that French government spokesman Francois Baroin has just said the strikes may come "rapidly ... within hours".
The reaction from around the world has been swift and passionate.
In rebel-held Benghazi, locals cheered, fired guns in the air and let off fireworks to celebrate the imminent no-fly zone.
@BlakeHounsell from Foreign Policy tweeted:
Amazing to see a Western diplomatic move met by cheering crowds of Arabs live on Al Jazeera, for once
Libya's Deputy Foreign Minister Khaled Kaaim said the vote amounted to
"a call for Libyans to kill each other"
Lebanon's ambassador to the UN Nawaf Salam. a central player in drafting the resolution, as expected, disagrees vehemently:
"our resolution is aimed to protect Libyan civilians....It will not result in the occupation of even an inch of Libyan territory".
Do you agree with the approach taken by the UN Security Council? Are military strikes justified?
Chege in Kenya does not:
This is not Bosnia or Rwanda. the people of Benghazi are not fighting a non-violent struggle. They took arms againist their own state and again how does one differentiate between a civilian and a rebel?. This action I believe will prove to be wrong.