3 Muzzle-teers’ recipe for Libya
We are writing this in a newspaper because most of our citizens, when they hear us on television, either laugh uproariously or throw the nearest available object through the TV screen. But newspaper reporters are trusted by the public almost half as much as used-car salesmen, and we are hoping that some of this credibility will rub off on us if we write here.
Since the beginning of the Libyan crisis (in 1969), we have had our small differences about who should pay the costs and who should reap the benefits of sorting the place out, but we have been united in our belief that we know what is best for us, and what is best for us is best for Libya. We are convinced that better times lie ahead for the people of Libya, and a pathway can be forged to achieve that, even if we might have to destroy them in order to save them.
We must never forget the reasons why the international community - that’s us - was obliged to act in the first place. The Arab world was descending into chaos: Tunisia, Egypt, Bahrain, Yemen, Saudi Arabia - and we couldn’t find a pretext to send in the Marines, or even a few thousand drone bombers, to save our favourite employees.
Then Colonel Gaddafi began attacking his own people instead of renditioning them to other countries for torture. How does that look? Is Egypt, where the military is still in charge, that far away? Think of how such isolationism undermines international collaboration and the WTO. We had to act now, because we weren’t likely to get another such opportunity.
In a hysteric resolution, matched only by the one giving us carte blanche to level Korea in 1950, the United Nations Security Council authorised all necessary measures to protect the people of Libya from everything except unlimited collateral damage, the theft of their resources and our possible decision to look the other way should we decide to leave Gaddafi in charge for a while (see Iraq 1991).
Our duty and our mandate under UN Security Council Resolution 1973 is to protect civilians, not to remove Qaddafi by force. But what the hell, does anyone think we’re going to spend all that money on explosives just to save a few poor people? If you think we’ve exceeded our mandate, file a complaint with the Security Council.
Furthermore, the International Criminal Court is rightly investigating the crimes committed against civilians and the grievous violations of international law by Gaddafi. One of us is immune from such investigation, because my government has not signed on to the ICC, so it seems unquestionable that any further war crimes in Libya should be left to me.
There is a pathway to peace that promises new hope for the people of Libya — a future that preserves Libya’s integrity and sovereignty, and restores her economy and her people to the rightful control of the IMF and World Bank.
This vision for the future of Libya has the support of a broad coalition of countries, most of whom have asked to remain anonymous unless naming them can deflect attention from sex scandals. They support a solution to the crisis that respects the will of the Libyan people, which we are already well informed about, so the latter don’t need to raise their voices.
Britain, France and the United States will not rest until all United Nations Security Council resolutions that do not refer to Israel have been implemented and the Libyan people can choose the future we have chosen for them.
George III (United States)
What’s-his-name (Tony II, Britain)
Nicolas Sarcophagus (France)