While I agree that the Tuareg have always been good at fighting the authorities that be, it's very coincidental that this particular flare-up is matched so closely with the ejection of Gaddafi's Tuareg corps, but certainly that was the spark to a very dry pile of tinder, not an explosion in itself.
And by responsibility in this case, I don't mean "let's invade and make everything all right", but at least a recognition of "hey, our actions have wider consequences". I would at least like a blanket commitment to condemning armed takeovers of the government, no matter the cause, but I don't expect anyone to actually do anything on the ground, except perhaps shuffle the foreign aid requirements (less military, more civil).
I'd prefer a system by which the West automatically applies a set of penalties to military coups, regardless of who the country is. For civil wars I'm beginning to lean toward a policy of complete neutrality, understanding that what this means is that we'll really arm both sides because money talks and weapons travel easily, but where we don't interfere in what's going on internally. At this point I would prefer some sort of consistency then the continual attempt to treat each situation differently as the decisions are made by people with little to no information about what's happening on the ground.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2012-03-23 12:40 pm (UTC)And by responsibility in this case, I don't mean "let's invade and make everything all right", but at least a recognition of "hey, our actions have wider consequences". I would at least like a blanket commitment to condemning armed takeovers of the government, no matter the cause, but I don't expect anyone to actually do anything on the ground, except perhaps shuffle the foreign aid requirements (less military, more civil).
I'd prefer a system by which the West automatically applies a set of penalties to military coups, regardless of who the country is. For civil wars I'm beginning to lean toward a policy of complete neutrality, understanding that what this means is that we'll really arm both sides because money talks and weapons travel easily, but where we don't interfere in what's going on internally. At this point I would prefer some sort of consistency then the continual attempt to treat each situation differently as the decisions are made by people with little to no information about what's happening on the ground.