Just saw this report on the Guardian, considered, and decided it impossible not to comment in a diary.
"Britain expels Libyan ambassador", is the report. Sounds simple enough, right? Ambassadors are frequently expelled; it happens all the time.
Well...
Britain moved to expel Libya's ambassador tonight after the UK embassy in Tripoli was attacked by a mob.
Britain expels Libyan ambassador
Apparently there are disturbances at foreign embassies in Tripoli, following an assassination attempt upon the de facto head of state there, Moammar Ghaddafi, and the loss of life of civilians, including among them one of Ghaddafi's sons and several grandchildren.
Apparently totally unawares the deadpan humor inherent in his comments, British Foreign Minister Hagues relates:
"The Vienna Convention requires the Gaddafi regime to protect diplomatic missions in Tripoli. By failing to do so that regime has once again breached its international responsibilities and obligations.
"I take the failure to protect such premises very seriously indeed..."
Dear Mr. Hague, you've just issued an assassination attempt on a head of state of a country in the middle of an insurrection and a civil war. In some circumstances this sort of deliberate targeting may be seen as a criminal act. Civilians (and others) have been killed by NATO bombs, obviously. Civilians are perturbed. Are we even sure there is a functional, level headed, and stable civil government or police force in Tripoli? Libyan government officials are probably hidding out of the city or in underground bunkers somewhere. You're stretching the meaning and intent of the UN Security Council resolution (mandate, perhaps?). The Libyans don't have a good grasp of the understated British sense of humor: "I take the failure to protect such premises very seriously indeed..."
In other words, is it Possible to Show Yourself as Any More Dense?
I suppose in years to come some deliberate study somewhere will conclude it would have been more advisable for the NATO countries to have shut their Libyan foreign embassies before issuing the assassination attempts.
Meanwhile, David Cameron concludes "NATO action is 'in line' with Policy"
Nato action 'in line' with policy, says Cameron
David Cameron insisted that Nato's choice of targets in Libya was "in line" with the United Nations Security Council resolution amid claims that Muammar Gaddafi's youngest son had been killed in an attack by the coalition.
I wonder will the civilians feel safer now they have a few more clues to the "policy".