Our Guest Blogger is Laura Heaton, Writer/Editor for the blog, Enough Said.

Just a few days ago, support appeared to be waning for imposing a no-fly zone over Libya. But last night, the U.N. Security Council authorized military intervention in Libya, passing a Chapter VII resolution that gives the United Nations permission to use “all necessary measures” to protect civilians.

Earlier this week, I wrote a post for the Enough Project comparing the international response to Libya and to Darfur – a topic that has stirred up strong frustration among some in the Sudan advocacy community.

Drawing comparisons across foreign policy issues has limited use, of course, because there is so much variation from one situation to the next and thus, they illicit different responses. But in recent years, as a growing consensus has formed around the idea that the international community does indeed have a “responsibility to protect,” an important question has remained: Can we actually get our acts together and effectively protect civilians?

The question is by no means answered yet. Despite the quick vocal response of the U.N. Security Council – less than a week – in the wake of Qaddafi’s deployment of fighter jets against regime opponents, the U.N.’s February resolution (including an ICC referral) and the strong condemnation by many governments has had little measurable impact on saving civilians in Libya. But yesterday’s actions are an encouraging sign that if there’s a common and genuine international will to respond, it’s possible to take collective steps to prevent further bloodshed.

In my post earlier this week, I noted that the U.N.’s hesitation to act decisively in response to the growing crisis unfolding in Darfur gave the Sudanese government time to wage their campaign against civilians.

By contrast, the urgency with which the international community reacted and began drawing up plans for how it might get involved in Libya sets an important new precedent for preventing atrocities and protecting civilians – one that should guide future responses, I argued.

The New York Times noted this significance reporting on last night’s vote:

Diplomats said the specter of former conflicts in Bosnia, Rwanda and Darfur, when a divided and sluggish Security Council was seen to have cost lives, had given a sense of moral urgency to Thursday’s debate. Yet some critics also noted that a no-fly zone authorized in the early 1990s in Bosnia had failed to prevent some of the worst massacres there, including the Srebrenica massacre.

A mentor of mine with ample foreign policy experience was also cautious about the suggestion of a trend toward a more proactive international response to civilians at risk. “The Pentagon still hates the idea, and I am still unconvinced that the international community has the will and resources to see any kind of military intervention and post conflict effort successfully through,” he wrote in an email. The fact that Libya erupted after a string of uprisings across the Middle East is also an important piece of context that made this situation unique. The international community had a bit of lead-time while watching events unfold in Egypt, Tunisian, and Bahrain.

In the last 24 hours, the U.N.’s actions appear to have had their desired effect. Faced with promised U.N. strikes against his military, Qaddafi today announced of a ceasefire. We’ll see what happens next.

Last November, two Mexican nationals were brutally beaten in San Francisco by five men who yelled “white power” and made racist comments during the attack. One of the victims was punched and kicked in the face until he blacked out. The other victim was attacked when he tried to intervene to help. Today, three alleged white supremacists were arraigned in connection with the crime.

District Attorney of San Francisco George Gascón warned that what happened may not be an anomaly. At a press conference today, Gascón indicated that his office has witnessed a rise in white supremacist activity in the area:

DA George Gascon confirmed that his office is pursuing the assault as a hate crime. But the issue might be more serious than we think — according to both Gascon and to sources that spoke with ABC7, a recent uptick in local white supremacist activity appears to be linked to national hate groups. [...]

Gascon said he found the attack “very uncharacteristic for this city,” but said it has helped the district attorney’s office further understand the presence of white supremacy groups in San Francisco.

He said the investigation has revealed an increase in local white supremacist activity, mostly coming from people living outside of San Francisco. He declined to go into detail so as to not compromise the case.

Watch the local ABC7 report:

Gascón also indicated that there has been a rise in local hate crimes. The number of hate crimes prosecuted in San Francisco doubled from 2009 to 2010. Gascón stated that there is “a great likelihood that there are other victims we are not aware of” who have been targeted in a hate crime.

Meanwhile, one of the victims was so traumatized by the attack that he returned to Mexico due to “concerns about their safety more than concerns about their immigration status.” SF Weekly claims that there “a silver lining to this alleged hate crime.” According to the paper, “it’s that the Mexican victims now have a possible path to become legal residents.” The U visa provides victims of certain crimes temporary legal status and work eligibility. The San Francisco Police Department reportedly signed about150 applications in 2010.

Yesterday evening, the UN Security Council voted 10-0 to approve a no-fly zone over Libya and “authorizing all necessary measures” to prevent Muammar Qaddafi’s forces from killing civilians.

Before the vote, in an article posted on the Council on Foreign Relations website, CFR president Les Gelb criticized the Arab League for calling on the UN to impose a no-fly zone. “They would have no trouble doing the job all by themselves. They possess hundreds upon hundreds of frontline jet fighters and the necessary air bases—in sum, full air superiority over Libya,” he said. So why did they go to the UN? Gelb has the answer:

Why are they all insisting that before any action can be taken it must first be approved by the U.N. Security Council? Elementary, my dear Watson, as Sherlock Holmes used to say to his rather slow companion.

The answer is plain: they know very well that the U.N. Security Council won’t approve the action. Which, in turn, means that they have no real desire or intent to secure the skies over Libya and are using the U.N. as an excuse.

The Daily Beast re-published Gelb’s column after the UN approved the no-fly resolution. But absent in the Daily Beast’s version (which the CFR version links to) is Gelb’s prediction that the UN “won’t approve action”:

Why haven’t they acted? The answer is plain: they didn’t expect the UN Security Council would approve the action. And if it didn’t, they would be relieved of their obligation to act, in their eyes at least. They had to reckon, along with everyone else, that China and Russia would veto the no-fly plan. But those two usual nay-sayers must have been impressed with the Arab League resolution, and perhaps some side understanding with the United States still not known.

The Daily Beast version contains no indication of the change. But seeing that the UNSC’s approval of the no-fly resolution eliminated the main justification for Gelb’s criticism of the Arab League, the Daily Beast version just white washes that whole argument.

Gelb’s argument aside, perhaps the Arab League went to the UN because it preferred that the international community speak with one voice on Libya and didn’t want to own the Libyan intervention themselves — something Gelb complains that the U.S. would ultimately end up having to do.

And as it turns out, because the issue was referred to the UN, no one country owns the Libyan intervention and the international community — led by Britain and France this time, not the U.S. — is working together collectively to resolve the crisis. (HT: Brian Katulis)