On Sunday, the Arab League agreed to continue its controversial observer mission in Syria. In this piece, originally published by Foreign Policy two days before the League meeting, Richard Gowan makes the case for keeping the mission going.

The hunt is on for ways to offer security and aid to Syrian civilians, but the risk of any military-humanitarian mission backfiring is high. The lessons of Darfur are that any peacekeepers would be targeted, especially as the unrest turns into full-scale war.

Many analysts will see last week's debate over the Palestinian bid for recognition at the UN as yet another example of Western decline. Yet the reality is more complex. Cracks are emerging between non-Western powers at the UN, presenting opportunities for Europe – if the EU's member states can get their act together.

In the wake of Gaddafi's fall, American commentators have been keen to urge that any peacekeeping operation in Libya is a primarily European one. Yet there are serious potential problems with this approach – not least that Libya's new leaders have declared their opposition to the idea of any foreign boots on their soil.

Understandably, European governments are rethinking their aid budgets in the light of the economic crisis. But any cuts to aid and foreign ministry budgets should be judged according to results rather than a simple cost calculation.

The European Union needs to learn the lessons from the past as it wrestles with using military support to underpin its humanitarian assistance in Libya. This will allow it to develop more credible intervention forces for future crisis - ones that might actually work.

The reputation of the UN and Ban Ki-moon may hinge upon the outcome in two of the world's trouble spots - South Sudan and Palestine. South Sudan in particular remains a crucial test of the institution's ability to handle weak states.

In 1987, Muammar Gaddafi proposed an Islamic peacekeeping force to end the Iran-Iraq war. Could a mainly Muslim force now keep the peace in his own country?

The European Union’s introspection in world affairs, and its shrinking ability to influence the outside world, does not mean that the outside world will leave it alone. Rising powers might soon be racing to invest in Europe, and shape its politics to suit their needs.

The UN's secretary-general and the EU's foreign policy chief have similar predecessors, styles and priorities – and a common need to find a voice.

A military solution to the Libyan crisis is unlikely, and even the most ardent members of the anti-Gaddafi coalition now accept the need to talk to his regime as part of an attempt to secure a negotiated settlement. Any Western-flagged peacekeeping mission, including one under an EU banner, now seems unlikely to be welcomed, and so diplomats at the UN should be discussing alternative options.

Outside mediators may eventually play a key role in ending the Libyan civil war, and if there is even a brief opportunity to talk Gaddafi into standing down, the international community must be ready to seize it. It should be thinking about who is best placed to do the talking.

Western military planners are examining options for deposing Gaddafi. But somebody also needs to think about an international peace operation to stabilise Libya, whether to oversee the dictator's negotiated exit or clean up afterwards. Could this be a role for a UN-mandated EU?

Libya is in chaos, and Colonel Gaddafi seems determined to hang on to power at any expense. But he has already lost control of large swathes of the country, the security forces and bureaucracy, and it is not premature to start planning for a post-Gaddafi Libya.

The crises in Côte d’Ivoire and Tunisia have exposed the strategic challenge for France now that its former sphere of influence appears to be collapsing. But a post-colonial Europe still has the ability to affect African affairs.