The iPad imperialists are a twitter over the prospect of a “liberal intervention” in Libya, beginning with a no-fly zone as a first step to militarising the conflict.
A message to EU from Benghazi protesters (Photo: Tiago Petinga/EPA)
Next Friday EU leaders will meet to discuss the Libyan revolution and military intervention in the name of supporting the rebels or humanitarianism will be on the table.
Libyans do not need or want the EU’s intervention, as the photograph above shows. Libyans made their revolution by themselves, for themselves – they will finish it themselves.
An external military intervention in Libya will not only make things worse, it will undermine the principle that the emancipation and self determination of peoples is the task of peoples themselves.
In fact frustrating this principle is probably a big part of the point of a military adventure for elites that are defined by a suspicion of democracy when it is exercised outside officially approved or controlled structures.
Nato planning for a no-fly zone has already begun as a precursor for this preliminary act of war à la Iraq or à la Kosovo.
You cannot have a no-fly zone unless you shoot down aircraft and if you are ready to do that then the inevitable next step is to take out the military ground-infrastructure (barracks, tanks, etc) that is doing the real bloody work.
This second photograph, below, gives the game away. Whether it’s brownnosing or bombs, EU policy with Libya has been defined by self interest and the unhealthy European fetish of stability, even if it means sucking up to repulsive creatures such as Gaddafi.
Tripoli, Nov 29 2010: Whose side is the EU on? (Photo: Geert Vanden Wijngaert/AP)
Over in the Council of the EU Justus Lipsius building, a picture of Javier Solana rapturously greeting Gaddafi has been removed, a pointless even insulting gesture, after the event, that sums up the substance of European policy on Libya.
At the end of day it is all about gestures, onanistic actions that are about making Western politicians like David Cameron, Baroness Ashton or Nicolas Sarkozy feel good about themselves regardless of the consequences for Libyans.
Over to Brendan O’Neill on Spiked:
“As the Arab world teeters, some seem keen to argue that the key divide is between the responsible West and the reckless Arab rulers, where ‘we’ have a responsibility to teach ‘them’ a lesson about democracy and in the process save the Arab people. In truth, the divide is between the Arab people and their authoritarian governments. And the Arab people have shown that they don’t need to be saved by white ethical crusaders. They’re more than capable of toppling dictators and determining their own affairs. Calling for an assertion of supposed (Western) ethical authority in the unstable Arab world is a sure-fire way of removing the political initiative from the people who live there.”
It takes a special kind of cretin to urge more military adventures when the appalling consequences of intervention in Iraq and Afghanistan are as plain as the nose on Lady Ashton’s face. Kosovo, “liberated” by the West and Nato’s bombs, now enjoys the oxymoronic delight of “supervised independence” under the tutelage of the EU.
What Gaddafi’s regime (feted as a force for stability and an ally against Islamist terrorists just weeks ago) is doing should outrage all of us. But let us not forget that the Libyan people are not the helpless humanitarian victim beloved of liberal imperialist propaganda.
Libyans are liberating themselves and bitter experience teaches us that to try and turn Libya into a feel-good Western protectorate would not only frustrate freedom but store up more war for the future.
The last word goes to “Muhammad min Libya”, the nom de plume of a Libyan blogger writing over on the Guardian’s Comment is Free.
“This is a wholly popular revolution, the fuel to which has been the blood of the Libyan people. Libyans fought alone when western countries were busy ignoring their revolution at the beginning, fearful of their interests in Libya. This is why I’d like the revolution to be ended by those who first started it: the people of Libya.”
Update:
Jose Manuel Barroso, the European Commission president has just called on Gaddafi to step down and “give the country back to the people of Libya”.
“The completely unacceptable actions of the Libyan regime over the last weeks have made it painfully clear that Colonel Gaddafi is part of the problem, not part of the solution. It is time for him to go and give the country back to the people of Libya, allowing democratic forces to chart out a future course.”
Mr Barroso is pictured below with the aforementioned tyrant – it was taken just three months ago. Is the smile sincere or false? How sincere is the EU’s sudden conversion to democracy in Libya?
(Photo: European Commission)
#1 by PetervL on March 1, 2011 - 8:29 pm
The EU doesn’t do in military interventions, that would be the UK. (even your John Major was calling for military intervention)
“No foreign intervention” is directed to the UK and the US and was explained by the people who put up this sign: “we have seen what happened in Iraq”
The EU would only come in afterwards, like in Egypt, as your own paper , the Daily Telegraph puts it as “EUrope, since 1989, has written the textbook on helping states move from authoritarian rule to democracy.”
#2 by dcm on March 2, 2011 - 12:38 am
Well the EU could follow the British policy… as your prime minister has proposed selling British arms to the Libyan opposition as well – a most excellent way of acquainting them with the weapons being used to crush them
#3 by Pedro on March 2, 2011 - 9:25 am
The Irish did it on their own in 1921. The Hungarians did it on their own in 1956 (unsuccessfully). The Czechoslovaks did it on their own in 1968 without help from anyone, also unsuccessfully. The Portuguese did it on their own in 1974. The Spaniards did it in 1981. The Poles did it in 1989…etcetera, etcetera, etcetera. Without anyone…..
#4 by George on March 2, 2011 - 9:33 am
It is logic like this that allowed rwanda to happen!
#5 by Robert Harneis on March 2, 2011 - 9:48 am
“At the end of day it is all about gestures, onanistic actions that are about making Western politicians like Baroness Ashton or Nicolas Sarkozy feel good about themselves regardless of the consequences for Libyans.”
Nicolas Sarkozy? Shorely shome mistake. Through his new Foreign Minister he has clearly called for no intervention without UN consent, which does not yet exist and great caution before calling for military solutions specifically NATO solutions -” because we do not know what the reaction of the arab man in the street would be”. Give the guy a break he is not always wrong.
#6 by Roger Cole on March 2, 2011 - 10:38 am
Good for you Pedro. The Irish did indeed fight for their national independence against the British Union and after this election watch this space in our struggle against the European Union.
Of course the people of Libya should fight and defeat their Dictator who was supported by the EU/US/NATO military axis and sold him the weapons he is now using to kill. We should show them solidarity in their struggle but be assured an invasion of Libya by the EU Battlegroups and/or NATO troops will not be done for the benefit of the people of Libya.
#7 by Patrick on March 2, 2011 - 12:30 pm
Roger Cole, “our struggle against the European Union”, eh?
Sorry, but I must have must have missed the part where Ireland benefited from EUR 20bn+ EU investment over 30 years and then was bankrupted by its lunatic financial management.
There is no “struggle” for Ireland, Kenny could go today to the European Council and notify Ireland’s intention to leave the EU under Art. 50 TEU.
#8 by Bruno Waterfield on March 2, 2011 - 12:46 pm
Thanks Robert, France is acting as a brake on the no-fly zone, to its credit.
But Paris has supported other forms of intervention, up to and including military options. Quite frankly, UN support or not is irrelevant, from a principled point of view a blue badge does not make invading a country right.
Nato planners are currently citing the example of Operation Deny Flight, a mission that lasted over two years in the Balkans and led to air strikes, the first combat ops in the alliance’s history.
#9 by Victor on March 2, 2011 - 7:26 pm
Since the end of the Second World War most examples of successful sustainable liberal democracies are associated with strong, consistent Western support and engagement:
Turkey (Nato)
1) Japan (US)
2) Germany (US/EU)
3) South Korea (US)
4) Taiwan (US)
5) Greece (EU)
6) Spain (EU)
7) Portugal (EU)
9) Central and Eastern Europe (EU)
10) Balkans (EU/Nato)
11) South Africa (UN)
The only important exception is India and, for the most part (but still with US support), Latin America.
The West has always had to balance its neocolonialist/imperialist and libertarian/anti-totalitarian (anti-communist, anti-fascist, anti-theocracy) tendencies.
Some of the best examples of collective human rights violations since the Great War have been a consequence of either inadequate Western engagement or lack of interest:
a) the genocide in Rwanda (lack of timely engagement)
b) the civil wars/genocides in the Balkans (lack of timely engagement)
c) the civil war in Somalia (lack of true American commitment)
d) the conflicts in Sudan
e) the Arab-Israeli conflict (except when the US truly mediated)
f) Burma/Myanmar
g) Cambodia (Pol Pot)
h) China (Tiananmen)
i) North Korea
j) failed Haiti
k) Afghanistan (Taliban)
l) Iraq (Kurds and Shia -where the US first enforced the concept of the humanitarian no fly zone)
It is hard to understand how one can feel proud of advocating civil strife to end basically by itself if there are any mediums to contribute to a quicker and healthy resolution.
In Libya we have no guarantee of a successful revolutionary outcome. The premise of those advocating for exclusively home-grown revolutions is that they will be both successful and sustainable, which is hardly the case. For every successful home-grown revolution there are at least as many that have failed:
i. Iran
ii. Algeria
iii. Palestine
iv. Lebanon (partially)
v. Russia (partially)
vi. Ukraine (partially)
vii. Most of the rest of the post-Soviet space (specially Central Asia)
One should of course recognize that the US completely mismanaged Iraq and Afghanistan (as well as previously Vietnam and countless other cases, specially because of the Red Scare). But those two countries faced particularly difficult situations, the first as regards it multiethnic and religious diversity and the second as regards the lack of any functioning government for decades. And people seem to forget that neither Saddam nor the Taliban were actually any better. At least now these countries can try to make some progress if they democratically choose to.
As for Kosovo, I’d rather have a protectorate than a civil war and yet more genocide.
For all the indirect anti-American talk, I think most countries under American political influence after the Second World War are much better off than the ones that came under Soviet rule. Not to talk about the fact that if it wasn’t for foreign interventions Europe would probably be under the Nazis. Europeans, and specially the British, should now better.
There are good alternatives to help the revolutionaries in Libya which do not necessarily require invasion. But, at the same time, could we really stand ill if the regime decides to massacre 10,000 people, 100,000, a million?
#10 by Anonymous on March 3, 2011 - 4:14 am
Beg your pardon Victor, but what planet do you live on?
If its earth, surely you have heard that Americans and generally Westerners (including us Europeans) are hated and despised in all those countries they have “liberated”. How do you think the common folk in Libya or anywhere in the Arab world would react to American troops? Start shooting at them comes to my mind first. And then probably popular support would shift to Gaddafi since he holds the only strong enough structure capable of expelling an invading force. Is that what you want?
Furthermore, according to political theory, true democratisation can only happen from within! If the population isn’t ready American troops sure as hell won’t make it ready.
#11 by sophie on March 3, 2011 - 10:04 am
i agree with bruno. http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/n.php?n=tunisia-uprising-ethical-europe-has-no-clothes-2011-02-01
#12 by Betterworld on March 3, 2011 - 12:36 pm
A few facts might enlighten:
1. Libya has the longest life expectancy in Africa
2. Libya has the lowest infant mortality in Africa
3. Libya has the smallest divide between rich and poor in Africa
4. Libyans are the best educated in Africa
5. Libya has the best healthcare system in Africa
6. Libyan oil is the highest quality in the world requiring the lowest level of refining
7. There is a global shortage of refinery capacity
Imperial wars for resources take on many guises – they have to, because otherwise they are rightly seen as globalised armed robbery. We need to be vigilant – the world’s most powerful serial armed robbers are planning an attack. But they can only do it if they trick us, their electorate, into believing they are not doing it to capture the oil.
We have been tricked before. We will not believe the “yellow cake” canard again, so they need a more sophisticated, “full spectrum”, deception. They control most of the media and the rest of it they will just attack until it falls over. You will note that the full text of Gaddafi’s speech cannot be found on the web. All transcripts and translations into English posted anywhere on the web globally have now been totally wiped. What are they hiding? And why?
There are two sides to every story. We are getting just one.
Why?
#13 by Alan on March 4, 2011 - 6:34 am
The Libyans are doing what by themselves…? Looks like more of what happened in Tunisia and Egypt. Look beyond the surface and you’ll see Iran’s hand in it all.
BTW, US in NATO? They haven’t run it since the end of the Cold War. Germany’s been calling the shots there since 1991.
#14 by Raffaele on March 4, 2011 - 10:11 am
Just to clarify that the last photo (handshake between Barroso and Gaddafi) has been taken on 08/12/2007, not 3 months ago as erroneously wrote in the article.
http://ec.europa.eu/avservices/2010/photo/photoDetails.cfm?sitelang=en&ref=P-013349/00-11
#15 by Roger Cole on March 4, 2011 - 10:51 am
Patrick, the income Ireland got from the EU is balanced by the income the other EU states got from access to Ireland’s fisheries.
But back to Libya. The EU/US/NATO military are clearly shaping up to invade Libya, not because the do not approve of killing civilians (after all they do it every day in Afghanistan, and support Israel when they kill the people of Palestine) but because like in Iraq, they want the oil. This invasion will make Gaddafi popular as a nationalist and Arab leader. Arab governments including those like Algeria will support him, if only to bolster their own image as opponents of the EU/US/Israeli axis and many ordinary people in the US and the EU who will be suffering massive cuts in their living standards will just not agree to yet another long unending war in North Africa and will reject those governments that will support the war like Mr. Kenny’s incoming Fine Gael government in Ireland after a year or so.
#16 by Pedro on March 5, 2011 - 6:39 am
TO VICTOR
Since the end of the Second World War most examples of successful sustainable brutal dictatorships are associated with strong, consistent american support and engagement:
Antonio Salazar (Portugal)
Francisco Franco (Spain)
Hosni Mubarak (Egypt)
Ferdinand Marcos (Phillipines)
Augusto Pinochet (Chile)
General Sani Abacha (Nigeria)
Idi Amin (Uganda)
Colonel Hugo Banzer (Bolivia)
Fulgencio Batista (Cuba)
Hassanal Bolkiah (Brunei)
P.W. Botha (South Africa)
General Humberto Branco (Brazil)
Raoul Cedras (Haiti)
Vinicio Cerezo (Guatemala)
Roberto Suazo Cordova (Honduras)
Alfredo Christiani (El Salvador)
Ngo Dihn Diem (Vietnam)
General Samuel Doe (Liberia)
Fahd bin’Abdul-’Aziz (Saudi Arabia)
Mobutu Sese Seko (Zaire)
Mohammed Reza Pahlevi (Iran)
Pol Pot (Cambodia)
General Sitiveni Rabuka (Fiji)
Halie Salassie (Ethiopia)
Anastasio Somoza Jr. (Nicaragua)
Ian Smith (Rhodesia)
Alfredo Stroessner (Paraguay)
General Suharto (Indonesia)
Rafael Leonidas Trujillo (Dominican Republic)
General Jorge Rafael (Argentina)
Mohammed Zia Ul-Haq (Pakistan)
I guess america can stand still if regimes decide to massacre 10,000 people, 100,000, a million.
#17 by Victor on March 7, 2011 - 11:33 pm
@Pedro, et al
I do not deny all the many (some only partially) regrettable decisions made during the Cold War.
But, taking the former list, the US later supported the transitions in Portugal, Spain, Philippines, South Africa, Chile and the rest of Latin America and parts of Africa and Asia.
So the argument of the US supporting dictatorships ad infinitum doesn’t hold up. Neither would the implicit arguments that it supported dictatorships in every case or that it did so in most cases where there were better short or medium term alternatives.
Obama has now supported the transition in Egypt, while he could have looked away (or even cheered on) as Mubarak massacred his people as Gadaffi is doing in Libya.
The US reaction to the Arab uprisings taking into account the “War on Terror” could be just as shortsighted as those taken during the Cold War, and yet the American and European approach has been of support for democracy (even if tepid).
While the US has made changes in its foreign policy, the same can’t be said of Russia, for example. And while everyone expects the US to act out of complete goodwill without taking into account its own national interest, nobody calls on China to stop buying Iranian oil and like measures.
The world has double standards regarding the US. And rightly so. More should always be expected of a self-proclaimed champion of democracy. But then again, when the country does good things, nobody recognizes it.
That’s why the average American couldn’t give a damn about what the rest of the world thinks of US foreign policy. All the anti-American talk worldwide just makes the far right in the US stronger, while it weakens the progressives. So when human rights defenders unfairly criticize the US they end up doing a disservice to their own cause.
#18 by Anonymous on March 8, 2011 - 5:08 am
Dear Victor,
why should we give a flying f*ck about American internal political squabbles? We could, and we will, if and only if we can take part in American elections. Till then, I would advise those that do make the decision on who governs America, presumably including yourself, to get their act straight.
American foreign policy sucks, and that’s a fact. Though it does well for US citizens, it does great harm to the rest of the world. And I wouldn’t expect anything different from any other country in the world if put in a hegemonic position like the one USA holds at the moment. In fact, I’d expect China for instance, to be much worse. But that doesn’t undermine the fact that American foreign policy sucks. The only way to circumvent this flaw is either to have a multipolar world or introduce supra-natrional world government based on the EU model.
On the other hand, EU foreign policy, for instance, is much worse than American. Because it doesn’t fulfill its basic purpose – to serve its citisens’ interest. Rather, it serves American foreign policy interests. And don’t even get me started on the Japanese foreign policy.
Finally, I repeat, democracy can only be brought about FROM WITHIN. If America wants other countries to democratise, what she should do is leave them alone.
#19 by Pedro on March 8, 2011 - 8:35 am
TO VICTOR
I’m Portuguese, born into a Portugal under a dictatorship which was supported by the useless states of america (usa), for decades!! Not minutes, or hours, or days, or weeks, or months, or years…DECADES!!! Plenty of opportunity for even the stupidest amongst us to realize wrong from right, and withdraw all support. Don’t give me your patronizing nonsense about america’s unwavering adherence to the cause of liberty, freedom, the rule of law, justice, human rights, and their championing of such principles around the world. I am very familiar with anglo-american propaganda!! Yankee go home!! Get out of my country! Get off my continent!! Stay in your ghettos, and deal with your urban war-zones!!!
#20 by Francesco on March 8, 2011 - 4:30 pm
This discussion is going sort of nowhere (“was US policy in Korea right?”). In the meantime, one key point of Bruno’s post is becoming obsolete (if ever it was entirely true). From the splinters of information that filter from Lybia, we understand that the rebellion is faced with superior military forces, brutal repression (to the point of bombing civilian houses), and are asking themselves “when are they going to help us out”. Doesn’t mean military intervention suddenly becomes a good option, but the self-righteous tone of the post (“ah those crypto-imperialist, hypocritical, lame Western politicians”) is totally off-mark. Our politicians deserve no better, to be sure, but at least the terrible complexity of the situation should be acknowledged … or else, well, ok, let’s sip a beer and enjoy the show, see how it turns out in the end…
#21 by Pedro on March 8, 2011 - 7:13 pm
‘Sipping beer and enjoying the show’ is much more admirable and honourable than ‘supporting dictators and watching the tyranny.’
#22 by Victor on March 8, 2011 - 8:15 pm
Francesco…
I agree. But in part Bruno’s point is all about Western foreign policy, so historical discussions are completely pertinent. Too bad that for the most part complex issues and arguments are turned into clichés. And that people make assumptions based on prejudices. BTW, the US´s intervention in my country is a matter of great debate, on which I can sympathize with both points of view. So it would be encouraging if we could stick to the arguments.
Pedro…
I can only imagine the ire if democratic Portugal again turns to a US-IMF-EU bailout…but then again, it will probably be the foreigners fault also. It is humiliating to have to turn to the Yankees for loans when the generals could ostensibly get the money for free.
Anonymous…
Well, everybody’s foreign policy is wrong, should countries even try to have a foreign policy? Can countries engage with each other without having a foreign policy (leaving each one alone)? Isn’t that a foreign policy of supporting each country’s status quo? Isn’t that basically what the EU was doing? You support a supranational EU-like global government, but then you say the EU has an even worse foreign policy than the US…so that would mean that a world government would probably have an even worse policy than either the US or EU. At least on this last point I can agree…the UN has proven how worthless it has become as its membership has turned universal.
#23 by Pedro on March 8, 2011 - 10:16 pm
TO VICTOR
“US-IMF-EU bailout???”
Save the propaganda. The u.s. couldn’t finance a ham sandwich!!! The u.s. debt is mostly owned by Communist China…now that’s irony!!!
I CAN’T STOP LAUGHING!!!
The bailouts provided to EU states as of late, are thanks to Germany, mostly! Yes, if Portugal is to require German-led bailout I will most gratefully say “Danke!” But, as a citizen of the European Union, I am already grateful to Germany for much! And yes, Germany mostly, deserves to collect interest (and gratitude) from the countries which are bailed out. Heil Deutschland! Vive la France! Vive L’europe Unis!!
“Yankee go home! Get out of my country! Get off my continent! Stay in your ghettos and deal with your urban war-zones!”
#24 by Pedro on March 8, 2011 - 10:37 pm
P.S. VICTOR
Victor wrote: “I can only imagine the ire if democratic Portugal again turns to a US-IMF-EU bailout…but then again, it will probably be the foreigners fault also. It is humiliating to have to turn to the Yankees for loans when the generals could ostensibly get the money for free.”
I CAN’T STOP LAUGHING!!!
Just to enlighten another ignorant american:
Portugal was not a military dictatorship, it was not governed by a ‘Military Junta’ (and that’s a Castillian term, not Portuguese), or governed by generals. Actually, a general opposed to the regime was muredered by the State Police (PIDE), His name was Humberto Delgado. Portugal was governed by a fascist dictator named Dr. Antonio Oliveira Salazar.
“Yankees go to school! Yankees go home! Get out of my country! Get off my continent! Stay in your ghettos and deal with your urban war-zones!”
#25 by Anonymous on March 9, 2011 - 5:51 am
@ Victor
I didn’t say EU internal policies are wrong. I said EU foreign policy is bad, because the EU isn’t strong enough to resist US pressure and it ends up having a foreign policy supportive of American interests rather than European.
In a case of world supra-national governance there won’t be a need of any foreign policy. World affairs would be decided same way decisions are taken in the EU internally. Which is by the way far from perfect, but still way much better than the impotent UN decision-making. Hope you get in now
#26 by Pedro on March 9, 2011 - 9:23 am
ANONYMOUS WROTE:
‘@ Victor…Hope you get now’
You are addressing someone that thinks Portugal had a military dictatorship. LoooooooooL!!!
#27 by Francesco on March 9, 2011 - 7:12 pm
@ Pedro. Indeed. But my point was different. I’ll put it in terms you seem to like better. Recognizing the tragic complexity of the situation and how difficult it would be even for the wisest and best-intentioned decision-maker to call the right shots is more “honourable” than going off in the usual rant on eurocrats. Reporting faithfully the position of the Lybian insurgency (seems to be: “give us a no-fly-zone”) – even when inconvenient for the point you are making (it would take a special kind of cretin…) – is more “honourable” than just going off in the abovementioned rant.
Without getting into an argument on US foreign policy (which sucked big time on many occasions, but saved our European butts on several others) I’d also send a cheer out to Victor, who’s getting more than his share of bashing on account of … his passport?
#28 by Pedro on March 9, 2011 - 8:48 pm
TO FRANCESCO
Congratulations for a very unclear, unintellegible rant.
“saved our European butts”
Who? americans? You’re not referring to the defeat of Adolf Hitler, are you? Because if you are, you confuse Russians/Soviets with americans. The americans and their british buddies needed permission from the Russians to enter Berlin when those two “Johnny Come Lately” finally reached the city in 1945.
“a cheer out to Victor, who’s getting more than his share of bashing on account of … his passport?”
Victor gets a response for spreading propaganda, outright lies, ignorance. That’s what Victor gets…..
#29 by Pedro on March 9, 2011 - 10:55 pm
Funny how it’s so widely perceived that people whom couldn’t save themselves in Vietnam, or save themselves in the Korean penninsula, could save Europe. How did americans save Europeans in Hungary circa 1956, Czechoslovaks in 1968, or Poles in 1981???
The only way americans saved themselves from the Japanese in the 40′s, was by being the only country in history to target civilians with weapons of mass destruction!!
Spare me the propaganda, folks!!!
#30 by Marcel on March 9, 2011 - 10:59 pm
The French have never seen a dictator they didn’t like, anywhere in Africa or the Middle East. Less than two months ago, they were still cozying up to the dictators in Egypt and Tunisia. Today, they are secretly backing Gbagbo in Ivory Coast (though won’t say so in public) and sponsoring a few more of their favorites in ‘countries’ like Chad.
@Pedro (28), ask Joe Stalin about how important US lend lease was, allowing them to focus on tanks, planes and artillery.
Pedro has never seen an undemocratic EU measure he didn’t like and thinks EU should ignore democratic votes altogether.
#31 by Pedro on March 9, 2011 - 11:12 pm
TO MARCEL
Providing assistance to, and participating with many other nations in a war effort is one thing, having “saved our European butts” is an entirely different thing altogether!
Again folks, spare me the propaganda!!!
#32 by Anonymous on March 10, 2011 - 5:14 am
@ Francesco #27
Absolutely not! His passport’s got nothing to do with it. I know many Americans that actually share my opinion. In, fact, most of them that care enough to be informed share my opinion.
The bashing comes on account of his position, which can pretty much be summed up as:
“We are the champions of democracy and all the rest are second class citisens of the world” or “Had it not been for us you’d be speaking German” forgetting that if we had been speaking German they’d also be speaking German by now.
#33 by Pedro on March 10, 2011 - 10:00 am
TO ANONYMOUS
“His passport’s got nothing to do with it. I know many Americans that actually share my opinion. In, fact, most of them that care enough to be informed share my opinion.”
Maybe the americans that you know, don’t have alterior motives for trolling the internet, as some others do:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/6389669/US-spies-invest-in-internet-monitoring-technology.html
#34 by Pedro on March 11, 2011 - 5:58 am
TO ANONYMOUS:
LooooooooooooooooooooooooL!!
What’s wrong with speaking German? It’s a language like all others…I wish I could speak German.
#35 by Daniel on March 11, 2011 - 10:51 pm
East Libya will fall next, they can’t do it themselves, the East will fall and Europe is going to have to make friends with Gadaffi
#36 by Rick Daudi on March 14, 2011 - 8:29 am
Intervening for the sake of oil is wrong of course, but Europe should at least have the courage to admit its own interests. Any scenario in which Qaddhafy stays in power will limit access to oil and make our continent more dependent on Russia. We should recognize that, now sanctions are in place, we Europeans have an economic interest in a free democratic Lybia!
What Europe and the US can and should do is help the Lybian revolutionaries by arming, supporting and training their army and giving them the humanitarian supplies they need. After last week it’s become clear Qaddhafy is too strong. Therefore, we should also, when asked, help the Arab League (especially Egypt and Tunisia) with a direct military intervention. And we should do that fast, before Qaddhafy has murdered every Lybian that used weapons to protect civilians against him.
#37 by Pedro on March 14, 2011 - 9:11 am
Only a United Nations resolution may allow for ‘lawful’ military intervention in other sovereign state(s).
#38 by Rick Daudi on March 15, 2011 - 12:11 pm
Unanimity in the UN security council is not unimportant, but human rights should be more important. Also, the protection of civilians from large scale slaughter should always be more important than the independence of the sovereign state. In fact, the sovereign state gets it legitimacy from its role of protecting its citizens. When a sovereign state attacks its own citizens and violates their rights, it looses its legitimacy, and ultimately its sovereignty (this is what the Arab League argued).
We all know that some countries in the security council are abhorrent human rights’ abusers. One permanent member had its army routinely shoot protesters in the streets, as recently as 2009. Of course it’s afraid about the precedence, of course it will not vote for intervention. However, it is important to grab the fact that the UN representatives of undemocratic countries do not even necessarily represent their own people. Why would we let our choices depend on a couple of diplomats with very dubious support?
That doesn’t mean the intervention should be done by Europeans or Americans. If the Arab League is for intervention, they have to take the lead now. We should, however, support them as much as necessary. See this opinion at Al-Jazeera:
http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/03/201131365925476865.html
#39 by Pedro on March 15, 2011 - 8:10 pm
Rick Daudi wrote:
“Unanimity in the UN security council is not unimportant, but human rights should be more important. Also, the protection of civilians from large scale slaughter should always be more important than the independence of the sovereign state.”
The law is the law, and it’s for everyone. ‘The UN Charter’ is the ‘UN Charter,’ the ‘Geneva Convention’ is the ‘Geneva Convention.’ Only alleged war criminals such as George W. Bush make up the rules as they go along.
#40 by Rick Daudi on March 16, 2011 - 2:17 am
Yes, but your citation of my text is incomplete. The more important part is:
“the sovereign state gets it legitimacy from its role of protecting its citizens. When a sovereign state attacks its own citizens and violates their rights, it looses its legitimacy, and ultimately its sovereignty.”
Human rights are universal, that means: for everyone too.
Agree with you that G.W. Bush made some disastrous mistakes though, especially in Iraq.
#41 by Pedro on March 16, 2011 - 4:58 am
Rick Daudi wrote:
“the sovereign state gets it legitimacy from its role of protecting its citizens. When a sovereign state attacks its own citizens and violates their rights, it looses its legitimacy, and ultimately its sovereignty.”
This is why the United Nations has a mechanism for which to vote on resolutions as they apply to the Charter. Therefore, I digress: Only a United Nations resolution may allow for ‘lawful’ military intervention in other sovereign state(s).”
#42 by Pedro on March 16, 2011 - 5:39 am
“G.W. Bush made some disastrous mistakes though, especially in Iraq.”
Uh…orchestrating a web of lies against another state regarding weapons of mass destruction, then purporting it to the world as fact is not a “mistake.” Use creative linguistics in an attempt to circumvent the Geneva Conventions is not a “mistake.” These things require pre-meditated thought by those demonstrating moral turpitude. To suggest that “G.W. Bush made some disastrous mistakes though, especially in Iraq” is equivalent to suggesting that Adolf Hitler made disastrous mistakes, especially in Poland.
#43 by Rick Daudi on March 16, 2011 - 10:22 am
The members of the UN security council act on their own interests. And some of these members have undemocratic oppressive regimes themselves. They have no interest in taking the course of action that the protection of human rights demands. If we want to base our course of action on anybody, the UN security council seems to me a weak choice. It’s more important to listen to what representatives from the region have to say. Especially those that truly represent their people.
On Bush/Iraq: I wasn’t talking about the moral issues, but about the way the whole thing was executed. Whether we morally agree with it or not is a different question. The clumsiness of the American strategy led to yet more prolonged suffering and bloodshed imho.
#44 by Pedro on March 16, 2011 - 2:29 pm
Rick Daudi wrote:
“It’s more important to listen to what representatives from the region have to say. Especially those that truly represent their people.”
The law is the, regardless of the “character” of the people affected.
It is fair to say that the people of Libya are the ultimate representatives of Libya (more so than representatives from the region). The overwhelming majority (even if through silent complicity) of Libyans, apparently support brother/leader, Muammar Gadhafi.
Again, this is why the law is the law.
#45 by Rick Daudi on March 16, 2011 - 4:39 pm
Ah, I thought you were serious.
#46 by Pedro on March 16, 2011 - 11:10 pm
…as serious as a heart attack.
#47 by Cegorach on March 17, 2011 - 9:17 am
Indeed Libyans are doing fine. Great actually and soon we will see cheering crowds welcoming their beloved leader returning with his mercenary (true Libyans!) bodyguards.
Crowds somehow smaller, though after people suspected of connections to the opposition is shot, imprisoned or forced to flee the country.
Exactly like Mr. Bruno Waterfield wishes noone will intervene – China doesn’t care, Russia loves it (rising oil and gas prices help saving Putin’s corrupted regime) and Germany doesn’t want to involve itself in another foreign affair regardless what it is.
I am so glad that I lived through the 1980s in Poland – misery, depression, lack of hope, f**** hellhole for anyone thinking about anything more than surviving another month.
That gives me ‘slightly’ different perspective.
But I am sure that supporters of non-intereventionism enjoy the situation. After all shipping hired guns from worst hellholes in Africa to fight against your own people, bombing your countrymen including civilians and commiting a thousand other similar acts is perfectly acceptable.
After all everybody knows that the opposition has equal resorces to the dictator who was amassing funds for decades and now uses transport AIRCRAFTS to support offensive re-establishing control over the rest of the country.
Some people are just making me sick – especially those who act like abologists and are not even paid for the effort they make.
I am sure they enjoy every single part of this. Libyan oil and gas is saved from ‘the imperialists’ – I call it a victory for the ‘good guys’! Or a guy…
#48 by Francesco on March 18, 2011 - 10:40 am
At last the Security Council has done what it should have done some time ago. And, it seems, the mere approval of the resolution stopped the assault on Benghazi in its tracks for awhile (not in Misrata). The responsibility of China, Russia, Brazil, India, Germany (I would add Italy if it were not for its irrelevance) in delaying a response will not be forgotten, especially by those who fought on the ground and were faced with death or flight. It seems those States needed a formal promise of a massacre by Gheddafi to be convinced. Now of course, nothing is solved yet, uncertaintly still prevails, and the risks are “immense”. True. But at least the certainty of massacre has been taken away, and this is damn important in itself. As for this blog post, it has finally become irrelevant. Dear Bruno, make a new one having some relation to the facts, please.