Intervene or not intervene? This is the problem. The readiness shown by the delusional dictator Muammar Gaddafi nell'ammazzare that the Libyans, he says, love it all, but they have strange ways to express it - takes us back to the crucial issue of our time. I defy anyone who watches the air attack Gaddafi city under siege not to admit that it is legitimate to discuss the desirability of at least some intervention by outside powers to prevent other victims of the dictator to his people.
Some Libyans obviously think so. Recently the website of the Guardian blogger of Tripoli, "Muhammad Libya min" brings eloquent arguments against "any military intervention in the territory by a foreign force," but is in favor of a no-fly zone. The fact that western countries like Britain and Italy until very recently, suck up to Gaddafi in the most cowardly way, by selling weapons that now he can use against his people, increases, not decreases the need to put this question of vital importance.
The whole debate around the so-called "liberal interventionism" weigh two major distortions. First, the intervention is generally limited to military intervention, ignoring a number of other ways in which states can intervene in the internal affairs of other states. Even provide humanitarian aid to victims of an event that is configured almost like a civil war in Libya, is equivalent in some important respects, to intervene.
Part by humanitarian organizations almost universally accepted then there is a whole range of forms of assistance, from carrots and sticks in an economic version, the diplomatic pressure, to often controversial forms of open or secret support to independent media and groups Opposition forms of training in non-violent action, and so on.
Many of the most exquisitely liberal mode of action - those that help people to act independently in order to gain freedom - fit in this range but away from the use of armed force. We did little recourse in the Middle East over the past thirty years, unfortunately. The second major distortion of the debate on the 'liberal interventionism "is that the military action now more closely associated with the term (Afghanistan, Iraq) were not liberal - or at least were not liberal in the first place.
To justify them in some cases were used and some liberal argument liberals have supported these actions, but it was not as liberal intrnsecamente interventions were the Western military action in Bosnia (too late), Sierra Leone and Kosovo. The motivations are always mixed, but the main reason why the Western forces had invaded Afghanistan that Al Qaeda, then based in Afghanistan, had attacked the United States.
The objective was soon broadened, or mixed, the intent of building a society in which, for example, women were not treated as slaves and hooded simple objects - a good liberal about from which the West now takes on the sly shamefully distances. But you can bet that George W. Bush had no such concern in Serbia for oppressed women in Afghanistan before September 11.
Iraq is a matter more complex. In that case from the beginning to reasons such as the frustration at the failure to capture Osama Bin Laden, the desire to take advantage of the overwhelming U.S. military superiority effects (shock and awe) and interest in Iraqi oil joined the aim neo-conservatives of spreading democracy as an example for the entire region.
Even the phony argument about the existence of weapons of mass destruction was linked to previous cases of "liberal intervention" in the time it was indicated that a Saddam Hussein with nuclear weapons in the hands of chemical and biological weapons could be a new Slobodan Milosevic. (Actually it was already against the Iraqi Kurds.
A pre Milosevic Milosevic - while the West supported him cheerfully against Iran). Only a fool would not recognize that the invasion of Iraq has given to the 'liberal interventionism' a bad name. No one has contributed more than it did to discredit Tony Blair. Actually Blair, which I strongly supported the approach gladstone in Sierra Leone and Kosovo, today is a very bad shape.
Why has not only robbed the liberal interventionism argument to justify the invasion of Iraq, then went personally to embrace Gaddafi, Saddam on North Africa. Two big mistakes! (It is true, Britain and America persuaded Gaddafi to give up most of its weapons of mass destruction, so at least the Libyan dictator has nuclear bombs to use against his people today, but the friendly relations and economic agreements concluded later were not necessary for that purpose.) But in addition to the perverse aspects, a more cautious, respectful of law and exquisitely liberal interventionism has continued to grow quiet.
Based on post-war tradition of promoting human rights and international humanitarian law, working with and through the UN, this version produced the International Criminal Court and the doctrine of "responsibility to protect", supported by the UN. Of course, hypocrisy is pretty good and by the U.S., Russia and China threaten to refer to Gaddafi International Criminal Court which they had not first recognize the authority.
(Preach good and evil scratching). But this is an argument in favor of the U.S., Russia and China to the international criminal court, not the abolition of the tribunal. If the fear of prosecution persuades a greater number of followers of Gaddafi's defection, it is a good thing. 
Some Libyans obviously think so. Recently the website of the Guardian blogger of Tripoli, "Muhammad Libya min" brings eloquent arguments against "any military intervention in the territory by a foreign force," but is in favor of a no-fly zone. The fact that western countries like Britain and Italy until very recently, suck up to Gaddafi in the most cowardly way, by selling weapons that now he can use against his people, increases, not decreases the need to put this question of vital importance.
The whole debate around the so-called "liberal interventionism" weigh two major distortions. First, the intervention is generally limited to military intervention, ignoring a number of other ways in which states can intervene in the internal affairs of other states. Even provide humanitarian aid to victims of an event that is configured almost like a civil war in Libya, is equivalent in some important respects, to intervene.
Part by humanitarian organizations almost universally accepted then there is a whole range of forms of assistance, from carrots and sticks in an economic version, the diplomatic pressure, to often controversial forms of open or secret support to independent media and groups Opposition forms of training in non-violent action, and so on.
Many of the most exquisitely liberal mode of action - those that help people to act independently in order to gain freedom - fit in this range but away from the use of armed force. We did little recourse in the Middle East over the past thirty years, unfortunately. The second major distortion of the debate on the 'liberal interventionism "is that the military action now more closely associated with the term (Afghanistan, Iraq) were not liberal - or at least were not liberal in the first place.
To justify them in some cases were used and some liberal argument liberals have supported these actions, but it was not as liberal intrnsecamente interventions were the Western military action in Bosnia (too late), Sierra Leone and Kosovo. The motivations are always mixed, but the main reason why the Western forces had invaded Afghanistan that Al Qaeda, then based in Afghanistan, had attacked the United States.
The objective was soon broadened, or mixed, the intent of building a society in which, for example, women were not treated as slaves and hooded simple objects - a good liberal about from which the West now takes on the sly shamefully distances. But you can bet that George W. Bush had no such concern in Serbia for oppressed women in Afghanistan before September 11.
Iraq is a matter more complex. In that case from the beginning to reasons such as the frustration at the failure to capture Osama Bin Laden, the desire to take advantage of the overwhelming U.S. military superiority effects (shock and awe) and interest in Iraqi oil joined the aim neo-conservatives of spreading democracy as an example for the entire region.
Even the phony argument about the existence of weapons of mass destruction was linked to previous cases of "liberal intervention" in the time it was indicated that a Saddam Hussein with nuclear weapons in the hands of chemical and biological weapons could be a new Slobodan Milosevic. (Actually it was already against the Iraqi Kurds.
A pre Milosevic Milosevic - while the West supported him cheerfully against Iran). Only a fool would not recognize that the invasion of Iraq has given to the 'liberal interventionism' a bad name. No one has contributed more than it did to discredit Tony Blair. Actually Blair, which I strongly supported the approach gladstone in Sierra Leone and Kosovo, today is a very bad shape.
Why has not only robbed the liberal interventionism argument to justify the invasion of Iraq, then went personally to embrace Gaddafi, Saddam on North Africa. Two big mistakes! (It is true, Britain and America persuaded Gaddafi to give up most of its weapons of mass destruction, so at least the Libyan dictator has nuclear bombs to use against his people today, but the friendly relations and economic agreements concluded later were not necessary for that purpose.) But in addition to the perverse aspects, a more cautious, respectful of law and exquisitely liberal interventionism has continued to grow quiet.
Based on post-war tradition of promoting human rights and international humanitarian law, working with and through the UN, this version produced the International Criminal Court and the doctrine of "responsibility to protect", supported by the UN. Of course, hypocrisy is pretty good and by the U.S., Russia and China threaten to refer to Gaddafi International Criminal Court which they had not first recognize the authority.
(Preach good and evil scratching). But this is an argument in favor of the U.S., Russia and China to the international criminal court, not the abolition of the tribunal. If the fear of prosecution persuades a greater number of followers of Gaddafi's defection, it is a good thing.
- Several explosions heard in Libyan capital of Tripoli (02/03/2011)
- Amazing -Gadaffi proparganda still functioning - Popular marches and rallies youth in Districts off Benghazi, Sabha, Tripoli confirm docking eternal brother Leader of the Revolution. - Libyaonline.com (03/03/2011)
- Rare Footage of Anti Gaddafi Protests in the Streets of Tripoli (28/02/2011)
- AUDIO: Tripoli resident's fears for family (28/02/2011)
- Series Of Explosions Heard In Tripoli (02/03/2011)
No comments:
Post a Comment