PARIS the international summit of interventionist countries decided on the immediate military attack Gaddafi warned that a halt to raids is subject to its yield. The powers of the air acting on the basis of the UN resolution came in the Italian bases. The military operation began, but the political debate in Europe is wide open.
To help the insurgents, to prevent the militia of the Libyan dictator occupy Benghazi and Tobruk, assist refugees and stem the tide of migrants, are objectives shared by all. It remains a very deep difference of views about the limits on political strategy and tactics of intervention against Gaddafi.
Pack it must surrender to the Court of International Justice and tried for crimes committed against his people? Or munirlo of safe passage and exile? Or even give him a semblance of power in a sort of probation commissioner and unarmed? Finally: we must maintain the unity of Libya or to realize that unity is a fiction because Tripoli and Cyrenaica are actually different from the historical point of view, tribal, religious and their notional unit has been imposed by colonialism and the first Italian Gaddafi's dictatorship then? This debate divided public opinion across the European Union and the governments.
Especially divides Paris from Berlin, Sarkozy and Angela Merkel. Bombing or trade, this is the theme. In Italy also divides the right, Berlusconi, after a long engagement with the Libyan dictator, has joined the interventionists; Bossi has aligned itself with Merkel. But the division also runs through the public beyond the political spectrum.
A similar phenomenon occurred thirty years ago, when the USSR began to show obvious signs of imploding. Brezhnev ruled the Kremlin but growing tensions within the party and the regime between those who wanted to perpetuate indefinitely the post-Stalinist dictatorship and those who wanted to instead pave the way for a "communism with a human face." Public opinion and Western governments were divided between those in favor of innovation and those who saw in Brezhnev a guarantee of European stability and world.
You know how it ended: Brezhnev, struck down by illness, opened the way for Andropov, followed by Chernenko, Gorbachev was then, the "perestroika", Yeltsin and then Putin. Stories are very different and not comparable with the Libyan but it is interesting to recall how the West reacted then and how it reacts on the case today Gaddafi.
The similarities are strong. At the base, as always happens in politics, there are different interests that inspire action by governments and guide public opinion. * * * A few weeks ago, after the fall of Mubarak Ali and the Tunisian dictator of outbreaks in Yemen and the UAE, including the young of Tripoli and Benghazi especially revolted by making ill-party dictatorship that lasted for over forty Gaddafi 'years.
The West did not hesitate: the case of Libya appeared to be another piece of the revolution North African al Qaeda was overtaken by a movement which saw all men and women, motivated by a powerful slogan: "Bread and Freedom" at the same time social ideal. And seemed largely remains a historic turning point, an innovation that spanned deep terrorism of Bin Laden, the Taliban and fundamentalist Koran, opening a brand new chapter in the coexistence of civilizations.
This was the first and unanimous reaction of public opinion and Western governments but also poses the problem quickly the next phase of the political killing of dictatorships. In Egypt, the army has always been the pivot of the state and the army could only be to manage the transition.
The story he gave the example of Turkey. In Tunisia lacked the "resource" of the army and in fact the transition has still fragile and shaken. Libya is a case apart, very different from the others. The country is geographically vast, demographically very sparsely populated, does not reach five million inhabitants.
Rich in oil only partially exploited. For almost half a century, led by Gaddafi with an iron hand, shrewdly populist, unscrupulous, corrupt, adventure beyond all limits. The army is a militia that tamed and well paid, with special forces mercenaries, a "foreign legion" very blunt and fierce.
Convince them to surrender is very difficult. The bad mercenaries melts, the tribal militia will defend to the end. After the start of the military so the question remains: to bomb up to that point? Negotiate to what extent? * * * We can and we should bomb the airport, kill the fighters if you lift up or destroy them on the ground, dismantle communication equipment, hit the troops will not withdraw to their barracks.
Further on you can not go. As for trading you can probably issue a safe conduct to Saddam and his family. If there is, you have to shoot it down, any other solution is impossible, it would be a source of continuous and uncontrollable traps adventures. In this strategy are two opposing objections.
The first maintains that the mandate of the UN can not infringe the sovereignty of a State which also has not invaded any other country. Saddam Hussein had invaded Kuwait but retreated shortly after the order but the international armed with Bush on behalf of the UN to Baghdad chased him, tried him and executed him.
The UN now and then takes the shape of a world state before which national sovereignty must give way. It happened rarely but sometimes its resolutions have had that value. On how many occasions we would have liked the existence of a world state in the era of globalization? The second objection is: what will happen next? A Libya without a head, without a ruling class, it will still rule? Will split in two, three, five pieces? Become prey to warlords? And its oil? Its cities? Its companies? Foreign investment? Pessimists fear that without Gaddafi Libya will be another Somalia, a nest of bandits and pirates.
It is a destiny that the former Italian colonies to do all this end? * * * This objection is more pertinent than the first. It does not consider, however, that even in Tripolitania and Cyrenaica there is an advanced class, there is a network of manufacturing companies, a large crafts, a youth who aspires to grips with the administration and politics and a religion that acts as a social cement.
Must accompany this phase of renewal, helping to build a state, an administration, a network of trade and production. Turkey can help, Egypt can help. Europe must help and Italy, which has significant responsibilities as a result of an ancient and a very recent past with many sins to be served.
Romano Prodi in a recent interview outlined a clear vision of the "deal" in Africa Mediterranean and Libya in particular. He spoke with the dual experience as a former prime minister and former president of the European Union. He suggested among other things dealt with the Association of African Mediterranean countries to the European Union.
Non-entry in respect of which there are no conditions, but association, friendship institutionalized at various levels according to the political, social and economic of those countries. These proposals should be taken and put your feet on the ground. The Mediterranean has been for centuries the center of the Atlantic world.
In all its shores is a European sea and even more so today with immigration in this twenty-first century will change the ethnic aspect of the continent. Flows of people and families, capital flows and investment flows, cultural and religious conquest of rights, observance of duties as a law raises every duty and every right implies a duty.
Italy has a mission to fulfill and a great opportunity to be seized. We hope that it is up to. The exhortations of Giorgio Napolitano there are, again, teaching and encouragement. In recent months, the figure of our President has become a political and ethical depth, which makes it the reference point of the whole country.
This unanimity is not false or rhetoric, expressing feelings and needs. Strengthens us as a nation. It strengthens our ties in Europe. Abroad arouses respect and listening. We were no longer accustomed to this consideration, we exchanged (some had traded) the policy of pats on the back for international consideration.
Now it is no longer the case. We have a guide and a better representation. We again consider our presence Mediterranean as an asset not only for ourselves and for our legitimate national interests, but for Europe and the West. 
To help the insurgents, to prevent the militia of the Libyan dictator occupy Benghazi and Tobruk, assist refugees and stem the tide of migrants, are objectives shared by all. It remains a very deep difference of views about the limits on political strategy and tactics of intervention against Gaddafi.
Pack it must surrender to the Court of International Justice and tried for crimes committed against his people? Or munirlo of safe passage and exile? Or even give him a semblance of power in a sort of probation commissioner and unarmed? Finally: we must maintain the unity of Libya or to realize that unity is a fiction because Tripoli and Cyrenaica are actually different from the historical point of view, tribal, religious and their notional unit has been imposed by colonialism and the first Italian Gaddafi's dictatorship then? This debate divided public opinion across the European Union and the governments.
Especially divides Paris from Berlin, Sarkozy and Angela Merkel. Bombing or trade, this is the theme. In Italy also divides the right, Berlusconi, after a long engagement with the Libyan dictator, has joined the interventionists; Bossi has aligned itself with Merkel. But the division also runs through the public beyond the political spectrum.
A similar phenomenon occurred thirty years ago, when the USSR began to show obvious signs of imploding. Brezhnev ruled the Kremlin but growing tensions within the party and the regime between those who wanted to perpetuate indefinitely the post-Stalinist dictatorship and those who wanted to instead pave the way for a "communism with a human face." Public opinion and Western governments were divided between those in favor of innovation and those who saw in Brezhnev a guarantee of European stability and world.
You know how it ended: Brezhnev, struck down by illness, opened the way for Andropov, followed by Chernenko, Gorbachev was then, the "perestroika", Yeltsin and then Putin. Stories are very different and not comparable with the Libyan but it is interesting to recall how the West reacted then and how it reacts on the case today Gaddafi.
The similarities are strong. At the base, as always happens in politics, there are different interests that inspire action by governments and guide public opinion. * * * A few weeks ago, after the fall of Mubarak Ali and the Tunisian dictator of outbreaks in Yemen and the UAE, including the young of Tripoli and Benghazi especially revolted by making ill-party dictatorship that lasted for over forty Gaddafi 'years.
The West did not hesitate: the case of Libya appeared to be another piece of the revolution North African al Qaeda was overtaken by a movement which saw all men and women, motivated by a powerful slogan: "Bread and Freedom" at the same time social ideal. And seemed largely remains a historic turning point, an innovation that spanned deep terrorism of Bin Laden, the Taliban and fundamentalist Koran, opening a brand new chapter in the coexistence of civilizations.
This was the first and unanimous reaction of public opinion and Western governments but also poses the problem quickly the next phase of the political killing of dictatorships. In Egypt, the army has always been the pivot of the state and the army could only be to manage the transition.
The story he gave the example of Turkey. In Tunisia lacked the "resource" of the army and in fact the transition has still fragile and shaken. Libya is a case apart, very different from the others. The country is geographically vast, demographically very sparsely populated, does not reach five million inhabitants.
Rich in oil only partially exploited. For almost half a century, led by Gaddafi with an iron hand, shrewdly populist, unscrupulous, corrupt, adventure beyond all limits. The army is a militia that tamed and well paid, with special forces mercenaries, a "foreign legion" very blunt and fierce.
Convince them to surrender is very difficult. The bad mercenaries melts, the tribal militia will defend to the end. After the start of the military so the question remains: to bomb up to that point? Negotiate to what extent? * * * We can and we should bomb the airport, kill the fighters if you lift up or destroy them on the ground, dismantle communication equipment, hit the troops will not withdraw to their barracks.
Further on you can not go. As for trading you can probably issue a safe conduct to Saddam and his family. If there is, you have to shoot it down, any other solution is impossible, it would be a source of continuous and uncontrollable traps adventures. In this strategy are two opposing objections.
The first maintains that the mandate of the UN can not infringe the sovereignty of a State which also has not invaded any other country. Saddam Hussein had invaded Kuwait but retreated shortly after the order but the international armed with Bush on behalf of the UN to Baghdad chased him, tried him and executed him.
The UN now and then takes the shape of a world state before which national sovereignty must give way. It happened rarely but sometimes its resolutions have had that value. On how many occasions we would have liked the existence of a world state in the era of globalization? The second objection is: what will happen next? A Libya without a head, without a ruling class, it will still rule? Will split in two, three, five pieces? Become prey to warlords? And its oil? Its cities? Its companies? Foreign investment? Pessimists fear that without Gaddafi Libya will be another Somalia, a nest of bandits and pirates.
It is a destiny that the former Italian colonies to do all this end? * * * This objection is more pertinent than the first. It does not consider, however, that even in Tripolitania and Cyrenaica there is an advanced class, there is a network of manufacturing companies, a large crafts, a youth who aspires to grips with the administration and politics and a religion that acts as a social cement.
Must accompany this phase of renewal, helping to build a state, an administration, a network of trade and production. Turkey can help, Egypt can help. Europe must help and Italy, which has significant responsibilities as a result of an ancient and a very recent past with many sins to be served.
Romano Prodi in a recent interview outlined a clear vision of the "deal" in Africa Mediterranean and Libya in particular. He spoke with the dual experience as a former prime minister and former president of the European Union. He suggested among other things dealt with the Association of African Mediterranean countries to the European Union.
Non-entry in respect of which there are no conditions, but association, friendship institutionalized at various levels according to the political, social and economic of those countries. These proposals should be taken and put your feet on the ground. The Mediterranean has been for centuries the center of the Atlantic world.
In all its shores is a European sea and even more so today with immigration in this twenty-first century will change the ethnic aspect of the continent. Flows of people and families, capital flows and investment flows, cultural and religious conquest of rights, observance of duties as a law raises every duty and every right implies a duty.
Italy has a mission to fulfill and a great opportunity to be seized. We hope that it is up to. The exhortations of Giorgio Napolitano there are, again, teaching and encouragement. In recent months, the figure of our President has become a political and ethical depth, which makes it the reference point of the whole country.
This unanimity is not false or rhetoric, expressing feelings and needs. Strengthens us as a nation. It strengthens our ties in Europe. Abroad arouses respect and listening. We were no longer accustomed to this consideration, we exchanged (some had traded) the policy of pats on the back for international consideration.
Now it is no longer the case. We have a guide and a better representation. We again consider our presence Mediterranean as an asset not only for ourselves and for our legitimate national interests, but for Europe and the West.
- Dell offers unlocked Streak for $99 with purchase of a new PC (19/03/2011)
- Dell Facebook app's focus on use cases succeeds in driving brand love and consumer recommendations (18/03/2011)
- Dell Inspiron R Series Get Swappable Lids (17/03/2011)
- Dude where's my Dell... (I'm sorry about this lame title) (13/03/2011)
- WiFi-only Dell Streak 7 pre-orders open (18/03/2011)
No comments:
Post a Comment