In the last few weeks, the world has seen big events pile up. First, it was the crisis in North Africa and Mid East, and second, the earthquake in Japan followed by the Fukushima nuclear plant leakage. There is no doubt that both pose great threat to security, from different angles. But, nevertheless, one is caused by man, while the other is of natural origins. I shall refer here to a part of the Libyan crisis, and that is, the intervention of the western allies, under the "no fly zone" excuse.
Talking with some of my student colleagues, I wanted to hear what their points of view concerning this decision of Nato and the US were. Where we seemed to lack understanding was in the imposing of the so called "no fly zone" decision. I had some questions which I asked them:
1. What gives these countries the right to intervene in another country's internal affairs?
2. If the excuse is to protect civilians, why do they actually kill a lot of them?
3. If it's about imposing a "no fly zone", then what does that have to do with tanks, trucks and so on?
4. Why do these countries ignore similar situations, like Yemen?
Ok, so what gives these countries this right to intervene? The official version is under the pretext of saving civilians from Gaddafi's violent response. Ok, but as far as I see, these civilians who fight against Gaddafi are drunk with the taste of blood, and seem to want more. When you refere to "saving the Libyan nation", you usually think of all the population. Or, as far as I see, from an outsider's sources of information, there are also a lot of Gaddafi supporters. So, it's not the whole nation. Then, how do you decide which civilians are right? Isn't this a matter of internal affairs? Both parts are armed, but it's not like Gaddafi has only the army on his side, with no civilians whatsoever. this intervention creates precedents, allowing for future interventions wherever Nato and the US see fit.
Second, it about protecting civilians. Then why do you kill them? Why not go straight for Gaddafi and put an end to all of this? The coalition says that Gaddafi is not a target. Ok, then why bombard one of his command centers? If they would have killed him, would it have been an "Ups!" case? A collateral victim? And what gives anybody the right to decide which civilians can be killed? Since this happens inside a country, and there have been numerous such cases in history where there was no foreign intervention, other than humanitarian at most, what makes this one an exemption?
So, institute a no-fly zone. This basically means a territory over which aircrat are not permitted to fly, for the scope of protecting civilians. What does this then have to do with ground forces? I seldom heard of a tank firing at an airplane. Not to mention a truck. I also think it's quite difficult to throw a grenade at a stealth plane, or a high altitude bomber. I come back to the term "libyan nation" which, due to it's incorrect use, allows all sorts of violent actions.
I don't say that me or my colleagues support violent regimes. Far from that. But why are other similar situations ignored, or lesser handled? The Arab League and the African Union gave their support in the beginning, for imposing a no-fly zone. But now, the international response seems to completely disagree with such actions. Who has killed more civilians? Gaddafi's troups or the Coalition's? Who are the bad civilians?
And, last but not least, where does oil fit here? Or oil doesn't matter. Some weeks ago, Cuba's Fidel Castro predicted what would happen, saying that Americans will intervene, for the sole purpose of acquiring oil. Now, Americans gave full control of the operations to Nato. But who shall think that the USA has no benefit? Who will participate in the reconstruction of the country, in case Gaddafi's regime falls? What will happen to all that oil? The largest reserves in North Africa will just serve Libya and transform it into a second Dubai? I find that hard to believe.
As I came to a conclusion with my colleagues, we ended up admitting that whatever suppositions we make, they will never matter, not changing the course of history... For now.
Cu siguranta aceasta interventie, va fi un precedent pentru urmatoarele "hai sa gasim o scuza" pentru interesele mari care sunt defapt motivatia. Oare sa fie petrolul? Aaaa nu cred,un element atat de pretios si intr-o perioada in care orice sursa de bani si cel mai important de putere e vitala, chiar nu cred :)))! Mi se pare mie sau urmatoarul cuib cu miere e Siria? Vom afla curand, noi stiri din "Primavara araba", asa e numit la noi fenomenul!
ReplyDelete