'Humanitarian Imperialism' in Libya Could End the Whiteman's Burden!
http://tarafits.blogspot.com/2011/03/humanitarian-imperialism-in-libya-could.html
"Using force to stop slaughter is lawful. The duty to stop the mass murder of innocents, as best we can, has crystallised to make the use of force by Nato not merely 'legitimate' but lawful." Geoffrey Robertson QC ,a member of the UN's justice council
David Cameron, now heading a coalition government of a bankrupt United Kingdom , along with some elements in France and elsewhere in Europe is raring to go to war on Libya in the 21 century version of Whiteman's burden .Still drunk with the colonial power hangover ,Cameron is an apt successor of Tony Blair , who told lies before the 2003 invasion of Iraq and joined George Bush in spite of the original legal advice that it was illegal .Though accused of various crimes he is still roaming around relatively free.
Day of Reckoning
Josh Gerstein wrote in 'Politico' on 22 February ,2011 that the US Justice Department has quietly dropped its legal representation of more than a dozen Bush-era Pentagon and administration officials - including former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and aide Paul Wolfowitz - in a lawsuit by Jose Padilla, who spent years behind bars without charges in conditions his lawyers compare to torture.
Ray McGovern , former CIA officer and now a member of the Steering Group of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) wrote in Information Clearing House on19 February 2011 that former president George Bush abruptly canceled his scheduled appearance that week in Geneva to avoid the risk of arrest on a torture charge.
Libya and the Return of Humanitarian Imperialism
Writing in Counterpunch.org , Jean Brichmont says that "The whole gang is back' which includes the parties of the European Left and other assorted groups , Bernard-Henry Lévy and Bernard Kouchner, calling for some sort of "humanitarian intervention" against the "Libyan tyrant."
It reminds me of the breakup of Yugoslavia and the Kosovo war to stop a nonexistent genocide. Since then US led West after the illegal invasion and brutal occupation of Iraq ,has resulted in over 1.4 million Iraqis deaths and the destruction of the country .These European leaders of humanitarian intervention in Libya do not talk of genocide in Iraq. Was not the Afghan war to protect women (go and check their situation now), and the Iraq war to protect the Kurds and find weapons of mass destruction (none were found ). Was not even Hitler "protecting minorities" in Czechoslovakia and Poland, scoffs Brichmont .
(At New Delhi's National Defence College Seminar last year on the-'Role of Force in Strategic Affairs , Lawrence Freedman ,a member of the Chilcot Enquiry , while presiding at a session claimed that the Iraq invasion was to quickly make a regime change and come out. He even contested my claim, based on my over 50 articles ( 2002 to 2010) on the Iraq war that both former US deputy defense secretary Paul Wolfowitz and former Fed reserve chief Alan Greenspan had proclaimed that the invasion was for Iraq's oil .Wikileaks has confirmed that the Chiclot Enquiry is but a whitewash to help save Tony Blair's skin !)
Likely ramifications of imposing a no-fly zone over Libya
Mike Lind writes in Salon ,"The implication [of McCain, Lieberman, Kerry et al.] is that the enforcement of "no-fly zones," by the U.S. alone or with NATO allies, would be a moderate, reasonable measure short of war, like a trade embargo. In reality, declaring and enforcing a no-fly zone in Libya would be a radical act of war. It would require the U.S. not only to shoot down Libyan military aircraft but also to bomb Libya in order to destroy anti-aircraft defenses. Under any legal theory, bombing a foreign government's territory and blasting its air force out of the sky is war.
"Could America's war in Libya remain limited? The hawks glibly promise that the U.S. could limit its participation in the Libyan civil war to airstrikes, leaving the fighting to Libyan rebels.
"These assurances by the hawks are ominously familiar."
Lind then traces us back through the Balkans, Afghanistan and Iraq, arguing that each of these turned into wars of larger scale than intended (Afghanistan and Iraq were supposed to be quick and easy, remember?).
"Stay the Course ' He concludes ; "The lesson of these three wars is that the rhetoric of lift-and-strike is a gateway drug that leads to all-out American military invasion and occupation. Once the U.S. has committed itself to using limited military force to depose a foreign regime, the pressure to "stay the course" becomes irresistible. If lift-and-strike were to fail in Libya, the same neo-con hawks who promised that it would succeed would not apologize for their mistake. Instead, they would up the ante. They would call for escalating American involvement further, because America's prestige would now be on the line. They would denounce any alternative as a cowardly policy of "cut and run." And as soon as any American soldiers died in Libya, the hawks would claim that we would be betraying their memory, unless we conquered Libya and occupied it for years or decades until it became a functioning, pro-American democracy.
"Those who are promoting an American war against Gadhafi must answer the question: "You and whose army?" The term "jingoism" comes from a Victorian British music-hall ditty: "We don't want to fight but by Jingo if we do,/ We've got the ships, we've got the men, we've got the money too." Unfortunately for 21st-century America's jingoes, we haven't got the ships, the men or the money."(As for the men, late decorated US Marine Col Murtha had said in 2006 that the US army was broken in Iraq.)
'No-fly zone' is a euphemism for war
Similar views are expressed by Simon Jenkins in the Guardian of 9 March ;" We'd be mad to try it.
"Cameron's urge to dust himself in military glory may be strong, but he should not interfere in the Libyan rebels' cause. The craving of politicians to dust themselves in military glory is as old as the hills, embedded in leadership psychosis. However daft a war may be, however illegal, however unwinnable, politicians seem helpless before the sound of trumpets and drums. Considerations of prudence, economy or overstretch are nothing. That Britain has been fighting and not winning two wars already in Muslim countries seems to teach nothing in Libya. Jingoism never dies.
"There is no point is repeating that Libya is not our country or our business. It was always going to be bloody one day. I find it incredible that Labour ministers, as they simpered in Gaddafi's presence, could have thought he would lie down like a lamb should his people rise against him. But unless we redefine words, he is not committing genocide and his brutality is hardly exceptional. If the rebels win it should be their victory, emerging from a new balance of power inside Libya. If they fail, they must fight another day. There is no good reason for us to intervene. However embattled they feel, Obama and Cameron should find other paths to glory."
Cameron outlined his conversation with Obama on BBC1, "We have got to prepare for what we might have to do if he [Gaddafi] goes on brutalising his own people," he said."I had a phone call with President Obama this afternoon to talk about the planning we have to do in case this continues and in case he does terrible things to his own people. I don't think we can stand aside and let that happen."
A Downing Street spokesman said: "The prime minister and the president agreed to press forward with planning, including at Nato on the full spectrum of possible responses, including surveillance, humanitarian assistance, enforcement of the arms embargo , and a no fly zone. They committed to close co-ordination on next steps."
US Secretaries of Defense and State oppose 'No Fly Zone "
But only last week Robert Gates , the US defense secretary, criticised "loose talk" over a no-fly zone and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton cautioned that a no-fly zone would need clear approval by the UN security council and warned of the dangers if the West took charge of any military operation Clinton told Sky News: "We think it's important that the United Nations make this decision, not the United States, and so far the United Nations has not done that.
"I think it's very important that this not be a US-le
No comments:
Post a Comment