http://www

[The Toronto Star, Canada]

 

 

El Pais, Spain

Spain's 'Top Neocon Voice' Misreads 'Obama Doctrine'

 

"Despite the best efforts of Obama's adversaries, the disparities between interventions in Iraq and Libya - and their repercussions - are quite deep. The prosecution of the Iraq War made one fear for the future of the U.N. multilateral system. Nobody gave a damn - until very recently - about the concept of a responsibility to protect."

 

 

Translated by Jason Ross

 

March 31, 2011

 

Spain - El Pais - Original Article (Spanish)

Former Spain President José María Aznar: One of President Bush's staunchest allies, he now believes that President Obama is following the Bush Doctrine.  

NO COMMENT TV: Battle scenes from the Libyan conflict, Mar. 24, 00:01:52RealVideo

The neocons applaud him, the radical left criticizes him - and for strikingly similar reasons. This is a war to topple a tyrant, in which the leading power is using force against a sovereign state - and without paying too much attention to U.N. Security Council support. Not much different than what happened with Saddam Hussein. The neocons feel retrospectively legitimized in their war, and the anti-American sentiments of the radical left have been reinforced. They all believe that Bush would wholeheartedly endorse the speech Obama gave to his fellow citizens to explain the military intervention in Libya.

 

So claims the most unmistakable neocon voice in Spain, José María Aznar, in a television interview with Pedro José Ramírez: "I think Obama is becoming the most important adherent of the Bush Doctrine. Yesterday he said that a massacre had been prevented with the intervention in Libya. This is called preventative intervention." Aznar is confusing preventive action and preventive war, which in English are clearly delineated with the words pre-emption and prevention. The first is an action that anticipates and avoids an immediate threat and is a legitimate form of defense. The second is a class of war intended to disarm an enemy that could potentially become a threat: this is a war of aggression - unilateral and without legitimacy or justification.

 

The Iraq War was of this second class, although at one point the coalition of the Azores tried to convert the potential threat of imagined weapons of mass destruction into an immediate threat: A document from Tony Blair's government briefly suggested the danger of some type of missile reaching one of the allies within 45 minutes. In the case of Libya, President Obama has pointed to the threat posed by Qaddafi, which is much more tangible and already partially verified by residents of Bengazi, to whom Qaddafi had promised to pursue from house to house like rats.

 

[Editor's Note: The coalition of the Azores refers to a meeting in Portugal, where President Bush definitively informed European leaders that there would be war in Iraq.]

 

Despite the best efforts of Obama's adversaries, the disparities between interventions in Iraq and Libya - and their repercussions - are quite deep. The prosecution of the Iraq War made one fear for the future of the U.N. multilateral system. Nobody gave a damn - until very recently - about the concept of a responsibility to protect. That arose from the so-called humanitarian interventions of the 1980s and has also been blessed by the United Nations. The intervention in Libya, however, signifies a revival of multilateralism. The U.N. Security Council has been reinvigorated, thanks to Resolutions 1970 and 1973 on Libya, which are both based on Chapter VII of the U.N. Charter, which provides for the possibility of the use of force. The International Criminal Court also derives an oxygen boost with these resolutions, since it will be responsible for prosecuting any potential crimes against humanity that arise. We return, finally, to the right of intervention - which, since the paradigm shift of September 11, has given rise to this responsibility to protect populations under threat.

 

However, Aznar is on firmer ground with his second observation regarding the action in Libya, when he observes that, "the intervention is expanding beyond the contents of any specific resolution." Clearly, the neocons are again trying to retrospectively justify the expansive interpretation of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441, which called on Saddam Hussein to unilaterally disarm and to otherwise employ "all necessary means" to achieve that objective. With that resolution, the Azores coalition justified the invasion in the absence of an explicit authorization by the U.N.'s executive body; just as they later tried to legitimize their actions after the fact with Resolution 1483, which recognized the U.S. and British occupation of Iraq.  

Posted by WORLDMEETS.US

 

Aznar isn't the only one issuing such criticism. Many voices, Putin among others, denounce a lax interpretation of Resolution 1973, which has already seen air attacks across Libya against ground troops, which has nothing to do with a "no fly zone" nor the protection of Libya's people.

 

Other voices are alarmed at handing weapons to the rebels, which was hinted at by Obama and discussed at the meeting of allies London. The same could be said of actions designed to capture or liquidate Qaddafi as part of a toppling of the regime, which isn't explicitly spelled out in the resolution. Bearing the Iraq War in mind, all of these interpretations make a case for the most rigorous limits on any resolution, or alternatively, a new one from the Security Council. It would then be difficult for Russia and China to benevolently abstain. Whether they like it or not, they are also part of the pincer.

 

 

SEE ALSO ON THIS:
Les Dernières Nouvelles d'Alsace, France: Libya: A Distant and Uncertain Outcome
Yezhednevniy Zhurnal, Russia: Medvedev and Putin: Breach Over Libya
Folha, Brazil: Libya is a Lose-Lose for Both Imperialists and Humanitarians
Frontier Post, Pakistan: Libya Regime Change No Business of 'Western Adventurists'
El Mundo, El Salvador: Venezuela's Chávez 'Near Breaking Point' Over Libya
Beijing Youth Daily, China: Why in Libya, U.S. is 'Bringing Up French Rear'
Rossiyskaya Gazeta, Russia: Moscow's Man, Qaddafi?
DNA, France: Libya Demonstrates Fiction of the 'International Community'
L'Orient Le Jour, Lebanon: As Revolts Rage, Anti-Christian Extremism Reappears
The Herald, Zimbabwe: African Union Backs Qaddafi to Prevent 'Western Influence'
Kayhan, Iran: Ahmadinejad Predicts Uprisings in America and Europe
Daily Star, Lebanon: 'Better Late than Never': U.N. Approves Libya Action
Debka File, Israel: Coalition Shows Cracks as Qaddafi Digs in for Guerrilla War
Die Presse, Austria: Gates Speaks the Truth: U.S. Can't Afford More Invasions
FTD, Germany: Impose 'No Fly Zone' on Qaddafi's Oil Millions
Semana, Colombia: Egypt's Imaginary Revolution
L'Orient Le Jour, Lebanon: When Tyrants Tremble; and U.S. Allies Sweat
Vedomosti, Russia: Muslim Uprisings Spell End of 'Our Sons of Bitches'
News, Switzerland: Twittering 'Sweet Lies': Corporate Co-opting of Social Media
Dar Al-Hayat, Saudi Arabia: Arabs Pay Homage to Facebook and Twitter!
Dar Al-Hayat, Saudi Arabia: Today's Muslim Unrest is 'No Passing Cloud'
Kayhan, Iran: America's Doomed Campaign to Help 'Puppets and Traitors'
Global Times, China: It's Time for China to Exert More Influence on Mideast
DNA, France: An Unhesitant Salute to Egypt's Uncertain Triumph of Liberty
FAZ, Germany: Explaining the West's Hesitation on Egypt
Kayhan, Iran: Ahmadinejad: Egypt Revolution Reveals Hand of the 'Mahdi'
Jerusalem Post, Israel: Sharansky: 'Maybe its Time to Put Our Trust in Freedom'
Le Quotidian d'Oran, Algeria: SHAME ON YOU, MR. OBAMA!
Gazeta Wyborcza, Poland : America's Egyptian Problem: Ethics or Realpolitik?
Amal al-Oumma, Egypt: What We Egyptians Have Learned from Revolution
O Globo, Brazil: Facebook and Twitter are Just a Means to a Greater End
La Jornada, Mexico: In Egypt, Washington's Global Image is Once Again at Stake
Al-Wahdawi, Yemen: In Egypt, the 'Mother of All Battles' is Still to Come
Al-Seyassah, Kuwait: U.S. Pressure on Democracy is at Root of the Problem
Tehran Times, Iran: Egyptians and All Arabs Must Beware of 'Global Ruling Class'
Le Quotidien d’Oran, Algeria: Mubarak, Friends Scheme to Short-Circuit Revolt
Salzburger Nachrichten, Austria: U.S. Must Act or Cede Egypt to the Islamists
Sueddeutsche Zeitung, Germany: America's' 'Shameful' Faustian Bargain Unravels
Guardian Unlimited, U.K.: Mubarak Regime 'Still Very Much in Power'
Hankyoreh, South Korea: Egypt: Will U.S. Pick the Right Side this Time?
Global Times, China: Egypt, Tunisia Raise Doubts About Western Democracy
Kayhan, Iran: Middle East Revolutions Herald America's Demise
Sydney Morning Herald: Revolution is in the Air, But U.S. Sticks to Same Old Script
The Telegraph, U.K.: America's Secret Backing for Egypt's Rebel Leaders
Debka File, Israel: Sources: Egypt Uprising Planned in Washington Under Bush

 

Bookmark and Share

 

CLICK HERE FOR SPANISH VERSION

blog comments powered by Disqus

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Posted by WORLDMEETS.US April 6, 4:51am]

 







Bookmark and Share