Libya is a Lose-Lose for Both Imperialists and Humanitarians
"There is the possibility that Qaddafi will be
overthrown and the Islamists will come to power. On the other hand, Qaddafi may
survive the attacks and retaliate against civilians in Europe. Finally, Libya could
descend into a long and bloody war and the West will, once again, be sucked in."
Life is full of irony … and so is
politics. Some years ago, when New York experienced September 11, 2001 and George
W. Bush marched on Afghanistan and Iraq, the entire world shouted the slogans:
"imperialism, imperialism, imperialism."
Barack Obama made all the
difference. Under him there is no “imperialist aggression,” only “humanitarian
interventions.” Based on this reasoning, Qaddafi is a torturer and Saddam
Hussein was a worthy man, despite his unpleasant habit of gassing Kurds and
Shiites.
That’s the current “liberal”
interpretation, which Dan Serwer sums up in The
Atlantic magazine. By taking part in the Libyan civil war, is NATO
openly and objectively supporting the "rebels" against Qaddafi? Under
the contrary, they’re doing what's right - legally and morally right.
Legally, there's a resolution
approved by the U.N. Security Council, which is not along the lines of cowboy
Bush’s Iraqi adventure. Today, the Security Council is kind of secular Mount
Olympus, where the gods meet to decide the earthlings’ future.
And morally, there's nothing more to
say. Qaddafi can't be allowed to assassinate his own people. Let’s remember
Srebrenica, warns Dan Serwer, when the “international community” closed its
eyes and let Serb troops advance toward thousands of Bosnian Muslims. We must have
compassion.
Compassion, and now, consistency: If
the main criteria for intervention in Libya came down to the humanitarian
argument, there's no reason for Olympus to stop at Libya.
In the Arab world there is work to
do in Bahrain and in Yemen, where recently, the domestic “opposition” has been
dealt with in an intolerably harsh manner. Elsewhere in the region, one must
still remove the oppressive governments of Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Oman, Jordan,
Syria and Iran.
And, just taking Africa for example,
there is a need to move southward down the continent and deal with the cruel
dictatorships in Mauritania, Chad, Sudan, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Ivory Coast,
Cameroon, Somalia, Gabon, Ruanda, Zimbabwe and Swaziland.
But a point of order!: Qaddafi is a
renowned criminal and his name will be imprinted on the blackest pages of
international terrorism. But Qaddafi is no worse than dozens of other dictators
and torturers who fill the landscape. Except, of course, he
abandoned his nuclear program in recent years.
Posted by WORLDMEETS.US
This demands a second look. The
first decade of the 21st century was marked by Western effort to combat
terrorism by fundamentalists.
That’s why at a minimum, it would be
disastrous if the intervention in Libya, organized to remove a dictator like Qaddafi,
were to eventually pave the way for a triumph by the Islamist opposition. These
are the same people, who, we now know, have been providing jihadists battling Western
troops in Afghanistan and Iraq.
The imposition of a no-fly zone over
Libya is no mere preventive measure. It is a declaration of war with everything
that implies: there is the possibility that Qaddafi will be overthrown and the
Islamists will come to power. On the other hand, Qaddafi may survive the
attacks and retaliate against civilians in Europe. Finally, Libya could descend
into a long and bloody war and the West will, once again, be sucked in.
João Pereira Coutinho, 32, is a columnist at Folha.
He has compiled his articles about Brazil into the book Avenida Paulista
(Ed. Quasi), published in Portugal, where he lives. He writes every two
weeks, on Mondays, for Folha Online. E-mail:jpcoutinho@folha.com.br
Website:http://www.jpcoutinho.com
