Military Intervention in Libya Is Legitimate Action to Prevent Massacre

Published in Yomiuri Shimbun
(Japan) on 21 March 2011
by (link to originallink to original)
Translated from by Nathan Biant. Edited by Drue Fergison.
The major multinational forces of the United States, Britain and France have carried out military intervention in North Africa’s Libya, where there is currently a civil war.

French aircraft have bombed the Gadhafi government’s tanks and armored vehicles, and Britain and the U.S. have attacked its air defense facilities with cruise missiles.

This strategy is a legitimate humanitarian intervention, based on Resolution 1973 of the U.N. Security Council. The resolution has authorized “all necessary measures to protect civilians” — with the exception of occupation — and establishing a no-fly zone.

Rebels, rising up to overthrow Gadhafi’s government, temporarily seized the Eastern parts of the Mediterranean, but the government’s armed forces have regained some of their ground, and the rebels based in Benghazi are on the verge of surrendering.

In order to avoid the carnage that would inevitably come with the fall of Benghazi, military intervention was unavoidable.

When it came to voting on the Security Council resolution, five countries abstained: China, Russia, Germany, India and Brazil. However, because they didn’t voice opposition to it either, there is surely a tacit understanding between them.

In order to reduce the burden on participating countries, Germany has taken on a larger role in Afghanistan. This shows that even though some countries are in favor of military intervention in Libya, and some aren’t, the world has not been split into two.

Gadhafi has denounced the Western military operation as a “second crusade.” He is likening it to Christian crusaders invading the Islamic world in an attempt to incite revolt by Arab nations.

However, this operation in Libya is different from the 2003 war in Iraq, which invited a distrust of America by Islam.

Both the Libyan citizens — who have suffered under Gadhafi’s tyrannical rule — and the Arab League supported military intervention. It is fundamentally different from what happened in Iraq.

Even though Gadhafi agreed to a cease-fire after the U.N. Security Council resolution, he rescinded it and shifted to a new mindset of do-or-die resistance. However, in the end, this will probably leave him no other choice than to agree to an immediate cease-fire and withdrawal from the East.

Operations this time around find France and Britain taking the leadership role, with America following behind. Although Britain and France have rushed into the decision to intervene, they have also been harshly criticized, both domestically and abroad, for being too slow to respond to the situations in Tunisia and Egypt — countries that had set a precedent for bringing down their dictatorships.

In terms of wanting Gadhafi’s violence to end, the Japanese government has, of course, declared its support for military action.

If the unrest in Libya, an oil-producing country, is prolonged, the price of oil will rise steeply, and not only will it affect the world economy, it will also affect Japan’s plans for reconstruction after the big earthquake. Therefore, Japan must not show any reluctance to cooperate for the speedy stabilization of Libya.




リビア軍事介入 虐殺防ぐための正当な行動だ

内戦状態にある北アフリカのリビアに、米英仏軍主力の多国籍軍が軍事介入した。

 カダフィ政権側の戦車や装甲車を仏軍機などが爆撃し、防空施設を英米軍が巡航ミサイルで攻撃した。

 今回の作戦は、国連安全保障理事会の決議1973に基づく正当な人道的介入である。決議は、政権側の攻撃にさらされる市民を保護するため、リビア上空に飛行禁止空域を設けるなど「占領以外のあらゆる措置」を認めている。

 リビアでは、カダフィ圧政の打倒に立ち上がった反体制派が、地中海沿岸地域の東半分を一時掌握したが、軍備で圧倒する政権側が巻き返し、反体制派の拠点ベンガジが陥落寸前となっていた。

 ベンガジ陥落に伴う虐殺を回避するためには、軍事介入はやむを得ない選択だった。

 安保理決議の採決では、中国、ロシア、ドイツ、インド、ブラジルの5か国が棄権した。しかし、反対票を投じなかったことで暗黙の了解を与えたとも言えよう。

 ドイツの場合、作戦参加国の負担を減らすため、アフガニスタンでの任務を拡大するという。軍事介入の賛否をめぐって世界が二つに割れているわけではない。

 カダフィ氏は欧米の軍事作戦を「第2の十字軍」だと非難している。キリスト教徒の十字軍がイスラム世界を蹂躙(じゅうりん)した史実を引き合いに出し、アラブの国々の反発をあおろうという魂胆だろう。

 だが、今回の作戦は、イスラム教徒の対米不信を招いた2003年のイラク戦争とは異なる。

 軍事介入を求めたのは、圧政に苦しむリビア国民であり、アラブ連盟も支持した。根本的に構図が違うのである。

 カダフィ政権は、安保理決議後に停戦を約束しながら反故(ほご)にし、徹底抗戦の構えに転じた。しかし残された道は、即時停戦と東部からの撤退以外にはあるまい。

 今回の作戦は、仏英両国が主導し、米国が追随する形になった。仏英両首脳が介入を急いだ背景には、独裁政権崩壊の先例となったチュニジアやエジプトへの対応で後手に回り、国内外の批判を浴びた苦い経験もあるのだろう。

 日本政府が、政権側の暴力即時停止を求める立場から軍事行動に支持を表明したのは、当然だ。

 産油国リビアで混乱が長期化すれば、原油価格が高騰し、世界経済のみならず、大震災からの復興を目指す日本にも影響する。日本は、リビアの早期安定化にも協力を惜しむべきではない。
This post appeared on the front page as a direct link to the original article with the above link .

Hot this week

Israel: In Washington, Netanyahu Must Prioritize Bringing Home Hostages before Iran

Australia: Donald Trump Is Not the Only Moving Part When It Comes to Global Trade

Australia: Donald Trump Just Won the Fight To Remake America in 3 Big Ways

Poland: Jędrzej Bielecki: Trump’s Pyrrhic Victory*

Palestine: Ceasefire Not Peace: How Netanyahu and AIPAC Outsourced Israel’s War to Trump

Topics

Poland: Jędrzej Bielecki: Trump’s Pyrrhic Victory*

Austria: Trump Is Only Part of the Problem

Canada: Canada Must Match the Tax Incentives in Trump’s ‘Big Beautiful Bill’

Germany: Big Tech Wants a Say in EU Law: More Might for the Mighty

Germany: Trump’s Disappointment Will Have No Adverse Consequences for Putin*

             

Spain: Global Aid without the US

Spain: Not a Good Time for Solidarity

Related Articles

India: Trump’s Tariffs Have Hit South Korea and Japan: India Has Been Wise in Charting a Cautious Path

Japan: Iran Ceasefire Agreement: The Danger of Peace by Force

Japan: Trump’s 100 Days: A Future with No Visible Change So Far

Japan: US Administration Losing Credibility 3 Months into Policy of Threats

Japan: US-Japan Defense Minister Summit: US-Japan Defense Chief Talks Strengthen Concerns about Single-Minded Focus on Strength