The United States, NATO and Libya’s Last Gasp
Published in Diario Norte
(Argentina) on 28 August 2011
by Mila Dosso (link to original)
(Argentina) on 28 August 2011
by Mila Dosso (link to original)
Translated from
by Camden Luxford.
Edited by Jennifer Pietropaoli.
“Let us act for you” will always be the catchwords of the great powers.
When it comes to war, the inhabitants of this planet woke up to reality a long time ago. We no longer buy the fairy tale that these recurrent military outings are undertaken, as the argument goes, in defense of democracy or as humanitarian acts. It’s a terrible thing, losing our innocence, but perhaps we can hold on to our awareness: the awareness that the conflicts we see in the world — Afghanistan, Iraq and now Libya — hide dark interests, secret geopolitical agendas or, simply enough, juicy business deals for the powerful elite, as well as the awareness that public opinion is twisted and manipulated.
Libya’s case is not very different from that of Iraq. In the familiar script, the great powers, the superheroes of peace, must protect the people and the world from Gadhafi, the unhinged dictator. There are more than enough reasons to doubt the justification put forth by the U.N. and NATO for their intervention in Libya: that it is necessary in order to stop Gadhafi from repressing a democratic protest movement and, in the process, unleashing a river of blood.
To believe that the country of Nobel Peace Prize winner Barack Obama and its allies are willing to spend thousands of millions of dollars in arms just to protect the helpless citizens of Libya, a North African country that has historically been exploited by the West, one must be more than merely innocent; one must be either naïve or completely indifferent. It is a perverse logic to want to protect the civilian population by hurling missiles and bombs at their homes.
The conflict, which is generated, planned and financed by U.S. and European powers is, in full light, a defense of capitalist interests, including securing oil supplies for Europe and the global system. From here on out anything could happen: from Gadhafi’s surrender to his execution, with the possibility of a long, drawn-out war.
The ruthless attacks of the Gadhafi regime against the civilian opposition obviously demanded action, although the debate between those who believe in humanitarian intervention and those who argue that such a cure is worse than the disease hardly results in one right answer. However, it is equally obvious that the intervention was carried out late — and badly.
Just days ago, Claude Lanzmann, director of the Holocaust documentary “Shoah,” and one of the first to sign the call to action against Gadhafi’s bombings, published a furious diatribe against the war in Libya and the manner in which the West is betting on a war with “without death” — which really means there are no dead from one side, the intervening side.
NATO’s mistakes in the past, including killing dozens of civilians in different operations, explain for themselves the repugnance of a war in which one side hides behind hugely superior technology, minimizing all personal risk. Reality shows us, once again, that “clean, antiseptic” wars don’t exist, not even when they’re carried out in the name of the “good.”
Who Cares About the Libyan Public?
These circumstances lend themselves to the most simplistic or malicious analyses. If we condemn the intervention of the U.N., we’ll be accused of supporting Gadhafi, the tyrant of the Maghreb. If, on the other hand, we condemn Gadhafi, we’ll be painted as pro-imperialist interventionists.
There are other points of view. One of those is that the Libyan people don’t deserve armed intervention; the permanence of this false, powerful messiah; or the powers that control the world to “solve” their problems for them.
The point is that this intervention isn’t just to get Gadhafi out of power, but also to control Libya once that objective has been achieved. It’s ironic that the nations that were responsible for colonialism are now the keepers of the keys to freedom. They, just like the dictator Gadhafi, have their calculations and their priorities. And surely the first among those priorities are the country’s oil reserves, and last in line are the Libyan people.
The Job of the Intervention
The aim is to fight blood, death and violence with more blood, death and violence. Libya will be torn to shreds. But that doesn’t matter. Just like in Iraq, there will be no lack of companies willing to accept the reconstruction contracts.
It should also be kept in mind that we are witnessing the consolidation of an international order that is completely undemocratic, just like that of the Gadhafi regime. A small group decides for the majority. The Security Council speaks for the international community. The great powers decide to intervene and the rest is not heard, whether they accept the decision or not.
Gadhafi may be indefensible, but the world risks a lot if it rejoices over this old way of resolving internal conflicts. To applaud this intervention is to deny the possibility that people can free themselves, by themselves. There are no good and bad interventions. There can be no double standards when it comes time to evaluate the military action against the selfish and corrupt regime of Gadhafi.
The powers that approved the intervention now have their new war, and the arms manufacturers have the opportunity to reinvigorate their businesses. The oil spoils that are up for grabs are even more important than the nuclear disaster in Japan.
There’s No Such Thing as a Free War
Just as there’s no such thing as a free lunch in diplomacy, so it is in war.
How many more deaths will there be? How many children will be recklessly assassinated in Libya for the sake of capital? Who will judge those responsible for this illicit war?
Will the International Criminal Court dare to investigate? Isn’t George Bush Jr., the butcher of Bagdad, living free and happy after his crimes in Iraq? Was he judged or even accused in The Hague?
NATO has pulverized a children’s hospital. The entire world has witnessed crimes explicitly directed to terrorize the civilian population. With what arguments will we be told that they’ve gone to Libya to protect the civilian population? The lives of Libyans mean little to them.
If NATO is obligated to commit this type of inglorious crime, it's because it is conscious of having lost the war in a way far more lamentable.
When it comes to war, the inhabitants of this planet woke up to reality a long time ago. We no longer buy the fairy tale that these recurrent military outings are undertaken, as the argument goes, in defense of democracy or as humanitarian acts. It’s a terrible thing, losing our innocence, but perhaps we can hold on to our awareness: the awareness that the conflicts we see in the world — Afghanistan, Iraq and now Libya — hide dark interests, secret geopolitical agendas or, simply enough, juicy business deals for the powerful elite, as well as the awareness that public opinion is twisted and manipulated.
Libya’s case is not very different from that of Iraq. In the familiar script, the great powers, the superheroes of peace, must protect the people and the world from Gadhafi, the unhinged dictator. There are more than enough reasons to doubt the justification put forth by the U.N. and NATO for their intervention in Libya: that it is necessary in order to stop Gadhafi from repressing a democratic protest movement and, in the process, unleashing a river of blood.
To believe that the country of Nobel Peace Prize winner Barack Obama and its allies are willing to spend thousands of millions of dollars in arms just to protect the helpless citizens of Libya, a North African country that has historically been exploited by the West, one must be more than merely innocent; one must be either naïve or completely indifferent. It is a perverse logic to want to protect the civilian population by hurling missiles and bombs at their homes.
The conflict, which is generated, planned and financed by U.S. and European powers is, in full light, a defense of capitalist interests, including securing oil supplies for Europe and the global system. From here on out anything could happen: from Gadhafi’s surrender to his execution, with the possibility of a long, drawn-out war.
The ruthless attacks of the Gadhafi regime against the civilian opposition obviously demanded action, although the debate between those who believe in humanitarian intervention and those who argue that such a cure is worse than the disease hardly results in one right answer. However, it is equally obvious that the intervention was carried out late — and badly.
Just days ago, Claude Lanzmann, director of the Holocaust documentary “Shoah,” and one of the first to sign the call to action against Gadhafi’s bombings, published a furious diatribe against the war in Libya and the manner in which the West is betting on a war with “without death” — which really means there are no dead from one side, the intervening side.
NATO’s mistakes in the past, including killing dozens of civilians in different operations, explain for themselves the repugnance of a war in which one side hides behind hugely superior technology, minimizing all personal risk. Reality shows us, once again, that “clean, antiseptic” wars don’t exist, not even when they’re carried out in the name of the “good.”
Who Cares About the Libyan Public?
These circumstances lend themselves to the most simplistic or malicious analyses. If we condemn the intervention of the U.N., we’ll be accused of supporting Gadhafi, the tyrant of the Maghreb. If, on the other hand, we condemn Gadhafi, we’ll be painted as pro-imperialist interventionists.
There are other points of view. One of those is that the Libyan people don’t deserve armed intervention; the permanence of this false, powerful messiah; or the powers that control the world to “solve” their problems for them.
The point is that this intervention isn’t just to get Gadhafi out of power, but also to control Libya once that objective has been achieved. It’s ironic that the nations that were responsible for colonialism are now the keepers of the keys to freedom. They, just like the dictator Gadhafi, have their calculations and their priorities. And surely the first among those priorities are the country’s oil reserves, and last in line are the Libyan people.
The Job of the Intervention
The aim is to fight blood, death and violence with more blood, death and violence. Libya will be torn to shreds. But that doesn’t matter. Just like in Iraq, there will be no lack of companies willing to accept the reconstruction contracts.
It should also be kept in mind that we are witnessing the consolidation of an international order that is completely undemocratic, just like that of the Gadhafi regime. A small group decides for the majority. The Security Council speaks for the international community. The great powers decide to intervene and the rest is not heard, whether they accept the decision or not.
Gadhafi may be indefensible, but the world risks a lot if it rejoices over this old way of resolving internal conflicts. To applaud this intervention is to deny the possibility that people can free themselves, by themselves. There are no good and bad interventions. There can be no double standards when it comes time to evaluate the military action against the selfish and corrupt regime of Gadhafi.
The powers that approved the intervention now have their new war, and the arms manufacturers have the opportunity to reinvigorate their businesses. The oil spoils that are up for grabs are even more important than the nuclear disaster in Japan.
There’s No Such Thing as a Free War
Just as there’s no such thing as a free lunch in diplomacy, so it is in war.
How many more deaths will there be? How many children will be recklessly assassinated in Libya for the sake of capital? Who will judge those responsible for this illicit war?
Will the International Criminal Court dare to investigate? Isn’t George Bush Jr., the butcher of Bagdad, living free and happy after his crimes in Iraq? Was he judged or even accused in The Hague?
NATO has pulverized a children’s hospital. The entire world has witnessed crimes explicitly directed to terrorize the civilian population. With what arguments will we be told that they’ve gone to Libya to protect the civilian population? The lives of Libyans mean little to them.
If NATO is obligated to commit this type of inglorious crime, it's because it is conscious of having lost the war in a way far more lamentable.