Against intervention in Libya or anywhere else

Here's Mike Marqusee on his own site writing against the intervention in Libya. One of his foils is the bland Jonathan Freedland of The Guardian.

In the Guardian, Jonathan Freedland writes that liberal interventionism is “fine in theory” but goes wrong “in practise”. I’d suggest that it goes wrong in practise because it’s deeply flawed in theory.

If liberal interventionists were consistent, they would advocate similar Western military action in relation to Saudi Arabia, Yemen, the Congo, Kashmir, Iran, Israel, Burma, etc. etc. etc. This would not only be wildly impracticable but deeply undesirable. It would lead to chaos and escalating violence on a global scale, overwhelmingly detrimental to the poor and vulnerable and fatal to the cause of democratic advance. A policy that if applied consistently and universally would result in disaster is best not applied at all.

Liberal interventionists treat great powers as neutral agents, disinterested entities that can be inserted into a situation for a limited purpose and time, like a surgeon’s knife. In reality, however, these powers have clear and compelling interests – in Libya as elsewhere – and their deployment of military force will be guided by those interests. In action, western troops are accountable not to the people they’re supposed to be protecting but to a chain of command that ends in Washington, London and Paris.

The unleashing of the great military powers undermines the universalism the liberal interventionists claim to honour: outcomes are determined by concentrations of wealth and power remote from the scene of suffering. If we’re to build any kind of just, sustainable world order, then we must (at the least) restrain and restrict great powers, not license them to act where and when it’s convenient for them.

Whole thing's worth a read.

Eat liberal interventionism Gaddafi

Dave Brown cartoon in The Independent:

Interesting letters too.

Excellent joke in The Independent

See this letter in The Independent:

Britain has excelled itself in taking the lead, spearheading international efforts to protect Arab civilians in Libya. Such courage in the face of economic adversity and global cynicism makes us all very proud to be British. This is a moment to celebrate British grit, values and assertive action at times of exceptional difficulties.

Despite detractors, David Cameron and William Hague deserve praise for their role. It is true that as a country we have legitimate commercial concerns. Yet while we should always make sure that the UK is open for business, we equally need to assert that its fundamental values are never for sale.

The UK should never be a mere convenience to Arab dictators, their sleazy offspring and highly corrupt cronies. Either we are on the side of Arab masses or we assist in their subjugation.

With their brutal ways and espousal of corruption, Arab dictatorships are a relic of the Cold War and a threat to the security of the UK, EU and the US. Building genuine friendships with the deeply oppressed Arab populace is the only way forward.

Dr Lu'ayy Minwer Al-Rimawi

Peterborough

Well it cracked me up but I'm not really sure if they are joking.

Gaza and Libya: compare and contrast

Some interesting letters in The Guardian today:

When Israel bombed Gaza at the end of 2008 in a brutal action which killed 1,300 people and destroyed 20,000 buildings, there was no question of the US allowing the UN to impose a no-fly zone over Gaza to protect its people, 50% of which are children. Those who support the UN security council's authorisation of a no-fly zone over Libya (Britain, France and US line up for air strikes against Gaddafi, 18 March) need to reflect on the selective nature of UN intervention throughout the world and in the Middle East in particular.

The UN will not be intervening in the Libyan revolution to protect civilians from Gaddafi's brutality. It will go in to further the interests of the world's major powers in the region. It will be an imperialist action, not a humanitarian one. After the bloodshed it produced in Serbia, Iraq and Afghanistan, the doctrine of "humanitarian military intervention" should be discredited beyond rehabilitation. The west is a major source of the problems of the Middle East and north Africa. It's not part of the solution, even when its troops wear blue helmets.

Sasha Simic

London

The others are worth a look at too.

Thoughts on the "No Fly Zone"

Lenin has a good post (but that isn't news) about the potential outcomes of UNSC Resolution 1973. The comments, especially his, also hold great insights. The gist of it is this. The powers who are now coming to "help" the rebels are led by sociopaths and mass murderers (yes, I do mean Obama, Clinton, and all their friends. Can Tony Blair be brought back from retirement?). Their purpose in intervening is to snuff freedom in the bud. And given their power, they have a fair, although by no mean ironclad, chance of success.

We can fret about it, and we can prophesize doom. We should. Doom is a distinct possibility. We can also explain to the rebels why they are wrong to welcome Western intervention. But I'd rather not. It feels dirty. I'd rather ask what other roads were not taken. One of Lenin's comment begins doing that:

I would have argued that they ('Western' governments) could keep their military hardware out of it, recognise the transitional council, release Qadhafi's frozen funds to them, allow them to acquire arms, and open the borders to Libyan refugees. These would have been practical, relatively low-cost measures that could have made a lot of difference.

How could we have actually helped on the basis of this template? The organized radical left in Europe, together with the left in the Arab world, could have perhaps called on volunteers to gather in, say, Marseille, to prepare for sailing to Libya. A camp of volunteers could have come about, a solidarity "tahrir square", clamoring, amplified by widespread demonstrations, for all the measures Seymour suggests, as well for free passage, arms for the rebels as well as for themselves, supplies, boats to take refugees safely across the Mediterranean, and everything else that might have been needed, AND NO NATO military intervention AND limited assistance for people who want to help the rebels.

We didn't do that. Why? Maybe we couldn't. Why? What should we do so that we can do that? These are questions worth discussing. In the absence of any of that, what cup should a thirsty rebel pick, the poisoned cup of imperialist "help," or the empty cup of anti-imperialist rhetoric? The answer is stuck in my throat.

Al Akhbar: Son of Qaddafi visits Israel, asks for money and others

This is an English translation of a French account of an article in Al-Akhbar:

Nizar Abboud, the serious and reliable correspondent with the UN of Lebanese daily Al Akhbar, reports that a son of Kadaffi has visited occupied Palestine two days ago to sollicit for help. During his visit Saif el Islam has asked high placed zionist officials for military asistence in terms of ammunition,night surveillance and satellite suveillance, trying to develop political and economic relations between the two countries. (?)

He also asked the zionists to use their credit with the USA to protect the funds invested by his family, offering part of the profits. Saif el Islam maintains- for a long time already- narrow relations with the zionist entity, and we have not forgotten how he used, since the beginning of the lybian revolation, services from a famous zionist 'security' firm. This firm has furnished mercenaries from Tchad and elsewhere, making huge profits( Kadaffi has been willing to pay salaries of 1000 to 2000 dollars a day)

http://www.al-akhbar.com/node/5713