On Monday, we presented the views of Three foes of intervention in Libya, and one supporter with misgivings. Tonight, we present four friends.
Lt. Gen Roméo Dallaire was force commander of the U.N. peacekeeping mission for Rwanda in 1994. He is now a senator in the Canadian Parliament and co-director of the Will to Intervene project at the Montreal Institute for Genocide and Human Rights Studies. Jeffrey Bernstein is project officer for genocide prevention to Lt. Gen Dallaire. He writes Now Let's Hope It's Not Too Late:
By employing genocidal threats to "cleanse Libya house by house," Col. Muammar al-Qaddafi forced the world community's hand in taking strong action to protect the human rights of all Libyans. The Responsibility to Protect (R2P) doctrine -- which requires the U.N. Security Council to take action when a country fails to protect its citizens and was unanimously adopted by all countries of the U.N. General Assembly in 2005 -- has clearly and unequivocally laid the problem of Libya at our feet. That Qaddafi committed crimes against humanity was never in question; indeed he was almost universally condemned for his maniacal acts and statements. So the real question is, why wasn't R2P unanimously invoked by world leaders?
The failure to invoke R2P early -- while Gaddafi was calling protesters "cockroaches" and threatening mass, door-to-door atrocities, such as those I witnessed in Rwanda -- represents a colossal missed opportunity to project the potential power of this still-developing norm. The arms embargo and targeted sanctions slapped on Qaddafi's regime and cronies in late February, as well as the referral of the situation to the International Criminal Court, demonstrated the Security Council's attention and resolve -- timeliness that was absent during Rwanda and Darfur. But once it became clear these measures were insufficient to deter Qaddafi's advance on the regime's opponents and guarantee civilian protection, the implementation of the now-approved no-fly zone and other more coercive measures should have been seriously expedited. Furthermore, invoking R2P would have sent a critical signal to Libyans and other besieged populations the world community approves of their democratic efforts—and is willing to intervene, if necessary, when their human rights are so threatened.Sarah El Neweihi is an Egyptian American who will complete her MA in Near and Middle East Studies at the School of Oriental and African Studies in London next year. She has served as Middle East Intern for the American Friends Service Committee in Chicago. She writes, Why I Support Foreign Intervention in Libya:
A large number of the anti-war activists whom I have stood side by side with at many a protest have shocked me with their statements condemning all foreign intervention in Libya and even shaming the rebels for asking for help. This hypocrisy confounds me. It was my understanding that leftist activists were supposed to support the people against those who oppress the people, and in this case, it is obvious that the only one oppressing the people of Libya is their dictator, Gaddafi. ...
When a brutal dictator makes repetitive threats to his people on the radio that his well- equipped forces will hunt those who oppose him “dar, dar” (house by house) and “zenga, zenga” (street by street), and actually starts to follow through on these threats, he leaves no choice to the international community but to try to stop him from massacring his own people. The same people who are now in effect defending Gaddafi on Facebook were huge supporters of the revolutions in Egypt and Tunisia. Was that only because they were able to do it on their own? So, we are willing to support the people with words but not with actions? ...
Bush’s hasty unilateral intervention in Iraq should not paralyze the world when international military intervention is needed to prevent war crimes or humanitarian atrocities. These interventions were justified and essential in the Balkans and the first Gulf war. Inaction can lead to more costly intervention later. After the first Gulf war, the world stood and watched as Saddam crushed the uprising by the Kurds and the Shia, and brutalized his nation for another decade. A strategic intervention at that time could have prevented the more costly war of 2003 and would not have been based on lies and U.S. interests. It should be said that I am usually first in line to criticize the flawed policies of the U.S. but to criticize an action just because it comes from the U.S. is irrational and immature. This was not a unilateral action, and Obama has said that the U.S. will reduce its role in upcoming days to ensure that the burden of the UN resolution is shared.Kenneth Roth is executive director of Human Rights Watch. He writes, The Security Council Has At Last Lived Up To Its Duty:
Just when the "responsibility to protect" doctrine seemed to have become irretrievably tainted at the United Nations, the Security Council at last lived up to its duty to prevent mass atrocities. For the second time in three weeks, the council accomplished the politically impossible, first referring Libya to the International Criminal Court, then, yesterday, authorizing military force to protect civilians from Muammar al-Qaddafi's wrath.
What accounts for this remarkable turn of events? In part, it was the perfect villain: Qaddafi's over-the-top threats to "show no mercy" to the people of Benghazi, along with his regional meddling and megalomaniac ideas, left him few friends or defenders. ...
The challenge now is not only to translate this remarkable Security Council consensus into effective protection for Libyans. It is to extend the human rights principles embraced for Libya to other people in need. The atrocities unfolding in the Ivory Coast demand just as much attention. Other people of the Middle East and North Africa are seeing their hopes for democracy quashed by authoritarian leaders. The people of Burma and Sri Lanka have endured massive war crimes with no justice. Can the Security Council respond to their plight as well? Can it begin to recognize that a leader's atrocities against his own people are a global concern, not an internal affair? No one believes these steps will be easy, but the task before us is to translate the Security Council's principled reaction to Libya into a broader doctrine of genuine protection for people facing mass atrocities.Terry Glavin is an adjunct professor of creative writing at the University of British Columbia and editor of Transmontanus Books. He writes, Left-wing ‘progressives’ deaf to Libyan democrats:
It’s worth pointing out how people who fake solidarity in these ways would have responded to the Spanish republican appeal for intervention during the early goings of the last century’s great anti-fascist war: “They would sit back and let the Spanish Revolution be burned to the ground by the Falange forces, and they would sit there and watch, doing everything in their power to stop the ‘imperialist powers’ from ‘hi-jacking’ the Spanish Revolution. ...
“If I am taken to be uncritical of conservatives about this it’s just that I don’t have any particular expectation that conservatives will show leadership when it comes to what we used to call international solidarity. It’s why they’re called “conservatives,” so fair play to them. If I seem especially uncharitable to the “left” here it is because of certain standards. When it comes to a question so elementary as the duty to heed the appeals of brave young democrats who have risen up in arms against a mad tyrant and his mercenaries, one anticipates that a progressive left would be the least encumbered by narrowly conservative, status-quo and “realist” considerations.
It shouldn’t be too much to expect that progressives in any such circumstance would be acutely mindful of what the revolutionaries were wanting, and would fight like hell to get it for them. No “progressive” position worthy of the name would counsel otherwise, least of all take the other side. This should apply whether the revolutionaries have risen up against an Islamist theocracy, a US-backed police state or a plum weird tyranny like the Libyan regime. It should apply where there is oil, and where there is no oil.• • • • •
0 comments:
Post a Comment