First, things that should be taken as a given, but act as disclaimers: Qaddafi is a horrible person. What he's done to the Libyans is flat terrible. They have every right to want revolt. Like most dictators, I am not surprised that the people are rising up against him, and he deserves whatever happens.
Now, on to the heart of the matter: I find the European reaction to the Libyans quite hypocritical, particularly in light of the outrage when the American's stormed into Iraq. Granted, there are differences. America lied about the intelligence regarding nuclear weapons facilities, and there was no raging civil conflict. Also, France had the support of most of the international community as evidenced by the UN. Besides that, the differences are negligible. There was certainly civil unrest, as Hussein was violently favoring his particular sect of Muslims. He was also despotically controlling the country.
There is oil involved.
Of course, once the misleading intelligence was set aside, the American rhetoric turned towards freedom: Iraq deserved to be it's own country. It was the right thing to do: allowing the people to vote democratically for their leaders. It was the moral things to do: freedom from despots is always the right thing to do. This same rhetoric proliferates around discussion of the Libyan attacks. This article discusses the reaction of the British Prime Minister, David Cameron, and his position in the war. It's quick to note the similarities between Cameron and his predecessor, Tony Blair, who was heavily involved in the Iraq war, particularly in the rhetoric that was used by both. Labour leader Ed Milliband was quoted by the BBC, saying, "We know in our hearts and in our heads when we see Colonel Gaddafi murdering his own people, it is right to take this action". There seems to be a focus on the horrible atrocities to the people of Libya. This is certainly true, and no one can argue with that.
France has been particularly vocal about Libya, and was one of the first of the Allied nations to suggest action (drawing the UK with them). Friday morning, French President Nicolas Sarkozy called Cameron to solidify his alliance, and then sought to assemble a "coalition of the willing," which, as of today, was France, Britain, US, Spain, Portugal, Norway, Belgium, Sweden, Italy and Qatar. When Germany and some other heavy UN powerhouses did not immediately join in, Sarkozy was outraged, and The Telegraph reports that David Cameron had to restrain him as he shouted at EU Foreign Minister Lady Ashton.
But weren't the same things true in Iraq? Did not Hussein also kill his own people? Was not he also a horrible dictator? Why then was Cameron critical of the Iraq war? What makes this dictator so much worse than other dictators, like in North Korea, Yemen or Bahrain?
My brother Kiernan raised a good argument, noting that the Libyans are vocal, crying for freedom. This most recent war is to help those that want helping, rather than what it seemed like America was doing: helping itself by thinly veiled attempts to help others. Also, the Libyans have petitioned the UN for help with Qaddafi, so the European reaction is more a response to this than one country pushing another around. Granted. All of this is true.
What I find odd is how France was ready for this; almost as if they were waiting for something in Libya to give them the right to depose Qaddafi. If Libya did not have so much oil at stake, it might seem like France was just waiting for the approval to do what is right. But knowing that Libya is sitting on so much oil raises a lot of questions regarding their motives.
Really, though, what I find most troubling is a point raised by Rashad Chamberlin in his video-blog: what about the the coalition's own countries? America is still suffering economically, and this recent foreign mission has raised gas prices again. Strikes are happening across the UK, and student protests have cropped up all over the country. Gas here is likewise astronomical, and this on the heels of the most recent VAT increase. Unemployment in both countries is higher than it should be. Why are more concerted efforts being made to fix these imbalances at home, rather than doing what is right in other countries?
A friend of mine used to make her bed every day, and couldn't start the day without making her bed. I find this ridiculous, and don't know that I've made my bed in some time. When I was asking her why, she said, "I don't feel I can get anything done until I know my bed is made." This might be a nice metaphor for the US, UK and other European nations invested in helping others so expensively: make sure your bed is made right before you start fixing the beds of other people.
No comments:
Post a Comment