Marwan Bishara examines the politics of NATO's intervention in Libya.
"Why the opposition regarding NATO taking charge of the Libya operation?
In short, non-Western international powers distrust the Western military alliance.
BRIC countries (Brazil, Russia, India and China) and South Africa within IBSA's southern democracies (India, Brazil and South Africa) have all voiced concerns and outright objections.
They reckon that Western powers are exploiting Arab and international support for the international no-fly zone to expand the alliance's role and mission in the future beyond its core mission of defending Europe.
They specifically oppose the notion of NATO becoming de facto the UN Security Council enforcer.....
And what about the confusion or opposition within NATO?
In the absence of imminent danger against the alliance's territories, one should not expect its 28 democracies with different national priorities to agree on the specifics of NATO's military intervention in a foreign country.
This is especially the case when its two European nuclear powers, France and the UK, pull ahead and expect the rest to follow in their stead and cheer.....
What does all this mean to Libya?
After six days of bombing, the Gaddafi forces have been seriously hampered, but the balance of power on the ground is yet to be reversed.
Meanwhile, the Libyan revolutionaries continue to fight bravely despite the superiority of the regime's firepower. Their high spirits and readiness to sacrifice continues to make up for their military inferiority.
As highly paid mercenaries and well armed militias confront highly motivated rebels ready to sacrifice all including their lives, history tells us the latter is bound to win, if not sooner, then later. Remember, while armed militias fight out of loyalty to a despotic leader, patriots sacrifice for their country and its freedom. Arming the latter could reverse the balance of power in no time and perhaps ending the Gaddafi regime.
Concerns that Libya could descend into civil war or become dependent client state are legitimate in light of the Western military intervention.
But it's up to the Libyans to reject any such notion of dependency in the future, and for the new democracies flourishing around them to support their collective rights for free self determination from neo- colonial influence. Unlike dictatorships, democracies tend to be less prone to clientalism.
No 'I-owe-you's have gone out and no receipts or down payments have been issued to Western powers thus far by the Transtional National Council that we know of, and it could and should remain that way.
As the Libyans go to Addis Ababa at the invitation of the African Union that has long voiced its concerns of Western intervention, political or diplomatic efforts should concentrate on ending the Libyan suffering sooner rather than later.
The end game hasn't change. Gaddafi must go. Not because Obama said it, rather because as the Arab revolution puts it, "the people want to bring down the regime"."
"Why the opposition regarding NATO taking charge of the Libya operation?
In short, non-Western international powers distrust the Western military alliance.
BRIC countries (Brazil, Russia, India and China) and South Africa within IBSA's southern democracies (India, Brazil and South Africa) have all voiced concerns and outright objections.
They reckon that Western powers are exploiting Arab and international support for the international no-fly zone to expand the alliance's role and mission in the future beyond its core mission of defending Europe.
They specifically oppose the notion of NATO becoming de facto the UN Security Council enforcer.....
And what about the confusion or opposition within NATO?
In the absence of imminent danger against the alliance's territories, one should not expect its 28 democracies with different national priorities to agree on the specifics of NATO's military intervention in a foreign country.
This is especially the case when its two European nuclear powers, France and the UK, pull ahead and expect the rest to follow in their stead and cheer.....
What does all this mean to Libya?
After six days of bombing, the Gaddafi forces have been seriously hampered, but the balance of power on the ground is yet to be reversed.
Meanwhile, the Libyan revolutionaries continue to fight bravely despite the superiority of the regime's firepower. Their high spirits and readiness to sacrifice continues to make up for their military inferiority.
As highly paid mercenaries and well armed militias confront highly motivated rebels ready to sacrifice all including their lives, history tells us the latter is bound to win, if not sooner, then later. Remember, while armed militias fight out of loyalty to a despotic leader, patriots sacrifice for their country and its freedom. Arming the latter could reverse the balance of power in no time and perhaps ending the Gaddafi regime.
Concerns that Libya could descend into civil war or become dependent client state are legitimate in light of the Western military intervention.
But it's up to the Libyans to reject any such notion of dependency in the future, and for the new democracies flourishing around them to support their collective rights for free self determination from neo- colonial influence. Unlike dictatorships, democracies tend to be less prone to clientalism.
No 'I-owe-you's have gone out and no receipts or down payments have been issued to Western powers thus far by the Transtional National Council that we know of, and it could and should remain that way.
As the Libyans go to Addis Ababa at the invitation of the African Union that has long voiced its concerns of Western intervention, political or diplomatic efforts should concentrate on ending the Libyan suffering sooner rather than later.
The end game hasn't change. Gaddafi must go. Not because Obama said it, rather because as the Arab revolution puts it, "the people want to bring down the regime"."
No comments:
Post a Comment