Online only: Humanitarian intervention

Humanitarian interventions, in principle, would almost certainly be legitimate in the correct circumstances. One obvious situation would be if the people of the country in which the intervention is going to occur actually support the conditions of the intrusion. And other circumstances can surely be thought of.  

In an online interview by The Real News Networks, professor of Iranian-American studies and comparative literature at Columbia University Hamid Dabashi stated, in regards to the recent U.S.-led United Nations intervention in Libya, as observers of the crisis, “We have to come to (the) understanding that opposition to the U.S. military operation does not mean you don’t have an absolute and unconditional support and solidarity with Libyans ... we have to have a larger frame of reference when it comes to assessment of United States intentions in the context.”

Professor Dabashi’s request for concerned spectators to keep in mind “a larger frame of reference” regarding “United States intentions” is no doubt a valid point.

If one is to be serious about foreign policy and intervening in the affairs of other countries, moving from an abstract model of the world to a more concrete understanding of it — analyzing existing institutions of power and considering the historical record, old and present — is certainly the most reasonable approach.

As geographer Zoltan Grossman points out in his article, “From Wounded Knee to Libya: A Century of U.S. Military Interventions,” a variety of common themes can be seen in many, if not all, U.S. military interventions. For example, U.S. military interventions are always “explained to the U.S. public as defending the lives and rights of civilian populations ... Yet the military tactics employed often leave behind massive civilian ‘collateral damage.’”  

Other common themes Grossman highlights are, even if one accepts the official U.S. goals and rationales, U.S. military intervention is often “counterproductive ... rather than solving the root political or economic roots of the conflict, it tends to polarize factions and further destabilize the country” and often tends to “strengthen rather than weaken” an opposition leader.  

Others have also been quick to point out the hypocrisy of the United States, France and Britain due to their willingness to intervene in the Libyan uprising, yet ignoring similar situations in the countries of Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Yemen and Kuwait. All are countries in which anti-government demonstrations have been crushed by aggressive police force.  

Journalist Abdul-Majid Jaffry wrote on the issue of Western hypocrisy, saying the “U.S. and its European allies’ hypocrisy gets blatantly exposed when one considers that Libya, a country bold and unyielding to the U.S. pressures, is rained with missiles for fighting a mutiny at the hands of well-armed rebels while the regime in Bahrain is aided in its brutal crackdown on unarmed anti-government protesters.

Saudi Arabia, a kingdom subordinate to U.S. dictates, dispatched its troops to help sustain the 200-year-old Khalifa family’s dictatorial rule in Bahrain. The U.S. overlooked the Saudi invasion of Bahrain. The U.N. did not call on the Saudi led forces to withdraw.”

Phylliss Bennis, of the Washington-based Institute for Policy Studies, also does not have many favorable words when it comes to the United States’ “double standards,” saying, “The U.S. has no problem defending the rights of Libyans, and rightfully so, but not the human rights of the Palestinians.”  

“Why Libya and why not Bahrain, Yemen, Tunisia or Egypt? I hope they have humanitarian objectives and it isn’t about oil,” a nurse said to an American reporter in Tripoli.   

The message that seems to be sent is that, so long as you are a loyal dictator, committed to Western interests, you are permitted to suppress anti-government uprisings.  

Political leaders closely linked to Libya, either geographically or culturally, have also spoken out against NATO’s intervention. Zimbabwe’s President Robert Mugabe told The Herald newspaper, “We want to hear the truth about the situation ... We took exception with interference by Western powers — we absolutely reject their intervention.” ,

And during the weekend, Arab League Secretary-General Amr Moussa said the Western bombing campaign “differs from the goal of imposing a no-fly zone ... we want protections of civilians and not bombing other civilians.”  

However, within a day, Mr. Moussa qualified his comments, “(The Arab League) respects the U.N. Security Council resolution.”    

Prime Minister of Turkey Tayyip Erdogan told an international forum in Istanbul that military intervention by NATO in Libya or any other country would be “totally counter-productive.”

NATO’s intervention in Libya’s civil war appears to be a move more concerned with  power and control, rather than about human rights and freedom. Congress was not even consulted, much less the American people. Perhaps among the pursuit of self-interest by foreign states, the Libyan people will still be able achieve liberty.

--mardunba@indiana.edu