Naked act of aggression in name of democracy | |
| |
| The coalition's intervention in Libya suffers remonstrance as easily as it may excite democratic euphoria. Is it legal? Barely so. Is it desirable? Hardly. Is this a precedent for the future? It should not be so. It is an example of continuous interference in the Middle East for the spoils of war. Historically, the uprising in Egypt heralded the most significant event in the Arab world since the break- up of the Ottoman Empire. The Middle East has been the playground of white imperialism. A Sunni Turkish empire was smashed into bits by the English and French in 1919 - to create unnatural divisions including Israel. Since the fall of Saddam Hussein in Iraq and the events in Iran, the rise of Shia power will also rewrite the future of the Muslim world. The Middle East will remain in turmoil, irrespective of regime changes. The intervening North countries ( US, European Union, with England as tail- piece) are more interested in maintaining control of an oil producing region; and to support Israel and the non- Muslim countries of the Mediterranean. If the world thinks this is about democracy, forget it! Legacy Rewriting the history and geography of the Middle East has become a Western pastime. International law is being rewritten in ways that India cannot ignore. Curiously, it was the Kuwait Resolution of the UN that empowered the American- led coalition in Iraq. To that extent, there had been a generic empowerment for America and Europe to intervene in the Middle East at will. The present intervention in Libya moves under the cover of UN Resolution 1973. A new concept of intervention has been created to maintain a no- fly zone to target Gaddafi's military capability and support the insurrection in the name of protecting civilians. In fact, the purpose of Operation Odyssey is naked aggression. What the West does not want is to send in ground troops. This forbearance is not because of the West's reticence to stretch its economic and political Empire. This is simply because America does not want to repeat the mistakes of Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq. The US has wrecked Central and Latin America through illegal armed support. Memories of Honduras and Nicaragua speak for themselves. In Libya, in particular, the coalition is aiming at total military destruction. For the coalition the interest is two fold. The first is stability without which even an exploitative conquest by investment and trade is not possible. The second is to secure oil and development contracts. This latter objective was easier for the US in Iraq because it was firmly in control. In Libya, it has to share the spoils of Europe. Surface tension amongst the coalition has emerged. On March 21- 22, 2011, France made an independent air strike on Libya. This has created tension with America and England who not only want to recreate their World War II glory, but to exclude competitors like France. That it is now a NATO operation shows the aggression even more. The legitimacy of Operation Odyssey is further undermined by the fact that India, Russia, China and Brazil have abstained and do not give positive support for the Libyan operation. The issue is not one of legality but legitimacy. Legally, the abstention does not vote down the intervention. But, the abstentions have sullied the initiative and exposed it as an American- Euro- Anglo conspiracy. This is further complicated by the Arab league's reaction. At first, the Arab response was to support the dissidents in Libya. Later, they expressed their deeper concern about the American- led assault on Libya. Perhaps, Prime Minister Putin put it appositely when he termed the invasion as akin to a " medieval crusade" - only to be chided by President Medvedev. Putin is right. International law is being rewritten to create chaos and perpetuate and take further the hidden agenda of the now infighting coalition. Unipolarity It should not come as a surprise that like all institutions of international governance, the United Nations ( UN) is susceptible to suspect take- overs. It happened during the Cold War but serious attempts to hijack the UN were nullified by the Soviet veto. But, in the new uni- polar world, the hijack is more perverse. In the Middle East, America is playing out the Samuel Huntington thesis of the ' clash of civilisations'. This is not because the thesis is correct. In fact, it is a metaphor run amuck. But it is the cornerstone of USEuro policy in the Middle East. Scepticism of the UN is laid bare. That is why it is important that nations like India and Brazil need to be permanent members of the UN. This alone can save the body. We also need to examine the legal and knock- on effects of the Libya intervention on international law and policy. Based on the concept of national sovereignty, classical international law gives other states an opportunity to intervene if the offending state transgresses the territory, people or self interest of other states. In the interest of peace, this has to be viewed narrowly. But the recent US vehicles of intervention have been security and " democracy". The doubtful weapons threat has been used against Iran and Iraq. Iraq was not about the " restoration of democracy", but the sustained intervention and presence of the US which even President Obama cannot reverse. Iraq has become a precedent for war in the name of democracy. Hypocrisy The Libyan intervention was also in the name of democracy to support insurrectionary forces. In the past, many regime destructions have been effected covertly. America engineered Mussadiq's downfall in Iran in 1951. America played havoc in Central America. But we have now moved from the covert to the overt. When India intervened in Goa, the excuse was that this was an assault on colonialism to rewrite a new post- colonial world. We may think of the 1971 War as heroic, but I have little doubt that the liberation of East Pakistan to create Bangladesh was hopelessly and blatantly illegal. The Libyan operation legitimises India's assault on East Pakistan in the worst possible way. If we accept the broad implications of what has happened, why is an intervention in Kashmir not justified? Or for that matter in Tibet. Or for that matter anywhere - empowering US intervention at will. India abstained over Libya. Indians are taken in by the invocation of democracy to get rid of dictatorships. But not that corrupt crony governments are protected. Politically, Zimbabwe is protected by the African Union. Libya is partly, but not sufficiently, protected by the Arab league. International law has surrendered to the power plays of international politics. America maintains double standards in its interpretation and development of international law and policy. It is these double standards that have deprived international law of legitimacy. Central America and the Middle East have been the playground of this debasement. Institutionally, the World Bank, and the WTO have been vehicles to advance its economic interests. America is not the custodian of democracy, but only its own interest. Libya is a declaration of war by the coalition forces. UN Resolution 1973 is a smokescreen for naked aggression. The writer is a Supreme Court lawyer | |
| |
| URL for this article : |
| http://indiatoday.intoday.in/site/article/libya-unrest-naked-act-of-aggression-in-name-of-democracy/1/133585.html |
| @ Copyright 2011 India Today Group. |
No comments:
Post a Comment