This blog explores the contemporary political and cultural trends from a distinct perspective
There is no respite
Published on September 12, 2011 By Bahu Virupaksha In Current Events

NATO forces aided by France and USA have succeded in defeating the Libyan armed forces militarily and driving the legitimate government into exile. This repets the pattern of diplomacy that we have been seeing right from the time the Soviet Union collapsed and USA became the single pole around which the international order revolved. This development marks a reversal of the two principles that had been the basis of Western statecraft from 1648 when the Treaty of Westphalia was signed. The two principles were: respect for the legitimacy of states and their territorial integrity and second non interference in ther internal affirs. These principles were thje lessons drawn from the wars between the Dutuch, the French and other European powers (Jermey Black in his History of Diplomacy) has a very good account of this.

In Kosovo, Srebia, Iraq, Afghanistan and now in Libya the West has invoked two multi national bodies to provide legitimacy for its unilateral interverntion. First, the International Court of Criminal Justice and second the United Nations Security Council. Some support was also garnerred from the Arab League and African Union. It is interesting to note that the Arab League encouraged the NATO to go ahead with the no-fly zone thereby undermining the capability of the Libyans to protect the territorial integrity of their state. The use of the International Court of Criminal Justice in a one sided m,anner is yet another innovstion. In any civil war especially one in which foreigh support is palpable there will be retaliation. The rebels too comitted atrocities in Benghazi for which no retibution is forthcoming. This one sided invocation of International Court of Criminal Justice, a victors court to whcih the defeated are brought in chains, will lead to the establishment of alternate and competing tribunals ion which Bush, Blair and now vern Obama and Sarkozy may be arraigned as "war criminals".

The NATO forces gave blanket support to the rebels and in the run up to the take over of Tripoli NATO launched a relentless air bombardment of Tripoli which did not have an ari defence systtem causing lage scale deaths and the so called frwee embedded media and jounalaists ignored the deaths of civilians in Tripoli while exaggerating the toll in Benghhazi. Surprisingly, the USA has made a hero of Belhadj, a notorious al qaeda operative who was sent to Libya via the "extraordinary rendition" rpoute made famous by President Bush and Libya kept him in prison. Now Belhadj has joined hands with NATO and he is on the same page os the Americans as far as Libya is concerned. The US policy has only led to Libya coming under the influence of the al-Qaeda network and along with Somalia will be the hub of terrorist activity.

One definite consequence of the ill advised invasion is the promotion of "identity politics" and USA will have to bear the brunt of this short sighted policy. Like in Iraq where USA promoted the Shiaas at the expense of the Sunnis,here in Libya the USA is encouraging the Berbers against the Turegs. Largew number of Turgs have been killed and the Western media is complicit in not reporting human rights violation of the Berbers. And as is the case in Iraq the final issue is OIL. Libya has Afric's largest known deposit of Oil and with Saudi Arabia being drained of its reserves by 2025,the Western oil comapnies can exploit Libya along with Iraq for another 30 to 40 years. This is the truth

on Sep 12, 2011

NATO forces aided by France and USA

Correction- Aided by France.  The USA is a part of the NATO military wing, France is not.  But both are part of NATO.  So the correct phrasing is "NATO Military alliance aided by France"

Beyond that, you have most of your facts straight, but very wrong perpetrators.  It is indeed France and the UK that is doing the promoting.  Obama (love him or hate him) is playing second fiddle here.  France wanted this fight, and twisted the arm of the UK.  The USA took and is taking a back seat.

on Oct 03, 2011

 legitimate government 

Isn't the legitimate government of Libya the king and, by extension, those rebels who fight under his flag?

And what about the rights of the native Berber population, who joined the rebel side?

What made Gaddafi more "legitimate" than the king and the natives?

on Oct 03, 2011

In Kosovo, Serbia, Iraq, Afghanistan and now in Libya

Kosovo and Serbia were really the same case. But despite being on the Albanian side, I grant you that attacking Serbia over Kosovo with a goal to force independence for Kosovo was against international law.

Iraq was at war with the US and UK for a long time and there is no international law prohibiting an invasion of an enemy country.

Afghanistan... Either you accept the Taliban as the legitimate government, in which case Afghanistan had declared war on the US (and by extension on NATO) and invading Afghanistan was legitimate. Or you accept the pre-Taliban government as legitimate, in which case the invasion was legal since that government, represented by the Northern Alliance, was allied with the US. Or you accept the Soviet-communist government of Afghanistan as legitimate, in which case you might have a point. However, before that government came king Zahir Shah and he, of course, returned to Afghanistan with the invaders and supporting the government the invaders installed.
As for Libya, it depends on whether you recognise Gaddafi as the legitimate government or not. I don't. I only recognise the king until or unless the country becomes a true democracy and votes the king out of office.

However, I do find it strange, that a decision to stop Gaddafi from killing "civilians" somehow allowed NATO to help the rebels. Why didn't NATO decide to support the legitimate king and his followers? That would have been consistent.