Libyen og Syrien – dobbeltmoral og moral

hr. k via vhs:

Politiken 16. marts om Libyen:

Europa kan ikke se passivt til, mens voldsomme overgreb på civile finder sted i vores eget nærområde. (…)

Militærmagten kan ikke skabe et nyt demokratisk regime, men drabene på civile kan i det mindste standses.

Politiken 7. maj om Syrien:

Vi kan og skal ikke gribe ind i konflikten militært, og vi kan og skal ikke blive en central aktør i det opgør, der forestår. Vi ved, at der blandt oprørerne er vidt forskellige kræfter, og at der blandt dem er elementer, vi ikke sympatiserer med.

Dobbeltmoral er fint nok, hvis det er for at slå færrest mulige ihjel i sidste ende ved ikke at ‘gribe ind’ – netop af hensynet; at hindre civile i at dø. Men var overvejelser om de menneskelige omkostninger ved en lang borgerkrig i Libyen med i disse overvejelser, eller var det for tungt at tænke på, at en enkelt massakre var at foretrække? Drejede det sig i virkeligheden igen om vores egen moralske forfængelighed og ikke om brune mennesker har det godt eller dårligt?

Link: Dagens dobbeltmoral

Civile i Libyen: Nej tak til vestlige bomber

Som Politiken skriver:

Et halvt døgn efter at de første krigsfly fløj ind over Libyen, er mange lokale allerede godt trætte af angrebet.

Det fortæller øjenvidner til en række internationale nyhedsmedier, efter at Frankrig, USA og Storbritannien natten igennem har kastet bomber og granater ned mod mål i det nordafrikanske land.

En af de utilfredse Tripoli-borgere er ’Sami’, der til The Guardians udsendte giver luft til de stærke anti-amerikanske følelser, der hersker i Libyen og resten af regionen.»Folk er trænet til denne slags konfrontation. Vi blev også bombet af USA i 1986. Disse folk har en agenda: De vil ruinere Libyen og trække landet ned«, siger ’Sami’.

I Twitter-universet – hvor der også er masser af USA-kritiske røster fra libyere – vælger ’OnlyOneLibya’ en modsat tilgang. Som han skriver:

»Jeg vil blot minde det libyske folk om, at luftangreb ikke fjerner Gaddafi. Vi er selv nødt til at gøre det. Libyen må rejse sig!«

I The Independent udstiller Robert Fisk de vestlige regeringers moralske fallit ved at spørge sig selv, om man mon ville være lige så hurtig til at blande sig i et lignende opgør i Mauritanien eller Elfenbenskysten – og påpeger, at de oprørere i Benghazi, der i dag vifter med franske flag,  meget hurtigt kan rette gå hen og rette geværerne mod de vestlige styrker:

Why not, when Gaddafi tells the people of Benghazi that “we will come, ‘zenga, zenga’ (alley by alley), house by house, room by room.” Surely this is a humanitarian intervention that really, really, really is a good idea. After all, there will be no “boots on the ground”.Of course, if this revolution was being violently suppressed in, say, Mauritania, I don’t think we would be demanding no-fly zones. Nor in Ivory Coast, come to think of it. Nor anywhere else in Africa that didn’t have oil, gas or mineral deposits or wasn’t of importance in our protection of Israel, the latter being the real reason we care so much about Egypt.

So here are a few things that could go wrong, a sidelong glance at those bats still nestling in the glistening, dank interior of their box. Suppose Gaddafi clings on in Tripoli and the British and French and Americans shoot down all his aircraft, blow up all his airfields, assault his armour and missile batteries and he simply doesn’t fade away. I noticed on Thursday how, just before the UN vote, the Pentagon started briefing journalists on the dangers of the whole affair; that it could take “days” just to set up a no-fly zone.

Then there is the trickery and knavery of Gaddafi himself. We saw it yesterday when his Foreign Minister announced a ceasefire and an end to “military operations” knowing full well, of course, that a Nato force committed to regime-change would not accept it, thus allowing Gaddafi to present himself as a peace-loving Arab leader who is the victim of Western aggression: Omar Mukhtar Lives Again.

Libya is not Egypt. Again, Gaddafi is a fruitcake and, given his weird performance with his Green Book on the balcony of his bombed-out house, he probably does occasionally chew carpets as well.Then there’s the danger of things “going wrong” on our side, the bombs that hit civilians, the Nato aircraft which might be shot down or crash in Gaddafi territory, the sudden suspicion among the “rebels”/”Libyan people”/democracy protesters that the West, after all, has ulterior purposes in its aid. And there’s one boring, universal rule about all this: the second you employ your weapons against another government, however righteously, the thing begins to unspool. After all, the same “rebels” who were expressing their fury at French indifference on Thursday morning were waving French flags in Benghazi on Thursday night. Long live America. Until…

Jeg forstår godt dem, der mener, der kan være bedre at gøre noget, og at selv om en aktion ikke er perfekt, kan den godt være bedre end ingenting. Jeg kan bare ikke se noget som helst tegn på, at den igangværende vestlige aktion mod Libyen ikke er værre end ingenting. Jeg håber meget, jeg tager fejl, men de fleste vil give mig ret i, at Vesten ikke har nogen god track record i området. Bortset fra, da vores flyveforbud og heroiske indsats i øvrigt reddede indbyggerne i Srebrenica fra massakren. Eller hvad det nu var, de gjorde.

“Humanitær aktion” mod Libyen er et blålys – virkeligheden er krig som i Irak

Hvis man tror, at den forestående militære aktion mod Libyen handler om at håndhæve en “no-fly-zone” som humanitær støtte til oprørerne i Benghazi, er man godt naiv.

Blækket er næppe tørt på den FN-resolution, der eksplicit ikke tillader besættelse eller landkrig, før Lars Løkke Rasmussen fortæller danskerne, at det bliver en lang krig, det her:

“Vi har et ønske om, at det ikke skal være for en meget lang periode, men vi kan ikke give nogle garantier,” sagde statsminister, Lars Løkke Rasmussen.

Om krigen vil vare i uger, måneder eller år, ville statsministeren ikke give et bud på.

Også udenrigsministeren påpegede, at krigen kan blive lang.

“Der er tale om en langvarig proces, og aktionen er ikke overstået på kort tid,” sagde hun.

Man taler ikke om “den humanitære aktion”. Man taler ikke om “flyveforbud”. Man taler om krig, og igen – det er muligt, at oprørerne i Libyen tror, at det handler om at redde dem fra en kommende humanitær katastrofe. Men inden længe vil det, hvis ikke krigen bliver standset, være de vestlige soldater, som forårsager den humanitære katastrofe, mens landets olie triller ud tønde for tønde – præcis, som det hver på sin måde er gået i Afghanistan og Irak.

Man mærker allerede, hvordan vestmagterne reagerer med ærgrelse, når Gaddafi har erklæret våbenhvile og dermed fjernet hele grundlaget for aktionen. Han “har én chance“, tordner Obama, og man aner allerede kimen til det “vi angriber da bare alligevel”, der var en realitet i 2003, da man angreb Irak. Historiens gang vil forhåbentlig vise, at jeg tager fejl, men for mig at se handler det her kun om én ting, og det har intet med humanitære hensyn at gøre: Det handler om at få en bid af kagen, før det er for sent.

Eller, som Al Jazeeras Marwan Bishara udtrykker det:

The overzealousness of certain Western powers like Britain, France and, as of late, the US, to interpret the resolution as an open-ended use of force, is worrisome. With their long history of interference and hegemony in the region, their political and strategic motivation remains dubious at best. Likewise, their rush to use air force individually or collectively could prove morally reprehensible – even if legally justified – if they further complicate the situation on the ground.

The onus is on these Western powers to prove that their next move and actions are based on a strictly humanitarian basis and are not meant as a down payment for longer-term interference in Libyan and regional affairs.

They need to demonstrate how their ‘change of heart’ from supporting the Gaddafi dictatorship over several years to condemning him as a war criminal and acting to topple him, is not motivated by more of the same narrow national and Western strategic interest.

Unfortunately, the Libyan dictator’s statements and actions (and his recent cynical and contradictory threats and appeals) have played into Western hands, making it impossible for Libyans, like Tunisians and Egyptians before them, to take matters into their own hands.

Those who abstained at the UN Security Council, including Germany, India and Brazil, wanted to co-operate in charting a brighter future for Libya, but are also suspicious of the overzealous French and British eagerness to jump into a Libyan quagmire with firepower.

Indeed they were. Indtil videre er invasionerne af såvel Irak som Afghanistan endt som rene, humanitære katastrofer. Vi burde ærligt talt have lært lektien, før vi drager ud på endnu et lille kolonialistisk eventyr.

Nej til militære indgreb i Libyen

Skal vi virkelig tro på, at de selv samme vestlige regeringer, som ikke engang kunne tage sig sammen til at vedtage et mildt rap over fingrene til Israel, da de for et par år siden begik krigsforbrydelser i Gaza, komplet med kemiske våben og overlagte drab på civile, nu bekymrer sig om den humanitære situation i Libyen?

Nej – når det vestlige angreb, som en FN-resolution nu har åbnet for, kommer, vil det kun handle om én ting: Økonomiske interesser.

Som Richard Seymour skriver på Lenin’s Tomb:

The best-case scenario is that people are killed to little avail, and the former regime elements in the transitional leadership have just diverted energies and initiative down a blind alley. I suppose you might object that the best-case scenario is that the air strikes exclusively kill the bad guys, turning the initiative in favour of the revolutionaries, allowing them to sieze power, build a liberal democratic state, and the cavalry heads home. And the band played, ‘Believe it if you like’. Look, I’d like to believe it. I’d also like to believe that Obama is a socialist, Hillary Clinton a feminist, and David Cameron a salesman for unsecured personal loans. But the occasions in which imperialism has directly assisted a revolutionary process are rather infrequent, wouldn’t you say? In fact, I suspect you’d be struggling if I asked you to name one.

I’m also afraid that all the talk about the inaction, delaying, dilly-dallying and procrastination of the ‘international community’, not to mention the demonology about Russia and China obstructing the good guys once again, has played straight into a very familiar war narrative. Just when you’ve uttered your last “but why won’t they DO something?”, just when you’re about to give up and lapse into foul depression, the good guys come to the rescue. It’s like 1941 all over again. There was never any doubt, as far as I’m concerned, that the US would support a no-fly zone if it could be suitably internationalized and involve support from the miserable dictatorships of the Arab League. And no one will be tasteless enough to point out that those very same states are currently butchering their populations with the arms and financial assistance of the imperial powers commanding this coalition of the willing. Because that would just be sour grapes.

Som sagt – jeg vil tro på vestmagternes (herunder Danmarks) humanitære hensigter, når de pålægger det israelske miltær flyveforbud over Gaza og Vestbredden, og når de taler åbent for demokrati i Saudi-Arabien. Indtil da kan talen om “humanitær intervention” aldrig blive andet end hykleri af værste skuffe.

Charlie Brooker om oberst Gaddafi

Den britiske komiker Charlie Brooker kan en vits eller to om Gaddafi og hans gode, gode venner rundt omkring (se den til ende for at få hele pointen med).

Via Boing Boing, hvor Cory Doctorow benytter lejligheden til at give en stående anbefaling af Channel 4s Ten O’Clock Live:

I wish that all of Ten O’Clock Live’s clips were on YouTube, as it would be amazing blogfodder — the show is better than The Daily Show most weeks, IMO (I’ve asked, C4 say their lawyers won’t let them because there are got clips of the BBC, Sky, etc, which is some pretty weird fair dealing analysis).

“Better than Daily Show”, det var da alligevel noget. Så mangler vi bare, at en dansk komiker og TV-kanal med respekt for sig selv tager fat på at lave et dansk Daily Show.

Slut med overbærenhed og lave forventninger

… over for undertrykkende arabiske regimer. Efter revolutionerne i Tunesien og Egypten og deres aflæggere i Libyen, Irak, Marokko, Jordan og Bahrain må det være slut med den racistiske, overbærende forestilling om, at arabere er for “umodne” til at leve i et frit og værdigt samfund  og at det bedste, de kan håbe på, er et “moderat” diktatur.

Det gælder ikke mindst for Libyen, som Issandr El Amrani skriver i The Guardian:

Gaddafi, in power since 1969, is best known in the west for his eccentricity, from the voluptuous nurse that accompanies him everywhere to his habit of setting up a bedouin tent during state visits abroad. The focus on such personal foibles, as well as Libya’s alleged role in the Lockerbie bombing, has dominated the portrayal of the country. For most people around the world, Libya was Gaddafi.It turns out there are another 6 million Libyans, many of whom are now rebelling against the Gaddafi family, and that at least 200 have died in the last few days fighting for their freedom. Libya is the Arab world’s North Korea, a near-totalitarian nightmare and an insult to common decency. And as Pyongyang is protected by China, so Tripoli is being given cover by Tony Blair, BP and academics-turned-consultants like Anthony Giddens and Benjamin Barber. The idea is that it was best to try to help countries like Libya “reform”, even if the reforms in question tended to be mostly about making the place more business-friendly.

Men det gælder også netop “moderate” lande som Marokko – styret er i virkeligheden alt andet end “det bedste, folk har at håbe på”, og landets indbyggere har ærligt talt grund til at mene, de har fortjent bedre – også bedre end den endeløse snak om “stabilitet” fra vestlige ledere, når der i virkeligheden er brug for frihed og bedre vilkår:

For 15 years, Morocco has been considered the “best student” in an Arab class of deadenders. Next to Algeria’s traumatised society, Tunisia’s police state or Libya’s sheer hell, who could disagree? Morocco has made great strides since the 90s in terms of human rights, notably holding the Arab world’s first (if somewhat flawed) national reconciliation process and passing progressive laws on women’s rights.But for the last few years something has been increasingly rotten in the kingdom of Morocco. Advances for press freedom made in the 90s have been reversed. A political transition that had been made possible in the late 90s by a historic reconciliation between the opposition and the palace has stalled. A fragile economy has been hampered by a predatory royal holding that creates monopolies for itself.

More and more Moroccans want something akin to what they see in Britain or Spain: a constitutional monarchy where the king is head of state but does not interfere in government. Like the protests elsewhere in the region, the peaceful demonstrations that have taken place in eight cities are about dignity. Moroccans, like other Arabs, are tired of being subjects: they want to be citizens.

They would also like solidarity from the outside world, and to be seen as more than an exotic tourist destination.

Og ja, de har ærligt talt fortjent bedre. Lad os håbe, at bølgen har nået Saudi-Arabien, inden året er omme.

Link: An end to this ‘soft bigotry’ against the Arab world

Statusmeddelelse

TUNISIA —->████████████████ : 100% done

EGYPT ——>████████████████ : 100% done

LIBYA ——->██████████████░░ : in progress

ALGERIA —->████░░░░░░░░░░░░ : in progress

YEMEN ——>██████░░░░░░░░░░ : in progress

BAHRAIN —>██████████░░░░░░ : in progress

IRAQ——–> █████░░░░░░░░░░░ : in progress

PALESTINE ->░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░ : not yet!

Set på nettet …