"Unacceptable!" Barack Obama thundered.
"Unacceptable!" Nicolas Sarkozy thundered.
But in the midst of all this verbal rumbling, a thunder of fire continued to rain down on the terrorized Libyan people.
And, either paralyzed by past compromising, or wary, as usual, of giving rise to unending accusations of arrogance and meddling, or proving true, again, what I once called the Léon Blum theorem, whereby the strongest democracies, whatever their good intentions, find themselves paradoxically helpless when confronting extreme barbarism, the great powers are taking no action. They are content to stick to sanctions which certainly have their symbolic value but no longer intimidate a Qadaffi who, from now on, has nothing to lose. And here we are again, faced with the same stark prospect of carnage that prevailed in Berlin in 1953, in Hungary in 1956, in Sarajevo in 1992, and in Darfur in 2006 and 2007. As a French Minister of Foreign Affairs once said, "Of course, we shall do nothing."
So, does this mean that the Libyan tragedy as well can only play out, inexorably, to the end of its disastrous logic?
And are we condemned to sit idly by while the butcher of Tripoli (one and the same man who, as Monsieur Ollier, French Deputy Minister of Parliamentary Relations, informed us a short while ago, had turned his back on terrorism and passed his studious evenings reading Montesquieu) drowns his people in rivers of blood, as he has promised?
Nothing is less certain.
First of all because, as I write, on this 28th of February, nothing says that this valiant people, admirable in their determination and dignity, will not shortly and single-handedly rid themselves of a tyrant who has amply demonstrated himself to be as pathetic as he is raving mad, as grotesque as he is monstrous, and who has never possessed any strength beyond the acquiesced weakness of his subjects.
But it is also less than certain because, in one respect at least, the world has radically changed--that being that revolutions have already triumphed, or are beginning to triumph, in other countries of the Arab world, ones that--and it's obviously no accident--lie at the very borders of a rebellious and suffering Libya.
Just a few weeks ago, Mubarak and Ben Ali would have prayed for the "Guide" to regain the upper hand and put things right.
A few weeks ago, the holy alliance of dictators would have come into play and, between the mollifying resolutions of the Arab League and the always handy and thunderous denunciations of "American imperialism", would have discreetly assisted their colleague Qadaffi in making his unruly people toe the line again.
Today, things are no longer the same, and it is no longer absurd to imagine Tunisia and, especially, Egypt expressing exactly the opposite reaction, in wishing for the victory of the rebels; helping the liberated part of the country to establish embryonic political structures, without which it will, sooner or later, fall back into servitude; perhaps even showing active solidarity by helping the Libyan people, who have already done so much and paid so dearly, to finish getting rid of a criminal against humanity who has ruled, in Tripoli, for the past forty years.
The Egyptian army is the most powerful of the Arab Middle East.
Thanks to the flow of aid that, for decades, has come first from the former Soviet Union and then from the United States, it is over-equipped.
Long ago, in the name of a pan-Arabism that really was in no way democratically inspired, it did not hesitate to export the principles of Nasserism to Yemen, quite successfully, and at the point of a bayonet.
Well, it would merely have to bare its teeth to make the army rabble loyal to Qadhafi, his last handful of killers and mercenaries, scatter without even demanding back pay, leaving him no other choice but the last bunker--or The Hague.
It would be in the interest of the Egyptians and Tunisians, who would have nothing to gain from seeing chaos take up residence at their frontiers, threatening to destabilize their fragile and wobbly republics.
It would be in the logic of uprisings that, like this "great French revolution" the precedent of which I incessantly heard invoked in Cairo, would produce their "soldiers of the Year II", coming to share with others their newly-won values.
Such a gesture of active solidarity, this image of an Arab army, flying, under popular pressure, to the aid of a brother people and thus blowing a bit further the good wind of liberty, would at the same time constitute a significant step forward in the consciousness of the world, for it would be the first time the much-touted democratic "right to interfere" would be exercised by a non-European people, thus finally fulfilling the universality that is naturally, and by purpose, its own.
And finally, and especially, it would end the nightmare of the hundreds of thousands of men and women who, in one entire region of Libya, are living crouched in their cellars, for they know the dogs of war are outside, everywhere, and that they make their own law and have been given the right, if necessary, to exterminate them to the very last one.
In Tripoli, one can expect nothing from the United Nations. And I doubt the American announcement of having deployed forces "near Libya" this Monday afternoon will go beyond mere gesticulation. But one can expect everything from a new Arab world being born before our very eyes, whose liberation of Libya would be the shining victory.
Let's be clear: it is misleading to characterize the situation as a maruading dictator terrorizing his subjects. Exactly the opposite is now true: the people have lost their fear, and the dictator is living in terror. His world has shrunk to the city limits of Tripoli, and only his son's military brigade remains loyal.
Egypt is in the early days of a delicate process to liberate themsleves from the military which is a this point in total control. There is no democracy yet in Egypt. To put the Egyptian military into a "state of war" gives it even more power.The possibility of the birth of democracy in Egypt would be crushed.
The people of Libya are rising up and turning against their dictator. The last thing they need is a new, all-powerful, outside force controlling their territory and their lives. Self-rule will only come from the people, including those currently in the military and other positions of power, turning against the dictator and his sons. This is happening as we speak.
Outsiders can help, while remaining outsiders. We can provide humanitarian aid. We can impose sanctions. We can impose arms embargoes. We can freeze assets. We can pay the popular committees for oil from liberated facilities.
"McGill political scientist Rex Brynen has a different interpretation of the origins of Egypt’s obligations. Maintaining the blockade “is the result of a side understanding between the Egyptians and the Israelis,’’ he says, and not part of the original deal. He does say, however, that there could be reasons why Egypt’s new rulers, despite mass domestic sympathy for Palestinians, might hestitate to open the floodgates.
For one thing, says Brynen, if Egypt’s government unseals the border, it has to calculate on Israel closing theirs. “Egypt is concerned about having the Gaza issue thrown into their lap; they would be the sole umbilical cord into Gaza so in time the Egyptians would become completely responsible for everything that happened in Gaza. They want Israelis responsible,’’ he says.
The seige can’t be the seige without Egypt. I can’t believe there could be any government in Egypt that would continue the blockade. Liberating Egypt will mean liberating Gaza,’’ says the grey-bearded Halper, an anthropologist by trade, who has been serially arrested squaring off with bulldozers tearing down Palestinian homes.
But, despite his sunny post-Mubarak take, Halper can’t avoid the straight-on downers. Events in the Arab world are isolating the U.S. and forcing it to rethink it’s Israeli albatros. Still, there’s a major obstacle to changing the power dynamic, and it isn’t the Israel lobby. It’s the defence industry which will be supplying billions of dollars in military aid to the Arab world by 2014."
Free Palestinains from Israeli tyrants!
Sounds like science fiction? I know; but it makes more sense than BHL's proposal.
How many more times will a a "thunder of fire" continued to rain down on the terrorized Palestinian people before anyone gives a damn?
Really! I am incredulous at the inverted view of the world. Allow me to pontificate somewhat.
The Arabs having been savaged for decades by their own debased government (enabled by the West and our quite literally insatiable lust for oil) are in no need to step forward in the consciousness of the world. If they are indeed "blowing forward the good wind of liberty" - it is us who have kept them from enjoying its pleasant breeze.
They are not rising up to our level. They are elevating themselves. Because "we" are no longer able to stop them.
I know...it is hard for some to imagine...that people want to be free...all people want to be free. Some people need to understand that, there is no bomb, or gun, or war machine that has been made ot can be made to kill the want to be free.
When fear is overcome by the desire to be free...the world shifts under our feet. I am 63 years old, I love it.
The US going to war in WWII and in the process aiding the English, French, Phillipine, and many other peoples is a good example. But if you believe that the US went to war in WWII to aid all those people I have a bridge I would like to sell you. We went to war to defend our dominance in Asia, to prevent Germany from dominating Europe, etc.
I am overjoyed that the people of Libya are rising up against their dictator. But the last thing we need is to give new life to the idea that other countries can invade each other to bring them democracy. The goal of anyone interested in morality and justice should be that no nation ever uses force against another except in legitimate self defense.
Politicians just don't make decisions for altruistic reasons. American would never have won our revolution without the help of the French but do you really think the French King helped us out of a love of democracy? And the US saved the world from facism but we did it because we were attacked and had no choice. That doesn't in any way lessen the bravery of the men and women who sacrificed for our victory.
But all of that is irrelevant to my main point anyway. Even if you want to just simplify it and say that we went to war to defend ourselves since we were attacked it supports the point I was trying to make: we didn't go to war to save the world for democracy but for our own reasons of national interest.
And just to be clear I'm not saying the US is evil in this way. Rather that we were behaving as every other nation throughout history has behaved. Although nations often use moral and altruistic grounds to justify war if you scratch the surface that's never the case. You will always find reasons of national interest that are actually steering the decisions. So to advocate that Egypt should invade Libya to bring them democracy is naive at best.
astute as always!
"...leaving him no other choice but the last bunker--or The Hague."
Indeed, why not urge packing Qadaffi off to The Hague...? After all, just because the USA refuses to recognize the ICC tribunal - (in case some wayward US citizen/president finds him/herself before it on a War Crimes charge) - is no good reason not to send the Libyan leader there, is it...???
At least, that is what his track record of denouncing anyone who suggests that holding that army/government to account by any method, including a citizen lead sanctions campaign leads me to believe.