It's a simple story.
I didn't vote for Nicolas Sarkozy.
Barring dramatic and, I hope, improbable circumstances in which, like Chirac, he might be running against a Le Pen in the next presidential election, I shall vote against him once again.
We were already well aware that Gaddafi was this psychopath, this assassin when, three years ago and Bulgarian nurses notwithstanding, he was received in Paris with great pomp and fanfare, red carpet and all, and I was among those who denounced the act.
And I'm not even going to mention the Roms, the debate over national identity, the ideological poaching on National Front terrain, to say nothing of the innumerable subjects, and that's putting it mildly, concerning which I disagree with him.
But here's the thing.
I am in Libya.
In my mind's eye is the image of these rebels who have never in their lives held a weapon in their hands, going to the front where the mercenaries and aircraft serving a regime that claims it is ready to drown its own country in "rivers of blood" await them.
Beyond the accounts of the citizens of Benghazi who have described to me the horror of this regime, its prisons, its underground torture centers for the past five days, I still hear the voice of Abdul Hafiz Gogha, spokesman of the National Council of Transition, that of Mustafa Abdeljeleel, its president, and those of their assistants and commanders, going mad with despair over the hesitation of the international community.
So, powerless in the face of so much distress, on the off chance, I call the president of the Republic of my country and tell him there is one thing, one already, perhaps only one, that a great democracy might do, and that would consist of receiving Abdeljeleel, or Gogha, or any one of their emissaries and of telling them, "Gaddafi no longer deserves to represent your country; you alone, the representatives of the Free Commune of Benghazi, have the legitimacy and the right from now on."
And it happens that the French president immediately has the sound reaction -- not the calculation, but the reaction, one of those pure reactions that are as much a part of politics as calculation or tactics. It happens that he has the same kind of reaction as François Mitterrand did the day when, in tragically similar circumstances, as Bosnia burned, I called him from Sarajevo to announce that I was bringing Bosnian President Izetbegovic to meet him. It turns out that President Sarkozy has the sound reaction and answers, on the phone, that he will unhesitatingly receive my friends, on the date of their choice, and that this reception is tantamount to recognition.
As everyone now knows, the event took place on the morning of March 10th, with full honors, at this Elysée Palace that for them, I know, is the symbol of democracy and human rights.
On that day, the president of the republic obviously made no mention, as some commentators overeager to print their stories wrote, of going to "bomb Libya".
On the contrary, he unceasingly emphasized the fact that the Libyan revolution can be carried out only by the Libyans themselves, and he added, in passing, his opposition to any operation conducted under the NATO flag.
However, he promised to do everything possible to convince his partners to assist the National Council of Transition and, at the latter's precise request, to neutralize the planes Gaddafi is using to strafe the troops of Libyan freedom and, now and then, unarmed demonstrators with machine gun fire.
As I write these lines, on Friday, March 11th, at 6:00 PM, I do not know if the French president, joined by the British prime minister, will triumph over the juridico-pussyfooting quibbling of the others.
I do not know -- and, given what is at stake, it seems to me, frankly, of secondary importance -- if he has let this minister or that one in on the secret, as the protocol maniacs keep repeating, in a loop.
All I know is that, at this moment, I am proud of my country -- and that I have not been more so since May 16th, 2007.
Most of all, I hope to see Libya rid of this Nero's illiterate gang who have made off with their country and drenched it in blood -- at this point, with impunity -- as soon as humanly possible.
Bianca Jagger: We Must Declare a Non-Violent Revolution
Robert Eisenman: The Power of Ultimatums -- the Forgotten Diplomatic Tool
Steve Clemons: No-Fly Zone Over Libya Could Backfire & Undermine Protests in Middle East
Evelyn Leopold: Ivory Coast -- Descent Into Brutality and Civil War
"Yesterday at the UN, as many countries of the Middle East navigated a great generational change, the United States missed a perfectly timed opportunity to take a stand for peace and human rights. The U.S. vetoed a Security Council resolution, sponsored by 130 nations, calling on Israel to cease settlement activity in Palestinian territory.
The settlements, along with the evictions, demolitions, forced displacements that go with them, are seen as a main obstacle to any legitimate peace process. Human rights groups like Amnesty International have also argued that Israel's policy of settling its civilians on occupied land violates the Fourth Geneva Convention.
The U.S. stood totally isolated as every one of the other 14 members of the Security Council voted for the resolution. The veto was all the more controversial because it contradicts the Obama administration's opposition to settlement activity. UN ambassador Susan Rice acknowledged this but added: "Unfortunately, this draft resolution risks hardening the positions of both sides and could encourage the parties to stay out of negotiations." Apparently most of the rest of the world -- from close U.S. allies like Britain, France, and Germany to leading Arab nations -- disagrees."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jon-rainwater/us-veto-of-un-israeli-set_b_825621.html
Finally, when are the Italians going to get rid of Berlusconi? In addition to his dozens of other crimes, he was good friends with Gaddafi, and sold him lots of arms.
"Toppling the government is one thing, but how do you make positive change enduring? Where are the institutions and social structures that will educate and protect the new generation, Burnett asked. She worries there's not enough opportunity for innovation because of a lack of venture capital, societies that don't allow for failure and the fact that governments still dominate the workplace, crowding out entrepreneurial activity. Places like Saudi Arabia don't have many innovative stores or concepts, something you still see everywhere in only one Middle Eastern country: Israel. After the United States and China, Israel has the most companies listed on the Nasdaq. "That gives you a sense of how successful they've been at building companies and getting them on the global stage."
He and many other autocratic leaders and regimes have benefited from our toleration and even support. The Libya issue is typical of this. Now something has to be done to undo what we have tolerated, what we have allowed to be done.
Perhaps in future we should all exercise more caution in what we tolerate, in the name of power and money and deal making. The price is very high for being stupidly ready to cut deals with tyrants.
U.S. may provide the Libyan people with all kinds of humanitarian aid in the short term. Longer term solutions, already in effect, consist of putting a freeze on funds stashed abroad by Moammar Khadafi, trade embargoes, boycotts and other non-military-interventionist measures.
Iraq is important to the US only for its oil supply. Afghanistan is important only that it borders Pakistan. What is our national interest in Libya?
Have we somehow forgotten that we got a whole lot of domestic and international issues on our plate that are far more important to our national interest that anything happening in Libya.
I am disappointed that a disciple of Jean-Baptiste Botul like yourself has succumbed to the attractions of Humanitarian Imperialism – given that you recognized in your recent book where you cited Botul stating that the neo-Kantians of Paraguay recognized their “hero was a fake”.
Regards, JBB
- Turkey remains in violation of Security Council Resolution 353 and more than a score of resolutions calling for its withdrawal from northern Cyprus, which Turkey, a NATO ally, invaded in 1974.
500 Orthodox churches or chapels have been pillaged, demolished or vandalized in occupied Cyprus.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/016/786ooxze.asp
- In 1975, after Morocco's invasion of Western Sahara and Indonesia's invasion of East Timor, the Security Council passed a series of resolutions demanding immediate withdrawal. Moroccan forces still occupy Western Sahara.
Moroccan report confirms killing of 352 "disappeared" Saharawis.
The Royal Advisory Council for Human Rights (CCDH) of Morocco in a unique report confirms the killing of 352 "disappeared" Saharawis from 1958 to 1992. Out of these, over 200 died in military bases and secret detention centres.
Some 13 people were executed by a martial court in 1976.
http://humanrightshouse.org/Articles/15823.html
This seems to be the main charge you are now levying against Ghadaffi--that he is another type of Saddam, a tyrant.
So my question is: Why is France FOR this intervention (for intervention it is, indeed), when it was OPPOSED to the US intervention in Iraq?
Anyone out there who can enlighten me, please do so. This is an honest question, not bait.