How precarious is the balance between what one side wants vs. the desires of another. Who is right and who is wrong depends on which side you stand! While I was on my holiday I watched the news of Libya unfold. Watching the news coverage brought some fascination and dread as my knowledge of international politics guided me to the conclusion this would get messy.
Muammar Gaddafi is without doubt, a nut. That said, he is not a stupid nut. There have been multiple assassination attempts on his life. His country has been bombed by the US, and Libyan dissenters have always seemed to exist. All this brings me to the question: "Why now?" Why now is the international community getting involved? Perhaps because they are seeing the domino effect with Tunisia, Egypt and don't want the spread to continue into the highly volatile and important Arab world? Is is once again oil? What I despise is that there is always a morality twist put on this. Liberate the poor Libyans. Ummm, hello? The guy has been around pulling shit for 40 plus years!! Other uprisings have occurred and been crushed. Our news sources however, are ripe for revolution reporting. Then there is the issue of soveriegnty. Other countries cannot just interfere in internal issues. Remember Chechnya? Ahhh... the uprising of Chechyn's against their Russian rulers. Russian responses to their demands and actions have been brutal. Civilians killed. Hostages taken. Thousands have fled the area as refugees. Funny how there was no immediate Security Council meeting or ruling there.
What I am saying is that we need to be careful about the judgements we make and why we make them. Yes, Gaddafi is a dink who should have his power stripped. However, to remove him is to set a precedent that anytime the UN doesnt like a ruler they can remove them. Not cool. Its that soveriegnty thing. Then there is the issue of the rebels. What makes the rebels right and not the ruling power? Does removal of the leadership really guarantee change? Lets watch Egypt and see. Are we using human rights and civilian safety as a guise for our own selfish desires to access their rich oil reserves and connections within OPEC? Are we meddling to gain an upper hand?
Shouldnt the West stop and think "HEY! We do not generally do well over here when we interfere...." Ummm, Iraq anyone? Palestine-Israel? Lebanon? It is tooooo simple to think 'saving' the civilians and ousting Gaddafi so that 'democracy' may take root is the reasoning for intervention. What terrifies me is the not knowing the other reasons. The other reasons and the reality that removing one leader does not ensure instant stability but instead another decade of instability. Instability that only hardens the cement of the Western 'benevolent' image. Huh. I don't know.
What I do know is that we cannot believe what is reported as truth. We must always question the reasoning behind behaviour. Look closer. And apply some sort of balance in how we behave. If we are to intervene in this, does this mean Cote D'Ivoire and other struggling African nations in tumult are our next projects? If we were fair and balanced it would. But do they have huge financial outcomes or does protecting citizenry only apply when their value can be weighed in oil, gold, power?
