Libya and the international community

The unfolding story in North Africa has most recently spread to Libya, where revolutionaries have taken over large segments of the country. In this week’s web feature, our panellists discuss the prospects of foreign intervention.

James Simpson
James Simpson

There’s no justification for foreign intervention

There are no good reasons for NATO to intervene in Libya. On the contrary, the only course of action that NATO ought to take is to do nothing. While the discussion has been centered on the usefulness and viability of imposing a no-fly zone in Libya, there has been virtually no discussion on whether outside forces ought to intervene in the first place.

To begin with, any country (or collection of countries) with the stain of colonialism on its hands should leave the Middle East alone. It’s completely unjustifiable for countries with a history of colonizing and exploiting others to be intervening “for the people.” There is an automatic and justified distrust in the relationship between the Arab World and former colonizing powers. An intervention in any way will simply be more damaging. If there is one thing that Gadaffi and the rebels of Libya have in common, it’s that they both despise former colonizers.

Intervention in the affairs of other nations requires a very strong justification. It’s not enough to claim that Gadaffi has killed hundreds—Egypt’s Mubarak killed hundreds in a significantly shorter period of time, all on his way out. Yet no one flinched. In fact, U.S. Vice President Joe Biden still couldn’t bring himself up to call him a “dictator.” Intervening in Libya is obviously not strictly about helping the Libyan people; just like the Iraq war was obviously not about helping the Iraqis rid themselves of Saddam Hussein. It’s about the self-interest of NATO countries.

I am only for intervention if a regional force leads it. I’m certainly against it if it’s lead by an international group made up of many former colonizers. In Libya’s case, the regional force would be the Arab League. But there is an inherent bad joke in this: in using the Arab League, the international community would be watching a group of dictators getting together to get rid of another dictator—in the name of democracy. And that’s just crazy.

Intervention presupposes a moral superiority on the side of the intervening country that is doesn’t even. But in reality, it conceals self-interest. No one is calling for an intervention in Bahrain, or Saudi Arabia or the Congo, for that matter. Let’s not pretend this is about the people of Libya. For once, self-interested Western nations should stay out of it. Like in Egypt, and like in Tunisia, let the people of Libya manage their own affairs. I certainly wish them the best.

Elamin Abdelmahoud, ArtSci ’11

All people have the right to make their own history

It seems that the immediate reaction to situations of civil unrest, at least from a western perspective, is always “what ought we to do?”. There is a strange implication that we have some obligation to act. Ostensibly, this seems like a morally upstanding approach to take (i.e. people are in need, therefore we ought to help). This view, though grounded in good intentions, is rather mistaken. As a result, I don’t support international intervention in Libya, at least in a military capacity.

What I find rather problematic about the argument is its underlying suggestion that the international community—read: western powers—holds sufficient moral high ground to justify a military intervention. The assumption is made that the West has been the constant embodiment of liberal values and thus ought to do its best to promote the dissemination of these values.

Yet even a brief review of the history of the past 50 years proves the contrary.

One does not have to look far to find a gross abuse of human rights as the direct result of western intervention. For instance, the American CIA’s involvement in Augusto Pinochet’s bloody coup is an explicit display of the western world’s willingness to abandon their own principles of liberty and security of the person, purely for the pursuit of their own interests. The torture and subsequent murder of thousands in an infamous Chilean soccer stadium was justified simply on the grounds of Salvador Allende’s socialist reforms—ideas which were seen as contrary to American liberal values.

Consider a scenario in which the United States plunges into civil war. There seems something odd about the idea that the Arab League ought to interfere in the war by imposing a no fly zone. We fail to give the same legitimacy to the values of people in the Global South as we do to our own values.

It’s not my intent defend the actions of Gadaffi, but the western world lacks the sufficient moral grounds on which to denounce his regime. The popular uprising is evidence enough of the Libyan people’s self-determinacy. The western world ought to place more credence in the ability of a population to determine their own value set.

Devin McDonald, ArtSci ’13

Reform our intervention methods

International intervention to quell civil unrest in Libya has become the center of debate in recent weeks. However, the slow response from institutions such as the United Nations has come as no surprise. While member states continue to question the idea of no-fly zones or military action, violence continues in Libya in order to dispel Gadaffi.

All these factors taken together have resulted in various opinions regarding the role of the international community and whether we are all responsible for cleaning up the situation. It’s obvious that the intra-state nature of this conflict does not necessitate international involvement, which would perhaps make the situation even worse (remember Afghanistan?). Instead, I find there is more validity to letting Libyan citizens figure it out for themselves.

Grassroots Libyan society need to deal with the situation organically. Global efforts at intervention have shown problematic results in Somalia, the Congo and Afghanistan that have ended in dismal failure for external actors.

Thus, history and current events show that unnecessary involvement of global actors in most cases hinders progress. For this reason, it comes down to the argument that western-style democratic ideals are perhaps not the only or even the best ways for running a country.

However, there are more reasons international intervention isn’t needed in Libya. Intervention itself, as a tool of aid, has deteriorated and currently remains a way of flexing muscle that’s actually fat. There is no substance to intervention, no means by which action can be taken or goals accomplished. Instead, intervention remains a theory of peacekeeping that worked in history but has failed to reach positive conclusions in recent years.

Thus, rather than the international community continually trying to intervene, perhaps it wiould be more beneficial for institutions like the UN or NATO to turn inwards and reform their intervention tactics.

The very nature of the issues occurring in the Arab world are representative of a new era in conflict, an era that needs to be met with sophisticated means by which to intervene in conflict. Therefore, I suggest that by avoiding action in Libya, international institutions can begin to take action on themselves.

Lindsay Kline, ArtSci ’11

The Middle East – Out of the Frying Pan and Into the Fire?

As the Middle East lit up like a tinderbox, so did my Facebook newsfeed. People were posting messages of support for the successful protestors, cheering for every victory and cringing at every setback. Governments and media have taken a similar view, by readily taking the side of the revolution and by acknowledging and legitimizing rebel leadership.

In a way, I understand this exuberance. As with my friends, I believe that democracy is the best system of government (well, “[the worst], except for all of the others that have been tried,” as Churchill so aptly noted). Presumably, this revolution will take power and wealth from the hands of the few and empower the masses.

I want to question the idea that many seem to currently hold—that revolution is always good.

Many of the drivers that are fuelling the current unrest in the Middle East—high food prices, unemployment and poverty—are unlikely to be resolved through revolution. Indeed, replacing a functional (if corrupt and marginally effective) government with uncertainty may only serve to exacerbate these crises. In short, the path of revolution may be leading to further regional destabilization.

This raises the obvious question: to what extent should other countries get involved to act as a bulwark of stability?

Given the view people in Middle Eastern countries have of Western nations, military intervention would probably hinder, not help. Other attempts at intervention, such as France’s recent recognition of the Libyan rebel government may backfire (if Gadaffi wins this civil war, Libya’s relationship with France will be devastated). So what can we do?

To have legitimacy, I believe intervention needs to deal with the root causes of the recent conflict in the Middle East. Taking steps to reduce food prices (such as ending subsidization of ethanol production) and to reduce the West’s dependence on foreign oil (which tends to fund and empower monarchs and dictators) would be a good start.

Let’s begin to intervene at home before we start thinking of getting involved overseas.

James Simpson, ArtSci ’11

Politicians need to stop appropriating all our voices

Hypothetical intervention of Western powers in Libya is arrogant and ignorant. Furthermore, such an intervention presupposes moral superiority over foreign people, a superiority most indefensible.

When politicians claim to speak for any individuals, they are running full speed off of a moral precipice. Politicians in democratically elected systems—like the West or Queen’s University—usually only have a minority of individuals electing them. An even smaller number likely consent to a politician’s views anyway.

There is a clear moral dilemma that all politicians run into when it comes to claiming a certain viewpoint or set of values. Because every individual is different and every individual has a different set of subjective values, it is impossible for one individual to claim to represent another. In a democratic institution or state, Voters only elect politicians to make judgments on their own institutions and own citizens.

The problem of misrepresentation is only compounded when it comes to dealing with individuals who are not part of the democratic social contract. When a politicians, say George W. Bush, makes a moral judgment on a whole foreign people, the Iraqis, he misrepresents the entirety of the United States and, additionally, Iraq. Because individuals participant in extraneous institutions or foreign states have by no means given their consent to the elected politicians, their individuality, the set of values that are intrinsic to their person are devalued.

The people of Iraq by no means consented to the moral judgment of politicians of the United States when their state was invaded. Nor did Israel and Palestine when Queen’s Rector Nick Day wrote his awful letter to the Honourable Michael Ignatieff.

When politicians claim to represent others, they steal a small portion of that individual’s person-hood. When they make that claim and additionally claim moral superiority over another unaffiliated individual, they only compound the theft of person-hood. Hypothetical Western intervention in Libya is, in short, the ideological corruption and moral slavery of both people in the West and those citizens of Libya.

Dan Osborne, ArtSci ’12

Every week, Journal Dialogue brings together members of the Queen’s community to discuss events of the day and try to find solutions to some pressing issues. The result is displayed above.

All final editorial decisions are made by the Editor(s)-in-Chief and/or the Managing Editor. Authors should not be contacted, targeted, or harassed under any circumstances. If you have any grievances with this article, please direct your comments to journal_editors@ams.queensu.ca.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Skip to content