The current intervention in Libya is scripted as being a defense of human rights and human lives. Obama has said that he refuses “to wait for the images of slaughter and mass graves before taking action.” Skeptics like me wonder if this “values” laden narrative is not just Orwellian language for defending American “interests,” the norm in American foreign policy. This skepticism is based on the following:
First, the question that immediately comes to mind is would the United States do the same thing if the Saudi Arabian government had attacked rebels trying to overthrow its government? Somehow I find this hard to imagine. Even now gross human rights violations are committed in Saudi Arabia. I wonder why Obama finds them more acceptable than what is going on in Libya.
After the Iranian elections a couple of years ago, demonstrators who were being slaughtered by the Iranian government asked for US help to stop the Iranian government from the deadly assault it carried out against its citizens. The same president Obama said back then that he was troubled by the violence, but stressed that it was up to the Iranian people to choose their leadership. Why was that different?
Second, what is very disturbing is that the opposition to Gaddafi is always called the “rebels.” There is no face to them except for the scruffy, disorganized, chaotic bunch of men that are shown on TV. Who are these people? What is their ideology and vision for Libya? They want to be in charge, but what do they represent? Are they better than Gaddafi and, if so, how?
This immense effort launched by the US and UN to arm, support, and advise these “rebels” with ambiguous and unknown views and values is not only dangerous, but supports the skepticism about what is really behind this. Could it be that the West wants to change the map of the Middle East for the 21st century, much like colonial powers did in the 20th century? Could it be that we are searching for a new and younger generation of dictators that would uphold our interests in that region of the world?
Third, how many other countries are we going to strike militarily? Would Syria be next? How about Yemen, Bahrain, or Jordan? How about the Ivory Coast, Somalia, or Congo? What about North Korea?
Fourth, there is no political infrastructure in Libya that would allow a new democratic government to be established if Gaddafi is overthrown. What does this mean in terms of US and NATO involvement after Gaddafi goes?
After Afghanistan was invaded, NATO designed a constitution for Afghanistan that does not meet Afghan reality and has proved to be useless in terms of establishing a democratic Afghanistan. The central government in Afghanistan is dubbed as the government of Kabul (as opposed to Afghanistan) and is basically an ineffective body.
I wonder if the Libyan “rebels” who are asking for foreign military aid to overthrow Gaddafi realize that they will not be in charge when Gaddafi goes. At best, NATO will design a Libyan constitution, probably without any concern for Libyan cultural and social realities. At worst, Libya will become a haven for tribal wars, where much like Iraq, it will provide fertile grounds for Al Qaeda infiltration.
Fifth, what is the goal that this war is trying to achieve? Is it to allow the “rebels” to take over? Is it to put a democratic government in place of the Gaddafi dictatorship? No clear goal has yet been articulated. How could the U.S. and the UN militarily attack a sovereign nation without a clear goal? Perhaps a change of regime is the goal. A change for an unknown and ambiguous end is not likely to improve human rights.
Lastly, if human lives and rights were the real issue, why wouldn’t we look at the prison system in the United States, with the highest total documented prison and jail population in the world? [1]
A U.S. warship fired more than 100 Tomahawk cruise missiles at Libyan air defenses in March[2]; at half a million dollars each, this is more than 50 million dollars. How many American children going to struggling public schools could benefit from these funds being applied towards their education? (According to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights education is a human right.)
Why not start caring about human lives and rights at home? Don’t we Americans also deserve it?
At every instance, the world community is interconnected. This interconnection influences the various aspects of every nation and people in these nations. In Libya, the world has given Gaddafi a Carte Blanche to do as he wishes by politically isolating him as long as he has been in existence, instead of engaging him. The US habit of bombing or politically isolating countries whose leaders it doesn’t agree with or protecting dictators that it agrees with it places some responsibility on the US for events in these countries. This approach has been expensive and counter to democracy and human rights. This type of foreign policy is not based on diplomacy, but on brute force, much like what Qaddafi is employing. Obama’s assertion that this time it’s for human lives and rights appears insincere and an insult to our intelligence.
The least we deserve is that our president provides real evidence that this is improving human lives and rights.
Armineh
I agree that language use in the media is interesting. On the media recently had a piece about it that I found interesting: http://www.onthemedia.org/episodes/2011/03/04/segments/159043. Personally, neither demonstrators nor protesters seem correct when they take up arms. Revolutionaries or anti-Gaddafi forces may be more positive if you don't like rebels.
ReplyDeleteEven your use of the words "War on Libya" is of note. As I see it, the US is aiding one side in a civil war. Does that count as a war on Libya?
I generally agree that US foreign policy is usually out to serve American interests, but I actually don't see where that applies to Libya. It's unclear to me what the US stands to gain from a regime change over which it has little control.
Also with respect to how actions in this case relate to others, note that each issue is dealt with by the government somewhat independently. There is no guarantee of consistency regarding aims of politicians or the actions of the government overall. Decisions are made after an interplay of what people think is the right thing to do for the country, for the actors involved, and for the individuals making the decision (and many other factors).
For example, to respond to your last point regarding human rights and the broken prison system here:
1) Country - On the top level (ignoring opportunity costs), there is little harm done to the country in firing missiles into another country who we expect cannot retaliate. The only loss is money, and we know that our politicians easily justify spending money anywhere they see fit. There are plenty of politicians who don't see the prison system as broken, but may feel (possibly wrongly) that keeping Gadaffi in power is a danger to the country.
2) Actors - I don't think it's unreasonable to think that destroying a military that is firing on its own people (the intent of R2P) is a good thing to do. Of course, there's always more than meets the eye (http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2011/03/31/libya-and-r2p-the-limits-of-responsibility/), but at the beginning, it was plausible that this was largely humanitarian. Again, on the prison side, I would not be surprised if those in charge of perpetuating our prison system (the prison lobby) don't see the humanity of prisoners and future prisoners. There is also a wide misconception that prisons actually deter crime.
3) Decision Makers - It is an easier political sell to attack the Libyan military than it is to talk about prison reform. Not only is more palatable to the american public, but it also doesn't really offend major lobbying groups.