[I sat down with Yifat Susskind, our Executive Director, to ask her some questions about recent developments in Libya. Our Q&A is below:]
Last week’s UN Security Council resolution on the no-fly zone in Libya has triggered days of bombing campaigns, and the worldwide progressive community is still divided on whether to support the no-fly zone. What are your thoughts?
After decades of Qaddafi’s repressive rule, the uprising of the past few weeks represents for many the first chance to demand a democratic future for Libya. In the face of a brutal crackdown, the calls of this rebellion have struck a chord worldwide and galvanized a need to act. In the past days, the political will of world leaders has coalesced around a Security Council Resolution authorizing the imposition of a no-fly zone, and bombing campaigns led by the US, France and other NATO powers have already begun.
Despite the humanitarian rhetoric, progressives are right to be wary of this escalating military campaign. It is notable that, unlike his predecessor, the Obama Administration did seek out the approval of the Security Council, giving the launch of this military action some international legal cover. But we should not be overly impressed that this military intervention is technically legal. From a human rights and social justice perspective, legality is not a litmus test for progressive support. An action may meet the technical status of legality and still be unethical. Part of our criteria for supporting an action can be legality under international law, but that cannot be the end of it.
We need to consider important questions, like those I raised on the MADRE blog last week. Yes, the Security Council resolution highlights dangers to civilians as a justification for their authorization of the no-fly zone. But, the prospects for civilians faring well in the entrenched conflict that is likely to continue are grim. We cannot allow the focus on the no-fly zone to divert our attentions away from the need to identify alternatives to promote democracy and human rights in Libya.
How would you relate the uprising in Libya to the broader developments in the region?
It is easy to conflate Libya with the broader progressive mobilizations in the region, namely the successful overthrow of Mubarak in Egypt. But the reality is that Libya is not Egypt. Despite the incredible speed with which protests have spread across borders and have responded to each other, each instance is defined by the people who take part and by the conditions they confront.
In Libya, there is no indication yet that this uprising represents a broad-based progressive social movement. Unlike in Egypt, an ideologically diverse civil society was never allowed to develop in Libya. The coalition of feminists, youth and trade unionists that animated so much of the protest in Egypt—and created that progressive potential—does not exist visibly in Libya. The people behind the opposition that has lined itself against Qaddafi’s regime remain largely unknown to us, and yet, their words are being repeated by those pushing for an international military campaign.
What do we know about the Libyan opposition movement?
What we know for sure about the opposition is that they want to see an end to Qaddafi’s rule. Their calls for a no-fly zone are propelled by this argument; they say that it is necessary in order for them to rally their own forces to effectively unseat Qaddafi. But that doesn’t mean they deserve international support from progressives.
We have also seen an uncritical acceptance of anyone who’s willing to confront Qaddafi as representative of the opposition. A New York Times article this week quoted a man identified only as “Muhammed” saying “We want the international community to go all the way to bomb this bloody dictator into submission.” The article labels him as a “rebel spokesman” for the city of Misurata, but otherwise his identity is a mystery. We have heard much about the demands of the Libyan opposition for a no-fly zone but little about who they are.
The UN Security Council Resolution that authorized the no-fly zone justified itself on the basis of seeking an “end to violence and all attacks against, and abuses of, civilians.” How do you respond to these arguments for humanitarian intervention?
We must be reminded of the extreme unlikelihood of US-led NATO launching this effort for humanitarian reasons. Their repeated warnings of the risk of massacres have emerged as they attempt to construct a humanitarian banner to attach to these attacks.
NATO is a military institution casting about for a reason to exist; it should have been dismantled after the Cold War. Instead, it was reinvented as a US-controlled intervention force. Nowadays, NATO forces are deployed either as part of a “humanitarian intervention” or in the “war on terror.” Both of these frameworks cannot be separated from the concerted projection of US power.
The humanitarian credentials of this operation can be further called into question. We need to look no further than Bahrain. What is being called a humanitarian crisis in Libya is being ignored in Bahrain. What’s more, Saudi Arabia, a favored US ally in the region, has sent in its army to Bahrain to put down a revolt of people protesting for progressive democratic reform. In this instance, the US is allowing for violent repression to take place.
Here’s another example. World leaders dithered for years about creating the no-fly zone in Darfur, when the degree of humanitarian crisis was much clearer than it is currently in Libya. They were never able to muster the political will. Fast forward to last week, and the debate over the no-fly zone in Libya moved to a conclusion at lightning-speed.
In the end, the people who do unquestionably deserve our support are the Libyan civilians who are living through what looks more and more like a civil war. As the violence escalates, MADRE calls for the immediate delivery of humanitarian aid and the distribution of such relief in ways that recognize and protect the human rights of people affected by war and displacement. Furthermore, we call for open borders with neighboring countries, including European nations across the Mediterranean, so that people seeking refuge will not be turned away.
Recent Comments