I wrote a long blog and realized it sucked. No time so here's a quick one that should invite some discussion.
I am concerned that NATO involvement in Libya is going to do more harm than good. The longer NATO is involved, the more those opposed to the rebellion will see it as a western backed coup, instead of a spontaneous demand of the Libyan people for change.
Furthermore, I am pasting this from Facebook for consideration.
I wrote first:
Here's an interesting question. Does the recognized leader of a country have a right to attempt to suppress rebellions and revolutions? If so, how far can that go and what role if any should the rest of the world play in intra-national disputes?
To summarize the next 20 comments, my friend Amy said Governments can't shoot their folks and if they try the world can act.
I said rebels and folks aren't the same, when a protester picks up a gun, all bets are off.
Matt challenged my use of the term recognized leader, considering that tyrants tend to come to power through violence and don't need to be validated by the citizenry.
Several more comments....
Amy said the world has a right to step in.
I say international borders are to be respected more.
Then it gets a little off topic until...
Matt says "So if a US general were to perform a coup de etat to take over the US government, and the rest of the world decided to recognize him as the authorized authority, then we, the US citizenry, would have no choice but to accept him as our sovereign?"
I, like a tool, don't directly answer but say "what say we make the rule that the world has five years to get involved. Once you're in power 30 years, another country coming in is an attack, not aid."
So the question is again posed, have we any right to be in this fight, if we do, should we bother, and if not, what role if any do we have to play in this situation?
It's slippery to phrase this in terms of "rights". I can't think of a system of international rights that can be consistently applied by all of us, while at the same time helping us to meet productive ends.
ReplyDeleteJust look at our own history. We respond differently to domestic and international conflicts throughout the ages, with no consistent rules being applied at all. In our own war of independence we naturally grant ourselves the right to revolt against Britain over taxes and self governance. Later, when the south secedes for very similar reasons, we reject their right to do so and force them back into the fold. In the 19th century we see it as appropriate to meddle in affairs of North and South america (but not Europe, sorry France!). In the 20th century we abandon that doctrine in favor of intervention in Europe and Asia.
If we were to craft any universal policy based on rights, it would probably sound like "It's always/never OK to get involved in other peoples domestic affairs". In reality, the reason we're getting involved in Libya is because we see it as "low hanging fruit" that we can do away with a nastyman with little loss of life on our side.