The New York Times editorial on Libya today is indicative of the confusion that seems to be felt about this new intervention - or, rather, war - everywhere. There is concern about the lack of a clear goal, the lack of an exit-option and, I think, quite a lot of fear about what new sufferings the war will bring. There is also concern about what will become of the Arab revolution from now on.
It's true that the "allied attacks on Libya were perhaps the only hope of keeping more people from being slaughtered" and it's also true that if Quaddafi would have been "allowed to crush the opposition, it would chill pro-democracy movements across the Arab world". But it is also true, as Abdulhadi Khalaf says, that "this is a golden opportunity to train fighter pilots and secure access to oil. That is the reason why many countries now attack goals in Libya, not that they intend to stop the suffering of the people" (in Swedish here). There will hardly be any intervention in Yemen or Bahrain, close allies to the US.
Isn't there a real danger is that the intervention itself will also "chill pro-democracy movements across the Arab world"? I am not an expert on the Arab world, but I am pretty sure that no protester, absolutely no-one, wants to be seen as the vanguard of a NATO invasion.
The big question now seems to be: Is there a possibility of being for the revolution without being for the intervention?
Regardless of that, the intervening powers must refrain from anything that could hurt civilians. That's the only way to obtain a minimum of legitimacy.
No comments:
Post a Comment