David Jones

Either you are into opportunistic demonisation or you have got this badly wrong.

David Peterson is, I believe, suggesting an overriding consideration in this issue which in no way legitimises Qadhafi and his government, or, as Michael Albert simply poses, delegitimises the Libyan opposition forces.

The context in which the UN-supported NATO intervention in Libya takes place is that of a UN with its internal democracy radically compromised by the security council and the US infuence there in particular. Further, is the role of NATO as an organisation which is clearly instrumental to US imperial foreign policy in historically underming the UN and pursuing its own imperial interests unilaterally with token support from opportunist states such as the UK. This, I believe, has inevitably led to a situation where partly through a process of marginalising attrition of the UN, NATO has slowly levered its rolling agenda into the UN security council.

So I support what I believe is David Peterson's emphasis in that it is the UN Charter and the undermining of original UN aims that should be of concern, and thatcriticism should be redirected at the great powers and their mission of "humanitarian intervention." And we should be asking why NATO, this great force for good, has not broached the subject of Saudi invasion of Bahrain.

This position is not even "out there." Jeremy Corbyn, back-bench UK member of parliament for Labour, would almost certainly be aligned with it.

Your pro-Qadhafi stance is fairly unique, David, although a few Leninist hold outs were to be expected I suppose. Either that or you revere state soveriegnty more than justice which is also a problematic stance in my opinion.

I saw this first as a reply to the blog I posted...and I replied there. I will repeat the reply here, but, honestly, given how many people are engaging about this, it would be much easier for me, if you do want to continue discussing, if you put your further reply beneath the blog post... so, here is the reply I put beneath the blog... By the way, after some requests, I added to the blog and we are uploading it as an article, so that's another possibility, as I imagine there will be discussion there, too.

David,

 

You write "I believe that your "Very Elementary Thoughts on Thinking about Now" (March 22) had already been overtaken by events before you ever posted the piece."

 

Perhaps, but I doubt it...let's see.

 

You first offer some evidence that one might have used to decide to oppose the resolution, etc. You point out that some people did oppose it and quote one, who we have published on ZNet. Fine, but this is not even a response to what I wrote, much less overtaking it in some way. What I wrote didn't even take sides about the resolution, instead only saying that one could be on either side for quite legitimate reasons, and that both sides should be mutually respectful, and that the real issue, in any event, is uniting to prevent enlargement, etc. 

 

If you disagree with that, then we have something to discuss - if not, then I am not sure what we would be discussing.that bears on what I actually wrote

 

As to broader matters which were not broached in the blog post I wrote, we will just have to disagree about the likelihood that the insurgency in Libya was fomented from without - which is what I think you may have been implying - to then use attacks on it as a pretext to invade. Yes, this can happen. Yes, the U.S. could conceivably do this at some future date, in Venezuela, for example. It could aid, bolster, prod, provoke, and promise to sustain an anti Chavez insurgency, goading it into fighting, and then watch it getting beaten, and then intervene ostensibly out of concern for this opposition but, in fact, merely to deal with Venezuela, their purpose throughout. 

 

But the fact that something could occur somewhere, sometime, doesn't mean that every time anything remotely similar happens, it is that thing... I would agree that it means we should be highly alert to the possibility - sure. But we have to look. And when I look, and many others, in this case, we find this view of things unconvincing and see something else. So we disagree about that, and perhaps more, I don't know. 

 

But that is completely beside the point of the blog I posted... which is instead about how to handle disagreements once they exist.

 

You write to me: "In your "Conclusion?," you plead: "[C]an't we then all also agree that at most limited protection of the opposition should occur and that as little as possible beyond that will be better than escalating intervention, and that in any event actions widening the assault into an interventionist war would be horrific for countless reasons?"

 

And then you add: "As the person making this plea, why doesn't it dawn on you to ask instead whether the issue is not upholding the UN Charter's protections for the government of Libya and the people of Libya from the great military powers attacking this government and this country? "

 

I don't see much difference except that I don't think a movement on the streets in the U.S. or elsewhere in the world is very likely to march behind such a banner - but rather one simply saying, stop the carnage, or cease U.S. violence, or whatever...   

 

You add: "(By the way, a similar rewriting of a question needs to be put to Richard Falk. -- If, as Falk writes, Qadhafi long ago "forfeited the legitimacy of his rule, creating the political conditions for an appropriate revolutionary challenge" ("Gaddafi, Moral Interventionism, Libya, and the Arab Revolutionary Moment," March 21), then at what stage or time in the past did the United States forfeit its right to act beyond its borders?  And why are we arguing about the legitimacy of Qadhafi's rule inside Libya, rather than about the lack of legitimacy of the states that in this case have marshaled the organs of the United Nations to launch their attack on Libya?)"

 

The U.S. forfeited its claim to minimal humanity - as a government - ages ago, of course... much less the lesser forfeiture you mention. So? We discuss that all the time, as do people around the world, and rightly so.

 

If the states in question have used the UN - and in some sense they have - and have vile motives - and they certainly do - having to do with worrying about immigration, possible trends in the area and salvaging the best results they can, etc. etc., that does not mean, inexorably, that there cannot be a good effect as well as bad ones. 

 

One issue is U.S. and western control over what they should not control - and attacks on what they should not attack. Fine. we agree on that being an issue. Of course.

 

Another issue is the survival of an internal opposition in Libya against a powerful state willing to unleash pretty much, in their own words, unlimited repression. I am not sure we agree on that being a second central issue.

 

So the question, if we agree on both, becomes does one support some policy - a no fly zone with attendant hopefully very limited attacks - or not. 

 

Well, those who think it was the only hope for the insurgents to survive, much less win - despite that the people making the assessment were and are supremely anti u.s. imperialism - decided to support the no fly option - and then hopefully also fight against its further elaboration into something horrific. 

 

Those who expected something horrific as nearly inevitable, presumably worried on about the insurgents, but nonetheless, opted against the no fly option feeling it was even worse than Qaddafi being free to repress without limit. 

 

Okay, that is an honest disagreement. The reality is, both formulations have merit. Neither formulation says the U.S. is a noble defender of justice. They just weigh the dangers of not having a no fly zone and of having a no fly zone differently.

 

Now you seem to be a bit off from the more typical position - seemingly additionally saying, although maybe I am hearing this wrong, that the opposition isn't a real and worthy opposition so that concern about its well being wasn't and isn't warranted. I hope you aren't saying that, but if so, okay that's another thing we can agree to disagree about.