格達菲被反抗軍擊斃，結束了他42年的統治。我對非洲情況不熟悉，無從深入評論。但他近於暴君，大概毋庸置疑。死後身價近進千億美元，想來也是國庫通家庫一流的人物。

葉門的薩雷或敘利亞的阿薩德，誰會是下一位？人民力量最終總是會佔上風。

開欄文作者的評論有一些道理。如果我們宣稱根據這個或那個「道德規範」行事；或根據這個或那個「道德原則」對某一行為做價值判斷；則「誰」是行為者不應進入「決策」或「判斷」過程。這就是我一再強調的「一致性」原則。

但是，哈珊和卡達菲的行為完全或高度相當嗎？小布希和歐巴馬出兵的「理由」完全或高度相當嗎？我看未必。因此，在我看來，「偽善」評論的分析並不夠周全，難以服人；開欄文也就不無借題發揮之嫌或之譏。

如作者在文中所說：小布希的伊拉克政策”overly ideological and deeply flawed”。那麼，作者當時有發表反對意見嗎？如果沒有，這篇文章也不過是「偽善」的評論；或黨同伐異的觀點。

The hypocrisy of the American left

JOE SCARBOROUGH, 03/29/11

Self-righteousness is a dangerous vice. It breeds arrogance and moral blind spots for those who come to believe they are superior to those who share different worldviews.

Televangelists have fallen prey to this feeling of superiority, until the time they are caught crawling on the ground outside a hooker’s hotel room. Politicians have also wallowed in the grandiosity of their moralistic worldview, until they too fall prey to the hypocrisy that eventually snags all self-righteous moralizers.

For a decade now, we have been told of George W. Bush’s and Dick Cheney’s moral failings. They have been regularly compared to Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Benito Mussolini and every other tyrant of the past century. Bush has been damned by the ministers of the far left as a war criminal, a fascist and a Nazi when labeling his policies as overly ideological and deeply flawed would have sufficed.

But that was never enough for the carnival barkers on cable news or the blogosphere. For the American left, Bush had to be condemned as an immoral beast who killed women and children to get his bloody hands on Iraqi oil.

That extremism required that the Bush years be filled with images of CODEPINK protesting on Capitol Hill, anti-war activists clogging the streets of New York City and left-wing commentators beating their chests with the self-righteous indignation of Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker.

But in the morally murky afterglow of the Obama years, the certainty of these secular saints has melted away.

President Barack Obama bowed to his generals’ demands by tripling troops in an unending war. CODEPINK did nothing.

Obama backed down on Guantanamo Bay. Anti-war protesters stayed at home.

America invaded its third Muslim country in a decade. The American left meekly went along. Without the slightest hint of irony, liberals defended the president’s indefensible position by returning again to a pose of moral certainty.

Democrats streamed to the floors of the House and Senate to praise the president for invading Libya. It was, after all, a moral mission that would stop the slaughter of innocent civilians. Whether protesting for peace or calling for war, these liberals once again convinced themselves of the moral superiority of their positions.

While one can make the moral argument that countries can be attacked strictly on humanitarian grounds, that argument is laughable when it comes to Libya.

How can the left call for the ouster of Muammar Qadhafi for the sin of killing hundreds of Libyans when it opposed the war waged against Saddam Hussein? During Saddam’s two decades in Iraq, he killed more Muslims than anyone in history and used chemical weapons against his own people and neighboring states.

With the help of his equally despicable sons, Uday and Qusay, Saddam devastated Iraq, terrorized his people and destroyed that country’s environment. By the time American troops deposed him in 2003, Saddam had killed at least 300,000 of his own people — and human rights groups say that tally does not even include the million-plus casualties his invasion of Iran caused.

If Obama and his liberal supporters believed Qadhafi’s actions morally justified the Libyan invasion, why did they sit silently by for 20 years while Saddam killed hundreds of thousands?

And how do they claim the moral high ground in Libya while not calling for the immediate invasion of Syria? The monstrous Bashar al-Assad regime is slaughtering his own people by the hundreds. More killings are sure to happen as that corrupt regime teeters on the brink of collapse.

In Yemen, the situation is no better. Government snipers shoot unarmed women and children from the rooftops of Sanaa. Should we follow Obama’s example in Libya and invade that country in the name of humanitarian relief? Or should we step into the breach in the Ivory Coast, where a terrifying civil war has led to a million refugees fleeing that country. And why do we not enter Sudan, where hundreds of thousands of innocents have been slaughtered over the past decade in a civil war of horrifying proportions?

Katrina vanden Heuvel, one of the few liberals to take a principled stand against what America is doing in Libya, has written in The Nation that the anti-war left has been silent since Obama took office because they don’t want to hurt the president’s reelection chances.

In defending Obama’s Libya offensive, they are compromising their own morals. The American left is also making it abundantly clear that it does not find all wars morally reprehensible — only those begun by Republicans.

A guest columnist for POLITICO, Joe Scarborough hosts “Morning Joe” on MSNBC and represented Florida’s 1st Congressional District in the House of Representatives from 1995 to 2001.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0311/52062.html

我們都是社會建構過程的產物，至少在一定程度上，我們的思想和言行都受到自己成長經驗的制約。因此，每個人有不同的價值觀和判斷立場是常態。其次，我不知道當下是否已經有一個絕對普遍的「真理」。因而，我一再建議：以論述的「說得通度」或「說得通性」來評鑑它是否「成立」。我們不同意這個或那個觀點，未必表示我們「站在真理這一邊。」，它也有可能顯示我們孤陋寡聞或有某種「不合現實意識」(通譯為「虛偽意識」)的偏執。

在公共議題領域，如果我們不能像伏爾泰那樣尊重或捍衛別人發言的權利，或許可以培養保持緘默的風度。如果回應，只有針對「論點」批駁才是合「理性」或就事論事的方式，至少需要指出對方這個或那個「論點」不合邏輯、不符現實、和/或與通行理論/價值觀不相容的地方。

這個世界是個複雜的世界。任何只使用「二元對立」思考模式或判斷立場的人，都在將事情過於簡化。替聯軍作為的「正當性」辯護固然意義不大 – 任何軍事行動都有利益/權力的考量；打仗要花銀子，世上有人做殺頭生意，但沒有人做賠本生意。替哈珊、卡達菲、或米洛塞維琪辯解也難以說得通 – 畢竟，沒有「人」和必然隨之而來的「人之所以為人？」這個問題，又豈有「帝國主義」/「民族主義」、「資本主義」/「社會主義」、「統治者」/「被統治者」、「資本家」/「勞工大眾」、… 等等的對立或紛爭。西方人的「人道」不無「羊頭」之譏；哈珊、卡達菲的「反帝」又何嘗稱得上貨真價實？

我無意各打五十大板。我只是指出：站在不同的立場，每個人有基於各自價值觀的判斷和考量；這個世界不只也不能用單一立場和價值觀來看所有的事務。經過理性溝通，我們可以試著了解這個世界上的「諸相」，或摸摸以前沒摸過的象鼻子、象LP之類。

(本文為對私人論壇討論的有感而發)

我不是很清楚目前發生的國際事件和當地的政情。但是有分析家指出：

利比亞是個部落國家。

因此，在我看來，對嘎達菲來說，這是種族屠殺，而不是轟炸「自己的國民」。當然，這並不減輕他的罪惡。

其次，分析家指出：

中東和利比亞政治都脫離不了石油這個因素。

也就是說，支持出兵或干涉的大國，都有直接的利益牽涉其中。棄權的大國則沒有直接利益的議題。因此，在我看來，英、美、法三國並非為了人道立場出兵干涉。帝國主義者口中所說的「人道」者，狗肉販子高高掛之「羊頭」也。棄權的大國則不願意得罪自己的狐群狗黨，同時，風波過後，趁勢賣好，見縫插針，分幾桶油。其他安理會小國則看自己投靠誰，或被買票，或被twist arm等等而投票。這是國際政治運作的實況。

本文原載：

【新聞對談】>>《人而不仁，如人何？》 – 留言: #61；回應留言:#59 http://tb.chinatimes.com/forum1.asp?ArticleID=1502145

Analysis: Obama doesn't mention Libyan rebels

Anne Gearan, Ap National Security Writer

WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama wanted to tell a hesitant America why he launched a military assault in Libya, and he wanted to describe it on his terms — limited, sensible, moral and backed by international partners with the shared goal of protecting Libyans from a ruthless despot.

Trouble is, the war he described Monday doesn't quite match the fight the United States is in.

It also doesn't line up with the conflict Obama himself had seemed to presage, when he expressly called for Moammar Gadhafi's overthrow or resignation. Obama's stated goals stop well short of that. And although Obama talked of the risks of a long war, he did not say just when or on what terms the United States would leave Libya.

Obama never directly mention the Libyan rebels seeking Gadhafi's overthrow, even though the heavy U.S.-led firepower trained on Gadhafi's forces has allowed those rebels to regain momentum and push toward Gadhafi's territory.

"We have intervened to stop a massacre," Obama said.

Ten days into a conflict many Americans say they do not understand, Obama laid out a moral imperative for intervening against a murderous tyrant, and doing so without the lengthy international dithering that allowed so much blood to be spilled in Bosnia. His address at the National Defense University echoed campaign rhetoric about restoring U.S. moral pride of place after squandering it in Iraq.

"Mindful of the risks and costs of military action, we are naturally reluctant to use force to solve the world's many challenges," Obama said. "But when our interests and values are at stake, we have a responsibility to act."

Gadhafi's forces have been largely pinned down and unable to mount a massacre since the first hours of the war, while U.S. and NATO warplanes have become an unacknowledged aerial arm of the rebels. Obama said the United States will help the opposition, an oblique reference to the rebels.

Over the weekend U.S. Air Force A-10 Thunderbolt aircraft, designed to provide battlefield support to friendly ground forces, flew attack missions for the first time in this conflict. The Pentagon also disclosed Monday that Air Force AC-130 gunships, low-flying aircraft armed with a 105mm howitzer and a 40mm cannon, had joined the battle. Those two types of aircraft give the U.S. more ability to confront pro-Gadhafi forces in urban areas with less risk of civilian casualties.

The Pentagon's lead spokesman on Libya operations, Navy Vice Adm. William Gortney, told reporters Monday that the U.S. military is not coordinating with the rebels. But he left little doubt that, by design or not, Western air power is propelling the rebels forward.

"Clearly they're achieving a benefit from the actions that we're taking," Gortney said. He displayed a chart that showed rebels advancing within 80 miles of Sirte, Gadhafi's home town.

If the purpose of the U.N.-sanctioned military action is to protect civilians, does that include pro-Gadhafi civilians who are likely to be endangered in places like Sirte that are in the rebels' crosshairs? If not, it is difficult to see the Western intervention as a neutral humanitarian act not aligned with the rebels.

The first goal of the intervention was to prevent a massacre of civilians in Benghazi, the eastern Libyan city where Gadhafi forces were threatening to crush the rebellion two weeks ago. Gadhafi said he would "show no mercy."

A U.S.-led assault quickly accomplished that first goal. A no-fly zone was established two weekends ago with little resistance. The U.S. and its partners then launched airstrikes on Gadhafi supply lines and other military targets not only near Benghazi but around other contested areas as well.

But the role of Western air power then went beyond that initial humanitarian aim, to in effect provide air cover for the rebels while pounding Gadhafi forces in a bid to break their will or capacity to fight.

Now U.S. forces are pulling back, handing much of the responsibility for the open-ended military campaign to allies, as Obama said they would.

"So for those who doubted our capacity to carry out this operation, I want to be clear: The United States of America has done what we said we would do," Obama said with clear satisfaction.

He meant that the U.S. had hewed to its stated role under a U.N. Security Council resolution that authorized force.

But he acknowledged that the U.N. mandate doesn't extend to Gadhafi's ouster, even if many of the nations carrying it out might wish for that. Obama was frank about the reasons why.

"Broadening our military mission to include regime change would be a mistake," Obama said.

It would shatter the international partnership he relies on for diplomatic cover and security backup. It would probably mean sending U.S. ground forces into yet another Muslim nation, something Obama has said he will not do in Libya. It would undoubtedly increase the risk to the U.S. military, the costs of the war and U.S. responsibility for shoring up and protecting whatever Libya might emerge, Obama said.

"To be blunt, we went down that road in Iraq," Obama said, where thousands of U.S. forces remain eight years after the fall of Saddam Hussein.

"That is not something we can afford to repeat in Libya," Obama said.

Getting rid of Gadhafi "may not happen overnight," Obama warned, in his first acknowledgement of the stalemate with the rebels that many analysts and some of his own military advisers suspect is coming. Gadhafi, Obama said, might well cling to power for some time.

The United States is considering arming the rebels, directly or indirectly, and U.S. officials say the U.N. resolution would allow that. Obama mentioned nothing about the possibility of civil war in Libya, or what the U.S. might do if the war grinds on for months.

Obama still faces questions about why Libya and not Yemen, or not Syria. One of his closest national security advisers, Denis McDonough, told reporters Monday that the administration doesn't "get very hung up on this question of precedent."

"We don't make decisions about questions like intervention based on consistency or precedent," McDonough said.

Throughout his address, Obama seemed to be answering his own criticism of past wars and past leaders who committed military force too hastily or too hesitantly.

The Nobel Peace Prize winner never used the word "war" to describe what's happening in Libya, but made a point of addressing what the conflict he chose "says about the use of America's military power, and America's broader leadership in the world, under my presidency."

His book "The Audacity of Hope" and his Nobel speech established the same predicates for U.S. military intervention — an allied coalition and use of multinational power.

"We know that the United States, as the world's most powerful nation, will often be called upon to help," Obama said Monday. "In such cases, we should not be afraid to act, but the burden of action should not be America's alone."

EDITOR'S NOTE — Anne Gearan has covered national politics and national security in Washington since 1999.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110329/ap_on_re_us/us_obama_libya_analysis

How a philosopher swayed France's response on Libya

After meeting March 4 with Libyan rebels leaders in Benghazi, the French philosopher Bernard-Henri Lévy arranged for them to speak with President Sarkozy at the Élysée Palace.

Robert Marquand, Staff writer , 03/28/11

Bernard-Henri Lévy, the controversial French philosopher, may deserve as much credit for prodding the international community to act on Libya as President Sarkozy.

He worked behind the scenes at the Élysée Palace, encouraging French action while the United States still debated the no-fly zone. Mr. Lévy, who has Mr. Sarkozy's ear, despite differences, has, with other public intellectuals, framed the Libyan conflict as a moment for France to act, to ensure it wouldn't have blood on its hands if Muammar Qaddafi's forces overran the rebel stronghold in Benghazi.

Lévy took up the Libyan cause in earnest after meeting Mustafa Abdul Jalil, former Libyan justice minister and leader of the opposition's National Transition Council (NTC). He traveled to Libya March 4 wearing his journalist's hat – he's on the board of the progressive French daily Libération. During the interview, Lévy asked Mr. Abdul Jalil if the NTC would come to Paris. That night he phoned Mr. Sarkozy: Will the president meet "the Libyan Massouds," he reportedly asked, referencing Ahmad Shah Massoud, the former leader of Afghanistan's Northern Alliance, who is revered in France. The president agreed.

"I called the president of my country from Benghazi to tell him, 'There are people here, good people; these people hold the same values as we do, and they’re going to die to the last one if we allow Qaddafi to go on to the conclusion of his criminal logic. Would you accept to receive them in Paris and thus send a strong signal to the butcher?' Nicolas Sarkozy immediately said yes," Lévy said in an interview with Global Viewpoint Network.

Several days later, three NTC members arrived at the Élysée for a meeting with Lévy, Sarkozy, chief foreign policy adviser Jean-David Levitte, and speech writer Henri Guaino. Soon thereafter, Sarkozy recognized the NTC as the legitimate government of Libya.

At 2 p.m. on March 17, Sarkozy called Lévy to say he had "made his decision," reported Le Figaro, a full-scale push for the no-fly zone. Later that day, the Security Council approved Resolution 1973, which called for protecting Libyan civilians by "all necessary means" short of foreign occupation.

Lévy has long been known for his outspokenness on world affairs. In the 1970s, he was the first leftist intellectual to criticize French silence on Soviet repression. He was involved early on in Bosnia, arguing against French interests that saw a "Greater Serbia" as a "stable Balkans." The siege of Sarajevo and the shooting of civilians was an attack on European values that needed answering, Lévy argued. He convinced French President François Mitterrand to go to Sarajevo.

Lévy is admired for his independence, but often mocked as a pampered radical who has rarely seen a camera he didn't love. He holds the record for the greatest number of crème pies thrown at him (seven) by the Belgian anarchist Noël Godin.

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Europe/2011/0328/How-a-philosopher-swayed-France-s-response-on-Libya

我同意Achcar教授的觀點。西方各國出手干預利比亞內政，並非基於人道主義，而是為了她們自己的經濟利益。但在另一方面，嘎達菲也的確在屠殺民眾。站在我的立場(也是Achcar教授的立場)，人命高於(國家)主權。因此，在兩害相權的情況下，我不譴責西方「帝國主義」這次在利比亞的動作。

我認為西方各國在恢復利比亞秩序和穩定國際油價後，應立即停止軍事行動，不得進一步將利比亞分裂為兩個國家，來控制和/或操縱利比亞人民及其政局。

Discussion on Libya -- From The Real News Network

Transcript

PAUL JAY, SENIOR EDITOR, TRNN: Welcome to The Real News Network. I'm Paul Jay. In Libya the planes are pounding Gaddafi air force and his on-the-ground antiaircraft artilleries, but they are also killing civilians, which has prompted the head of the Arab League to say that the attack is going beyond the limits of what the Arab League supported.

AMR MOUSSA: We requested the Security Council to establish a no-fly zone in order to protect the civilians, in addition to safe areas for the civilians to sit in without attacks on them. But the military developments that happened today, I really have no reports as yet.

JAY: The issue of the resolution at the United Nations in this attack is quite controversial, obviously. And now joining us to give us his views on the resolution and what's now happening in Libya is Gilbert Achcar. Gilbert teaches at the Department of Oriental and African Studies at the University of London. He's also the author of the book The Arabs and the Holocaust: The Israeli-Arab War of Narratives. Thanks for joining us, Gilbert.

GILBERT ACHCAR: Thank you, Paul.

JAY: So, first of all, let's talk about your initial take as we were heading towards the UN resolution, and then Saturday's meetings with NATO. What--you gave a kind of qualified position on the resolution. Explain what it was.

ACHCAR: My position was that with this mass movement in Libya asking for a no-fly zone in order to protect them from Gaddafi's forces and the main asset that he has, which makes his military superiority, which is aviation, and with the people in Benghazi really been fearing for their lives, you know, faced with a dictator who has been threatening them in all sorts of forms, I couldn't see, I can't see how, humanly, one could say, well, no, we're sorry; we are against renting you a no-fly zone; we are against our governments intervening in any way in that; and, well, you know, you will have to be massacred, and that's all we can do. I mean, I think this is too cynical. This is not a possible attitude. That's why I said that one can't reasonably, in my view, in such a condition, which is very specific--you have a real uprising. You have a real request by the uprising for this. You have a real threat of massacre, of mass murder. And, actually, there--I mean, the--until now, you had several thousands of people killed in Libya from the beginning of the uprising. So, I mean, in this specific situation, I think that opposing this, the demand put forward by the movement was not something that I could subscribe to from a left-wing perspective, which doesn't mean--I mean, which doesn't mean having the slightest confidence or actually support for those powers who are now implementing this no-fly zone.

JAY: Well, the critique of the intervention is that it's being done simply to secure Western oil interests. How do you respond to that?

ACHCAR: That's--doesn't hold water, because we're not speaking of a state or a regime, Gaddafi's regime, which has been clashing with Western interests. Actually, there are--I mean, the whole range of Western oil companies are represented in Libya and exploitation and exploration of oil in Libya. And this regime has been a close collaborator of Western powers over the last years. You know, Gaddafi played it very close-buddy to all sorts of Western leaders--Berlusconi, Tony Blair, the United States. So--and he has been collaborating in concrete forms with all these people. So to think that this intervention is about what, about granting concessions to Western oil companies, they have them already. No, the point is not here. Of course, there is an oil dimension in all that. It's the one I stress. That is, they are faced with the likelihood of a massacre at a big scale, very big scale, which would mean, if this happens, I mean, putting them in the necessity of, at the very least, creating an embargo on Libyan oil. And in the conditions of the oil market and in the conditions of the global economy presently, this is not sustainable. And that's why they have to prevent that. They have to prevent that. And that's why they finally opted, some of them with some hesitation, like the case for the United States, for this intervention.

JAY: And it seems the French stuck their neck out more or less 'cause they thought this--everyone was predicting Gaddafi was going to lose pretty quickly. So I assume the French thought they were picking a winner fairly early in the game by backing the rebellion.

ACHCAR: Yeah. Well, that there are factors behind that. On the one hand, it's pure demagogy from Sarkozy, after the scandals of the collusion between the French government and the Tunisian dictatorship in particular. So now he's playing, you know, big Mr. Democrat, big supporters of uprising, the kind of new incarnation of Lafayette, going, you know, to the--helping revolutions. But of course no one is fooled. Basically, behind that is a kind of interest, more seriously speaking. I'm sure that he contemplates that France could, having played this role, be rewarded with a larger slice of the Libyan oil cake than what it had until now. French interests are represented in Libya--Total Elf Fina--but they are not the major--they don't have a major share of oil interests there.

JAY: Now, a lot depends on how you assess who is in the rebellion. Some of the critique that's coming is portraying Gaddafi as still having some kind of anti-imperialist character to him, and then portraying the rebellion as essentially being kind of pro-Western or Western-inspired. So what do you make of it? Who are the rebels?

ACHCAR: Well, the rebels are a political mixture. As we have seen in every single uprising in the whole region, I mean, whether in Yemen, of course, or even in countries, like, which are, let's say, with different social structures, like Egypt and Tunisia, we have had a very broad spectrum of political forces engage in the movement with one single objective in common, which us to get rid of the dictatorship and the demand for democratic freedoms, for free elections, and the rest, I mean, basic human rights people are fighting for in this part of the world. And, again, I mean, the clash was not about anti-West and pro-West. Until the very last minute, I mean, until this UN resolution, all that, and even after a little after, Gaddafi was, you know, asking his Western friends, his European friends, and all that to support him. And he--I mean, his discourse was saying this is an al-Qaeda led uprising, and if you guys want me to continue contributing or collaborating with you in fighting al-Qaeda (because he rendered services to the United States in that regard, his service, his secret services and the rest), you have to support me. And now, I mean, after the bombing, we have seen him radically change now his discourse into saying--into borrowing the exact phraseology, vocabulary of al-Qaeda, and saying this is a crusader war. And the word crusader in Arabic, Horoob Salebeya, is more--I mean, it's not metaphoric. It's more directly related to religion than in European languages. It's a crusader war against Islam. And as one of the members of the transitory council in Libya was saying on Al Jazeera in Arabic a little while ago, nobody can be fooled by that, because he is the one who took Libya very close to this governments that he's denouncing now, he is the one who brought them in, he is the one who actually helped Bush save face after the debacle of the so-called weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and, you know, the Bush administration was able to say, look, we have achieved something, the Libyans renounced to their program of weapons of mass destruction and the rest. He has been, you know, developing all kind of links with all the Western governments, including the absolutely dirty role that the Libyan government has been playing against immigration from African shores to Italian shores, to Italy, or to Europe through Italy. And so all that--I mean, how can anyone believe--I mean, except out of sheer ignorance about what Gaddafi has been doing over the last years, how can anyone believe that this is something about toppling an enemy of the West? This is ridiculous.

JAY: What did you make of the United Nations resolution itself? You said it's hard to oppose it, given there was about to be an attack on Benghazi that could have been a slaughter of the people there. On the other hand, the resolution itself seems rather open-ended. What do you think of the kind of wording of it is? And how do you see the fight now in terms of global public opinion? As I said, the Arab League leaders said that the bombing that's taking place now is going beyond what the Arab League ever supported in terms of the resolution.

ACHCAR: Yeah, absolutely. I mean, they asked for this no-flight zone because that was the demand of the uprising. And it got popular, actually, even generally speaking, in the Arab world, because people were seeing that these people--I mean, you know, TV reportage from there showing these people really frightened about what was going to happen to them. I mean, people were seeing the movement, asking, requesting this no-fly zone and were asking for that. And, of course, when the Arab League relayed that kind of demand, it did that very hypocritically. And that's no doubt about that, because many of the states involved in this league of Arab states are themselves repressing violently their own populations. But still what they are seeing is--I mean, Amr Moussa in particular, because he has--you have even a personal dimension: the secretary of the Arab League is someone who is contemplating running for president in Egypt--came out now denouncing, and rightly so, certainly, the fact that--I mean, the way that the strikes were led. In order supposedly to implement, to enforce the no-flight zone, they are resorting to such heavy means, with these usual, between quote marks, "collateral damage" and killing civilians. And, of course, this is not a way to protect civilians.

JAY: The bombing in Tripoli doesn't seem to have anything to do with preventing the attack on Benghazi.

ACHCAR: No, but it's about the no-fly zone thing. That is, they pretend, or at least they say they are striking at anti-air installations and aviation installations. This is to make sure that they control the air over Libya. And as far as understood from the news, they are now saying that this has been--I mean, the no-fly zone is enforced. So does it mean that this kind of bombings will stop? We'll have to see. The latest news, also, are about a new offensive of the insurgents and new territorial gains made by the uprising, by the insurrection. All this I'm saying without any means of verification, of course, but these are the latest news that I've heard at this moment, at the moment of speaking.

JAY: The resolution clearly did not mandate regime change, and it didn't mandate paving the way for regime change either, in other words, bombing in such a way that it puts Gaddafi in such a situation that the rebellion can overthrow him. It was meant, if I understand it correctly, simply to protect Benghazi and some of the other cities from being bombed, civilian populations being bombed. China's already said there's been too many civilian deaths in the course of this. What do you think is going to be--is sort of--in terms of international progressive public opinion, what is the point of struggle now?

ACHCAR: But let me stress one point before that which is very important in this whole discussion about this resolution. It is that the resolution included something that the uprising have been very, very clear about, which is they don't want any ground forces to intervene in Libya. And this is stated very clearly in the resolution. That's probably where the resolution is most directly responding to the requests by the uprising, and also the issue of the no-fly zone. Beyond that, this resolution leaves such a wide margin of free interpretation for those powers that have the means to intervene that of course it's nothing that I can support. I didn't say I support this resolution, just said that you can't oppose it, in the sense that saying that, well, we are against any no-fly zone, and even at the cost of a massacre. I can't see this as a reasonable position. But this said, once this is here, we have to be absolutely vigilant. We have to condemn the forms of bombings. And every time that they really, as has been the case, strike at civilians, we have to--therefore, to act against that. And this is the anti-imperialist struggle. We have to be vigilant also about any attempt to go beyond the--I mean, in other ways, beyond the limits of this resolution, which is only about protecting civilians.

JAY: There is an argument or a critique of the resolution which says that occupation is not the same as no ground troops. When the resolution says "no occupation", it doesn't mean that there couldn't be an attack with then, supposedly, an attempt to get out or in fact an actual getting out, that there is sort of a room there for ground forces, as long as they leave after this protection of civilian is over.

ACHCAR: It excludes foreign occupation forms of any form on any part of Libyan territory. Now, if that--if people try to twist that into meaning that they can intervene on the ground, this at the very least would not only contradict the text, but also the very clearly stated position of the uprising, and reiterated today again. I heard that in statements on the television that they are against--and for good reason--against any intervention of troops on the ground. They don't need troops on the ground, actually. And, as I said, the latest news that they are--that the uprising resumed offensive, which, if true, is certainly good news to me, because I think that there should be no hesitation in supporting the uprising against this absolutely bloody and reactionary dictatorship of Gaddafi--.

JAY: Once you're in a situation where essentially Gaddafi can't fight back because of the foreign forces and the rebels start being on the offensive, then don't you have actually a kind of foreign management of the civil war? I mean, isn't the issue at this point now there has to be a ceasefire and some peaceful way to resolve this, whether it's a call for elections or something like this?

ACHCAR: I can't see the Gaddafi regime accepting any form of solution of this kind. Now, the key issue is, of course, I mean, if the issue is implementing a ceasefire, I'm speaking here of rebellion in the cities and towns. So it's about movement of troops, it's about a ceasefire of this kind. I don't think it means stopping the uprising, because the uprising, of course, is a democratic right that can't be stopped. But now, of course, if--I mean, it's not up to me to say what should be accepted or not as a political solution on the ground; this is up to the people concerned. My only issue here is of the fact that this is a very specific situation, and therefore one where an action was needed in order to prevent a massacre. And that was true. It wasn't some kind of a pretext invented, as we have seen so many times, by the United States and its allies in order to implement an invasion. That's a different case, although, again, I don't lend any support to the kind of armed intervention that they are undertaking. I think we have to be very critical and vigilant and denounce any, you know, killing of civilians on the part of this coalition.

JAY: Thanks very much for joining us, Gilbert.

ACHCAR: Thank you, Paul.

JAY: Thank you for joining us on The Real News Network.

End of Transcript

DISCLAIMER: Please note that transcripts for The Real News Network are typed from a recording of the program. TRNN cannot guarantee their complete accuracy.

http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=6457

Viewpoint: How Libya Became a French and British War

Michael Elliott, 03/19/11

As the military action against Libya to give teeth to U.N. Security Resolution 1973 began, one question kept nagging away: Why, precisely, were the governments of Britain and France in the lead? Why were their armed forces taking part in the military action, and why had their diplomats done the grunt work in the negotiations that led to the adoption of Resolution 1973?

It is not an easy question to answer. British Prime Minister David Cameron said that the military action against Muammar Gaddafi was "necessary, it is legal and it is right." Right, "because I don't believe that we should stand aside while this dictator murders his own people." French President Sarkozy said "If we intervene on the side of the Arab nations it is because of a universal conscience that cannot tolerate such crimes." I'm not one of those cynics who assumes that such statements are devoid of content; in any event, they are grounded in language that was already quite condemnatory of Libya in Res. 1973. But the rhetoric doesn't really answer the question: Why intervene? (See why Gaddafi is determined to keep power at all costs.)

Is what happens in Libya of direct national interest to Britain and France? To be sure, Libya is across the Mediterranean Sea from Europe, and its trade is directed mainly there. But Libya is a nation of only 6.5m people. For comparison, that is a bit more than El Salvador, a bit less than Honduras, and whatever happened in the Cold War, it is a while since U.S. policy makers have argued that what goes on in Central American nations is of such pressing national interest to the U.S. that it would legitimize armed intervention there.

Libya has oil and gas, yes -- but less than 2% of the world's oil reserves, while technology is about to make gas available in such abundance that it hardly matters which country has it. It's hard to make the case that there is some pressing commercial reason for Britain and France to take the lead in the way that they have done, which will not stop those who see oil companies behind every foreign military adventure doing so.

Immigration? Yes, instability in the Maghreb tends to produce flows of migrants north. And in the case of Libya, even if those fleeing the fighting go first to Italy, they can make their way eventually to other nations of the European Union. But it's pretty hard to imagine that there would be some unmanageable refugee crisis in North Africa if Muammar Gaddafi held on to power in Libya. The Mediterranean is a wide sea; it's not a border that you can just walk across. (See TIME's photos of Libya in revolt.)

History? Britain, despite its rapprochement with Gaddafi under the government of Tony Blair, has little reason to love or trust the Libyan leader -- Libyan agents were responsible for the downing of PanAm Flight 103 over Scotland, and a London policewoman, Yvonne Fletcher, was shot dead from the Libyan embassy in 1984. But horrible though those crimes were, nobody is suggesting that their memory is a reason to go to war.

Getting back in people's good books? Sarkozy started off on the wrong side of the Arab spring, his government staying cozily entwined with that of Tunisia when the street had turned against it. I've heard it suggested that he's taking the lead on Libya so as to recover France's reputation in the Arab world. If so, this is a mighty risky way of going about it: military intervention in Libya is not guaranteed to be a success, and nor is it uniformly popular among Arabs, even those who have been demonstrating for democracy around the region.

What about delusions of grandeur? There will be those who argue that France and Britain are behaving the way they are simply because they think their history entitles them to, because they want to show that they are still great powers. But assuming that Cameron and Sarkozy are rational decision makers (I do) that just doesn't fly. Both Britain and France are democracies. In neither of them is military adventurism popular with voters.

That leaves two factors that might go some way to explain the Franco-British policy. First, I suspect that there is a genuine belief in both governments that while the U.S. is still the world's balance wheel, the indispensable nation, it cannot do everything and should not be asked to -- that the world is a more secure place if other democracies help the U.S. carry the diplomatic and military load of ensuring global stability. To be sure, such a policy can go disastrously wrong, as most British observers would say was true of their country's alliance with the U.S. in the Iraq war. But that does not mean that the principle is worthless. (Watch the passionate rebels in action.)

Second, it would not surprise me if both governments -- and that of the U.S. -- came to a conclusion that former British Prime Minister Tony Blair elaborated in an article in The Times of London and Wall Street Journal. When faced with a crisis like that of Libya, Blair argued, "Inaction is a decision, a policy with consequences. The wish to keep out of it all is entirely understandable; but it is every bit as much of a decision as acting."

Britain, France, the U.S., and every nation under the sun, could -- I suppose -- had said nothing at all when Gaddafi started turning on those demonstrating against his rule three weeks ago. But they did not. They condemned him out of hand. To have done nothing now, when it seemed as if Gaddafi was going to win Libya's civil war would have been a decision in and of itself, and one, moreover, that would have exposed the weakness of those who had so recently called for him to go.

Looked at in that light, the decision to start military action in Libya -- however wise or unwise that turns out to be -- starts at least to be comprehensible.

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2060412,00.html