Fernando Mires Sunday, March 13, 2011
Nobody asked to be the EU who overthrow the bloodthirsty dictator. What must be demanded of Europe is to support the objectives of the major players in the fight against Gaddafi
Use the concept of treason as part of the title of an article does not appear, at first sight appropriate since in politics there are no eternal loyalty. Neither seems to be a logical concept since neither Gadhafi and insurgent forces are linked to Europe by any non-compliance which involves commitment treason. And yet I say, and in letters-that Europe is about to commit high treason in Libya.
For the avoidance of doubt, we can say here is using the term treason in a moral sense nor in a legal one but in an essentially political, in this case, as a disregard of the duties that correspond to Europe to defend democracy at, if not worldwide, at least regionally.
Some think that if we talk of treason to the Libyan people-people that is currently being massacred, the first responsibility has to correspond to the U.S. as leader of the "democratic world." Those who think it must be said, were unfortunately stuck in the sands of the Cold War when the struggle for hegemony, technical, scientific, military, economic and political, was bipolar. Today is tetra-polar.
The world is still under dispute hegemony, but today there are only two, there are four major rivals, four superpowers. An openly dictatorial (China). Another semi-democratic (Russia) and two Democrats (the EU and the USA). Now, in the space determined by the struggle for democracy, in all that relates to North Africa, the place of Western decisions must correspond to the EU and not the U.S.. Why?
for several reasons. Europe is linked to North Africa for historical (colonial) economic (oil interests, tourism, trade), geographical (proximity) and especially demographic (migration). In the struggle for international democracy, accountability of the EU is enormous.
According to the political philosophy of the Obama administration, the U.S. can not and should be everywhere. Reasoning not only fair, also obvious. The role of world policeman self-awarded by Bush Sr. was just an attempt to extend the logic of the Cold War, this time in the Gulf (1991). The war against Milosevic's Yugoslavia (1999) was part of a project to prevent the formation of a micro-empire expansionist Russia allied with Boris Jelzin and only in second place, to protect the Kosovar Albanian population , is also a remnant of Cold War. The war in Afghanistan (2001) was a direct derivation of September 11. And the war against Saddam Hussein's Iraq (2003) was carried out to prevent the formation of a regional empire essentially Iraqi anti-US and anti-Israeli. The historical lie horrible Bush-son (weapons of mass destruction) does not hide the fact that the U.S. objective, the overthrow of Hussein, it was following the dictates of their global power interests, interests which naturally are not the same in Europe . However, Libya is not Iraq.
In Iraq there was never a revolution. Nobody, not Hussein's opponents asked the U.S. act, and that was the second of three big mistakes of Bush (the first was his big lie and the third, Guantánamo). Today, however, are the Libyan revolutionary organizations which are asking for help to the democratic world, especially to Europe. Such assistance, is what became clear at the summit in Brussels on 03.11.2011, has been miserably retracted.
Moreover, if the U.S. had intervened in Libya before Europe, have only served to give the tyrant Gaddafi and other dictators (not just Arabs) that support the role of fighting against the "rule "a role that urgently needs to acquire a modicum of legitimacy in the war against his people.
Needless to say that the first to join the chorus "imperialist" were allegedly members of the "progressive left Europe," always willing to support the worst dictatorships in the world just because they are anti-American. Hence the Obama administration considered - according to a correct evaluation of strategic and tactical-that defend the interests of the people of Libya, Europe and the U.S. should not act first. Otherwise Obama is opening up to the EU a great historic opportunity that the EU finally stops being just what it is: A simple monetary organization, and become once and for all in a political unit and not another because that was the original meaning of the founding agreements of Maastricht (1992).
well understood. No one is asking here that the EU should invade Libya and the U.S. did in Iraq. And nobody is asking whether the EU and not the people of Libya who overthrow the bloodthirsty dictator. What must be demanded of Europe is to support the objectives of the main actors in the fight against Gaddafi (which involves the recognition of a parallel government represented by the Libyan National Council) What we must demand to Europe is to avoid whenever possible the aerial bombardment of civilian populations, as has occurred and is happening intermittently. The air flight ban on Libyan territory seems a reasonable option, even if it means breaking down a couple of planes genocide. What must be demanded of Europe is to give arms and advice to the rebels, who are defending almost with bare hands. What must be required to Europe, finally, is the alternative to direct action if it is to protect the civilian population, all children, women and the elderly.
However, even this minimal solidarity has been granted by the European community.
Of course, not to say Europe is supporting directly to Qaddafi (although indirectly) Nor is it appropriate to accuse European leaders that in the recent past have maintained economic relations with the ruthless dictator. In terms of international economy, no one chooses his friends. And if oil Gaddafi had had to deal with Qaddafi. They played the game. If tomorrow, is an example, the Chinese democrats rise against their national dictatorship, no one can blame the democratic countries have maintained economic relations with China. The absurdity would have been not maintained. That's in the ABC of international politics. The problem lies elsewhere.
The problem is not supporting, able to do so, who were beaten to death against a dictatorship. Failure to do so means to betray, not so much to the revolutionaries, in this case to the Libyans. It means, first of all, betray their own identity, and in the case of Europe, democratic identity. Who does not defend the others also belong to one, can never defend himself.
can, for example, maintain good economic relations with a nation dominated by a dictatorship and at the same time denouncing the abuses committed by the dictatorship against its own people. What one does not remove that. Business is business and politics is politics. The problem is that in the recent past and the governments of the EU never sympathized with Arab opposition in general, or with Libya in particular. Or are they going to keep trying to convince the Arab revolution happened by spontaneous generation? What the Arabs were not "culturally" fit for democracy? What were only Islamist barbarians who just wanted to destroy Israel and the Western world until a group of youths came up to connect to Facebook and Twitter and start a revolution? Others with these stories, fuck no, do not lie more.
While Gaddafi was received with honors in capitals Europe, Libyan prisons, as well as other Arab countries, were crowded with political prisoners, the torture chambers operated without stopping and executed numbered thousands. The betrayal of Europe, not the Arab countries, Libya, but herself, started long ago. Today only made manifest, and in a grotesque way, the agreements in Brussels on March 11, 2011. Let's see:
First agreement: the resignation of Gaddafi, as if Gaddafi was a ruler who has just made some "mistakes." If the dictator has not been roaring with laughter at such a polite request, it is because the monsters do not have humor.
agreement Second: act together with the Arab League and African Union.
Here cynicism borders on the grotesque. What is the Arab League? So far there has been more than an association of dictatorships, military controlled, Islamist and oil sheiks. That is precisely what the crowds are fighting in the Arab street. The African Union, in turn, has never had a political existence. It is a mere ghost.
Third deal: if acting, do it only with UN backing.
This is hypocrisy pure. Everyone knows that the endorsement of the UN passes through the Security Council where Russia and China are where governments have no interest in supporting democratic movements in the world, among other things because any agreement antidictatorial can turn against themselves .
In short, the resolution of Brussels is one of the most shocking evidence of the complete lack of European solidarity with the nascent Arab revolutions. Worse still, Europe has carte blanche to the method used by the butcher of Tripoli, that is, the population bomb with impunity on behalf of a civil war invented, be extended to other nations. I can imagine that some dictators, and not only Arabs have taken note of the "method Gaddafi."
resolution Brussels is the faithful witness of treason. But not only a betrayal of the Arab movement, but, above all, to reiterate, as a betrayal of Europe itself, and this, that in two ways. On the one hand, a historic betrayal, ie the principles that European nations claim to represent. Principles that currently defend the revolutionary people of North Africa. Moreover, it is a political betrayal.
With its meanness ostensive, European nations have been lost, too, a great historic opportunity: to get stable and lasting political relations with political forces that will sooner or later governments in the countries of North Africa. Because with or without help from Europe, these dictatorships fall. Europe has lost, finally, the opportunity to create the foundations for a new beginning in the Euro-Arab relations: a new start based on mutual cooperation, not only commercial but also political. A fresh start could have been consigned to the past his tortured past and its complicity with colonialism among the most abhorrent military dictatorships in the region. A fresh start, in short, had helped create a solid front in the common fight against terrorism, Islamic or not. All this enormous political capital has been wasted by the European international cowardice, and worse, on behalf of narrow commercial interests and immediate electoral.
But we are more righteous, both French and English government spoke for more active solidarity with the revolution in Libya. If they were unsuccessful in their efforts because that unit was missing a third party. Yes, Germany. By that we mean that if it had been a "political trident" formed by London, Paris and Berlin, other European countries would have had no choice but to bow to this new intercontinental hegemony. The fact that the "trident" not been established is a deficit that must be awarded first and foremost in the mind of Germany. In short, I mean what the French and British governments can not say for obvious reasons: the betrayal of Europe is largely a German betrayal.
However, it is not only a betrayal of the government of Angela Merkel as the government did not act in his name only but of a political consensus whose main motto is to maintain a minimum presence in international policy matters . In fact, none of the parties of the German political scene has shown, other than statements of useless "minimal solidarity with the fate of the Arab peoples.
Of course, this solidarity can not wait for "The Left" organization that in the recent past considered Gaddafi and other dictators of the region as companions. Nor can we expect from the Social Democrats, whose governments have worked hand in hand with those dictatorships which also had official representation at the Socialist International itself. German Liberals (FDP) are, in turn, liberals and non-political and economic relations international interest only if they result in surplus cash. Christian social conservatives, and are neither social nor Christian, and his only goal is to win elections at any price. Their secret is not to contradict public opinion that only want to consume and make holiday, without having to worry about expensive interventions "foreign" countries. Finally, the Greens Where are the Greens who yesterday raised against all tyrannies the world, whether "left" or "right"? Unfortunate to say, but true: the Greens have become the green office of the Social, sad paper attempts be disguised by its aging emotional parliamentary speeches on topics absolutely irrelevant. Finally, German politics is sick, sick of bureaucracy, electoral and economic bias, three plagues which suffers not only itself but also exported to the rest of Europe. And worst: with efficiency.
Indeed, foreign aid does not fall dictatorships but can speed the time of his fall, thereby saving many deaths and gore. So at least he has shown in modern history. The Revolution of American independence was aided by the French monarchy against England. Conversely, the French Revolution had American support. Latin American independence revolutions were supported by American and French. The Russian revolution of October had the financial support of Germany, a nation which in turn received a peace treaty disadvantageous for Russia (Brest Litovsk, 1918) signed by Lenin himself. Even in Latin America, the Cuban revolution had its origins with strong American support. Not to mention the Sandinista revolution, it was Carter who dropped to Somoza. And so on.
Arab revolutionaries, however, are not alone. But expire, no doubt. These dictatorships are unsustainable. However, the price of your victories will be much higher than if they had received minimal European solidarity. Probably the U.S., compared to European apathy, and to the scandal of the "peace" Western, will be forced to intervene. Perhaps Europe, under intense international pressure, will speak once, but as always, will later, too late. And who is late-Gorbachev once said "is punished by history.
Europe is its custom, is always late. And finally, always punished ada.
0 comments:
Post a Comment