Libya: Doing the right thing for the wrong reasons

[Skybird]

http://www.ip-global.org/2011/08/26/...wrong-reasons/

The Libyan revolution, with some help from the West, seems about to reach its first goal, the removal of dictator Muammar el-Qaddafi from power. What will come of Libya after the rebels take over is as unclear as ever. However, it is high time to congratulate the daring revolutionaries, and show high respect for their willingness to risk their lives in the pursuit of a better future.

Here in Europe, however, the Western intervention raises very substantial questions about the role of values in foreign policy. Now that victory looks certain, those who were skeptical of the intervention, including myself, look slightly silly. No one expected much of an enlightened argument from a pacifist, for sure, but what about those self-proclaimed realists, who allegedly abhor values in international relations, are willing to compromise with despots, and showed small-minded reluctance to grant the besieged rebels in Misurata a life-saving intervention? Has Libya not proven that a values-guided foreign policy is the only credible way forward?

Not so fast. Though rhetoric about spreading democracy through military intervention seems to be vindicated, idealistic and values-based considerations were not the primary motivations for many of the nations involved***8212;certainly not for France, which was much praised for its firm leadership. Self-interest, even selfishness, prevailed in almost all of the involved governments***8217; rationales. Take France: Despite the fiery rhetoric, principled humanism took a back seat in Nicolas Sarkozy***8217;s decision-making. The domestically weakened French president was driven by a need to bolster his pre-election poll rating by demonstrating some firm international leadership. In this, he was assisted by the king of the French juste-milieu, Bernard-Henri Levy, whose personal engagement with the president made Sarkozy believe that he could reconcile with parts of the French intellectual left. Furthermore, the French president needed to save his country***8217;s reputation in the region, ruined by cozy relationships of cabinet members with dictators and their affiliates in northern Africa. Thirdly, he saw an easy chance to score a few brownie points, and maybe even potential votes, with the considerable number of Muslim voters in his country.

Sarkozy clearly wanted to be on the right side of history, not because he cared about freedom and human rights in the region, but because standing up for them was politically useful for him. Values played a role, but a purely instrumental one, as it mostly does in international politics. It is true that the outcome was still the right one. One can do the right thing for the wrong reasons. But neo-cons and other idealists should not believe that France (and Britain, a very similar case) showed great leadership based on fundamental Western principles. Rather, it paid off politically to appear as if one was acting on principle. (I don***8217;t even want to talk about Italy, which made it very clear from the beginning that it wanted to protect its investments in the former colony, or about Germany, which failed on all fronts: strategically, morally, and in terms of its own self-interest, but that***8217;s another story.)

Very rarely do values, morals, and humanitarian principles play a primary, non-instrumental role in their own right. Traditionally, they are inserted into international politics in one of two ways: either as a fig leaf to make pure power politics look better, giving them some legitimacy, or as a public moral outcry, creating considerable momentum and media attention, and forcing governments to jump on the bandwagon as they do not want to look cold-hearted or cynical. The Libya case clearly falls in the second of the above categories. Yes, there are plenty of reasons to be happy about what has happened there, at least for the time being. But there is very little reason for interventionist triumphalism and for feverish op-eds congratulating the West on its great leadership in defense of freedom. All who do so undermine the very values they support, because they give praise where no praise is due and turn the debate upside down. The false is seen as true. Spin is taken for truth. Show is taken for substance.

The West got lucky. It did the right thing for once. Libyans are thankful for the immense help they were given. But they also know now that Western convictions are skin deep. To get the debate about values in foreign policy right, we should be very self-critical rather than applaud ourselves. Maybe next time we can do the right thing for the right reason.

JAN TECHAU is a research advisor at NATO Defense College, Rome.

[Castout]

I stopped reading when Sarkozy is mentioned as having helped the Libyan people to rally his faltering image and popularity.


That really makes no sense. You don't try to rally political support by supporting foreign people with military action. It would be folly.

That article argues with hindsight so I won't take it seriously.

Russian officials tried to portray the same thing of Sarkozy but really there's no credible evidence and reason to believe their argument. Those Russians are merely politicking and nothing more but they were so bad at it (since what else can they argue) that any critical minded person can see through it.

Now I must ask why does Putin with his waning popular support not support the Syrian people by taking military action in Syria through the UN? WHY?? If Russia wants to lead a military intervention in Syria I'm sure Europe will be willing to take supporting role.

You really think that you can rally domestic support (since regional support is less crucial) by waging military action for foreign people in foreign land especially under the current economic situation in Europe and US? Can you imagine the risk? What a baloney.

Logic dictates it was merely an act of goodwill on the part of France, Britain and Obama.

Now the world hopes that the Syrians be helped even through merely diplomatic, political and economic pressure and hope that the Syrians could benefit from those actions and the sufferings can be alleviated or lessened or that a solution from within can present itself through these International pressures.

[NeonSamurai]

Good will my butt. The powers almost never do anything for good will, or if they did they would be more proactive in countries where genocide is going on, that do not have access to oil or other resources.

No they did this mostly for economic reasons involving oil and military equipment.

Logic dictates it was merely an act of goodwill on the part of France, Britain and Obama.

Oh dear
Reality dictates that the people who backed the "alternative" government are very concerned that their rebels might not be the rebels who get in power and also that their "rebels" might not be able or willing to deliver on any agreements they may have made or implied.

Still look at it on the bright side, there is no suggestion so far that the western backed new regime have really been working for Iran all along

[HunterICX]

Originally Posted by NeonSamurai

Good will my butt. The powers almost never do anything for good will, or if they did they would be more proactive in countries where genocide is going on, that do not have access to oil or other resources.

No they did this mostly for economic reasons involving oil and military equipment.

^This

The UN doesn't stick it's neck out if there's nothing to gain from it.

HunterICX

[Betonov]

Originally Posted by HunterICX

^This

The UN doesn't stick it's neck out if there's nothing to gain from it.

HunterICX

Neck, the UN has a neck ?? I always thought you need a spine if you want to have a neck

[HunterICX]

Originally Posted by Betonov

Neck, the UN has a neck ?? I always thought you need a spine if you want to have a neck

I stand corrected

HunterICX

[STEED]

Originally Posted by NeonSamurai

Good will my butt. The powers almost never do anything for good will, or if they did they would be more proactive in countries where genocide is going on, that do not have access to oil or other resources.

No they did this mostly for economic reasons involving oil and military equipment.

No argument from me.

[Jimbuna]

Aye the hypocrisy and double standards are quite embarrassing really

Aye the hypocrisy and double standards are quite embarrassing really

Only if you expect any different.

The UN doesn't stick it's neck out if there's nothing to gain from it.

The UN is only as good as its members, on major issues it is only as good as the big five all want it to be.

[Jimbuna]

Yes I do expect something different but being a realist I doubt I will ever witness any difference in the short term.

[MH]

Originally Posted by Skybird

http://www.ip-global.org/2011/08/26/...wrong-reasons/


JAN TECHAU is a research advisor at NATO Defense College, Rome.

I wonder if the same could have been written about Iraq but without the lucky part at the end.

Its all in proper marketing.

[Castout]

Originally Posted by NeonSamurai

No they did this mostly for economic reasons involving oil and military equipment.

They saved many many Libyans lives. I wouldn't care a damn about oil. All I see is that NATO saved lives.

There may be gains that could be made in every revolution but saying Sarkozy helped to rally his waning political support is baseless.

If the temptation was so great at little risk why did the US politicians backing off? Why did the AU not give their support early to the rebels? Why did Russia and China insisted on defending Gaddafi?

WHY? If it was merely about easy oil why the hell did the US politicians backing off from their country's involvement in Libya?

Why the so many people's argument that Libya was going to be a stalemate like Afghanistan and or Iraq? Many even still believe there's going to be insurgency...long persisting insurgency throughout Libya and or that the country is going to descend to prolonged civil war between the rebel factions. Only time will prove them otherwise and time will silent these people.

Now I tell you there is OIL in Syria. Come and get it!!! Why don't they rush? Is it because Syria's military is far tougher but but there's OIL!!! If you said Gaddafi's army wasn't tough why did US back off from their involvement. easy picking right? Oil to be gained after all!

In the end our beliefs make our judgment. And we quite objectively, are quite irrational beings when it comes to opinion.

The fact is the West involvement in libya has saved many Libyan lives and has changed their lives forever. Those people who were once under the burden of servitude and persecution to Gaddafi are now free people. Those who have suffered and suffered a lot now can live in peace as decent human being. If some people decided to betray this revolution to raise another dictatorship then curse them but each revolution is a worthy struggle to be tried.

Oil in my opinion will always profit either this or that foreign faction. If now it will tend to benefit the European bloc then so be it. Everyone gets what they deserve. Cest la vie, happy for these people. AND now the Libyans can enjoy the benefit of their oil rather than the money be pocketed by Gaddafi.

if only the Eqyptians could have a more genuine and lasting revolution. It is true that most systems are run by simple psychopaths(there is never a sophisticated psychopath), defective and failing human beings, functional chaos at best, deterioration to elite anarchy at worst. Self made kings undeserving of such titles, unrefined people who think too highly of themselves, damn annoying little people, regressed and backward.

[Reece]

What ever happened to The Prime Directive?

[Castout]

In all dealings there must be mutual benefits to be gained by all parties otherwise there wouldn't be any deal made.

When deals are made where one side doesn't benefit whatsoever from it it is then called charity.

Now most deals are not charity.

Cest la vie.

Even love today often are not free. People have criteria whom they CAN and CANNOT, WILL and WILL NOT love as marriage is a deal for mutual benefits and not a charity.

So when it is as such on the personal level why the sneers at Libya's intervention when ALL parties involved benefit, especially the millions of Libyans.




If you see someone who helped another person greatly and then say he only helped to get a favor aren't you forgetting(and being a cynic) that that person did help greatly when he could have just done nothing?

Any human being even an evil person knows how to return a favor.