Humanitarian interventions are not licenses for mass urban massacres

Indeed, over the past 20 years since the sudden demise of the Soviet Union, the West, acting much like in James Bond movies via its lingering Cold War-era vestigial organ, called NATO, now behaves as if it has obtained the ultimate and unlimited license for ‘justifiable murders’ across the globe in the name of spreading democracy to places where such term is ‘totally alien’ to the locals’ mentality or as parts of sometimes ambiguously defined humanitarian intervention missions in intrastate tribal conflicts that threaten its strategic interests in those regions. 

Take the most recent case – the ongoing operation, codenamed, “Odyssey Dawn,” – to enforce a UN Security ‘no-fly zone’ resolution over the Libyan airspace, so as to protect the rebel forces from the aerial assaults by pro-Gaddafi army. The idea, as usual, was ‘sold by London, Washington and Paris, as a ‘humanitarian mission’ to protect citizens. But whilst the resolution was being passed, warmongering UK, U.S. and France were able to inject such a seeming neutral clause - ‘all measures necessary’ - to protect civilians. Expectedly, such resolution received no objections from veto-holding powers, thus giving the West the desired green light for mass carnages. 

It is unclear, why veto-welding Moscow and Beijing along with Berlin, refrained from voting, but in retrospect, it would have been better if Russia and China had outrightly vetoed the policy, instead of abstaining, a move that would have tied up West’s hands . Now, the question is, which Libyan people need protection and from whom – the majority that still support its leader, no matter how detestable that might sound to Cameron, Obama and Sarkozy, or the rebellious minority that has taken the whole nation hostage, and their selfish actions put their country directly under more destructive harm? The scale of the aerial raids have been so devastating that the Arab League secretary general, one of the first advocates for a no-fly regime, has reminded the West the resolution’s object was to protect Libyans and not to massacre them. 

In western democracy, a regime change is always via an existing political system and has never been achieved through ‘street revolutions,’ and in such process, the majority usually takes all, leaving the minority with little or nothing. But why the West in this case has decided to side with the minority against the majority? The answer is clear, because the rebellious minority is its ‘pet project,’ and if it eventually wins against Gaddafi, it will surely place its new masters’ interests above its people’s interests. And, in case of Libya, these are hydrocarbons and related byproducts. 

Any nation that is not a failed state has all the legal rights, as a sovereign government under the UN Charter, to protect itself from both internal and external forces, with all means under its disposal. And this raises the question: what did the rebels and their western ‘tutors’ think a leader like Gaddafi would do when violent protests threaten his government – run into exile like the Tunisian president or into forced resignation like the Egyptian president? Knowing Gaddafi, why was the most obvious option of ruthlessly crushing such revolts not factored into this equation by these events’ myopic planners? 

This brings us to Cameron’s speech in late 2010, when UK students went on rampage across British streets, destroying vehicles, state buildings and other social infrastructure, even almost killing the crown prince in central London. Then he called on all security forces to use “all the means necessary” to avoid a repeat of such wreckage. In other words, instead of heeding his people’s justified demands, Cameron, faced with a popular uprising against his fragile coalition government, was ready to use ‘all the necessary means’ against the British people. How does this differ from the Libyan leader’s script? In that the British, unlike the Libyans, did not give their blood-thirsty leader a pretext to carry out his atrocious promise. 

Similarly, Obama’s stance is even more confusing: would he voluntarily relinquish his presidential powers to a group of marginal racial extremists, who are persistently questioning his racial, religious belief, U.S. citizenship and birthplace, and hence his eligibility for the presidency, if they were to march on Washington with weapons to demand so? 

The motives behind Sarkozy’s zest are more intriguing, thus raising an obvious question: maybe the unprecedented enthusiasm behind Paris’ relentless push to bomb Libya under the pretext of ‘humanitarian intervention’ was probably aimed at destroying the evidence collaborating Gaddafi Jnr’s yet unchallenged allegations that Tripoli had generously bankrolled Sarkozy’s presidential electoral victory that catapulted him into the Elyse Palace?

How will these leaders now explain the increasing deaths tolls caused by their bombardments to Libyan parents? The answer is obvious: such deaths will, as usual, be attributed to the ‘military’s collateral damages,’ ‘deaths from so-called accidental friendly fires,’ ‘the heavy price that the Libyans had to pay for freedom and democracy,’ etc. 

Does this not sound familiar? It surely does, and where and when recently did we hear these outrageously stupid explanations for premeditated mass murders and reckless urban destructions? In Somalia, Serbia, Iraq and Afghanistan, and where are these nations today after the West-led carnages? They have all become classical cases of failed states. The fact that such missions have not yielded the expected results in the past is not a cogent reason for warmongering superpowers to reconsider their use of this policy of atrocities, when all other options have yet to be exhausted. 

It has always beaten my imagination how leaders of nations that claim to be the world’s custodians of human rights and values can actually plan and really authorize the use of the most sophisticated jetfighters to indiscriminately bomb and recklessly destroy modern cities filled with people, animals and major urban social infrastructural facilities such as roads, bridges, airports, hospitals, schools, churches, mosques, etc., and expect not to cause uncountable deaths among innocent citizens. 

Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, known for his signature direct and tough talks, might again be, as usual, right in assessment of the current situation by aptly describing the UN resolution sanctioning these nefarious acts of senseless destructions in Libya as utterly “flawed and defective” and equating those responsible for them to “the bloodthirsty religious crusaders from dark ages”. What an apt name for leaders of western nations that have declared themselves the ‘only rightful custodians’ of civilized values of our modern world.