Friday, March 29, 2024
This column is available for visitors to the IPS website only for reading. Reproduction in print or electronic media is prohibited. Media interested in republishing may contact romacol@ips.org.
In this analysis, Ramonet writes that a number of observations are in order:
While the recently-liberated peoples of Tunisia and Egypt should have immediately provided support to the besieged Libyans, their governments simply were in no condition to do so. UN Resolution 1973 has the support of the Arab League as well as certain African countries and was proposed by an Arab state: Lebanon. Neither China nor Russia vetoed it. No state, Brazil and India included, voted against it.
One can object to the current structure of the UN or argue that it is dominated by western powers. However, presently the UN is the only source of international law, and unlike the wars of Kosovo and Iraq, which never won UN support, the intervention in Libya is internationally legal and legitimate according to principles of humanitarian solidarity. Muslim countries that were initially resistant, like Turkey, ended up participating. Had Gaddafi made good on his intention to drown the popular uprising in blood, this would have given the green light to the other tyrants in the region to do the same.
The European Union has a particular responsibility in this context, and not only military. It is time to think about the next step in the consolidation of the new democracies across the Mediterranean, and the possibility of programme of massive economic assistance like the “Marshall Plan” after World War Two.
The Arab peoples are no doubt weighing rights and wrongs in the current intervention. The majority of them support the insurgents and thus far there have been no protests against the operation in Arab capitals. Rather, as if stimulated by it, new protests have sprung up in Morocco, Yemen, Bahrain, and in especially in Syria.