Thursday, October 25, 2012

Libya: where are the western 'humanitarian interventionists' now?



Massacres in Libya, human rights abuses, a ban on demonstrations, claims that chemical weapons are being used by the government- but silence from the west's 'humanitarian interventionists' - the very people who couldn't stop talking about Libya in Feb/March 2011.
 
Above you can watch an interview with me on RT on western double standards towards human rights in Libya and what it tells us about 'humanitarian interventionism'.

5 comments:

brian said...

http://lizzie-phelan.blogspot.com.au/2012/10/bani-walid-people-refused-right-of.html

HMM....now who else is refused right of return?

Neil Clark said...

Hmmm. let's think.....

I heard Bernard Henri-Levy calling for international action to save the people of B-Walid yesterday... only joking.

K Naylor said...

I thought this was a good assessment of the situation in Libya now by Indian journalist Vijay Prashad in The Hindu,

"Hanging over the Libyan security situation is the lack of accountability for war crimes during the February-October revolution of 2011. On May 2, 2012, the Libyan National Transitional Council granted blanket amnesty to those who committed crimes during the revolution, including murder and forced displacement. Law 38 (On Some Procedures for the Transitional Period) essentially allowed the militias the confidence of impunity. It emboldened them to disregard the war crimes conducted last year, and to consider that their actions in the present will also be similarly forgiven. The danger of “victor’s justice” is that it creates a political grammar that affects the new terrain, allowing the militias institutional support for their lawless behaviour."

http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/victors-justice-bedevils-the-new-libya/article4048214.ece

K Naylor said...

More from Prashad,

http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/victors-justice-bedevils-the-new-libya/article4048214.ece

"The Misrata militia has laid siege to the city of Bani Walid, where there has been less enthusiasm for the new Libya, and whose citizens have been accused of kidnapping and killing Omar Bin Shaaban, a 22-year-old Misratan credited with the murder of Qadhafi. Misrata’s militias are acting with the authority of the government, which passed Resolution 7 on September 25 to allow them to go in and capture those who killed Bin Shaaban. The militias are not constrained to simply go and arrest the accused. They want to subdue Bani Walid. As Mohammed el-Gandus, a spokesperson for the militias put it, “If we win this fight, Libya will finally be free.”

The atmosphere of impunity does not only shroud the activities of the militias. The passage of Resolution 7 and Law 38 demonstrate that the Libyan government has not taken the regime of human rights seriously. The International Criminal Court (ICC), so eager to enter the conflict in February 2011, has also taken a back seat. U.N. Security Council Resolution 1970 gives the ICC jurisdiction over the Libyan theatre at least during the conflict phase; it has utterly failed to honour these obligations. Furthermore, NATO entered the Libyan conflict to protect civilians in the name of the human rights regime. Nevertheless, NATO and the Atlantic powers have refused to allow any evaluation of their use of firepower against Libya with resulting civilian casualties whose numbers are unaccountable (as I showed in “When Protector Turned Killer,” The Hindu, June 11, 2012). NATO’s casualties include the dead in Sirte. Its drones struck the convoy, leaving them at the will of the Misrata militias'."

Neil Clark said...

Hi Karl, Good points there. Thanks.