Ken, I also saw the piece this morning, which, among other things, pointed to the fictitious Viagra-induced rapes, as well as the bogus evidence of genocidal intent, which formed the basis for intervention in the first place. The sullied basis for humanitarian intervention that, after being ratcheted up by legitimating (if you have the stomach, look at some of the ghoulish videos of the liberators of Libya) attacking and butchering sub-Saharan African migrants as mercenaries, went onto sanitize everything that the rebels did. The report goes onto to say that throughout the early days of the uprising, Ghadaffi's forces did shoot and kill demonstrators, demonstrating his well known capacity for brutality, but that there is no proof of mass killing of civilians or that heavy weapons were ever used against crowds on the scale of Syria or Yemen, and that there was no evidence of genocidal intent. The report goes onto say "that much Western media coverage has from the outset presented a very one-sided view of the logic of events, portraying the protest movement as entirely peaceful and repeatedly suggesting that the regime's security forces were unaccountably massacring unarmed demonstrators who presented no security challenge ."
It is, indeed, hard to stand on the side while people get killed, regardless where they are from, and especially against rulers whom we do not like. However, surely part of what we do (or should do ) is to not act as cheerleaders for what is clearly propaganda, sometimes of absurd proportions, for and by people who have at best given lip service for democracy in other places. Further, we can might misgivings about institutions and their procedures relating to their historic record of brokering peace, but we nonetheless should give them a chance rather than asking NATO to broker only destruction and regime change.
Pablo
On 24/06/11 7:20 AM, kenneth harrow wrote:
in today's Le Monde there is an important article citing the amnesty international researcher donatella rovera. she investigated the claims about "african," i .e., subsaharan black african mercenaries paid to fight for ghaddafi. her conclusion was that that claim is very largely overstated, more of a propaganda claim than one based on any substantial evidence. those who had been held by the rebels on those grounds were gradually released on the basis that they were recruited workers, not fighters. and there is a report of such an individual being maltreated and hung, and 5 chadians being set on fire in benghazi.
there have been expressions of concern about human rights abuses from the un council of human rights (french representative mattei). racist sentiments were apparently inflamed. apparently both sides have used sentiments against subsaharan workers, identified by their skin color and national origin.
ken
No comments:
Post a Comment