I rephrase your argument to make it clearer and respond to each one
1. You imply that because NATO has not intervened in those conflicts you mentioned they have no moral right to intervene in the Libyan conflict.
If not NATO, whom?
The fact that the West did not act in some of those cases does not mean they should not act now. Past realities are not necessarily identical with present realities.All similar present realities are also not necessarily identical with each other. The political and economic issues at play in those other crises and the relative advantage to the various actors involved are not identical with those of the Libyan crisis.
Also, the validity of action does not necessarily depend on flawless equity, without any evidence of self serving gain through the activity undertaken.The West may be expectedly self serving in this conflict and Libyans are beholden to be both shrewd and pragmatic in dealing with the West.
The West is Libyans only hope of dislodging Qaddafi because he is a dictator who has no other way of defining himself except as leader of a people who have no choice but to keep him as their leader. . He is an egomaniac.
2. You state that NATO is transgressing the territorial integrity of Libya.
The territorial integrity imperative, to me, is superseded by the need to prevent the greater humanitarian disaster of slaughter of citizens insisting on the right to elect their own leader. In the light of that latter imperative, I hold that we need all help to get Qaddafi out of there, even by force.
This stance does not mean I support all examples of forceful intervention by other nations in conflicts within nations . I would assess every case on its own distinctive circumstances. I do not support, for example, Tony Blair's argument that even though WMD's, the rationale given by the US , England and their allies for the Iraqi invasion, were never found, but that Saddam needed to be removed because he was a killer of his people, as in the account of his attacks on the Kurds, a situation in which he was described as using the dreaded chemical weapons.
The Iraqi invasion, to me, was a clear effort to restructure Iraq,thereby removing its threat to Israel, its ambitions towards nuclear power and take over its resources and strike a blow against anti-Western forces in the wake of 9/11, under the spurious WMD claimwhich was never proven to be anything more than rumour and has evetually clearly emerged as a pure lie.
Yet Saddam tried to meet Bush halfway by allowing UN Atomic Energy Commission inspectors into his facilities and by destroying his own weapons as Bush demanded, but as expected, Bush decreed that was too little too late, and attacked with his allies, in defiance of the UN.
The scope of Saddam's attacks on the Kurds and the Tianammen Square incident are not in the same scope as this regional historic movement people are calling the Arab Spring.This a regional movement, not a national one like that of Tianammen Square.The momentum seems unstoppable and any affted national or regional power which does not position itself to relate creatively with it will have themselves to blame in years or perhaps even centuries to come.
3. You have conveniently tried to present a false picture of the timeline pf the Libyan conflict by claiming that Qaddafi responded with force because the rebels 'came gunning for him.'
Please show us your authoritative source for that timeline that shows that the rebels were armed at the beginning. There is no way you can avoid the fact that, like the rebellions in Tunisia, in Egypt, in Yemen and in Syria and the planned one in Saudi Arabia that seems not to have emerged, it began with peaceful protests. In Egypt and Tunisia, it did not go beyond that beceuase Ben Ali in Tunisia did not respond with military force; Mubarak tried but failed because his tanks did not move against the protesters; in the case of Libya some of the armed forces refused to attack the protesters, who had no air power and no tanks, while some of the armed forces seemed to have joined the rebels.
The conflict became violent when and only when Qaddafi responded with force. Not before.
3. You state that Nigeria cannot be described as a meaningful democracy on account of gross inadequacies in its democratic processes, suggesting that a Qaddafi style dictatorship is superior to the current Nigerian democracy
Nigeria is a developing democracy because its citizens are able, to some degree, to vote its leaders into or out of office. Whatever the inadequacies of the Nigerian example, the Libyans have not even started developing such a level of democracy. They have been trapped in a dictatorship since Qaddafi came to power through a coup 42 years ago. Nigerians meanwhile have tried, stumbled , fallen, risen and keep trying to build a democratic system. Libyans meanwhile are being kept in a brutish state of no progress, no matter how slow, towards developing a democratic culture.
4. Nigeria has many problems but she is still better off than a place where all resources are provided but freedom of expression and of choice of leadership is not provided for. Such freedom is worth as much, if not more, than all other provisions.
Along those lines, Nigeria is much better off than the quasi-medieval society of Saudi Arabia, where you might have all education free, and have no crime etc but where the system is so petty and so pervasive in its repression that not only do men and women not work or study together women cannot drive , cannot hold most jobs and most be accompanied by men in various situations. .Plus a monolithic, narrow religious dogma where religion is not questioned. Along with a tight control of access to knowledge and information. Plus unquestioned rule by monarchy for generations, with with no hope of change. Sheer hell.
thanks
toyin
Toyin Adepoju:
For one that seem to know a bit about politics and international relations, your posits below distorts what is at stake. And that is that, NATO or any other foreign invasion of another country for the ostensible purpose of removing its leader from power when the invaded country is not at war with them runs counter to international politics, law and inter-state relations.
Yes, most of us have argued it is time for Col. Ghadaffi to relinquish power and democratise Libya; but that imperative is not the work or responsibility of a foreign invading super-power. Such action violates Libya's sovereignty and territorial integrity. Please, let's look into history.
At the time the old Soviet Union's leadership held sway, lorded it all over the people and nations forced into its Union and dictatorship, killed millions of its citizens; for instance, the Holodomor Ukrainian genocide by mass starvation (1930s), Siberia concentration camp for political dissidents where thousand, if not millions died horrific deaths; President Castro and family whose kind of dictatorial leadership you said you don't want in Nigeria remains in power in Cuba; remember the Tiananmen Square massacre in China, the Rumania and old Czechoslovakia massacres in communist regimes, etc. Why and where were NATO or any of its allied countries to have intervened and protect the civilian population massacred in those countries? My bad, how can I forget? Those countries have no oil and other rich resources that can be confiscated after removing the dictatorial leadership from power. Besides, doing so will have posed enormous danger and losses in human and material resources for any foreign intervention.
Further, the countries and places mentioned are not in Africa; yes, poor and helpless Africans that have to be protected by the white man from the brutalities of their own leaders. You don't say! And where was the same NATO in the Rwanda genocide of 1994? Is the regime in Iran better than Ghadaffi's Libya? Listen Toyin, in international relations between the African countries and the Western countries, especially, the supper-powers, might makes right, period. Hence NATO's justification of its invasion, (yes, that is what their bombing of Libya is) of Libya's territorial integrity.
For all the years that Col. Ghadaffi was Libya's absolute ruler, did you read anywhere he ordered his soldiers to massacre Libyans? The average Libya had and enjoyed good life in terms of material possessions, steady supply of electrical energy, efficient network of good and motorable roads, availability of foods, good health care system, free education to university levels, etc., modern amenities and ways of life that the average Nigerian back home continues to dream about.
And when you opined, "Nigeria is much better off than Libya beceause Nigerians are undergoing a democratic process", I laughed at your uninformed posit. Pray, at what point did Nigeria begin to democratise and do you sincerely call what political process there is in Nigeria today our dream democratic process? Libya under Ghadaffi has suffered what can be described as paternalistic and patronizing democratic process; that of present Nigeria is nothing short of cabalistic and cartelistic power monopoly serving the private interest of those that have cornered political power in the name of democracy. Were it not so, why would Nigeria's oil revenue of $400 billion derived from 1970 to 2009 remain unaccounted for and in the private hands of corrupt leaders? We don't know how much of Libya's money Ghadaffi may have stolen, if any; but have you read anywhere that he has billions of stolen Libya's money in foreign bank accounts? In fact, we have read that while the average Libyan lives in modern concrete building complete with modern amenities, Ghadaffi out of propensity for the exotic and peculiarities, sometimes lives in his tents in the desert. Ghadaffi turned his guns on the rebels in Libya when they came gunning for his life. He reasoned, if he is going to die, he might as well die in Libya defending his life thereby, give meaning to his life and times as Libya's strong man.
Again on your, "Nigeria is much better off than Libya beceause Nigerians are undergoing a democratic process", I say you must be kidding. Can you recall the millions of Nigerians that have been massacred both in military regimes and democratic governance? Has that happened in Libya? Does your concept and definition of "democratic process" included political instability; episodic senseless massacres of innocent Nigerians; mindless looting of the treasury (states and federal) by politicians and business leaders; lack of accountability in public spending; inflated contracts for infrastructural developments ninety percent of which are never executed while the monies budgeted and allocated remain unaccounted for, etc.?
Does it include an educational system (primary to tertiary institutions) that remain in shambles; more than seventy-five percent high school and graduate unemployment? Does it included mass female prostitution because of lack of job opportunities; armed robberies and kidnappings by their male counterparts for the same reasons? And a lot more. Are you aware that the thousands Nigerian forced to return to Nigeria from Libya are lamenting coming back home to a country without future for them, unlike when they were in Libya?
Toyin, all that I have articulated and others left out in the interest of time are the stark and "amazing differences between Nigeria and Libya".
And I maintain, NATO's barbaric bombings in Libya flies in the face of territorial integrity of Libya and its sovereign status, international relations and law. Kapish! Anything else is nothing but jiggery-pokery.
Cheers.
Mazi KC Prince Asagwara
From: NaijaPolitics@yahoogroups.com [mailto:NaijaPolitics@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of toyin adepoju
Sent: July-12-11 8:22 AM
To: usaafricadialogue; dandalin siyasa; naijapolitics@yahoogroups.com; NigerianID@yahoogroups.com; Edo-nationality; ngpolitics@googlegroups.com
Subject: [NaijaPolitics] Fwd: Edo_Global. Nigerians and Nose Poking... ayo.city - Re:Amazing Differences BTW Nigeria and Libya-Not On Mainstream
1. I dont desire a Gaddafi for Nigeria.
I prefer the slow development of the present Nigerian political space. I dont want a Gaddafi , a Fidel Castro or a neo-People's Republic of China leader who decides that only he, his family and cronies have a right to national leadership even if such a dictator turns Nigeria into an economic paradise.
2. The Libyan rebels began with peaceful protests. It was when Gaddafi began to slaughter them that they fought back
3. The West may have done nothing for Libya but they are doing something now in helping to remove a dictator who prefers to kill his own people than come to an agreement with those of them who say its time he let someone else rule after being in power for 42 years.
4.Nigeria is much better off than Libya beceause Nigerians are undergoing a democratic process.
thanks
toyin
On 12 July 2011 12:13, peter opara <ogbuonyeiro@yahoo.com> wrote:
Toyin, do you know any of these rebels? Did Ghadafi wake up one morning and began bombing and shooting Libyans? When a people take up arms against their government and begin destroying public property for whatever reasons, what do you expect government to do, fold its arms? Time for Ghadafi to go, that is alright; but who are David Cameron and Sokozy to tell Ghadafi when to go or even to leave his country. What has Cameron and Sakozy ever did for Libyans? Is it road they gave Libyans? Water? Health institutions? Schools? Scholarships? Houses? Now, look at your own Nigeria for all of its 50 years. Would you not desire a Ghaddafi who invested public monies for public good for Nigeria? Nigerians do know to poke nose at others' homes, when theirs is nothing to write home about.
--- On Tue, 7/12/11, toyin adepoju <toyin.adepoju@googlemail.com> wrote:
From: toyin adepoju <toyin.adepoju@googlemail.com>
Subject: [NaijaPolitics] Re: ayo.city - Re:Amazing Differences BTW Nigeria and Libya-Not On Mainstream
To: "usaafricadialogue" <USAAfricaDialogue@googlegroups.com>, "dandalin siyasa" <dandalin-siyasa@yahoogroups.com>, naijapolitics@yahoogroups.com, "NigerianID@yahoogroups.com" <nigerianid@yahoogroups.com>, "Edo-nationality" <edo-nationality@yahoogroups.com>, "Edo Global" <Edo_Global@yahoogroups.com>, ngpolitics@googlegroups.com
Date: Tuesday, July 12, 2011, 7:01 AM
Get real.
The whole problem started bcs Gaddafi was murdering Libyans who protested against him, protests similar to those being done elsewhere in the Arab world.
All that is written here might be real but it does not replace representative democracy, even when it is flawed.As someone in Saudi Arabia put it when their government bought off the threat of protests with cash gifts, the issue is about collective sovereignty of the citizen not about welfare paternalism, which is part of the Libyan and the Saudi rulership mentality.
The sun has set for Gaddafi's dictatorship and time is ticking steadily for that of others in the Arab world.
Yes. The West is often duplicitous. Yes, if they dont hope to gain from this and turn a profit, too, I would be shocked and revise my understanding of international politics. But no one else is going to make sure Gaddafi does not just swallow the dissenting Libyans.
The challenge is that of orchestrating maximum gain for the self sacrificing Libyans, doing the hitherto unthinkable by fighting a brutal and uncompromising dictator, and the West investing so much material, human and political capital in this initiative.
Knowing the West does not like him, he was wise enough to slaughter his own people instead of approaching the issue with circumspection.
The lizard that knows that its enemies are prowling would be careful about the kind of noise it makes.
The world is changing.
Gaddafi is still in the past. Mubarak and Ben Ali respected the verdict of the unstoppable will of the people. The Syrian and Saudi leaders are only living on borrowed time.
Cuba seems to remain socially and economically moribund because one revolutionary insists that he and his family must rule forever and that the people cannot be allowed to elect their own leaders. China will have to take stock of its own militarized paternalism, in which a closed group, unelected by anyone, determines the fate of the country. When the present generation have had their fill of so called material well being China is being lauded for, they might look inward and see that they are really prisoners in a cage, a pleasant cage, but a cage nevertheless.
Democracy, particularly as currently practiced everywhere, is flawed, but I am yet to observe a superior method of government.
thanks
toyinOn 12 July 2011 11:43, toyin adepoju <toyin.adepoju@googlemail.com> wrote:
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: new post <timkola1@yahoo.com>
Date: 12 July 2011 11:27
Subject: ayo.city - Re:Amazing Differences BTW Nigeria and Libya-Not On Mainstream
To: ngpolitics@googlegroups.com
This message was sent using [Quick Reply] to protect your email address
From: ayo.city
Some other facts (that mainstream media will never disclose) about Gaddafi and Libya
Loans to Libyan citizens are given with NO interest.
Students would get paid the average salary for the profession they are studying for.
If you are unable to get employment the state would pay the full salary as if you were employed until you find employment.
When you get married the couple gets an apartment or house for free from the Government.
You could go to college anywhere in the world. The state pays 2,500 euros plus accommodation and car allowance.
The cars are sold at factory cost.
Libya does not owe money, (not a cent) to anyone. No creditors.
Free education and health care for all citizens.
25 of the population with a university degree.
No beggars on the streets and nobody is homeless (until the recent bombing).
Bread costs only $0.15 per loaf.
No wonder the US and other capitalist countries do not like Libya. Gaddafi would not consent to taking loans from IMF or World Bank at high interest rates. In other words Libya was INDEPENDENT That is the real reason for the war in Libya He may be a dictator, but that isnot the US problem. Also Gaddafi called on all Oil producing countries NOT to accept payment for oil in USD or Euros. He recommended that oil get paid for in GOLD and that would have bankrupted just about every
Western Country as most of them do not have gold reserves to match the rate at which they print their useless currencies.
Remember the last time someone had the NERVE to make a similar statement was when Saddam Hoosein advised all Opec countries not to accept payment for oil in US Dollars. Well, we all know what happened to him . Yes, they HUNG HIM....click here to read more on this topic: http://ngmix.net/forum/viewforum.php?f=2
please use the Quick Reply button for all replies: [Quick Reply]
Other Recent Topics:
--- Even Muslims Are Afraid Of Violent Muslims-Wont Go To Mosque
--- Clear Evidence Nigerian Intelligence HQ Is A Joke-Watc Video
--- Is There Nobody To Lead A Big Revolution In This Country?
--- Photo Of Nigerias First Suicide Bomber: Mohammed Manga
--- I AM A BILLIONAIRE AND THERE IS NOTHING ANYONE CAN DO ABOUT
--- Bankole vs EFCC-Is EFCC Serious Or Is This Another Ghost Ch--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "NgPolitics" group.
To post to this group, send email to ngpolitics@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to ngpolitics+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/ngpolitics?hl=en.
__._,_.___
Disclaimer:
Forum members are reminded that NaijaPolitics is established to be a moderated forum for gavel-to-gavel discussion of political developments in Nigeria, Africa's largest democracy. Freedom of opinion/expression is inherent in NaijaPolitics. Views and opposing views expressed in NaijaPolitics forum are the rights of individual contributors. Mutual respect for people's views is the corner stone of our forum. Freedom of speech applied responsibly within the guiding parameters of Yahoo! Inc (our hosts) and NaijaPolitics Rules and Guidelines (broadcast monthly and accessible to all subscribers in our archives) is our guiding principle. Everyone posting to this Forum bears the sole responsibility for any legal consequences of his or her postings, and hence statements and facts must be presented responsibly. Your continued membership signifies that you agree to this disclaimer and pledge to abide by our Rules and Guidelines.
NaijaPolitics is division of Afrik Network Groups.
Latest Version of Disclaimer released (December 15, 2005)
Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use
.
__,_._,___
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the "USA-Africa Dialogue Series" moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin.
For current archives, visit http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
For previous archives, visit http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
To post to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue-
unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
No comments:
Post a Comment