Thursday, March 17, 2011

To kill an eagle.

Resolution 1973 (2011)Adopted by the Security Council at its 6498th meeting, on 17 March 2011
The Security Council,
Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations,
1. Demands the immediate establishment of a cease-fire and a complete end to violence and all attacks against, and abuses of, civilians;
2. Stresses the need to intensify efforts to find a solution to the crisis which responds to the legitimate demands of the Libyan people and notes the decisions of the Secretary-General to send his Special Envoy to Libya and of the Peace and Security Council of the African Union to send its ad hoc High Level Committee to Libya with the aim of facilitating dialogue to lead to the political reforms necessary to find a peaceful and sustainable solution...

National mythology dies hard. The recent UN Security Council Resolution authorizing force in Libya passed 10-0 with 5 abstentions. This is a little different from UNSCR 1970 (February 26, 2011) that passed 15-0, referring the Libyan government to the International Criminal Court. China and Russia abstained on the intervention of course, but of greater interest is that Germany, India, and Brazil abstained.

Germany has been a great source of wisdom in international affairs in recent years, the madness of the Afghanistan involvement excepted. One can easily imagine Germany has no wish to involve itself in north Africa, the memories of the last involvement being bitter. In fact, Germany has so many bitter memories, and seems to have faced them so squarely, that the contrast between Germany and the last great Imperial fantasists of Anglo-American grandiosity seems stark, the latter being obviously puerile, stupid, and doomed.

Once again, air power is imagined as an easy solution. Once again, ground troops are unthinkable. Once again, white Crusaders will be killing Muslims, even if the Muslims are homicidal, fratricidal, spoiled brats. Why, one asks oneself, are the Chinese not lining up to pulverize the rotten Ghadhafi and everything he and his slobbering sycophantic family stand for? And why is NATO, except Germany, so frantic about north Africa, having stood by for decades and watched the middle East - particularly Gaza - burn? And why is NATO perfectly OK with sending "terrorists" to Egypt to be tortured in dungeons the Egyptian people have now turfed on live television, even though they (the people of Egypt) got no support from the enlightened West? As Boy Harper, Prime Minister of Canada, said of the Egyptian revolution, you can't put toothpaste back in the tube. That's wisdom for you.

Nobody seemed to get too excited about mass rape in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Somehow though, when it's on television it becomes a potent factor in domestic public relations, meaning the squalid marketing of drivel that has become the substance of western democracies and their elections. Possibly, the Congo rape of children in HDTV on cable would elicit some outrage in NATO, but I'm not betting on it. The Public Affairs department of NATO, or whatever they're called these days, would gloss over it like napalm in Vietnam.

I'm looking forward to the Big Toys Boys doing their thing in Libya. It'll be a cakewalk.