|
|
June 18, 2013
|
|
|
|
 Inconsistent PrinciplesPosted on Mar 20, 2011
There’s a problem when world leaders announce fervid support for universal principles: There is no way to avoid having those highflying words flung back at them at another time, during some other crisis, when they will have no choice but to lie or duck and scamper for cover. Case in point: President Nicolas Sarkozy’s declaration at the Elysees Palace in Paris after France, the U.S. and several European and Arab states met to work out the mechanics of the no-fly zone over Libya. France and its partners are acting, Sarkozy explained, to support the legitimate democratic aspirations of the Libyan people—unarmed civilians who have risen up to overthrow a detested dictatorship. There is no way the international community could stand by and watch innocent civilians be slaughtered. This was the same justification cited by President Barack Obama the day before after the U.N. Security Council vote. Sarkozy took no questions after his statement. Nor did Obama—for good reason. Questions such as “Mr. President, how do you justify intervening in Libya to prevent the bloody repression of a popular uprising when we watch as your good allies, the Saudis, move their forces into Bahrain to quash a popular uprising in that country (where U.S. warships are permanently based)?” Or, “Mr. President, do you have anything concrete to say about plans for U.N. intervention in Yemen, where more than 50 demonstrators were shot down in cold blood by snipers dressed as civilians apparently carrying military ID?” Or, “President Sarkozy, does your declaration mean that France is now going to move militarily in your former colony, the Cote D’Ivoire, where your foreign minister has just condemned ‘a deliberate massacre of civilians’ by the forces of President Laurent Gbagbo after another bombardment killed almost 30 in Abidjan? Gbagbo’s refusal to cede power after losing an election has resulted in the deaths of thousands. So, Mr. President?” And, while we’re at it, “Mr. President, what should the U.N. or your allies do if the people of Zimbabwe rise up? Or the folks in Shanghai?” Our leaders’ dilemma is made much worse by technology. There was a time, before the Internet and mobile phones, before satellites and 24/7 television, when events took time—sometimes weeks or months—to unfold, when negotiations—say, between rebels in America and the British crown—transpired with the stately speed of a sailing ship, when word of massacres and revolts could be written off as rumor, repressed for months or buried forever. No longer. Now events move at the speed of the Internet. Once-isolated villages in Tunisia and Yemen and on the northeastern coast of Japan are all part of the global village. Billions across the planet can both report and witness. Ambassadors become figures of ceremony, looking on with the rest of us as world leaders, who once had days or weeks to ponder their communications, now address each other directly, responding almost instantly—blustering, menacing—with no time for thought or reflection, bouncing off each other like billiard balls. The result also is that the duplicity that underlies what we call “affairs of state”—the hypocrisy and cynicism that used to be veiled by vague declarations, by time and distance—that deception becomes ever more blatant. Like an Orwellian exchange recently on Al-Jazeera English in which a representative of the Iranian government excoriated a Saudi official for the Saudi army’s repression of the popular democratic uprising in Bahrain. The Iranian did it with a straight face, mind you. On the other hand, the leaders of the United Arab Emirates have managed a bow to all sides: They are participating in both the Saudi-led repression of the uprising in Bahrain and the French/U.S.-led attempt to rescue the uprising in Libya. I imagine that the UAE leaders, being accomplished statesmen, somehow manage that moral straddle with a straight face, as well. Barry M. Lando spent 25 years as an award-winning investigative producer with “60 Minutes.” He has produced numerous articles, a documentary and a book, “Web of Deceit,” about Iraq. Lando is finishing a novel, “The Watchman’s File.” —Posted by Barry Lando. Advertisement TAGS:
|
Bank of America Lied to Homeowners and Rewarded Foreclosures, Ex-Employees Say
 . '/' . substr('9781888451948',-6,3) . '/' . '9781888451948' . '.jpg'; ?>)
Email 
Print
Share
Email to a friend
Newsletter 
Like Us
Follow Us
Get Our Feed
Tags|Bazaar|Podcast|About Us|Contact Us|User Agreement|Privacy Policy|FAQ: Comments and Moderation | Google+
© 2013 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.
By MarthaA, March 22, 2011 at 12:43 am Link to this comment
Here the government goes again circumventing Congress.
“anyone who takes the Constitution seriously should have a problem
with the fact that, once again, the United States is involved in a war
that has neither been debated nor declared by the Congress of the
United States.”
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/03/21-12
Report thisBy RayLan, March 21, 2011 at 6:10 pm Link to this comment
America’s response to the Lybian struggle is tepid to say the least, in comparison to its obsession with Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan. Its wars were never really fought for the stated principle of Democracy Promotion, but to serve a deeper purpose - like oil and lining the pockets of Big Mercenary Corporations like Blackwater. Because in the balance, America has aided and participated in more dictatorships than new democracies (I can’t even think of one) , it has zero credibility on the subject of sovereign liberation. At the moment we can barely liberate ourselves from economic failure.
Report thisBy MarthaA, March 21, 2011 at 4:25 pm Link to this comment
Alan MacDonald, March 21 at 6:24 pm,
Obama’s principles are the same warring
principles the Neo-Cons have been using since
they took charge of U.S. government in the
1980’s.
“US President Barack Obama said the
“Odyssey Dawn” operation launched under
a UN Security Council resolution was a
“limited military action,” unlike the regime
change aims of the war against Iraqi president
Saddam Hussein.”
U.S. missiles damage Kadhafi’s
Compound:
http://readersupportednews.org/news-section2/330-131/5352-missile-damages-kadafis-compound
“A furious Kadhafi, whose country insists the
attacks came despite its announced ceasefire,
said on Sunday that all Libyans were armed and
ready to fight until victory against what Tripoli
has branded a “barbaric aggression.”“
““We promise you a long, drawn-out war with no
limits,” said the Libyan leader, who was speaking
on state television for a second straight day
without appearing in front of camera.”
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2011/03/20
The following video shows the supposed
precision bombing of the U.S. led coalition is NOT
precise at all, and kills innocent civilians:
http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/520.html
After this new Libyan War with Kadhafi, that the
Report thisUnited States can not afford to fight, is over, I
suspect there will be more dead civilians and
rebels from U.S. support, that if the United States
had never gotten involved, and democracy for all
will elude the Libyans, the same as democracy
for all eludes the Iraqis and eludes 70% of the
population in the United States.
By Marcus Stevens, March 21, 2011 at 2:51 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
While it is no doubt always pleasure to crow about other’s hypocrisy, the
Report thisexamples the author of this article gives are pretty lame. It would be easy for
either of these leaders to answer those questions based on what’s happening
right now. There are no fighter jet and tank attacks on anyone in Bahrain or
Yemen as of today, and in Yemen there are signs with army and other defections
that an Egyptian-like resolution by yet be possible. What is the consistent policy
the author is arguing for? A no-fly zone and military action in any country where
there are protests and a reaction by authorities? At what point? Perhaps no no-fly
zones ever? How would the author have applied these ideas to Bosnia? The
hypotheticals about Zimbabwe and Shanghai are bizarre and probably revealing.
Any scenario, however unlikely, to prove a point.
By Alan MacDonald, March 21, 2011 at 2:24 pm Link to this comment
Obama’s principles are not “inconsistent”—- they non-existent!
Alan MacDonald
Report thisSanford, Maine
Liberty over violent empire—People’s Party 2012
By MarthaA, March 21, 2011 at 2:08 pm Link to this comment
What would life be like today if another country, like
Report thisFrance or England, had come in and supported the
Confederacy against the Union in the Civil War of
the United States, and the leaders of the United
States at that time had been made to lose? It
could have happened, the same way the United
States with the assistance of the UN is undermining
Libya and in the past has undermined and brought
down the leaders of so many other countries in a
similar manner.
By christian96, March 21, 2011 at 12:48 pm Link to this comment
The leaders of America, France, and the United Nations have decided to protect the people of Libya
Report thisfrom their tyrannical leaders. Who is going to protect the American people from their tyrannical
leaders?
By Blackspeare, March 21, 2011 at 10:13 am Link to this comment
There is a strong rationale for Obama approving US involvement in Libya. During the Clinton and Bush I years there were international coalitions to prevent mass atrocities Bosnia and Kuwait beinf the two examples. It appeared the world was aligned to cooperate and intervene when necessary to protect civilians. Rwanda stands out as the example of what happens when nothing is done! However, that cooperation for preventing genocide had been undermined by George W. Bush’s unilateral intervention in Iraq, which discredited U.S. military action abroad and made building coalitions to stop war crimes seemingly impossible. Now, Obama has the chance to correct that vision and once again have the world powers cooperate to build coalition and consensus to stop mass murders by deranged dictators. Libya now serves as that example.
Report thisBy James P. Levy, March 21, 2011 at 9:43 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
First and foremost, this is a disgraceful intervention in somebody else’ civil war. Although I support the insurgents (or at least the impulse of some of the insurgents, as their leaders now seem to be a bunch of Gadhafi henchmen out to replace the old boss with a new set of bosses) this was an internal matter within Libya. We could, and should, have organized a boycott of Libya, cut off its sale of petroleum, and prevented the government from getting their hands on any new weapons, aviation fuel, ammo, or spare parts. All that would have been both legal and moral. This escapade is neither. America will kill many people who might otherwise not have died, and the deaths will be our responsibility.
And if this latest adventure in “shock and awe’ fails to dislodge Gadhafi, what’s Mr. Obama’s Plan B? My guess is it’s about as solid and reliable as Bush’s Plan B for Iraq. The hubris and stupidity of these people, the idea that they can drop a few bombs, fire a few missiles, and the world will conform to their wishes, is beyond me.
Report thisBy Jeffrey C. Goldfarb, March 21, 2011 at 9:28 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
Two cheers for hypocrisy!By invoking universal principles, even if the principles are unsteadily applied, the principles live.Living openly according to principles makes them real.In politics appearances are realities, whether the actors are on the central stage or those opposing those key actors. It doesn’t matter what is in the heart but what appears in public. For a view of this from below, see http://www.deliberatelyconsidered.com/2010/08/park-51-and-the-politics-of-small-things/
Report thisBy getreal, March 21, 2011 at 8:18 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
This article is mostly blather. The rights and well being of the Qaddafi clan that has run Libya as a totalitarian dictatorship for 42 years seems to be an issue for Lando. I’m sure he’s very concerned about Qaddafi’s rights as an absolute dictator over his “sovereign” nation.
Report thisBy brianrouth, March 21, 2011 at 7:28 am Link to this comment
Chomsky said it well in his talk about democracy and ‘support our troops’
Report thishttp://soundcloud.com/brianrouth/empty-slogan
By stonejaxx, March 21, 2011 at 3:58 am Link to this comment
Newly elected leaders wade into a quaqmire of past policies, existing engagements foreign and domestic, defending against vicious partisan attacks, navigating the nation’s mood, deficits, debt, the expectatons of big donors, corporate indifference and resistence, failing institutions ... it’s a virtual ill fitting straightjacket and makes most of our leaders out to be cowards.
Of course, there is a way out, just “do the right thing.” Pick an issue and do the right thing.
“The US is on the side of peace. There is nothing to be gained by armed conflict. We will enable discussion before another innocent is killed.”
In the world of global terrorism, rogue leaders and constant warfare, trust and faith are difficult to come by. But, if we earn mutual trust for a given conflict, it might just spread.
Report thisBy MarthaA, March 21, 2011 at 12:30 am Link to this comment
It is amazing how the people are treated as if they are stupid.
It would be so wonderful if the people would rise up and demand the
Report thisliberal side of the political spectrum have actual political
representation in the United States, which would require a whole
new political party separate and equal in every way with the
Democratic Party and the Republican Party so the liberal side of the
political spectrum, the Greens and the Yellows will have
representation in the Congresses of the United States.
By #5, March 20, 2011 at 11:00 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
Exactly, and Obama has quickly become one of the leading culprits of this self-serving mindset.
Report thisBy samosamo, March 20, 2011 at 8:51 pm Link to this comment
****************
Libya = oil
o = oil
gadhfi = why or for what reason was a ruthless tyrant like gadhfi
allowed for so many decades to remain in place
u.s.a. = has its esoteric reasons for that, probably something
Report thisalong the lines of who was really responsible for downing flight
103 or some other strange happenstance still unexplained
By PatrickHenry, March 20, 2011 at 8:38 pm Link to this comment
Once upon a time a declaration of war was needed before American men and treasure were sent overseas.
UNSC resolution does not trump the U.S. Constitution.
I want my congressman on record for allocating tax dollars to this. It is only by his appropriations that the U.S. role as the worlds policeman continues.
Report thisBy rollzone, March 20, 2011 at 8:14 pm Link to this comment
hello. these spontaneous, totally exposed, thinking
Report thison your feet bloodbaths have something i do not
understand: target lists do not include the leader.
their home is off limits, their palace is not to be
flattened: they are not to be harmed. people should
not sell priceless art to people destined to implode,
and their whole family better run and hide, because
my rule of engagement is: reduce the prime and
secondary residence to dust- first order of business.
it is a strong statement that the enemy needs to see.
today nobody wants blame for striking Ghaddafi’s hut.
if it is not about taking out Ghaddafi, and getting
an immediate surrender, then what? (profit from
rebuilding a country with petrodollars)
By TDoff, March 20, 2011 at 7:57 pm Link to this comment
World leaders and all politicians have only one universal principle to which they all adhere and fervidly support: ‘I will always say the words and take the actions that I and my loyal staff determine will be the most advantageous to assure my ability to maintain and continue my position as your leader’.
Report thisBy gerard, March 20, 2011 at 7:33 pm Link to this comment
Far-sighted people apparently saw this coming and left behind a few ideas, more
honored in the breach. Now might be the time to pull them out of storage, dust
them off and begin using them:
“Treat others like you want to be treated.”
“Do No Harm.”
“If someone asks you to walk a mile with him (or her), walk that distance twice.
“From those who have much, much is expected.”
etc, etc. etc.
Report this