Brazil and Libya
Brazil was one of five countries to abstain in the vote to approve use of force in Libya, and particularly given their UN Ambassador's comments, it strikes me as a particularly cowardly vote.
Among the five governments that abstained in the vote, Brazil’s U.N. ambassador, Maria Luiza Riberio Viotti, voiced concern that military action in Libya would “exacerbate tensions on the ground and cause more harm than good to the same civilians we are committed to protect.”
She also warned that military action would undermine the “spontaneous homegrown nature’’ of popular uprisings spreading through the Arab world and threatened to “change that narrative in ways that would have serious repercussions” for Libya and the rest of the region.
If you believe that firmly that military action will have very negative consequences, then vote no. Instead, Brazil is trying to hedge its bets. Abstaining means it is trying to avoid blame for the consequences of military action, but also does not want to be blamed for "doing nothing."
9 comments:
Yes, exactly. The world class diplomacy of Brazil amounts to moral dithering. Everyone understands there are costs and benefits to sitting this one out or intervening militarily. The hour for a decision is at hand and you simply can't sit on the sidelines and call it serious policy. In essence, the abstainers are saying the Libyan people have our great sympathy but we won't lift a finger to prevent the slaughter of civilians. If Brazil wants a permanent seat, it will have to show some backbone, one way or another.
If Brazil would have voted no, it would have forever lost its chance at a permanent seat. To be the lone country getting in the way of a US-UK-France war is admirable but not very practical. The war would proceed anyhow and Brazil would be sidelined.
Russia's statement after the vote was unequivicol about this being a bad idea, but they abstained as well. Basically you had battles in each country between liberal interventionists and people who know better. It was a stalemate and so an abstention is the result.
But I have to say, this whole notion that we are protecting civillians by launching a massive bombing campaign strikes is nonsense. This is about regime change and tilting a civil war in another direction, even though the UN resolution does not explicitly authorize either of those goals.
Can someone tell me under what UN Charter authority the SC can authorized this war? The Charter is pretty clear that it has to be a threat to intl. peace and security or self-defense - neither of which were invoked here. This appears to be another widening of this wholly manufactured "humanitarian" rationale, which has no basis in international law and has been explicitly rejected by 144 countries in a vote 2 years ago.
This case is even more dangerous because it sets a extremely low standard for what constitutes a "humanitarian catastrophe" as there is no evidence that any sort of crimes against humanity are actually taking place. What we have is a civil war - started by the rebels. Wars will get a bit messy - particularly when the rebels hold out in city centers. The relative lack of civillian damage so far has in fact been notable, compared to other civil wars on the continent. What makes this case rise to the level of intervention, when we it does not exist in Sudan, the Congo, Ivory Coast, etc?
Oil and geo-strategic interest by a few world powers. Getting rid of one of the few true anti-Imperialists in the region is a major victory for the US-UK-French axis and their proxies in the Gulf.
That this vote took place so suddenly, with no advance notice, with no release of the text tells you the contempt these countries hold for deliberation and democracy.
Now we have 36 innocents killed in Bahrain. Slaughtered as they rose from noon prayers by plain clothed Defense Ministry goons shooting from rooftops. In Libya, the only "civillians" were part of mobs throwing petrol bombs and attacking arms barracks. This is a wholesale slaughter that is far more egregios than anything in Libya and yet the King Khalifa will never be asked to leave. In fact, some suspect that the Gulf states have been given a carte blanche in order to get their support in Libya. Todays events certainly would appear to bear that out.
Libya today. Who knows? With luck, Bahrain tomorrow - and Saudi Arabia in the not too distant future....
Meanwhile on another note Aristide is back home. Yea
Leftside, you are going a bit far in your defense of Gaddafi. Far more people have died in Libya than in Bahrain.
Lefty, lefty, lefty…
I am sorry you hold international security and the lives of civilians in such contempt. There are many arguments against intervening in Libya and they have all been heard. However, as bad as things may turn out, the risks of intervention, seem to outweigh what we know has been happening, is happening and certainly will happen if the western countries do nothing.
"But I have to say, this whole notion that we are protecting civilians by launching a massive bombing campaign strikes is nonsense."
The plan is emerging to use air and sea power to defend civilians not by massive bombing campaigns but striking Gaddafi’s military forces who have a distinct advantage. These soon to be attacked military targets have been used indiscriminately against civilians.
"Can someone tell me under what UN Charter authority the SC can authorized this war?"
The UN Charter permits the Security Council to authorize force to uphold international peace and security. The war Gaddafi is fighting against his own civilians has major implications beyond Libya’s borders. The human rights components of international law have little meaning if there is not a countervailing use of force when governments attack civilians. Note how Gaddafi went from saying he was launching one final devastating blow against Benghazi to promising a cease fire within hours. He smelled the jet fuel.
"This appears to be another widening of this wholly manufactured "humanitarian" rationale, which has no basis in international law and has been explicitly rejected by 144 countries in a vote 2 years ago."
It is not wholly manufactured. International law is moving increasingly toward weakening the definition of sovereignty when it involves protecting civilians. Many of the same countries you cite as opposing it, including the Arab League, now support intervention in Libya. Their vote two years ago was, at best, a vote for an abstract principle. Today their change of heart is a vote based actual events.
"Oil and geo-strategic interest by a few world powers. Getting rid of one of the few true anti-Imperialists in the region is a major victory for the US-UK-French axis and their proxies in the Gulf."
Gaddafi has long ceased to be an anti-imperialist. The money he uses for his kleptocracy is from western oil companies and consumers. The “west,” on a simply economic level, should just support the regime and stability. You have no evidence that anyone is looking for a better deal.
You spend a lot of time arguing that the logic of interventionism should lead to an attack on Saudi Arabia, Yemen or Bahrain or other countries. This is flawed logic. Nothing you say makes the case against action in Libya based on what is happening in Libya. There are obvious limits to what can be done. However, letting the perfect get in the way of the good often allows the truly awful to succeed. Doctors in a war face the decision all the time over how to spend their energy and resources to save lives. Some surely die due to these choices. Civilians are being targeted and killed by Ghaddafi and your “logical” position simply supports the massacre.
Greg, if you want to draw a closer analogy with a prior event, consider the US abstaining in UNSC vote in 2005 to refer the situation in Darfur to the International Criminal Court; this after Bush declared what was going on in Darfur as genocide.
I don't buy that as an act of cowardice, I'm just glad they chose not to interfere. Somehow I doubt that anonymous would have accused the Bush administration of "moral dithering" either nor would he/she have referred to the Bush administration's deeming the matter genocide, but abstaining as "not being [willing] to lift a finger to prevent the slaughter of civilians."
Each nation ultimately acts in its own self-interests. The Bush administration in its blinkered - and ultimately groundless - opposition to the ICC chose to abstain from voting no. They didn't stand in the way of the referral and I'm glad they didn't.
I see no substantive difference between Brazil's and the US's position.
As for leftside, this is a man who has defended the crony capitalist government of Angola, the autocratic government of Belarus and now Qaddafi. You're not a serious man.
You can use "hypocritical" if that works better for you.
By the way, that last comment about not being serious was directed at left side, not you Greg.
The larger issue in any event, is that Brazil's response is not that unusual. Their primary concern is their own interests. I do agree that the ambassador's statements don't help.
Post a Comment