Charles Camilleri, Paola
Are we neutral out of selfishness? (2)
I do not want to sound like I side with Muammar Gaddafi as I have always abhorred dictators. I opposed the Gaddafi regime even when past Maltese governments used to venerate him by inviting him to Malta seven times in a couple of years and a big section of the Maltese used to throng to fete him.
But I cannot help expressing my thinking about the inconsistency of the international community especially that of the western democracies. I cannot understand why the western democratic countries are so concerned about the civilian life in Libya and seem to care little about those in other countries.
Doubts keep creeping into my mind about the reasons for all this outcry about Libya. There were several other instances in the past (and even in the present) when civilians were massacred and the international community just remained silent.
Like me, many still remember what happened in Tiannamen Square, Beijing in 1993, when thousands of Chinese protesters, calling for political reforms, were crushed under the might of Chinese military tanks. There was a lot of reportage in the media but soon afterwards things returned to normal and the western democracies queued to pick up trade with China. Perhaps someday they will regret it as they are now regretting their propping up of the Gaddafi regime.
We have the case of the people of Tibet who are still under the heels of Chinese occupation. These people protested for their right to run their own country but were mercilessly suppressed by the Chinese military.
Again the world community remained silent. Why? The obvious reason is that China is a big and mighty country and it is risky to have anything to do with it. Besides, China is becoming an economic world power and many countries want to safeguard their commercial interests.
To maintain its hold on Chechnya, Russia has massacred millions of its inhabitants and laid the whole country flat. Again the international community remained silent. Why? Who dares challenge big nations like Russia and China?
What about Zimbabwe? Why has the world community done nothing to stop President Mugabe from performing acts of atrocities to suppress those opposing his dictatorial rule?
What about North Korea? Cuba, Bahrain, Yemen, Syria, Iran and others where dissent is mercilessly suppressed?
The list of countries breaking all forms of human rights and democratic rules is long indeed. Yet the international community only acted against Gaddafi. Again, why all this hypocrisy?
Taking all this into consideration I am still at a loss about the real reason behind this inconsistency.
Popular Stories
In Discussion
8 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
John Azzopardi
Apr 2nd 2011, 20:20
Of course we not nuetral out of selfishness. If we were at war right now would be selfish because we could be attached. I even hear today that the Americans are already pulling out. Now leaving this in the hands of Nato, we all know what it means. Nuetrality suits us fine. I bet you those who advocate ware are not the ones who are doing the fighting but sitting somewhere drinking some pina colada and let the others do the fighting on their behalf. Let's enjoy life, not war, because after all life is too precious. Those who want to fight, let them go and do it themselves.
c.camilleri
Apr 2nd 2011, 16:19
Wenz what about Russia, China, Zimbabwe and the rest? It seems that you are one of those who are prejudiced against the US and blame everything on the this country. This time it was the UN that took action and many lamenting because the US is washing it hands out in this case even though Libya has the oil. What about that?
J Spiteri
Apr 2nd 2011, 19:06
c.camilleri the usa acted like the person who throws the stone and then hides its hands. Why is it not involved in Bahrain, Oman, Yemen, Syria, Ivory Coast etc?
B Farrugia
Apr 2nd 2011, 15:14
Because the western leaders are all HYPOCRITES my friend.
Wenzu Vella
Apr 2nd 2011, 14:19
Mr Camilleri, you have mentioned a lot of people that they have been neglected by the so called international community and you wondered why help was not forthcoming, two reasons that quickly come to mind, OIL and in Bahrain a port for the American Sixth Fleet. The Bahrainis have been silenced because the Saudis have been send in to do the dirty work for the Americans who do not want to be seen that they are in an-other conflict with an-other Arab/Muslim country.
Wilfred Camilleri
Apr 2nd 2011, 19:12
The US does not need Libyan oil. The US gets less that 2% of their oil from Libya, a percentage that can be easily fulfilled by other nations such as Canada. Bringing up the "oil" factor in this case shows how weak your arguments really are.
Duncan Scerri
Apr 2nd 2011, 12:53
The qualification for attacking a sovereign state is relatively simple:
1. You must be in possession of a resource coveted by the US.
2. You will be non-conformist to US policy.
3. You must be militarily sufficiently weak that you pose limited threat.
Just gotta love section 8 of resolution 1973: "Authorizes Member States...to take all necessary measures to enforce compliance". That's some blank cheque.
Wilfred Camilleri
Apr 2nd 2011, 19:11
In answer to your points:
1. There are no resources coveted by the US in Libya. The US gets less that 2% of their oil from Libya, a percentage that can be easily fulfilled by other nations such as Canada.
2. You will be non-conformist to US policy. The US policy changes every time there's an election. With the leftist Obama at the helm, the US is less likely to care about what happens in places like Libya.
3. You must be militarily sufficiently weak that you pose limited threat. Military weakness is not necessarily a factor. The US faced-off with the USSR for decades even though they were mostly at par.
Your arguments have been debunked!