Double-standards interventionism as
seen from India, Brazil, Germany,
Russia and China
Initiative for Humanitarian intervention in Libya
came from the Gulf led by Saudi Arabia, Qatar,
and the United Arab Emirates, and NATO
The rest of the world's reaction to NATO's decision
to use the UN on behalf of anti-Gaddafi rebels
ranged from quiet disgust - India and Brazil;
Germany - to vocal opposition from China, Russia,
South Africa, and the African Union (AU)
The Middle East's ultimate autocracies, Saudi
Arabia, Qatar and UAE, used this opportunity to
turn the Arab regime's freedom-and-democracy
anxiety to account against Libya
The 10-0 UNSC vote included five abstentions,
from two permanent members - China and
Russia, and three non-permanent members Brazil, Germany and India. The other three
permanent members backing the vote were
Britain, France and the United States
India’s position
The resolution that the Council has adopted today authorizes far reaching measures under
Chapter VII of the UN Charter with relatively little credible information on the situation on
the ground in Libya (No reports from UN special envoy or AU High Level Panel)
No clarity about details of enforcement measures, including who and with what assets will
participate and how these measures will be exactly carried out. It is, of course, very important
that there is full respect for sovereignty, unity and territorial integrity of Libya
Out of India’s consistently advocated policy of noninterference in other countries’ internal affairs
and its own interest, India accused the Western coalition forces of deviating from the original
intent of the resolution. India is also making efforts to try to settle this problem. "What is
happening in a country, within their internal affairs, no external powers should interfere in it,"
Pranab Mukherjee, India's finance minister and leader of the lower house of parliament
announced. "Nobody, not a couple of countries, can take that decision to change a particular
regime," Mukherjee said. "Whether a regime will change or not will depend on the people of
that particular country, not by any external forces”
Brazil’s position
Brazil stands in solidarity with all movements in the Middle Eats and
Magreb expressing their legitimate demands for better
governance….
Brazil believed that the resolution contemplated measures that went
beyond that call. “We are not convinced that the use of force as
provided for in operative paragraph 4 of the present resolution will
lead to the realization of our common objective — the immediate
end of violence and the protection of civilians” ….
Brazil was also concerned that the measures approved might have the
unintended effect of exacerbating the current tensions on the
ground and “causing more harm than good to the very same
civilians we are committed to protecting”. No military action alone
would succeed in ending the conflict. Protecting civilians, ensuring
lasting settlement and addressing the legitimate demands of Libyan
citizens demand a political process
Germany’s position
Germany sided with Russia and China and was particularly concerned
by the plight of the Libyan people and believed it was crucial to
tighten existing sanctions to “cut [the Libyan regime] off” from the
funds that had propped it up for so long
Germany saw great risks, and the likelihood of large-scale loss of life
should not be underestimated
Those that participated in its implementation could be drawn into a
protracted military conflict that could draw in the wider region
Germany decided not to support the resolution and would not
contribute its own forces to any military effort that arose from its
implementation. Germany had abstained from the vote
Russia’s position
Russia abstained, although the country’s position opposing violence
against civilians in Libya was clear
Work on the resolution was not in keeping with Security Council
practice, with many questions having remained unanswered,
including how it would be enforced and by whom, and what the
limits of engagement would be
An immediate ceasefire was the best way to stop the loss of life
Cautioning against unpredicted consequences…. there was a need to
avoid further destabilization in the region
Mr. Putin …. the United Nations resolution allowing airstrikes
resembled “a medieval call for a crusade.” He launched into an
extended, caustic attack on the NATO campaign, saying it violated
the principle of sovereignty
China’s position
The root of China’s abstention is Beijing’s stated,
longstanding policy of noninterference in other
countries’ internal affairs - later publicly condemning
the Western military intervention, and it was the last
permanent member of the U.N. Security Council to
recognize the NTC
The United Nations Charter must be respected and the
current crisis must be ended through peaceful
means…. against the use of force when negotiations
were not exhausted….. Specific questions that failed to
be answered
China supported the efforts of the Secretary-General’s
Envoy to resolve the situation by peaceful means
Beijing’s interests in Libya are relatively small; its relations with the former
regime of Gadhafi were never close, and it owns no producing Libyan
oilfields
However, it receives 3.5 percent of its total crude imports from Libya, and it
has invested an estimated $20 billion in the country, mostly through stateowned enterprises
China is looking to improve relations with the NTC, both to see a return on
those investments and to use its wealth to carve out a place in cash-poor
post-Gadhafi Libya
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------However, several NTC officials have warned it may freeze out countries that
did not support the rebellion. The fact that several elements within the
NTC are displaying hostility to China and the other countries that did not
fully support the rebels during the war suggests the NTC’s willingness to
use this perceived non-support in any future deals, meaning China’s goals
in Libya may not be easily achievable
Pyrrhic victory
On the matter of Libya, the West appears on its way to a
Pyrrhic victory. Success in Libya gives the West a
chance to say it got regime change right after its
disaster in Iraq /the Baghdad regime is pro Iran now) and reassert its global moral relevance after it bungled
the world economy into recession – but the new
regime intend to rely on Sharia Law and
The rising BRIC countries, on the other hand, find their
mistrust of Western self-delusion, enabled by military
force and insistence on a rule-based world in which
only the Western democracies have the right to break
the rules, confirmed
Michael Walzer (Foreign Affairs), insists that the
idea of humanitarianism has become a central
feature of world politics: “Humanitarianism is
probably the most important ‘ism’ in the
world today, given the collapse of
communism, the discrediting of neoliberalism,
and general distrust of large-scale ideologies.”
Walzer appears to be suggesting that
humanitarianism now eclipses realism and
nationalism as an influential global force in
the world of ideas and statecraft
True or not …….The most interesting and dangerous element in the no-flyzone debate is the dawning awareness that ''Responsibility to Protect'' R2P aka humanitarian intervention in do-gooder jargon - is not just a
Western monopoly
Once the intervention jinn is out of the bottle, there's no telling who will seize
the R2P sword, or for what manner of end
Saudi Arabia apparently believes in R2P when it comes to protecting a Sunni
autocracy in neighboring Bahrain…
…which raises the disturbing possibility that Iran has a R2P the Shi'ite majority
in Bahrain…
…and maybe the Arab world has a R2P the Palestinians next time Israel
rampages into the Gaza strip…
Double-standards per excellence
What about the protection of vulnerable states
that are victimized by geopolitical maneuvers
associated with resources, markets, and
congenial ideology? It might be well to recall
that it was a notorious tactic of Hitler’s
expansionist foreign policy to intervene or
threaten to do so for the sake of protecting
German minorities being allegedly abused in
neighboring countries
Noam Chomsky … ‘military humanism’
depicts as the grand strategy of hegemonic political actors being
cleverly disguised as global public works projects
In effect, humanitarianism is the pathetic fig leaf selected to hide the
emperor’s nudity…. ‘double standards’ as proof positive show that
whatever the explanation given for a particular intervention by the
United States or NATO, the claimed humanitarian motivation is
window dressing, and not the primary consideration
Western silence about decades of brutal Turkish suppression of the
Kurdish movement for human rights, Bahrain, Yemen etc is an
illuminating example of geopolitical blinkering whenever it seems
inconvenient to take action on behalf of a victimized minority
The most extreme instance of double standards involves the failure of
the UN System or ‘a coalition of the willing’ to take any action
protective of the Palestinian population enduring an oppressive
occupation for more than forty-four years, despite the direct UN
and colonialist responsibility for the Palestinian ordeal
Geopolitics remains in control despite recourse to
the framing of action by reference to R2P. If we
want more principled and effective action in the
future, it will require a great deal of pressure
from global civil society in collaboration with
middle powers, the sort of coalition that led to
the surprising establishment of the International
Criminal Court in 2002 over the opposition of
such international stalwarts as the United States,
China, Russia, and India
The trouble for Mr. Obama is that even as he was publicly
proclaiming his backing at the United Nations for a new
Libyan state, American officials were working furiously
behind the scenes to make sure the United Nations did
not bestow a similar recognition on a Palestinian state.
The Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, has vowed
to pursue statehood before the Security Council this
week; American officials say the United States will veto
that request, should it gain the broader Council’s
approval
Obama ……. Two days ago: “Today the world is saying, in
one unmistakable voice, ‘We will stand with you as you
seize this moment of promise; as you reach for the
freedom, the dignity and the opportunity you deserve.’
But he was talking about Libyans, not Palestinians.