[Debate] Vengeance in Tripoli: "Almost all of the victims were black men"

[Neville Adams]

This is an even bigger non-sequitur.     A response to the allegation that
leftists are, by proxy, supporting the lynching of ‘black men’, has nothing
to do with the safeguards vis-à-vis the NATO bombing campaign. ( And can
some of us please stop employing the racist, biologically reductionist use
of the term ‘black’ to denote those with certain ‘anthropometric’ features.)
Perhaps, in retrospect, we on the debate list, because we are so influential
on the outcome of world politics, should have insisted on certain safeguards
before we allowed the intervention of NATO, or for that matter permitted
those in Libya to actually ask for that type of support.   And to the Libyan
people who had the temerity to rise up against an odious regime,  we really
should have pointed out how untimely that was because of the asynchronism of
their impatience and the still grey international legal area of what is a
‘democratic state and the right to interfere.   Apart from which it is so
highly inconvenient to be called ‘imperialist’.  And, as a parting dismissal
we could have said: “Be brave.  Gaddafi is merciful.  He told us so.”

 

Neville

 

From: debate-list-bounces at fahamu.org [mailto:debate-list-bounces at fahamu.org]
On Behalf Of Riaz K Tayob
Sent: 27 August 2011 07:51
To: pbond at mail.ngo.za; Debate is a listserve that attempts to promote
information and analyses of interest to the independent left in South and
Southern Africa
Subject: Re: [Debate] Vengeance in Tripoli: "Almost all of the victims were
black men"

 

That is non sequiter.

The issue is why did noehumanitarians not make the case for safeguards,
particularly if the likes of Achcar knew that that NATO would not abide the
resolution? Why was a no fly zone preferred to other alternatives (none! on
this list have responded to this query) that could have provided more
safeguards. The rush to do something seems to have incapacitated the need to
think more deeply notwithstanding the lessons of Iraq. 

Uniqueness and megolomania are not guiding principles for intervention. And
the lack of engagement by neohumanitarians on developing principles for
intervention have not been explored - so for now they have been reactionary.
Which is worrying, but may still come through in time if there is
earnestness about it. 

But in that case, dealing with the hypocrisy on other areas of the world for
potential intervention would need to cast aside the uniqueness veil. And
that is the point at which it gets interesting. Alignment with 'what is a
democratic state', and the right to interfere (or R2P) then would take
shape. 

Riaz

On 2011/08/27 07:40 AM, Patrick Bond wrote: 

On 8/27/2011 6:33 AM, Yoshie Furuhashi wrote:

IMHO, it's insane for leftists to give political support to the rebel
force who are lynching black men

 
Agreed! Right then, shall we lobby for the King of African Kings to be 
reinstated?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.fahamu.org/pipermail/debate-list/attachments/20110827/ca2f1b87/attachment-0001.htm