Aletho News


UN votes for Libya air strikes

By Richard Seymour | LENIN’S TOMB | March 17, 2011

As if I didn’t see this coming a mile off:

10 in favour, zero against, five abstentions. So the vote went exactly as predicted. “The resolution 1973/2011 is adopted.,” says the chairman.

This could get very ugly. The resolution authorises a whole series of military measures short of ground invasion, including air strikes. The worst case scenarios? Not that air strikes will kill civilians – that is absolutely guaranteed, and thus constitutes an aspect of even the best case. Not that the war will escalate – that is not a dead cert, but a strong probability. However, it’s also unlikely to involve a ground invasion, which I need hardly say would be catastrophic. The worst case scenario seems to be that this will fuel the centrifugal forces tending toward partition between a ‘Western’ allied statelet in the east, and a rump dictatorship in the west. Qadhafi has spent years deliberately ‘underdeveloping’ the east to punish these regions and tribal federations for their tendency toward rebelliousness, leaving towns and cities that should be as rich as those in the Gulf states desperately poor, surrounded by shantytowns and slums – and so he has laid the material basis for such divisions. Imperialism creates divisions where none existed before (look at Iraq). This is how it always operates. So it’s implausible that where there already are such divisions, and where such divisions have a direct bearing on the conflict underway, that imperialist intervention would not exacerbate them. This may be the worst thing that could possibly have happened to the Libyan revolution. That’s a worst-case scenario.

The best-case scenario is that people are killed to little avail, and the former regime elements in the transitional leadership have just diverted energies and initiative down a blind alley. I suppose you might object that the best-case scenario is that the air strikes exclusively kill the bad guys, turning the initiative in favour of the revolutionaries, allowing them to seize power, build a liberal democratic state, and the cavalry heads home. And the band played, ‘Believe it if you like’. Look, I’d like to believe it. I’d also like to believe that Obama is a socialist, Hillary Clinton a feminist, and David Cameron a salesman for unsecured personal loans. But the occasions in which imperialism has directly assisted a revolutionary process are rather infrequent, wouldn’t you say? In fact, I suspect you’d be struggling if I asked you to name one.

I’m also afraid that all the talk about the inaction, delaying, dilly-dallying and procrastination of the ‘international community’, not to mention the demonology about Russia and China obstructing the good guys once again, has played straight into a very familiar war narrative. Just when you’ve uttered your last “but why won’t they DO something?”, just when you’re about to give up and lapse into foul depression, the good guys come to the rescue. It’s like 1941 all over again. There was never any doubt, as far as I’m concerned, that the US would support a no-fly zone if it could be suitably internationalized and involve support from the miserable dictatorships of the Arab League. And no one will be tasteless enough to point out that those very same states are currently butchering their populations with the arms and financial assistance of the imperial powers commanding this coalition of the willing. Because that would just be sour grapes.

March 18, 2011 - Posted by | Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Progressive Hypocrite


  1. Naturally those of us who KNOW that what they say, is NOT what they plan or intend. With non stop wars and misery that they inflict, it would be a ‘given’ the same is planned for the citizenry, and not the despots. However….. and we must see the whole picture of what is happening worldwide. It would appear their world is crumbling while freedom is at hand. It will take the ONE to take them down.. but I believe the signs are all here.

    Comment by Joyce | March 18, 2011

  2. I thought the UN was established to protect any member nation from being harmed from interventionists and warmongers?
    The UN has become a worthless canguru court
    only to serve Satan and to promote more hardship to defenseless nations.

    Comment by B.Benhamid | March 18, 2011

  3. Thought you may not have seen this.. beyond evil. Total and completely insane.

    Comment by Joyce | March 18, 2011

  4. You can bet that if a no-fly zone resolution was voted on for China, Russia or France, they’d exercise their ‘veto’ power for sure…..

    Comment by kim | March 19, 2011

  5. Is it ok with Aletho to post external links?

    The Security Council vote was 10 in favor and five abstentions. The countries abstaining included Russia, China, Germany, Brazil and India. While, as permanent members of the council, both Russia and China had the power to defeat the resolution by casting “no” votes, they chose not to do so, ensuring that the UN continued to fulfill its function as a rubber stamp for the demands of the major imperialist powers.

    Russia’s UN ambassador Vitaly Churkin said that the measure “opens the door to large scale military intervention” and stressed that questions had been raised in the prior discussions of the resolution as to how it would be enforced, by what military forces and under what rules of engagement, but there had been “no answers.”

    China’s ambassador Li Baodong, the acting president of the Security Council, also voiced reservations, but then justified Beijing’s failure to veto the measure by invoking the vote last weekend of the Arab League calling on the UN to implement a no-fly zone.

    Comment by kim | March 19, 2011

    • The security council is in many ways like a private club for the imperial powers. The rotating seats don’t have veto power, so they are pretty much there just as window dressing.

      Comment by aletho | March 19, 2011

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.