Another Damned Intervention

In Albert Camus’s notebooks, one finds a confession that strikes a chord.  One is always caught in the vice of doing something and the helplessness of doing nothing at all.  In between, the human being is permanently stuck on a fence, pondering the next moral action that might negate the very thing he or she seeks to protect.  The moral is, however, to act, but to do with the most minimal of intrusions.

The intervention in Libya has the hallmarks of the military actions of 1999, when NATO intervened, without UN Security council authorization, to quell the efforts of the Serbian leader Slobodan Milosevic to crush the Kosovo insurgency.  There were murderous hiccups to the operation: the slaying of 70 refugees who were mistaken for being Serb paramilitaries, to name but one notable incident.  Then, there was the extreme reaction on Serbia proper itself.  Little wonder that this was deemed by various members of the left, notably such figures as Noam Chomsky, as yet another notch on the imperialist belt, another example of smug Western powers gone wild.  The age of ‘humanitarian imperialism’ was upon us.

UN Security Council Resolution 1973 did not stem from an entirely united front.  There were five abstentions, with ten members of the Council voting for the intervention.  The resolution did involve Arab support, though again, the degree of such involvement will only become apparent as the conflict takes shape.  At this point, Qatar has a presence, and is readying itself for military engagement from Italy, but that is hardly significant in the broader scheme of things.  Other Arab states, wedded to a brutality that has had backing from the oil-dependent west, have kept silence.  The Russians and the Chinese decided not to go along with the veto power, but both countries continue to insist on a cessation to hostilities.

Indeed, the attacks have already caused concerns amongst Arab states, and will continue to do so.  Criticism has been made by head of the Arab League – the Arab Secretary General Amr Moussa.  ‘What is happening in Libya differs from the aim of imposing a no-fly zone, and what we want is the protection of civilians and not the bombardment of more civilians’ (Dawn, Mar 20).  This is somewhat disingenuous, considering that the same organisation insisted on the imposition of a no-fly zone in March 12 to deal with the regime.

To use the humanitarian line of intervention in any situation is deeply problematic.  It is deceptively consoling.  It will be particularly more so given the nature of the technology used.  Such involvements are ‘clean’ in the way they minimise human casualties.

There is much to suggest that the rhetoric of a humanitarian intervention is often that of a trick, where humanity, or the idea of humanity, is a resounding joke, or at the very least a crutch designed to support other motivations.  There is much juggling as to what this intervention might do.  Do we start talking about a ‘pragmatic interventionism’, the middle road between those who prefer to not intervene at all and those who, without much contemplation, charge head on into the quagmire?

Colonel Gaddafi will hope to mould this intervention into every conceivable image, borrowing from the richly stocked cupboard of stereotypes.  With the generous use of human shields, and the inevitably high casualties that will follow on attacking various weapons sites, he will be able to point his mocking finger back at his opponents.  He will continue to insist, as he has been for some time, that his opponents are none other than thinly clothed fundamentalists.  (On that score, sketchy knowledge about the leaders of the rebellion is troubling.) The murderous tragic may well find himself claiming that he is fighting the oppressors of the West.

The Camus dilemma remains: how does one minimise harm in making a moral decision?  Such statements as those of a British Lib Dem member are infuriatingly simple.  ‘We have taken as forward a position as the Conservatives.  We have argued the same way Paddy Ashdown did over Kosovo.  To stand aside in this sort of situation would have been unconscionable’ (Observer, Mar 20).

The result then, is to intervene – and be damned.

BINOY KAMPMARK was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge.  He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne.  Email: bkampmark@gmail.com


More articles by:

Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne. Email: bkampmark@gmail.com

Weekend Edition
March 16, 2018
Friday - Sunday
Michael Uhl
The Tip of the Iceberg: My Lai Fifty Years On
Bruce E. Levine
School Shootings: Who to Listen to Instead of Mainstream Shrinks
Mel Goodman
Caveat Emptor: MSNBC and CNN Use CIA Apologists for False Commentary
Paul Street
The Obama Presidency Gets Some Early High Historiography
Kathy Deacon
Me, My Parents and Red Scares Long Gone
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: Rexless Abandon
Andrew Levine
Good Enemies Are Hard To Find: Therefore Worry
Jim Kavanagh
What to Expect From a Trump / Kim Summit
Ron Jacobs
Trump and His Tariffs
Joshua Frank
Drenched in Crude: It’s an Oil Free For All, But That’s Not a New Thing
Gary Leupp
What If There Was No Collusion?
Matthew Stevenson
Why Vietnam Still Matters: Bernard Fall Dies on the Street Without Joy
Robert Fantina
Bad to Worse: Tillerson, Pompeo and Haspel
Brian Cloughley
Be Prepared, Iran, Because They Want to Destroy You
Richard Moser
What is Organizing?
Scott McLarty
Working Americans Need Independent Politics
Rohullah Naderi
American Gun Violence From an Afghan Perspective
Sharmini Peries - Michael Hudson
Why Trump’s Tariff Travesty Will Not Re-Industrialize the US
Ted Rall
Democrats Should Run on Impeachment
Robert Fisk
Will We Ever See Al Jazeera’s Investigation Into the Israel Lobby?
Kristine Mattis
Superunknown: Scientific Integrity Within the Academic and Media Industrial Complexes
John W. Whitehead
Say No to “Hardening” the Schools with Zero Tolerance Policies and Gun-Toting Cops
Edward Hunt
UN: US Attack On Syrian Civilians Violated International Law
Barbara Nimri Aziz
Iraq Outside History
Wilfred Burchett
Vietnam Will Win: The Long Hard Road
Victor Grossman
Germany: New Faces, Old Policies
Medea Benjamin - Nicolas J. S. Davies
The Iraq Death Toll 15 Years After the US Invasion
Binoy Kampmark
Amazon’s Initiative: Digital Assistants, Home Surveillance and Data
Chuck Collins
Business Leaders Agree: Inequality Hurts The Bottom Line
Jill Richardson
What We Talk About When We Talk About “Free Trade”
Eric Lerner – Jay Arena
A Spark to a Wider Fire: Movement Against Immigrant Detention in New Jersey
Negin Owliaei
Teachers Deserve a Raise: Here’s How to Fund It
Kollibri terre Sonnenblume
What to Do at the End of the World? Interview with Climate Crisis Activist, Kevin Hester
Kevin Proescholdt
Secretary of Interior Ryan Zinke Attacks America’s Wilderness
Franklin Lamb
Syrian War Crimes Tribunals Around the Corner
Beth Porter
Clean Energy is Calling. Will Your Phone Company Answer?
George Ochenski
Zinke on the Hot Seat Again and Again
Lance Olsen
Somebody’s Going to Extremes
Robert Koehler
Breaking the Ice
Pepe Escobar
The Myth of a Neo-Imperial China
Graham Peebles
Time for Political Change and Unity in Ethiopia
Terry Simons
10 American Myths “Refutiated”*
Thomas Knapp
Some Questions from the Edge of Immortality
Louis Proyect
The 2018 Socially Relevant Film Festival
David Yearsley
Keaton’s “The General” and the Pernicious Myths of the Heroic South