Questions That Require Serious Attention

As implied earlier, acts of conspiracy that have been resorted to wield full-scale attack against Libya have on the spur of the moment culminated in military action that principal western countries along with their satellite states have launched aerial and missile strikes on March 19–exactly eight years after the invasion of Iraq–against the sovereignty of the people and government of Libya.

The heavy-handed assault that is being exercised to legitimize illegal operations in the name of the Arab League and other regional organizations, as well as through employing some member states of the UN Security Council as willing tools while at the same time toning down others’ voices by means of bewildering political game raises endless moral and logical questions with sound proof of evidence.
On what justification and legal process has the “No-Fly Zone” resolution the UN Security Council passed under the rubric of setting up ‘safe haven’ escalated on impulse into aerial strikes and missile attacks? In the wake of the beleaguered ‘at a roundtable’ rhetoric, what is the rationale beyond the imposition of resolution for swift escalation into military intervention? On what logic could the interference be justified for saving nationhood? How is the fatality of civilians from external forces tolerable and objectionable to internal arms? If the advocacy is meant to salvage nationhood, why is not similar state of affairs of other nations handled in such a manner? Why is not military intervention levied on other countries for nationhood’s sake? Contrary to the military intervention imposed in the rhetoric of rescuing nationhood upon Libya, does military interference intended to safeguard governments in other countries not attest to the double standard?


Could such heavy firepower that essentially results in devastation and chaos resolve comparable political and economic questions which different peoples might raise? Why are nations deprived of the independence to keep their ranks intact and undertake nation-building programs on their own? What is the real objective of such intervention? Is it to facilitate political evolution and developments, or hamper and shake it to assume new direction.
Further than dwarfing the living standards of peoples, previous U.S.-led military adventurism in Afghanistan, Iraq and Somalia merely created a breeding ground for terrorism and sectarian propensities, which in turn have now given rise to dreadful mass killings. The massacre of innocent Iraqis on daily basis, as well as the sight of soldiers who take photographs with their feet on dead bodies of Afghan civilians is now a regular episode. And hence, why has the international community remained voiceless when this dismaying experience is being repeated? Would not erstwhile adventurisms that caused mass killings be enough? Why have some member states of the UN Security Council vested with veto power preferred to constantly abstain and observe the massacre of peoples sitting on the fence? Have not those forces, who are pondering to prevail peace and stability by subduing peoples and punishing governments with air strikes and missile attacks, drawn a lesson from their past futile experiences? What rational judgment could justify the trend to subdue the entire people? Is not the history from Vietnam to Iraq quite telling? In view of this fact, for how long the UN and other international organizations will remain ostensible when such wild adventurisms are sustained to cause further massacres?


Chapter 1 Article 1 (1) of the UN Charter postulates that the principle of the organization is: “To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace.” Therefore, are peoples and governments of the world paying heed to the role of the UN that the organization itself is continuously standing against its principles? While Article 2 (1) of the same chapter states: “The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members”, Why then is the UN manipulated at the whim of few nations? By the same token, chapter 1, Article 2 (4) of its charter hypothesizes: “All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations. Why has then the UN failed, in compliance with its charter, to watch over endless adventurisms by some nations that are exercising power for parochial interests? Chapter 1 article 2 (7) of the UN Charter stipulates: “Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter…” Why this same organization is then allowing repeated bombardment of detested nations?

While Chapter 6 Article 34 of the UN charter again postulates: “The Security Council may investigate any dispute, or any situation which might lead to international friction or give rise to a dispute, in order to determine whether the continuance of the dispute or situation is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security”, why is the UN passing resolutions upon preposterous judgments? Yet, Article 51 of the same chapter states: “Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security.” Why is this organization then assuming authority to deny the rights of some countries for self-defense?


Punitive measures that are being taken by adventurous nations and titular international organizations invoke endless legal and logical questions. Answers of the aforementioned questions would ascertain that the world is experiencing an eminent danger of the new world order. However precarious the current global state of affairs might be, the end result of this vicious world order will definitely prove contrary to the aspirations of the minorit. It is unrealistic that all peoples will remain silent forever, provided popular consciousness is ever on the rise.

 

Last Updated (Wednesday, 23 March 2011 01:27)