Modpress

Hvis man tror, at den forestående militære aktion mod Libyen handler om at håndhæve en “no-fly-zone” som humanitær støtte til oprørerne i Benghazi, er man godt naiv.

Blækket er næppe tørt på den FN-resolution, der eksplicit ikke tillader besættelse eller landkrig, før Lars Løkke Rasmussen fortæller danskerne, at det bliver en lang krig, det her:

“Vi har et ønske om, at det ikke skal være for en meget lang periode, men vi kan ikke give nogle garantier,” sagde statsminister, Lars Løkke Rasmussen.

Om krigen vil vare i uger, måneder eller år, ville statsministeren ikke give et bud på.

Også udenrigsministeren påpegede, at krigen kan blive lang.

“Der er tale om en langvarig proces, og aktionen er ikke overstået på kort tid,” sagde hun.

Man taler ikke om “den humanitære aktion”. Man taler ikke om “flyveforbud”. Man taler om krig, og igen – det er muligt, at oprørerne i Libyen tror, at det handler om at redde dem fra en kommende humanitær katastrofe. Men inden længe vil det, hvis ikke krigen bliver standset, være de vestlige soldater, som forårsager den humanitære katastrofe, mens landets olie triller ud tønde for tønde – præcis, som det hver på sin måde er gået i Afghanistan og Irak.

Man mærker allerede, hvordan vestmagterne reagerer med ærgrelse, når Gaddafi har erklæret våbenhvile og dermed fjernet hele grundlaget for aktionen. Han “har én chance“, tordner Obama, og man aner allerede kimen til det “vi angriber da bare alligevel”, der var en realitet i 2003, da man angreb Irak. Historiens gang vil forhåbentlig vise, at jeg tager fejl, men for mig at se handler det her kun om én ting, og det har intet med humanitære hensyn at gøre: Det handler om at få en bid af kagen, før det er for sent.

Eller, som Al Jazeeras Marwan Bishara udtrykker det:

The overzealousness of certain Western powers like Britain, France and, as of late, the US, to interpret the resolution as an open-ended use of force, is worrisome. With their long history of interference and hegemony in the region, their political and strategic motivation remains dubious at best. Likewise, their rush to use air force individually or collectively could prove morally reprehensible – even if legally justified – if they further complicate the situation on the ground.

The onus is on these Western powers to prove that their next move and actions are based on a strictly humanitarian basis and are not meant as a down payment for longer-term interference in Libyan and regional affairs.

They need to demonstrate how their ‘change of heart’ from supporting the Gaddafi dictatorship over several years to condemning him as a war criminal and acting to topple him, is not motivated by more of the same narrow national and Western strategic interest.

Unfortunately, the Libyan dictator’s statements and actions (and his recent cynical and contradictory threats and appeals) have played into Western hands, making it impossible for Libyans, like Tunisians and Egyptians before them, to take matters into their own hands.

Those who abstained at the UN Security Council, including Germany, India and Brazil, wanted to co-operate in charting a brighter future for Libya, but are also suspicious of the overzealous French and British eagerness to jump into a Libyan quagmire with firepower.

Indeed they were. Indtil videre er invasionerne af såvel Irak som Afghanistan endt som rene, humanitære katastrofer. Vi burde ærligt talt have lært lektien, før vi drager ud på endnu et lille kolonialistisk eventyr.

Skal vi virkelig tro på, at de selv samme vestlige regeringer, som ikke engang kunne tage sig sammen til at vedtage et mildt rap over fingrene til Israel, da de for et par år siden begik krigsforbrydelser i Gaza, komplet med kemiske våben og overlagte drab på civile, nu bekymrer sig om den humanitære situation i Libyen?

Nej – når det vestlige angreb, som en FN-resolution nu har åbnet for, kommer, vil det kun handle om én ting: Økonomiske interesser.

Som Richard Seymour skriver på Lenin’s Tomb:

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 sieze 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.

Som sagt – jeg vil tro på vestmagternes (herunder Danmarks) humanitære hensigter, når de pålægger det israelske miltær flyveforbud over Gaza og Vestbredden, og når de taler åbent for demokrati i Saudi-Arabien. Indtil da kan talen om “humanitær intervention” aldrig blive andet end hykleri af værste skuffe.