Don’t shout at the telly: uprisings in the Middle East and intervention in Libya

It’s true that revolutions are often more successful, if the people are organising and fighting for the uprising on their own, without intervention from outside. Going through this progress without help rais’es the capability of the movement, makes them better organised and if the upraising is successful, make the people more self-confident and proud about the freedom they have achieved. That’s why I think, that the West shouldn’t decide the conflict in Libya’s rebellion, as they also don’t in Bahrain, Syria or Yemen. But that the West should do and could have done better in supporting and embracing these uprisings with political encouragement, UN-Resolutions against regimes which are fighting their people and by helping the refugees. On the humanitarian intervention itself, I think a distinction should be made between foreign countries how are intervening because of enforcing political development, or if there is a genocide on a certain group of people happening. In this case, the nation community should be obligated to stop slaughter. Because as we can see in cases like Darfur, the humanitarian intervention has happened very selective. So maybe there should be a clear role made, that on a certain point a global intervention should be indicated. Back on the Libya issue, these would mean that the West should help the rebellions defending them self against being killed, and help to create a stable situation. But fighting for their upraising by bombing Tripoli and give the rebellions weapons are really bad ideas. Furthermore I think that condemning mass murder is not only a western moral principle, but international and therefore these values can and should be defended everywhere on the planet. So if a group of people faced a situation in which they are going to be killed because of their political thinking and they ask for help, it would be criminal not to help. And this idea that people should die for their freedom and their believe in democracy, as some western rebellions have done in the 18th century is very archaic. In our times it is possible to fight for your beliefs and for your freedom without taking the risk to die for this fight, and these possibility should have every individual, indifferent were. As we see that these is reality in some countries we no longer have an excuse why it shouldn’t be possible for everyone. So it is not right to assume and accept such a great sacrifice from every revolutionary.

This program is very informative and engaging. Karl brought up points that I myself often overlook, such as the motivations behind the intervening powers. I think that often times, countries use the term ‘humanitarian intervention’ to influence public opinion and support for what they are trying to achieve and in their own self interest. I also like his broader argument that intervention denies freedom for those who are fighting for it. I hadn’t thought much about intervention outside of the ‘saving lives’ context and now have a better understanding of the effects and problems which result.