Friday, February 17, 2012

Libya: February 17 one year anniversary

Today we celebrate the first anniversary of the Libyan 2011 revolution.

Libyans and non Libyans have spontaneously overtaken the streets all over Libyan cities to celebrate their hard earned freedom.

We do not forget those who made this day possible, the martyrs of both genders, and the assistance received from other countries be they those who used their war machines like NATO countries at our service  ( including the US) or those who accepted the refugees from Libya or those countries which provided aid and support from the Arab League  and the rest of the world.

I realise  that without the oil, other natural resources and potential business in terms of rebuilding and Libya really being one of the last virgin territories economically less countries would have been willing to interfer ( look at Syria  no oil = veto)  But that's fine we have made it and are grateful to everyone no matter how small their contribution has been.

Since last evening there has been one big party in Libya with so many initiatives, no official party from the interim government in deference to the lives lost ...  if you want to see what is happening go on Twitter and check Libya or go on Aljazeera they are broadcasting live...

Now I'm off to celebrate too, more acid posts will be left for another time :)

Viva free Libya 


Maya M said...

Happy anniversary!
And some criticism, as usual.
"I realise that without the oil, other natural resources and potential business in terms of rebuilding and Libya really being one of the last virgin territories economically less countries would have been willing to interfer (look at Syria no oil = veto)"
Highlander, it was not countries "willing to interfere" that imposed the veto. The countries "willing to interfere" are some of the Western countries, whom you often criticize, and maybe some Arab countries, while the countries that imposed the veto were Russia and China, whom you rarely criticize. Perhaps it would be good for these two countries to receive more Arab criticism. Observers said that only the fear to draw the wrath of all Arabs prevented Russia and China from imposing a veto on the Libyan intervention.
I admit, however, that the willingness to interfere is much less in the case of Syria than it was for Libya. To me, the main reason is that Libyan rebels had been quite successful and had established some provisional authority in the territory under their control. So the Coalition had someone to hand the power once Qaddafi was out. Like so many times in nature and society, success was rewarded.
In Syria, we see only disorganized protesters and rebels. Which means that whoever wants to stop the bloodshed, will have to occupy the country. Iraq showed very well what this means. The next day you save people from their bloody tyrant, they start to attack you by all means available, kill your soldiers and humanitarian workers for no apparent reason and drag their mutilated bodies along the streets.
When Bulgaria was preparing to send soldiers to Iraq, there were some worries and allegedly informed people reassuringly said, "Our men will be in a Shiite area and Shiites will support the Coalition, because they suffered much under Saddam."
Later on, a Bulgarian lieutenant wrote in a letter, "These people are fanatics. No matter how much good we do to them, they will still hate us." He soon died in a suicide bombing.
I also wonder what the relevance of oil is. Some naive people in Bulgaria thought that new Iraq would give us oil to pay back its debt. In fact, new Iraq was allowed to pay back less than 20% of its debt. After a country full of oil is considered too poor to pay, and a country without resources (e.g. Bulgaria) is forced to pay back every penny of its debt, I don't see why oil is considered so important.
If Russia and China hadn't imposed the veto, many Western voters would be against their country's going to war in Syria because of the Iraq lesson. After all, why sacrifice precious resources and soldiers to liberate people who will hate their liberators more than their former tyrant, and would butcher their liberators and each other more efficiently than their tyrant has butchered them?
Of course, Arabs will say that the inaction is because Syria has no oil. However, Westerners know well that if they do go to war, Arabs will say another unflattering thing. There seems to be no way (except perhaps mass suicide) for the West to make Arabs like it :-), so it is hardly worth trying.
I am confused because you admit that military intervention in Libya was beneficial, you seem to blame the world for not rushing to do a similar intervention in Syria - and you still keep on your blog the red banner "Attack Syria? No!"
Are you for or against intervention in Syria after all?

Highlander said...

Thanks Maya and of course it would not be the real Maya if there was no criticism :P it's ok to do that as you always help me see a different angry. I lump the Russians with the West :P and the Chinese with the capitalists or major powers. They both walked right into the trap set for them at the UN there was not going to be any help for the Syrians from any of the countries at that UM meeting.

I agree with the rest of your comment. As for payment and oil I would say that the NATO countries are not really worrying much about payment from Libya since the assets are right there in their banks :)

I admit that military intervention in Libya was helpful but I am still a proponent of non intervention. The one in Libya was crafted more smartly then the other ones.

I think we could have avoided intervention in Syria if we had not been so quick to label their government as unfit etc we knew it was unfit 11 years ago and even before and yet everyone shook hands with the man in Syria just like everyone kissed the hand of the man in Libya it's just hypocrisy. Because of this and of course the Syrian government total disregard for human life we are going to have a conflict for a long time....unless there is a miracle.
As for the banners I totally forgot them but I'm still going to keep them for now until I revamp this blog :)

NOMAD said...

Syria is seen as different for the geopolitical repercutions, it might drive the World into a third WW, at least a new "cold war", because Putin is likely going to win Russian elections, and he is determinated to not leave the world fields ruled by Washington

What I read is that the aware plebe in the western elites, wants it like a Kossovo happening, they'll arm the militias and will leave them doing the job.

Or Turkey might be pushed for intervening, some say in April !

Highlander said...

You are correct Nomad looks like Putin won and a new Yugoslavia war is starting in the Middle East

NOMAD said...

a interesting analyse of the different groups involved into the syrian rebellion, made by a french institution research against terrorism

Highlander said...

hey thanks Nomad this is a good report interesting ideas