Will Anyone Ever Look in the Mirror?

I am not a huge fan of Daniel Ayalon, who has been the pet of Avigdor Lieberman since this coalition came to power, which is what one would do if one were the Deputy Foreign Minister and the other the Foreign Minister. But this Foreign Ministry's efforts have been marked by a bastardization of statecraft and the deterioration of relations with the rest of the world as Lieberman pushes his agenda despite the fact that it was Netanyahu's coalition to ruin. Even more ridiculous is that Ayalon is a career diplomat in the Israeli Foreign Service, having been Ambassador to the US from 2002 until 2006, but the chain of command has led him to do a lot of stupid stuff, like put the Turkish Foreign Minister in a small chair and mock him in Hebrew as relations between the allies deteriorated, and refusing to see Congressmen visiting Israel on a tour with J Street.

But Ayalon's article on Foreign Policy's website show that he still has the skill for statecraft and can write about the misuse of the UN that leads to criticism of Israel while other states operate without hearing a single word in response to their disgusting acts. Somehow, while on the Human Rights Committee, Libya even had a report filed to demonstrate how free and transparent they are. The report mentions that people were allowed free speech until it became harmful to the state. But who would notice all those secret detentions? Gaddafi's delusions were pushed to the margins because so many others are, like him, Muslim and Arab, so why should we really care? Instead they focus on the actions of one small group that makes up less than 1/1000th of the world population. It is true that Israel has committed violations of human rights, and it irks me that this admission continues to not enter the official position of the Israeli government, as it is a necessary step towards normalizing relations. Especially when in this context, where Ayalon seems to play Israel off as an archangel of human rights.

Let's run through the highlight nations of human rights abusers on the Human Rights Council (Note: I remember the Nakba and other events that affected the Palestinians, it's just that I aim to show how bad everyone else is too):

Saudi Arabia: Yes, you can still get the death penalty for numerous offenses, including anti-government rhetoric (which I would assume doesn't have too high a bar to jump over), adultery, theft, and homosexuality.

Cuba: Where technology can't be introduced until the government figures out how to control it. And even after the introduction, people are scared to use them.

Pakistan: Two government officials have recently been killed in Pakistan: one for trying to protect a Christian woman from being convicted of blasphemy, the other for being a Christian.

Bahrain: They're essentially engaged in the same situation as Libya, except with less fighter jets bombing their people. Of course, the Human Rights Council would never condemn one of its own members until Libya was suspended.

China: The worst one but with the most economic clout, so who really cares? Critics of the government get to enjoy house arrest and harassment from police. Also, does anyone remember the suppression of Tibetan activism and assault on Buddhist monks and how the Chinese started to censor foreign singers from criticizing their imperialism?

United States: Name one state that hasn't violated human rights. Even as an American, a balanced lens is a patriotic lens when looking at the history of your own country. Remember when we deposed Saddam Hussein and catalyzed a civil war in Iraq? How about Grenada? What about the occupation of the Philippines for 48 years and the violent putting down of any insurrection against American rule or independence from it? And what about using those atomic bombs at the end of World War II? Were they really necessary?

How does the UN think it can uphold human rights to its standards when there is no accountability on the committee that decides who has violated these rights? Or let a conference on racism turn into a pseudo-academic pursuit of claiming that Zionism is racism? The UN is extremely messed up, and it will continue to be because it requests no accountability within nations, only that they show up to the General Assembly and pay their dues. This is why I could never get enthused about Model United Nations, because it was pipe dreams of an effective international body that can never exist in the real world.

A Case for Intervention

Marc Lynch already made the point that it may be necessary, and the evidence in the media seems to be enough of a case. If there was ever a time for a coalition to violate the Westphalian sovereignty of an independent state, it is in Libya right now. Protestors should not be the victims of jet attacks. But military interventionism is known to draw the ire of citizens when it fails, or help public opinion when it succeeds, so governments, especially the US after its experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan, continue to walk a tight rope when getting involved in the domestic affairs of others.

The failure of the Clinton administration to intervene in Rwanda and the Congo has gone into the historical record as a failure because the US at the time was enough of a military power to make things right in a way that Belgian peacekeepers could not. However, neither Rwandan side had the military resources at their disposal what Qaddafi has in Libya. The protesters do not have access to fighter jets, but he does. To bomb your own citizens is disgusting.

Internally, in Libya, when will the military see this error? Qaddafi has the status as a revolutionary that he constantly flaunts. He fuels it through the creating ties to the past, such as that of Omar Mukhtar, whose life Qaddafi bankrolled into a biopic starring Anthony Quinn. He also showed up to meet Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi wearing a picture of Mukhtar to emphasize the colonial legacy Italy left during its time in Libya and the reparations they received. But now there is no colonialism, but the cult of personality of Qaddafi seems to engender support that Mubarak could not among the Egyptian military. For that reason, it is necessary for military intervention. Italy's status as a former colonizer may require a coalition to get some input from them, but the trial of Berlusconi may discount them from the process, as they are too occupied with domestic politics. But Berlusconi may get involved to serve him some improvement in public opinion and get Italians to rally around the flag and forget about his  indulging in underage prostitution.

The lengths to which Qaddafi has gone to stay in power are deplorable, but he will remain in power unless other countries come to the aid of the protestors. It would serve Obama well in the court of public opinion both at home (rally around the flag, again) and in the international realm to intervene. Hopefully he sees this soon and we can end the oppressive and malevolent rule of Qaddafi once and for all.