Monday, March 21, 2011

A letter about the UN

Today´s monday post will be a mail I sent to a journalist regarding the UN and Libya. I have translated the text since it was originally in Norwegian and therefore hard to read for most of the people reading this blog.
It should be said however that I don´t see it as realistic that anything should come out of it. I just felt that I had to write it.
Anyway. This is the third serious post in a row, and I will try not to get to engaged to critical writing. People don´t want news from blogs obviously, yet there are too few blogs who does it seriously to begin with.... and somethings are left out of the mainstream media. Enter the internet.

I´m a student at ***. Today I woke up with “todays paper” outside my door, branded with large head liners about the controversial theme: Libya.
After having read your article I´m left with a couple of questions I feel are essential because they are left out of the general media.
Not to make the impression to be a “know-it-all” student; This is not critique of your article. If anything it was good enough to inspire me to write this e-mail.

I´m especially interested in the part of the article where you site **** ***** with the line “We can get a westernization of what has been until now, a genuine people uprising”.
This is about the first time I have heard a politician from any of the western countries, ask a question concerning the legitimacy of the recent bombing. The issue that get the hair on my arms to rise up is that the bombing itself is fronted by the UN. After what American (and Norwegian) media calls a “historic moment” in the UN, when they gave a go ahead to the No-fly-zone over Libya, there was immediately underlined that this was strictly for civilian protection. But does this not put the UN in an extremely poor position as a peace-keeping/building organization?
You have to consider the fact that the UN does not have juridical power, even though it wants us to believe it does, as a transnational sovereignty. They do not have the right to “go in” as a police force, especially when their only legitimate motive is “defend from violence with violence”. This puts them out from being a peace-keeping organization to become an organization that is used as a cover that the superpowers use to “cover” their real motives.
I mean; what happened in the security-council was like a poorly-made re-run of the iraq war. The same actors who pushed for a war for democracy that time, are the same now and we all know that there was alternate motives than “building democracy and defend civilian lives” that drove them that time. As a bonus this became an economic black-hole for the US in later times, where soldiers die because the local people don´t want them there... you obviously don´t need a reminder.

Last time the UN left with its integrity intact by saying NO to the warmongers, something they have failed to do this time. This was their only basis as a transnational organization even close to being legitimate! They have let themselves be manipulated and made it to look like a “humanitarian operation”. Ironically enough... no matter how you look at it, it will come back as “to bomb for humanitarian reason”.

POINT being that the focus has deliberately been shifted from the stabilizing of oil-prices (America), bad election (France), and a budget hole (England), and over on “protection of civilians” for a reason.
It isn´t that I think of Gaddafi as anything else than a despot and a menace for his people and region, but I think the UN made a big, fundamental and eye-opening mistake when they approved the war-hungry countries, and gave them an incentive with ethical backing, to go on the offensive. This is what the media has forgotten to mention. Maybe because they are too afraid to make any other assumption, from fear of losing viewers, but I think they are making a mistake in not putting a light on the long term effect of what happened in the UN.
This paper ********* has an advantage there.

This is naturally a social scientific goldmine, and I can already see many a professor rub their hands eagerly together. Definitions are despite all what they are good at, and an opportunity to write new books and make students buy them for a bloody price, where they shift the term “peace-keeping” as a word thought of in a good sense to become something more like “war-incentive”, they applaud in their dark corners of their libraries. 

That Norway is going to partake in the coming battle/war (whatever) does not come as a shock. We are despite all Europa´s naive half-brother.
The repercussions of this remains to be seen. Everything depends on who wins down there. If Gaddafi wins, the west will have to crawl to the furnace (because of the oil involved) and lick his back for the next 30-40 years, and if the rebells wins there will still be 30-40 years before they get any resemblance of a agreeable democracy that functions, and this might not even be in the wests best interest. The ONLY thing we can be sure about is that civilian people won´t win. They will die be it bombs, persecution or torture anyway.

So here you have a case: the UN´s future legitimacy as a peace-keeping organization.

Have a good day and good luck with your article-writing

- Beornegard (

No comments: