Milan, March 21, 2011.
Many people are asking us why we have taken clear positions in favour of peace, and why we do not consider the intervention in Libya an enterprise that will benefit freedom and democracy. First of all, we like to believe in fairy tales, but those that stem from the traditions of nations: myths and legends with social or educational purposes. The story of Captain America exporting peace and democracy by dropping bombs and launching missiles, however, is not one of our favourites. A political issue (even if it is accompanied by armed insurrection) cannot see a third-party take a stance and go to war on the side of a faction. Gaddafi may be a dictator, but until recently he was also acknowledged as a leader by the UN. Gaddafi himself admitted in an interview that a month’s general strike would be sufficient for the opposition to bring down the Libyan Government and obtain democratic elections.
It is true that Libya could not hold out if faced with a real demonstration for freedom and an improvement in people’s lives. The idea that violent demonstrations by the people are likely to cause a violent armed intervention from the Western world will encourage countries to rearm. Russia is already doing so. This will lead to a new nuclear escalation and new forms of colonialism, which will start from social networks (considered the proof - often invented by the creators of the social networks themselves - of the existence of a “people’s protest”) in order to justify military intervention. There is no peace that can be supported by weapons. Not to mention the fact that the alternative to Gaddafi may be extreme-fundamentalists, the Libyan Liberation Movement and the Muslim Brotherhood, who even now are persecuting and killing minorities unpopular with Islamic fundamentalism: from a socialist dictatorship to a theocratic dictatorship, with a destruction of human rights. But here the interests at stake are less ideological and more material.
In the photo, Gaddafi and United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon
It is true that Libya could not hold out if faced with a real demonstration for freedom and an improvement in people’s lives. The idea that violent demonstrations by the people are likely to cause a violent armed intervention from the Western world will encourage countries to rearm. Russia is already doing so. This will lead to a new nuclear escalation and new forms of colonialism, which will start from social networks (considered the proof - often invented by the creators of the social networks themselves - of the existence of a “people’s protest”) in order to justify military intervention. There is no peace that can be supported by weapons. Not to mention the fact that the alternative to Gaddafi may be extreme-fundamentalists, the Libyan Liberation Movement and the Muslim Brotherhood, who even now are persecuting and killing minorities unpopular with Islamic fundamentalism: from a socialist dictatorship to a theocratic dictatorship, with a destruction of human rights. But here the interests at stake are less ideological and more material.
In the photo, Gaddafi and United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon
EveryOne Group
+39 393 4010237 :: +39 334 3585406info@everyonegroup.com :: www.
+39 393 4010237 :: +39 334 3585406info@everyonegroup.com :: www.
No comments:
Post a Comment