That Muammar Gaddafi is a dodgy character and a dictator "estropeao" does not seem to be under discussion at this point, nor is that Libya's revolution has failed and throw the dictator, far left, seemingly has it all-bound and securely attached "to continue sending or pushed around, it depends. And that's when Egyptians began to Mubarak to Tunisian kicks and threw a Zine el Abidine, another integral mess, it seemed that the citizenship of the countries of north Africa were to achieve transition to democracy to the beat of popular revolution, which as we understand Communists are especially excited for obvious reasons. Therefore, the anxiety that grips us now is more than justified because the Libyan people not only going to get put to Qaddafi and establish a democratic regime but the failure of the Libyan revolution will bring an era of bloody repression the scheme against the rebels. And therefore, the committee's decision NATO's security to give tow the Libyan dictator, forgive me, leaves me somewhat puzzled because I have mixed feelings. The affair began a few days ago, in the counterattack of Gaddafi - has already provided successful - when the French President, Carla Bruni's husband, one that Sarkozy - or as you type - had the idea of \u200b\u200bdeclaring "sole interlocutor for Libya," the committee that the rebels have set as the provisional government. At that time, France, its President, had taken a gamble in the worst possible time, but at the same time had given the rebels Libyan air, which were put to the sword by the army of Colonel crazy. Of these powders are these muds and NATO has been "forced" to give for their eating the French president, because France is Andorra, a declaration authorizing armed intervention against the Libyan dictator. The joy of the Libyan rebel is justified, but it is premature and the chosen path is dangerous because it calls into question the principle of national sovereignty, knocking the established paradigm of "non interference" in internal affairs of countries. Hence Don Cayo Lara, General Coordinator of Izquierda Unida has declared that his organization is against the "invasion" of Libya, arguing that war is a hypocrite because it responds to economic interests rather than humanitarian. Also, Don Cayo, has taken the opportunity to criticize ZP and nothing for his firm support for NATO reflected in this war of occupation.
inevitably bring up what happened in Spain between 1936 and 1939, when the policy of "no interference" in internal affairs of countries not to violate the principle of national sovereignty resulted in forty years of Franco dictatorship . But it would be unfair to equate things. In the Civil War itself was foreign intervention, what happens is that basically in favor of one side, Franco, while the "democratic" countries cowardly hiding behind the principle of noninterference. In the case of Libya there was no foreign intervention, so far, for either side and the NATO intervention violated the principle of noninterference in internal affairs that countries have to resolve in exercising its national sovereignty . However, in the case of Libya, the principle of non-interference to a certain death sentence and a period of harsh repression of the population, especially in the areas where the rebellion has succeeded.
is also true that the NATO intervention in Libya is produced, rather than supporting the rebels, on economic issues fossil fuels and international relations. Otherwise, NATO aircraft also would be giving Pasadita through the airspace of Yemen, where his government - or whatever you have there - is killing its people in cold blood by the terrible crime of peacefully demonstrating against the regime. So, with all due respect, I agree with Lara Cayo and yes I agree with Lara Cayo. Thus, I am dual, contradictory, what can we do, I've always been like that, I have no choice nor do I want to have.
0 comments:
Post a Comment