OVERSEAS INTERVENTION

7/10/2013

US OVERSEAS INTERVENTION IS ALWAYS LEGAL !

As the two covert military interventions this weekend in Somalia and Libya demonstrated the US remains committed to harassing, capturing or terminating the promoters and providers of terrorism. Abu Anas al Liby an alleged Al Qaeda member, who also allegedly masterminded the 1998 US Embassy attacks in Africa was seized in Tripoli by members of the US forces. The Libyan government were not asked for permission or informed before this action was taken. Also on Saturday another US commando team attempted to capture Ikrima - a member of Al Sabab in Southern Somalia - seen as responsible for the recent attack on the shopping mall in Kenya. The Somalian government was also not informed or permission sought before this action was taken.

The US Secretary of State John Kerry, talking today observed that the Libyan action was 'legal and appropriate'. Yet this begs the question as to whether 'undeclared' US overseas intervention into the affairs and the citizens of other nation-states is lawful and warranted? The State department would argue that they did not seek permission or inform the respective governments since they did not trust that this information would remain confidential, moreover, in capturing individuals such as Anas al Liby that they were acting in 'self defence' - a legal action recognised by UN charter - and/or capturing a 'wanted man' that had already committed crimes against the US. Therefore, do these actions translate into 'because the US has the ability and facility to trap and trace these individuals that they have the right as well as the might to act in this manner'? Will this man be accorded the rights of an arrested civilian individual? Does the US in effect possess an uncontested international warrant to arrest who they wish, when they wish? Will Al Liby be tried in a US civilian court? Or should he be brought before a court in his own country? Does all this matter since if the US has identified these individuals then surely they are responsible for the terrorists acts outlined and confirmed by the Justice Department ? Hence, the process becomes somewhat irrelevant, the ability to stop these individuals becomes the only real principle !

However....
If we continue to argue that the 'Western World' led by the US offers a 'exceptional' sense of freedom that is linked to the legal rights and responsibilities of the individual and this is why we fight against the destructive forces of terrorism then is it not also true that our behaviour overseas should be measured in a manner that supports this claim? After all is it not also worth observing that the continued sustainability of our 'social model' is ultimately decided by its sustained legal and moral legitimacy?

KK

4 Comments

Nathalie

11/10/2013 05:49:23 am

Agreed. This is just like the US judging every single non-western country that is in possession of, or trying to develop nuclear weapons, using it as a legit reason to invade these countries as well (Iraq).

The United States themselves can have them though because they are a free and democratic country that will never abuse their highly dangerous arsenal (while they are the only ones that have ever used nuclear weapons anyway).
Very twisted, western point of view. It does not need to be said that countries like Iran will have a whole different perspective regarding this issue and will definitely not put their confidence in the fact that America is a democratic country, handling their nuclear weapons in a sensible way.

Brad

21/10/2013 12:21:19 am

I agree Nathalie - it's a double standard. The temptation to wield a big stick when you can inevitably distorts better judgement. Thus, so the thinking goes, because US principles are so great the US can ignore the sovereignty of other nations. If a country (Libya, Somalia, Pakistan) complains, the US throws its hands up and says, "I just HAD to! But it's me, so it's OK!"

The only defense my bitty brain can think of is that, by notifying the government of the foreign country, intel security might be compromised and the US might as well not even try to move forward with a particular mission. But "no" isn't a pleasant answer when you hold the big stick.

What if one of these suspects was in Britain? Or Belgium? Or (Heaven's sake) Luxembourg? I doubt the US would charge in without permission...

It doesn't need to be said that the US would never tolerate the Pakistani or Libyan government operating without permission within US borders.

So, how long can behavior trump principles until the hypocritical double-standard becomes the rule? Depressing stuff

The Monroe Doctrine we discussed today is a great example. The US insists on hegemony in its "sphere of influence." Today, China wants the same luxury of hegemony, in regards to Taiwan, the South China Sea, the Senkaku Islands, et al. But the US can't abide it.

chafik khazzani

12/10/2013 03:01:10 am

In the current geopolitical context, The US might be driven to think that there is somehow some degree of responsibility owed to the American people at home and this is explained by the responsibility to protect that nations ensure to provide for their constituencies and citizens, but upon reflection, what the US exaggerate is the nature and the enormity of the terrorist threat. It is usually repeated in the realm of terrorism and foreign policy public parlance that the number of Americans who died out of an allergy to peanut butter exceeds those killed in 9/11. However, since the occurrence of that hideous and world-changing event, US foreign policy has become more proactive and unilateral in its engagement with matters dealing with national security, even when the security of the nation is far from being endangered. How on earth can a nation whose military budget exceeds those of many nations, small and big ones alike, be threatened by some terrorist factions that happen to operate outside and away from the American territories. The way i look at the recent american move in Africa is through an economic stance. Having lost its global economic supremacy due to many factors, including the rise to prominence of emerging economies such as China, India and Brazil, etc., The US has only the military might to which to hang and deploy as an instrument to secure whatever interests are left for the sake of reinvigorating the American economy, in a way that allow it to contain the hazardous shocks of a global economy growing continuously competitive. I do not see how the US is acting legally to the benefit of the world or in support of a presumed 'social model'( the latter is rather US-defined and sustained instead of universally agreed upon) deemed suitable for every nation on earth to uphold and nurture. The way the US engage globally against terrorism can be seen as a bold way to protect its people, nation, values etc., but this should not distract us away from the idea that there economic and interest-related stakes at play. the race to grab hold of resources ( oil primarily) is usually cloaked in the language of WMD or some sort of eminent threat to national security and therefore the survival of the nation. How can The US sell and appeal to nations by promoting the human rights of liberty and freedom of the individual while denying the same rights for some segments of its population at home? I Hope my questions trigger some thoughts and reflections here.

Aleksandra

22/11/2013 08:54:33 pm

US intervention in the realm of terrorism and foreign affairs, their self-appointed role of a Globocop / World's policeman, has been lasting for some time but, as Chafik said, it intensified after 9/11, especially in the protection of their own national security. All these interventions are carried out on the basis of "popular" and not strictly defined Human rights and liberties so as to justify their own underlying political and economic interests. The US give themselves the right to decide and judge who represents the threat to their own national security, who is responsible of "chronic wrongdoing", etc. and thus provide themselves with an alibi for an intervention. It is, thus, well-known which steps are to follow within the processes of these interventions.

I must agree with Brad's thoughts that US would never tolerate similar actions in their own territory, as well that they would probably never intervene in a similar way into the affairs of certain Western countries. I would say that all this adds up to the speculation of the idea, of their right to act in the manner they do, arrest who they wish and carry out military actions; they clearly justify their actions as "legal and appropriate", acting in "self defense" and within the specter of obeying international laws, human rights and liberties and acting against "the enemies of humankind".

On the other hand, I read a couple of articles defending the role US has taken upon themselves, as "who is to take such a role in today's world, the role of protecting global security and international laws, but the strongest military and economic power, thus US.". Other arguments supporting this fact are the failure of the League of Nations and well as the quite often ineffective role UN has.

Another thing to mention (also read in an article) are the dangers United States might experience if they withdraw themselves from foreign affairs and turn more to the domestic ones. As withdrawing from any bigger war inevitably requires strict new limits in foreign policy, new restrictions and so forth, this particular article I read also points out the disadvantages of US drawback from these affairs (" Germany and Japan in the 1930s, the Soviet Union in the immediate post-World War II period and the Soviet Union again after Vietnam"). Thus, as explained, they were "forced back into a paramount global leadership role". Therefore, this question also remains: what impact would withdrawing the army and ceasing of interventions have on future US and global security? These are just some of the ideas I came across.

OVERSEAS INTERVENTION

US OVERSEAS INTERVENTION IS ALWAYS LEGAL !

Leave a Reply.

Author

Archives

Categories