This multi-award winning channel produces programmes made by volunteers trained by the charity WORLDwrite

Subscribe to our podcasts using your preferred service:

Help with our podcasts

Don’t shout at the telly: uprisings in the Middle East and intervention in Libya

51.39

Don't shout at the telly: uprisings in the Middle East and intervention in Libya

After disastrous interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq, the UN-sanctioned NATO intervention in Libya has revived support for “humanitarian intervention” in the name of saving lives.  In this gripping on-the-sofa discussion, Middle East commentator and writer, Karl Sharro argues that such interventions far from helping, deny people the very freedom and self determination that people throughout the region are fighting for.

Recommended links:

Related topics: Debates, Democracy, International

Subscribe to our newsletter

Comments

Leave a comment now

Tyrell Vacciana said:

I find it both amusing and sad that an organization that carries the motto, ‘Don’t shout at the telly, change the message on it’, is indulging in mainstream media rhetoric. It is an unfortunate premise that the masses are overall still asleep, and have yet to awaken to the criminal activities that are pervasive more than ever. When considering elements of the US government lied to congress, claiming there was no prior knowledge of 9/11, it can be no surprise that 4 star General Wesley Clark blew the whistle on the Bush administration, claiming that 10 days after 9/11, the decision was made to invade Iraq, 3 years before the myth of WMDs ever surfaced. Clark continued that he was privy to documents stating the US would ‘take out 7 countries in 5 years’, including Libya, Syria and finishing off with Iran. It can be of no coincidence that uprisings occurred in Libya, and are now festering in Syria when one rewinds back to the 1980s when the CIA funded Osama Bin Laden and his comrades in repelling a Soviet invasion. I’m sure it is quite clear also why there is a massive media hysteria surrounding Iran’s nuclear sites, who are supposedly refusing entry to nuclear inspectors, yet the UN has already claimed that Iran has complied with what it’s obligated to do, nothing more, nothing less. It is sheer and utter criminal deception on the part of the media to portray Iran as a nuclear threat to anyone, because given the documents General Clark has told of, America has had it’s weapons pointed at Iran since before September 21st, 2001. In short, the uprisings in Syria are nothing more than Al Qaeda fighters funded by the west to destabilize and eventually rid Gaddafi of his position, in order to establish a central bank, in fact, this is one of the first things the ‘rebels’ did. Please excuse my sarcasm, but I didn’t know ‘freedom fighters’ were into central banking.

Vanessa said:

It’s true that revolutions are often more successful, if the people are organising and fighting for the uprising on their own, without intervention from outside. Going through this progress without help rais’es the capability of the movement, makes them better organised and if the upraising is successful, make the people more self-confident and proud about the freedom they have achieved. That’s why I think, that the West shouldn’t decide the conflict in Libya’s rebellion, as they also don’t in Bahrain, Syria or Yemen. But that the West should do and could have done better in supporting and embracing these uprisings with political encouragement, UN-Resolutions against regimes which are fighting their people and by helping the refugees. On the humanitarian intervention itself, I think a distinction should be made between foreign countries how are intervening because of enforcing political development, or if there is a genocide on a certain group of people happening. In this case, the nation community should be obligated to stop slaughter. Because as we can see in cases like Darfur, the humanitarian intervention has happened very selective. So maybe there should be a clear role made, that on a certain point a global intervention should be indicated. Back on the Libya issue, these would mean that the West should help the rebellions defending them self against being killed, and help to create a stable situation. But fighting for their upraising by bombing Tripoli and give the rebellions weapons are really bad ideas. Furthermore I think that condemning mass murder is not only a western moral principle, but international and therefore these values can and should be defended everywhere on the planet. So if a group of people faced a situation in which they are going to be killed because of their political thinking and they ask for help, it would be criminal not to help. And this idea that people should die for their freedom and their believe in democracy, as some western rebellions have done in the 18th century is very archaic. In our times it is possible to fight for your beliefs and for your freedom without taking the risk to die for this fight, and these possibility should have every individual, indifferent were. As we see that these is reality in some countries we no longer have an excuse why it shouldn’t be possible for everyone. So it is not right to assume and accept such a great sacrifice from every revolutionary.

Rachel said:

This program is very informative and engaging. Karl brought up points that I myself often overlook, such as the motivations behind the intervening powers. I think that often times, countries use the term ‘humanitarian intervention’ to influence public opinion and support for what they are trying to achieve and in their own self interest. I also like his broader argument that intervention denies freedom for those who are fighting for it. I hadn’t thought much about intervention outside of the ‘saving lives’ context and now have a better understanding of the effects and problems which result.

Lluisa V said:

I think that we can’t look away when things happen like in Lybia, but who are we to decide what is the best for them? However, if military actions are needed, under humanitarian reasons, these must be as clear as possible from the beginning with market political purposes and in line with the wishes of those involved. The target always it has to be the freedom and self determination of people involved and never to benefit the ones who are helping.

Karl reMarks: The uprisings in the Middle East and North Africa: Watch a discussion with WorldWrite volunteers said:

[…] in the Middle East and North Africa: Watch a discussion with WorldWrite volunteers Watch a video of the discussion I did with WorldWrite volunteers about the uprisings in the Middle East and North Africa. […]