Libya has been dealing with a serious discontent with the interim government that has been in place since the overthrow of Colonel Muammar al-Qaddafi. By not being able to provide security in this instance, they have not being able to meet the needs of their people as well as relations with foreign nations. Libya's claim that the U.S. violated their sovereignty would be a justifiable but they were unable to secure the country enough to combat insurgent militias within their borders. Secretary of State, Sen. John Kerry stated that the suspect was, "a legal and appropriate target" for the U.S. In the interest of their own people the U.S. intervened by proceeding with their own military operations on Libyan soil. It came to a point where bargaining proved useless and war would be pointless with a country of this power, so the only cost the U.S. had was taking a little flack from Libya's political leaders.
The U.S. has been subjected to multiple accusations of their willingness to compromise a nation's sovereignty behind the cloak of the fight against terrorism. Could these instances be considered strategic operations to provide security for their own nation? Having the strongest military in the world, there is not much that smaller nations can do against the U.S. anyways. In Afghanistan, the U.S. is currently arranging to sign a pact that will finalize the role of American troops within their borders. Their seems to be much optimism from the U.S. but it is a different story coming from Afghan leaders. President Hamid Kharzai exclaimed one week ago,
"They commit their violations against our sovereignty and conduct raids against our people, air raids and other attacks in the name of the fight on terrorism and in the name of the resolutions of the United Nations. This is against our wishes."
The U.S. is not holding the Afghan government responsible for the Al Qaeda operations that are held within its borders, so they are simply demanding to have a significant presence to run there own military over seas. Afghanistan seemingly must take this deal because the cost of going to war with the U.S. would be far too costly, as they would most likely lose any control over the land that they currently have. A basic tradeoff to survive as a nation.
The issue of sovereignty in international relations is an interesting one. It can be argued that Libya has become so weak that it is unable to undertake most of the tasks associated with statehood and thus does not possess any sovereignty, yet I do not find that to be valid. One of the rights associated with sovereignty is nonintervention, meaning states have the right to be free from interference by others in their domestic affairs. In this case I agree with the view that the US blatantly carried out unilateral acts of war on sovereign nations without an international mandate in the name of "the war on terror". Furthermore, it is doubtful that the US will face any repercussions for this violation of sovereignty as Libya has little allies to support them. It is also plausible that these operations were carried out as a way to gain public support back in the US or as a diversion from the government shutdown.
ReplyDeleteWhile i agree with the argument that libya is too weak to warrant sovereignty is not a good one, i would also claim that the United States rarely if ever recognizes state sovereignty when it goes against another competing interest. That is to say that we as a nation only recognize the sovereignty of others when the bad that would result from not doing so makes it worth it. Looking specifically at Libya before Gadhafi left power, even our intervention from the air was a violation of state sovereignty by interfering in a civil was - something explicitly against international legal mandates on state sovereignty. The list of when the U.S. violates the sovereignty of other nations is immense, every civil war intervention, every drone strike in pakistan, ever illegally wiretapped call or checked email of a foreign diplomat. Our intervention in Libya was more then likely an attempt to go after on of the last remaining pan-arab socialist nations (ba'athists, iraq, libya, syria) because of their financial ties to our global rivals, however this is just speculation.
ReplyDeleteIntelligence gathering, in the past decade, has become such a dire phenomenon of international affairs and security. The U.S. in particular has enhanced capabilities in comparison with most other major powers; this has allowed them information that provides officials with knowledge of the exact whereabouts of suspected terrorists. As a world superpower, should the U.S. take unilateral action to apprehend these suspected terrorists without the consent of the UN? Or should the president seek confirmation prior to the carrying out of such endeavors, applying multilateral action? Having infiltrated Libyan territory and taken into custody, Abu Anas al-Libi, a suspected computer expert for al-Qaeda, the U.S. is now receiving demands from the Libyan government to hand over al-Libi and allow access to him by family members and Libyan authorities. President Hamid Kharzai rightfully deemed this unilateral action by the U.S. government as a direct contradiction to their state sovereignty. Taking into account the failed apprehension of suspected leader of al-Shabaab, two days later in Somalia, at what point is U.S. foreign policy overstepping its boundaries (contradicting other states’ sovereignty)? Has it already, or is it believed to be reasonable when these actions are considered part of the U.S.’s “war against terror”?
ReplyDeleteWe frequently seem to be supporting these Islamic countries and they continue to hate everything that we are and what we stand for. We give credit to these authoritarian leader as they continue to mistreat their own people they rule over and continue to blame the US. I don’t understand why we keep supporting Kharzai who consistently hates all things American and teams up with Muslims. The only thing he enjoys getting from us it the Foreign Aid.
ReplyDeleteHi everyone, please remember that one of the goals of this blog (and this class in general!) is to be very *precise* in making arguments. So, when you write on this blog, make sure your statements are (a) very clear in defining terms (such as democracy, authoritarian, etc. and (b) substantiated by facts. Both (a) and (b) will strengthen the points you're making, and increase the quality of discussion.
ReplyDeleteThe apprehension of Al Libi is eerily similar to the Bin Laden raid. In both situations, JSOC bypassed state borders without consent and captured/killed high value targets. Pakistan denied any knowledge that Bin Laden was living in the country. Just like the raid in Tripoli, we should ask ourselves if our government has moral and/or legal justification is conducting operations in a foreign country. I believe that under these circumstances, in which the state cannot successfully monitor HVTs within their own borders, the US has justified grounds to conduct anti-terrorism operations for the sake of global security. Interestingly enough, Al Libi is in many ways more valuable than Bin Laden; he was one of the most wanted terrorists in the world. He is known to be extremely technologically competent. If his interrogation is successful, he could provide a wealth of knowledge about Al Qaeda operations.
ReplyDelete