This week saw US President Barak Obama on The Tonight Show with Jay Leno talking about the re-election campaign, Libya, the economy et cetera. Mr Obama said, “[...] it only cost us a billion dollars” to kill Libyan leader, Col Muammar Gaddafi, the county’s dictator of the past 42 years. [1] A billion USD in taxpayer resources seems like a might high figure to eliminate one person?
Yesterday, Andrew McCarthy, writing for the National Review, published an article entitled – ‘Our Libyan Adventure: Gaddafi’s dictatorship was preferable to an Islamist Libya’. [2] This prompted a series of questions – firstly, should the US have been involved in Libyan affairs. Secondly, should the Obama Administration have dedicated tax dollars to a conflict on foreign soil? Thirdly, did the Obama Administration usurp the power of Congress as protected under Art I, § 8 of the US Const? Fourthly, was supporting a Libyan revolution in the best interest of the citizens of the US? Fifthly, should foreign, third-party states, be involved in the domestic affairs of a sovereign nation state? Lastly, must revolutions involve some sort of violence, or can non-violent, civil resistance be sufficient to cause a change in governments?
The last question seems very intriguing, must all revolutions involve violence? What is a revolution? Thomas Jefferson viewed a revolution as when the governed no longer consented to the government. In otherwords, the social contract must be breach by the government to legally justify the governed to rescind the contract and dissolve the bands with tie the two together. If the governed proclaimed such grievous contractual violations of rights and liberties to their government and their government agreed and either dissolved the government voluntarily or renegotiate the terms of said social contract, and then there would be no need for a revolution, a peaceful change of government would have occurred. This is symbolically what happens in the US when a new president is sworn into office, succeeding another of an opposing political party, and the peaceful transfer of power is achieved.
What happens if a leader refuses to give up power? Worse yet, that leader has the backing of the military, the ruling aristocrats, and the religious clerics? When said leader breaches the social contract by no longer having a regard for the welfare of prosperity of the citizenry, legislating unjust laws, and the treasonous acts of the government become self evident, then the people have an obligation to dissolve the social contract and create a new government with the consent of the governed. If that government refuses to give-up power peaceably, then a revolution has begun. Despots, dictators, tyrants tend not to relinquish authority without a fight. Sometimes a little tear gas or consenting to demands with overt a full blown revolution and save the fight for another day. Other times the revolutionary movement begins to grow, protesters take to the streets, mobs break-out, sometimes the revolutionaries are peaceful, other times they are not.
The level of violence may differ from person to person, reader to reader, and survivor to survivor. A gun shot to a passing tourist may seem horrific, compared with massive war which lasts six years. One type of revolutionary may use arms and force to invoke the terms, whereas another type of revolutionary may be pious, a pacifist, engaging in “non-violent” civil resistance. The strategy of the two revolutionaries may be similar, to encourage the government to quell and suppress the uprising with the full force of law, perhaps undue force in enforcing civil order and rest.
In an era of global media, revolutions are less violent, but there are going to be some forms of major resistance and struggle in order for a revolution to be a revolution. Leaders on the revolutionary side have learnt how to be "pacifists" and compel the international community to rescue the people by formal or informal measures – eg military and/or diplomatic pressure. This pressure can be very difficult to overcome, especially if the leader is hedging all bets that the military or aristocrats in society will continue to support the government. The international community views such actions as a call for humanitarian intervention or pre-emptive self-defence. The argument is logical, if a leaders thinks nothing of killing his/her own citizens, then they probably won’t think twice about killing the people of another nation. It can be difficult to persuade other nations to become involved in the domestic affairs of state. There needs to be a foreign-national interest. For example, Italy adamantly opposed all military intervention in Libya, as Libya was the largest supplier of crude oil to Italy. However, once it appeared the current regime (Col Gaddafi) couldn’t survive, then all bets were off and it became time to look for winners and losers and back the revolutionaries who would be most sympathetic to Italian-Libyan relations and business.
I don't really consider a change a revolution, as a revolution means one side objects adamantly. This is why political scientists distinguish between social and political revolutions. A leader of a social revolution would be called a ‘change agent’. Dr Martin Luther King, Jr would be described as a change agent, not a revolutionary. A revolution is about the consent of the governed and the US didn’t change governments or administrations period known as the Civil Rights Movement. There were elements of the Movement which embodied a political revolution, such as bloody Sunday in Alabama. While the sit-ins and protests were a non-violent form of civil resistance, the reaction of the government authorities is what the revolutionaries were banking on for success. Images of African Americans being pulled out of Soda Fountains by white cops, police shooting at peaceful demonstrators, and the National Guard being used to enforce segregation were broadcast around the globe and the American states. How "violent" does something needs to be to be "violent"? Newspapers published photos of such atrocities and pretty soon the social change had occurred to allow for the politics to follow suit.
Revolutions are not merely won by the governed challenging the government authority, they usually involve foreign money and influence. In Egypt (2011), India (1947) and South Africa (1994), the US funnelled millions and millions of taxpayer resources into military aid, covert ops, political and diplomatic pressure, bribes, shaping media perception, logistics, communications, and allied support. Many Americans view these as good uses of tax dollars, as the regimes were replaced with ones favourable to the US and American business. The US has also failed miserably in attempting to influence revolutions using the aforementioned tactics; these include: Cuba, Iran, Guatemala, Congo, Brazil, Iraq, Chile, Argentina, Cambodia, and Venezuela. In foreign affairs a government strategies to advance their national interests abroad, sometimes the plan works and other times is becomes a deficit write-off under the discretionary budget heading.
In 1776, it was considered by the fledgling, King Louis XVI, in the French national interest to provide naval and financial support to the American rebels, in their revolt against the European hegemonic power of Great Britain. As someone once said, “The enemy or your enemy is your friend.” Should France have made such an investment, especially in light of the recession in Europe at the time? Probably not, as history has shown us that that is what contributed to the French Revolution. Foreign wars are usually economically good at first, but become a drain on the domestic economy when they continue unresolved for a substantial period of time. It should also be noted that The Netherlands and Spain also provided financial and political support for the American colonists. Both kingdoms probably looked to the US as a future trading partner, along with enjoying seeing the most powerful military in the world take a beating from some backwoods farmers across the Atlantic.
Revolutions are dangerous and should not be widely encouraged, but there are times which demand for action to be taken, to cut the stings which attach the people to those who reign over them. The people are then free to choose a new government, by delegating rights and responsibilities to an authority and exchanging ultimate freedom and liberty for the rule of law and an ordered society.
[1] Obama, Barak. ‘Interview with Jay Leno’, televised on NBC’s The Tonight Show: 25 Oct. 2011 < http://www.nbc.com/the-
[2] McCarthy, Andrew C. “Our Libyan Adventure: Qaddafi’s dictatorship was preferable to an Islamist Libya”. National Review: 27 Oct. 2011 <http://www.nationalreview.com/
No comments:
Post a Comment