We are not talking International Cricket Council here but the International Criminal Court, the one that sits in The Hague!
Some here may remember that when our representative voted for the UN resolution to go and bomb the daylights out of Gadaffi and his mob that I suggested our representative on the Security Council perhaps mistook the vote for one of ordering lunch.
A couple of months later I reported that our lot admitted that they in fact had no idea at all what they had voted for and regretted the decision.
Well, would you believe that the second in command down here (that would be Deputy President Kgalema Motlanthe) has now suggested, no, urged the International Criminal Court to investigate NATO and its commanders for ‘crimes against humanity.’
The fact that he and his (and I suppose my) representatives authorized the campaign meaning that he himself would be indicted probably slipped his mind. Here’s the report, if nothing else go and have a look at the comments, it makes an entertaining read.
And I still sit here with my palms-to-the-skies and a you’ve-got-to-be-kidding exasperation look on my face 😉
Boadicea's Chariot 
I’ll join you in that ‘palms-to-the-skies and a you’ve-got-to-be-kidding exasperation look on my face ‘ stance!
While, I’m of the opinion that the west should keep out of the internal affairs of other countries – I do wonder how anyone can vote for intervention and then be horrified at what that intervention entails…
Soutie: A WTF moment for you perhaps?
Brilliant, is this the best that the ANC can come up with now? Perhaps they should investigate Suid Afrika’s crime rates and the rather high number of attacks on white farmers and then bring themselves up to the ICC for failing to stop the murders.
Boa, surely even respect for the sovereignty of others’ states must have its limits? Or should regimes like N Korea, Libya, Syria and Iran be allowed free rein?
Janus
Charity begins (or should begin) at home… there are sufficient problems in the West to sort out before jumping in to sort out problems elsewhere.
I’m with Boa,
If Sarky and the EU cowboys had decided to ride over the hills to sort out the student riots or those criminal scum looters we would be somewhat miffed.
What these primitives get up to within the boundaries of their own turf is none of my concern. There are far more pressing issues in our own towns and cities IMHO.
It’s all politics anyhoo, one minute Gadaffy Duck is public enema numero uno, next Tony is so far up his exhaust we can’t see his shoes then once again he is a tyrant and baby killer. Which are we supposed to believe?
Hee Hee Boa,
Kinda snap.! 🙂
Several things wrong with your assertion in my book, Janus.
The invasion of Iraq was illegal, has cost a fortune – and look at the mess.
The invasion of Afghanistan has resulted in the installation of a corrupt regime, fraternisation with the nominal enemy, and no improvement in the lives of ordinary folk.
… and snap again, Ferret. 🙂
Morning all.
I thought that this would cheer you all up, definitely one from the ‘you couldn’t make it up’ department.
🙂
Let me see if I have got this right then: if freedom-fighters in country X ask for help to get rid of a tyrant family, we should politely decline on the grounds of being busy at home? OK.
… on the grounds that it’s none of our business.
Please define the difference between “freedom-fighter” and “terrorist”.
As your starter for ten – when Muslims and Turks and Kurds defend their shops against rioters in the UK, they are called heroes. When the EDF do the same thing, they’re called “racist thugs”, kettled and jailed.
Don’t dabble in others’ arguments. 🙂
Yup Janus,
By jove I think he’s got it.
Mandela was a bleedin’ terrorist in my book.
I think that with Libya we must bear in mind that this was effectively a UN decision, backed by amongst others the Arab League, that in my mind legitimizes it.
The fact that NATO ‘volunteered’ is by the by, I’m sure that if NATO had told the UN that they were too busy some other power (the AU perhaps*) would have stepped in.
*difficult to type that without laughing too much but you get my drift 🙂
“Please define the difference between “freedom-fighter” and “terrorist”. Hm. As you know some expressions are entirely subjective. Like ‘good’, ‘bad’ and ‘indifferent’. 🙂
Janus – precisely!! 🙂
Soutie – no, making it a UN decision does not legitimise it.
This is an interesting debate and while I have had my own reasons for objecting to outside interference in the affairs of my country, I do not believe that everything is black and white.
The AU, as Soutie has pointed out, has decried the fact that NATO sought to bring about regime change in Libya and yet for several decades the ANC and African Frontline States with the connivance of East and West power blocks, tried very actively to bring about regime change in Rhodesia and South Africa. While there was negligible direct military intervention from outside Africa, economic, diplomatic and sporting sanctions were imposed to a greater effect on Rhodesia, less so on South Africa, that served ultimately to bring down those respective governments. What right did the likes of Britain, the US, Australia and New Zealand have to interfere in the way we ran our affairs? What right did they have to offer support, financial, military, diplomatic, moral and otherwise to the enemies of our state?
I do not share the view that there is a great deal of difference between military intervention and economic intervention, from a moral standpoint at least. Both involve outside interference in the affairs and well-being of a sovereign state. The only material difference is the body count, and even that is not as clear cut as might be anticipated. Mugabe has killed far more of his own people than the Rhodesians ever did. At every other level Zimbabweans are far worse off than they were under the minority government as is the case, I believe, in South Africa. Sanctions on Iraq cost thousands of lives in that country. The opium trade emanating from Afghanistan causes untold numbers of deaths around the world. A secure, democratic prosperous society there would likely reduce that. It may cost a number of lives and the policy may fail disastrously, as appears to be the case, but is it always wrong to consider seeking such a change?
Terrorist cells operating in Afghanistan and Pakistan do, as we all know, cause death and disruption around the world. This has had an effect on global economies and political and social agendas. The profile of Islam in Europe has risen dramatically since 2001, at the expense of traditional christian (small c deliberate) culture.
China is frequently pilloried with regards to its policies of non interference with the countries in Africa, with which it does business. It blithely pays the licence fees/bribes and ignores the human rights violations and works to exploit those countries purely for its own interests. The West, outwardly anyway, refuses to deviate from its rules and thus is left at a disadvantage. Power shifts from West to East and the disenfranchised of Africa continue to suffer.
In the mid 90s, the Rwandan genocide cost the lives of hundreds of thousands of its citizens. France and the UN were severely criticised for allowing things to deteriorate so quickly and so dramatically. Had they intervened and had they killed say 20,000 Hutu fighters, would that have been justified if it prevented the deaths of 500,000 Tutsis and the rape of a similar number of women?
It is a cliche, I know but, ‘all that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing’.
Interesting comment, Sipu.
I will not take issue with you, except to point out that nobody, but nobody, has actually tried to stop the poppy growers in Afghanistan. There are far too many vested interests involved, and many growers who would be destitute without this trade. The solution to “opium related deaths” is far more complex than burning a few fields. Start with the customer base, perhaps?
Sipu,
Yes it is cliche and totally irrelevant. Where is the evil? Up until a scant few months ago the western world was cozying up to Daffy like he was the second coming. Now we want a new regime because?
The sweaties and then of course our parliament even handed him back his terrorist who was responsible for so many deaths at Lockerbie. Something about weeks to live, humanity and wot not. The murderous, plane bombing scumbag is still breathing, nay partying like a goodun and having it large while laughing in our faces. And still Salmond defends his decision backed up by the bleeding hearts and liberal scum.
It is none of our business plain and simple. Obviously the west has spotted some kind of opportunity to strike a deal with the new regime in Lybia and that is the only reason the UN is there. Otherwise Syria would be enjoying the same level of UN indignation and clout.
Bearsy, I believe that I read that there had been many attempts, admittedly unsuccessful, to encourage alternative crops to opium. Here is one such article. http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1991283,00.html
I also believe that were a stable government installed it would be better able to make that happen.
Ferret, I am confused. Are you saying that Ghadaffi and his crew were not committing evil acts? Was he not killing his own people who had risen up against him precisely because he was making their lives so unbearable? Was he not encouraging despotism throughout Africa? (As an aside, a Zimbabwean friend and neighbour of mine was stunned one day, several years ago when Ghadaffi and and his entire entourage showed up at his farm and expropriated it without warning or compensation. Mugabe had given it to him, apparently.) Was he not responsible for numerous terrorist attacks that include the Pan Am bombing, the murder of Yvonne Fletcher, the supplying of weapons and explosives to IRA terrorists?
That Western politicians such as Tony Blair acted with extreme hypocrisy in attempting to welcome him back into the fold, I grant you, but that just makes them culpable as well. It does not make Ghadaffi’s actions any less evil.
When Chamberlain went to Munich was he wrong to have appeased Hitler? When he declared war a year later, was he wrong then? Britain was not under direct threat. Hitler wanted an alliance with Britain and many in Britain sought to achieve that.
Of course you are right Sipu,
He is evil. But so are those who pretend to his throne. Its in their nature.
I have never understood why Britain and America do not buy the entire Afghan opium crop for medicinal purposes. The stuff is needed to make morphine and buying it up would provide the farmers with a reasonable living and take the crop out of the hands of criminals. Silent disapproval and attempts to make Afghan farmers grow something else have not worked.
I’m afraid the truth is oil. Not to be poured on troubled waters but to fuel American cars. Afghanistan is too close to the oil and Libya has it.
Is that ‘in their nature’ as Arabs, Libyans, human beings or wha’?
I think I may have mentioned it before…..when will we ever learn?
Why do we interfere so much? Let’s sort out our own country first.
Is democracy the best system for all cultures and people? Well, we don’t do it very well, so I suggest not. Let the buggers fight it out themselves, and the same to the rest of the world if it happens here. Arms firmly folded with a tight lipped face. So there.