Gaddafi’s right to bomb his own people
 
 
  |  
  |  
  |  
  |  
RSS
  |  
  |  
  |  
20 June 2013 Thursday
 
 
 
 
 
 
Columnists 07 March 2011, Monday 0 0 0 0
İHSAN DAĞI
i.dagi@todayszaman.com

Gaddafi’s right to bomb his own people

Libya’s Muammar Gaddafi is exercising his “right” to bomb his own people. This is a “right” enjoyed by dictators. But the implementation of such a “right” threatens not only the nationals of Libya but regional and international security, thus the international community cannot remain indifferent to the massacres of people in Libya by Gaddafi.

The UN Security Council decided to impose sanctions and the International Criminal Court will be investigating the events in Libya to determine whether they constitute a crime against humanity. These are all welcoming measures but they still may prove ineffective to stop the massacres of the people.

Imposing an arms embargo, a travel ban and freezing the assets of Gaddafi, his family and his close associates, will not prevent the regime from committing further crimes. Besides, contrary to the claims by Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, they do not harm the Libyan people. The UN Security Council sanctions can only be criticized for not being strong enough. I think more should be done.

The Libyan case forces us to rethink the link between a legitimate regime based on respect for human and citizens’ rights and international security. We should be aware of the fact that there exists a link between respect for human rights and maintaining national and international security. A working human rights regime constitutes one of the prerequisites for providing national security, which is domestic peace based on a wide-ranging social consensus concerning the legitimacy of a political regime.

Those who approach politics from a security-centric point of view should keep in mind that demands for human rights are, in fact, generated from the security concerns of individuals. Thus, human rights in their essence reflect the search for physical and moral integrity of individuals. The idea of the inviolability of basic rights and freedoms aims at “securing” the individual as a moral agent. Thus one can ground human rights in a search for security at the individual level with undeniable links to security at a national level.

There exists, therefore, a tight link between individual security put forward as demands for human rights, and collective security at national level. It is rather impossible to reach the objective of national security in countries where systematic and persistent human rights violations take place, let alone the massacres we have been seeing in Libya. Massive human rights violations destroy domestic peace and security by undermining the legitimacy of the political system. What is left then is not a legitimate government but a sheer mechanism of violence.

Furthermore global peace and security is built through a legitimate government nationally that respects the basic rights of its citizens. Therefore, while the respect for human rights enhances national security, the state that is involved in systematic and massive violations of human rights endangers not only national but also international peace and security.

It is necessary and relevant to investigate the interplay between respect for human rights and international security for at least two reasons. First, the behavior of a state in the international arena cannot be separated from the way in which it treats its own citizens at home. This is to say that the kind of political regime prevalent domestically strongly influences its policy towards the outside world. Second, violations of human rights do not only harm individuals, groups or the people in the country concerned but may well endanger others, particularly in regional countries, as the repercussions of human rights violations cannot be confined within national borders. For instance, the outflow of refugees, which is one of the most tragic outcomes of human rights violations, may reach a massive scale in some cases with grave security implications for both the sending and receiving countries, damaging both regional and international security. This is clearly being seen in the Libyan case as hundreds of thousands of foreign workers are either trapped in Libya and the outpouring into neighboring countries, which is creating a humanitarian crisis.

Hence, the kind of political regime and the form of state-society relationship lay at the heart of the stability-instability problem determining, to some extent, prospects for international peace. This is to say that international security is dependent on domestic peace, which is in turn heavily influenced by the level of respect for human rights and a legitimate national government.

No ruler has the absolute right to treat its people any way he wishes. There are moral and legal limits to a sovereign’s right to kill his own people. And I think Gaddafi has passed that limit and this necessitates measures to stop him.

Columnists Previous articles of the columnist
16 June 2013
What is behind the veil of conspiracy theories?
9 June 2013
Back to the ‘old Turkey'?
2 June 2013
Last resort: Building mosque in Taksim
26 May 2013
Not Islamism but postmodern authoritarianism
12 May 2013
What can Turkey do about Syria?
5 May 2013
Imprisoned by the state
28 April 2013
The PKK's gain
21 April 2013
The state and society in post-Kemalist Turkey
14 April 2013
Is the PKK resisting Öcalan's directive?
7 April 2013
To build a ‘greater Turkey' with the Kurds
1 April 2013
Are Turkish people ready for Kurdish peace?
24 March 2013
Pax-Ottomana for the Kurds
17 March 2013
A state in the making: Kurdistan
10 March 2013
Who can survive without the state?
3 March 2013
An oriental way to solve the Kurdish problem
24 February 2013
Greatest obstacle for a Kurdish solution
17 February 2013
Who will topple Assad, and when?
10 February 2013
Is Turkey immune to international criticism?
3 February 2013
Hierarchy of nations: Turks and others
27 January 2013
Turkey's quest for a Eurasian Union
20 January 2013
Kurdish initiatives compared: any difference?
13 January 2013
Competing strategies in the Kurdish question
6 January 2013
Is a Kurdish solution in sight?
30 December 2012
Why Turkey's liberals criticize the AK Party
23 December 2012
Imagining an AK Party society
16 December 2012
Will the Arab Spring be hijacked?
9 December 2012
Pursuing Islamism with democracy
2 December 2012
TV soaps: People's choices vs. state's choice
25 November 2012
A ‘revisionist power' that needs NATO's protection!
18 November 2012
From Nasser to Erdoğan: unfulfilled promises
11 November 2012
Friends who don't care about human rights
4 November 2012
Turkey's Kurdish conflict: pathways to progress
28 October 2012
Kurdish question and Turkish opposition
21 October 2012
What's wrong with the zero problems policy?
14 October 2012
Why the AK Party does not need the EU
7 October 2012
Ready for a war, but who will be the warriors?
30 September 2012
Talking to the PKK
24 September 2012
The end of a myth
16 September 2012
The new ‘other': the Kurdish political opposition
9 September 2012
The changing identity of the AK Party
2 September 2012
Can Turkey pursue an imperial foreign policy?
26 August 2012
What is the PKK trying to do?
14 August 2012
Re-securitization of Turkish politics?
5 August 2012
The future of the Kurds: democracy or partition?
29 July 2012
Good for the Kurds, bad for the Turks?
22 July 2012
Emergence of the ‘new AK Party'
8 July 2012
Who can solve the Kurdish question?
1 July 2012
Egypt and Turkey, military and democracy
17 June 2012
Kurdish solution by offering gifts
10 June 2012
The Kurds of the AK Party
3 June 2012
What is wrong with the AK Party?
27 May 2012
Turkish foreign policy: Time for a re-evaluation
20 May 2012
Changing positions in Turkish politics
13 May 2012
Public perception of coup trials
6 May 2012
Post-Kemalist tutelage
29 April 2012
What do the Kurds want?
22 April 2012
Can Barzani be a mediator?
15 April 2012
The end of military tutelage in Turkey?
8 April 2012
The fall of the generals
1 April 2012
Islam and the nuclear issue
25 March 2012
Resolving or managing the Kurdish question?
11 March 2012
Annexing Cyprus
4 March 2012
Is Kemalism an alternative to the AK Party?
26 February 2012
The paradox of the Assad regime
19 February 2012
Lessons for the AK Party and MİT
12 February 2012
Whose war is it anyway?
5 February 2012
AK Party’s new mission
29 January 2012
Europe: a Christian continent?
22 January 2012
Murder as a collective crime
15 January 2012
Racism, immigrants and the state in Germany
8 January 2012
General Başbuğ: Who was he?
1 January 2012
A difficult period for the AK Party
25 December 2011
The French disconnection
18 December 2011
A war America lost
11 December 2011
Reforming Europe, abandoning Turkey
4 December 2011
Why Turkey is for ‘regime change’ in Syria
27 November 2011
Dersim massacre as a civilizing project
20 November 2011
Abandoning the old paradigm in the Cyprus dispute
13 November 2011
Was Atatürk a dictator? Ask him
30 October 2011
Are the Islamists ready to govern?
23 October 2011
A burden for all Kurds
16 October 2011
New constitution: Is it possible?
2 October 2011
A post-Kemalist constitution for Turkey
25 September 2011
Are we ever closer to a Kurdish solution amid violence?
18 September 2011
Secularism for Arabs and Turks
11 September 2011
Israel’s missed opportunity
5 September 2011
Who will decide the future of Turkish-Israeli relations?
28 August 2011
Military as a national security problem
21 August 2011
Towards a Kurdish solution without the PKK
14 August 2011
The AK Party, 10 years later
7 August 2011
Has the military lost?
17 July 2011
What's next for Kurdish politics?
3 July 2011
What is the opposition doing?
26 June 2011
Judicial sabotage
19 June 2011
Why do people vote for the AK Party?
12 June 2011
Turkey the day after elections
5 June 2011
Why is The Economist afraid of democracy?
29 May 2011
Will the military come to rescue the secularists?
22 May 2011
Politics of elections, politics of change
15 May 2011
What people think of bin Laden and Assad
...
Bloggers