What’s In a U-Turn

After more international condemnation and symbolic (in)action I am seriously wondering if the international community has lost the plot. Qadafi’s assets have been frozen, which means he has no access to money previously growing fat on foreign bank accounts. The ICC has charged him with crimes against humanity and President Obama proclaimed in a speech that Qadafi had lost the legitimacy to rule. Has he ever had that legitimacy? What make the crimes he committed in the last weeks more horrific than the crimes he has committed during the other weeks of his 40 year rule (or since 2002 when the ICC was established) that only now the ICC believes it’s time to charge him? Why freeze his assets now since he has been doing dodgy stuff with his dosh for decades? Why now condemn him for using the weapons the UK was happy to sell him? What else did they think he was going to do with them?! Even one of the most prestigious academic institutions in the country- if not the world- got it horrible wrong when accepting a big-fat-Qadafi donation and granting one of sons a Phd, which seems rather dodgy now. Not only because he’s been accused of plagiarism, but also because he seems a tat deluded himself and not interested in the slightest bit in the demands of his people, as was previously assumed, or finding peaceful solutions to an internal conflict.

I don’t understand the rules of international politics. They probably don’t want us to know, but it seems to be interest above morality. Stability above liberty. But now in the case of Libya the international community is turning this argument on it’s head by uttering condemnations and considering measures in the name of morality while the West’s interests are not served with a regime change or civil war. And what is it with members of the elite in Third World countries, who obtain degrees from prestigious Western universities and don’t seem able to apply the gained knowledge and ‘enlightened’ values at home. As if their Third World country operates in a parallel universe in which completely different rules apply. As the world of diplomacy keeps on tossing and turning I feel like the global village fool, who says out loud that the emperor is not wearing any new clothes and is indeed butt naked. The game of international politics is changing it’s rules while it goes along and no one, not the players, not the referee, not the spectators not the governing board of the game, stands up and says ‘Oi! Foul play! There is nothing wrong with pragmatism. I just wish all those high-flyers would have the balls to be consistent in their pragmatism. It would make the analyses of things less tiring. If less blood would be spilled in the process very much remains the question.

top image: transcurrents.com