Archive for March, 2011

27
Mar
11

Libya

Over the past couple days, the Libyan rebellion forces have been moving west towards the Gaddafi controlled cities of Tripoli and Sirte. While the past weeks have been bloody, it appears that the conflict will be won by the Libyan people.

Of course, while I’d like to spend the next few paragraphs exalting the power of the people and solidarity for the struggle of all oppressed peoples across the world, there is a nagging issue that I feel has to be addressed- that of Western intervention.

With the US, Britain, France, and other countries involved in the conflict (apparently bombing the HQ of a foreign head of state doesn’t constitute an act of war), there’s been no little controversy as the exact legitimacy and justification of American and European intervention. Perhaps not without good reason- the US, Britain, and a number of other allied countries are already neck-deep in two long, expensive, unpopular wars (excuse me- operations) with no end in sight. After ten years in Afghanistan and seven years in Iraq, it’s tough to take Western leaders seriously when they claim that their goal is to simply help the citizens of those countries. By now terms like “intervention”, “operation”, and “campaign” all seem like euphemisms for “invasion”, “occupation”, and “destruction”. On the whole, the left seems fairly unified in opposition to America-and-friend’s latest adventure in the Middle East, and I can’t say my position is any different.

First, let’s look at similar instances of this- Iraq and Afghanistan being the most obvious examples. In both situations, the US and coalition forces have become hopelessly entangled in both situations and have no discernible exit strategy. It’s hard to see how Libya will be different than any other conflict.

And that brings us to the second issue- other conflicts. I’ve got the same problem with the American-led/backed coalition attempting to unseat Gaddafi that I had when America and it’s allies attempted to unseat Saddam Husein. As bad as these dictators are, they’re far from the worst despots out there. Why does the US et al. feel compelled to get involved in Libya and not Burma? The oppression and genocide has been going on in Burma far longer than in Libya, and there’s been a resistance movement (both violent and non-violent) for about as long. Again- why hasn’t Than Shwe’s compound been bombed?

Which brings us to the third problem- motivation. When the West has decided to become involved in a conflict like this, despite their insistence that their goals are merely the propagation of democracy and freedom, there’s always something in it for the invaders. Be it the installation of a pro-Western puppet politician like Hammed Karzai in Afghanistan or the elimination of WMDs/securing oil supplies (depending on which you believe was the US’s real motivation), you can safely bet that if the West becomes involved in a conflict, it’s for their interests- not the interests of the people.

 

Look- I’m not saying that Gaddafi shouldn’t be unseated- he should. I’m not saying we shouldn’t support the Libyan people’s struggle- we should. I’m saying that America and the West’s professions of revolutionary fervor should be taken not so much with a grain of  salt, but with a small ocean.

07
Mar
11

Video of BBC Reporter with Naxalite Rebels in India

Video linked here.

05
Mar
11

Cracked.com on Berlusconi

Linked here is an article from satire site Cracked.com, examining the corruption of Italian prime minister Silvio Berlusconi. The article’s a bit crude, but they say what needs to be said.

02
Mar
11

A Breif Note on Liberation Theology

For a college theology class, I had to watch the 1989 film Romero– the story of Oscar Romero, the Archbishop of San Salvador and an advocate of Liberation Theology. In one particularly poignant section of the film, just after a brutal massacre has taken place by the Salvadoran Army on left-wing peasants and priests, a young woman asks Romero “Will I go to heaven when I die? It’s so bad here… I’ve got to have something I can look forward to…”. It reminded me of Marx’s comment “Religion is the opiate of the people”.

Now most people, even many communists, understand this comment to be Marx’s denouncement of religion as nothing but myths concocted to keep the have-nots from rising up against the haves. I don’t believe this was the point Marx was trying to make. Yes, Marx was a committed atheist, but after studying his discussions of religion, what I have found is that Marx doesn’t actually have an issue with concepts of faith and spirituality. Marx’s attacks on religion aren’t so much attacks on the ideas of the supernatural, but attacks on the use of religion by those in power to subjugate those who they were exploiting. “Religion is the opiate of the people” doesn’t speak so much on the nature of religion as it does on the predicament of the poor and oppressed. Going back to that scene in Romero, what is shown is that there are those whose lives are so utterly miserable, that an existence beyond death is the only thing that makes existence bearable. Again, Marx doesn’t decry the idea of life after death, but the conditions of life before.

Now evolving out of that criticism, or at least, out of similar views, was the concept of “Liberation Theology”, a perspective of Christianity (specifically Catholicism in South and Central America) that focused on alleviating the suffering of poor and oppressed peoples and bringing about fundamental changes in society that were the root causes of poverty and exploitation. Another scene in Romero probably gives the best example of Liberation Theology doctrine, in which the bishop leads a number of locals in prayer “Lord, you created us for freedom… Christ, you made us to live in dignity… Lord, you strengthen us in the struggle for justice…” and further commenting “The mission of the church is to identify itself with the poor and to join with them in their struggle for justice….”.

Naturally, Liberation Theology, directly attempting to improve life and the advance the rights of the powerless was embraced by the poor, and not just a few Marxists as well. Indeed, some of the goals between Liberation Theology and Communism were so similar, that governments accused local clergy of colluded with Marxist rebels (which was, in some cases true) and others to denounce Liberation Theology as Christian Marxism. Indeed, one of the most outspoken critics of Liberation Theology was a German cardinal named Joseph Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict the XV. Sadly, while Liberation Theology does still exist (as well as variants of it), a its precepts were rejected by the greater Catholic Church and for many still, religion remains an opiate to many of the poor and disenfranchised.