Moussa is concerned about his own bid for the Egyptian presidency, and his comments have to be viewed in that context.
Tribal conflicts are significantly different from ethnic and sectarian ones in that they are much less likely to be exasperated by foreign powers which share those ethnic or religious ties.
You make a very valid point, but I'd also suggest that such things aren't necessarily exclusive of each other. The previous arrangement did serve the interests of the predatory international establishment, while also lining the pockets (bank vaults, we should say) of the Qaddafi regime. One can hope that whatever takes its place will at least share the revenues with the Libyan people and be accountable to them.
I'm not interested in debating constitutionality or economics, but I really don't understand how this intervention could be considered the result of an anti-Arab/Muslim bias. And I am by no means oblivious to such things - I lived in Syria for 3 years and my wife is Iraqi, so I am quite sensitive to anti-Arab bigotry that is indeed widespread - but in the case of Libya, we are supporting what was clearly demonstrated to be the desire of the Libyan people. The French bombardment of tanks and artillery massing outside Benghazi alone probably saved hundreds - if not thousands - of lives. While it is certainly fair to question the intentions of some - I'm sure military contractors are always thrilled by the need to replenish stocks - I don't see how racism plays into this.
The Arab League is a dictator's club, and Qaddafi was simply an outcast member. But seriously, none of the member states really have an appetite to engage in a military conflict, especially as it could threaten their power at home. Really, they have nothing to gain from it. They don't need anything from Libya. States like Qatar and the UAE may send a few aircraft and Egypt is apparently sending military aid to the opposition, but full-scale war with Libya serves no interest to any of them. Beyond this, they simply don't have anything close to the military capacity that the U.S., U.K. and France do.
Europe was already getting Libya's oil. It may have even made them more reluctant to back the opposition at first. While I don't doubt oil played a part in influencing action, there are other concerns as well. Having a failed state on the southern Mediterranean is a significant threat to Europe in terms of curbing migration, among other things.
The claims of hypocrisy towards Yemen and Bahrain have some merit, but it should be clear to everyone that Libya represented a far more dire situation. The casualties in Yemena and Bahrain are still below 100. By the time this coalition acted in Libya, the reported death count was already well beyond 1,000, and unreported deaths - especially those resulting from disappearances - probably pushes that number into the multiple thousands.
There are other factors as well. Getting involved in Yemen militarily would be an absolute nightmare... it would make Iraq look like a walk in the park. Bahrain would seriously threaten the U.S. relationship with Saudi Arabia, and I don't think anyone in the U.S. has an appetite for an oil embargo. Obama couldn't afford that politically.
The opposition has made their democratic intentions fairly clear. Whether that plays out is a completely different matter, but I think it is safe to assume it won't be worse than Qaddafi.
Sectarianism is has key differences with tribalism. The most significant difference being that nobody outside of Libya is concerned with Libya's tribal affairs. In the case Iraq, a proxy war has developed between Saudi Arabia (backing Sunni militia) and Iran (backing Shiite militia). This is a major factor in the sectarian violence that has played out in Iraq, and it doesn't find a likely parallel in Libya.
I adore Moore, but the guy needs to stick to domestic issues. He's just not very insightful when it comes to commentary on foreign affairs.
Moussa is concerned about his own bid for the Egyptian presidency, and his comments have to be viewed in that context.
Tribal conflicts are significantly different from ethnic and sectarian ones in that they are much less likely to be exasperated by foreign powers which share those ethnic or religious ties.
You make a very valid point, but I'd also suggest that such things aren't necessarily exclusive of each other. The previous arrangement did serve the interests of the predatory international establishment, while also lining the pockets (bank vaults, we should say) of the Qaddafi regime. One can hope that whatever takes its place will at least share the revenues with the Libyan people and be accountable to them.
I'm not interested in debating constitutionality or economics, but I really don't understand how this intervention could be considered the result of an anti-Arab/Muslim bias. And I am by no means oblivious to such things - I lived in Syria for 3 years and my wife is Iraqi, so I am quite sensitive to anti-Arab bigotry that is indeed widespread - but in the case of Libya, we are supporting what was clearly demonstrated to be the desire of the Libyan people. The French bombardment of tanks and artillery massing outside Benghazi alone probably saved hundreds - if not thousands - of lives. While it is certainly fair to question the intentions of some - I'm sure military contractors are always thrilled by the need to replenish stocks - I don't see how racism plays into this.
Prior to this becoming a full-scale war, they were pushing for the exactly the same goals of the demonstrators in Egypt and Tunisia.
The Arab League is a dictator's club, and Qaddafi was simply an outcast member. But seriously, none of the member states really have an appetite to engage in a military conflict, especially as it could threaten their power at home. Really, they have nothing to gain from it. They don't need anything from Libya. States like Qatar and the UAE may send a few aircraft and Egypt is apparently sending military aid to the opposition, but full-scale war with Libya serves no interest to any of them. Beyond this, they simply don't have anything close to the military capacity that the U.S., U.K. and France do.
Europe was already getting Libya's oil. It may have even made them more reluctant to back the opposition at first. While I don't doubt oil played a part in influencing action, there are other concerns as well. Having a failed state on the southern Mediterranean is a significant threat to Europe in terms of curbing migration, among other things.
The claims of hypocrisy towards Yemen and Bahrain have some merit, but it should be clear to everyone that Libya represented a far more dire situation. The casualties in Yemena and Bahrain are still below 100. By the time this coalition acted in Libya, the reported death count was already well beyond 1,000, and unreported deaths - especially those resulting from disappearances - probably pushes that number into the multiple thousands.
There are other factors as well. Getting involved in Yemen militarily would be an absolute nightmare... it would make Iraq look like a walk in the park. Bahrain would seriously threaten the U.S. relationship with Saudi Arabia, and I don't think anyone in the U.S. has an appetite for an oil embargo. Obama couldn't afford that politically.
The opposition has made their democratic intentions fairly clear. Whether that plays out is a completely different matter, but I think it is safe to assume it won't be worse than Qaddafi.
Sectarianism is has key differences with tribalism. The most significant difference being that nobody outside of Libya is concerned with Libya's tribal affairs. In the case Iraq, a proxy war has developed between Saudi Arabia (backing Sunni militia) and Iran (backing Shiite militia). This is a major factor in the sectarian violence that has played out in Iraq, and it doesn't find a likely parallel in Libya.