Jean-Luc Nancy is a French philosopher who supports the Western intervention in Libya. Alain Badiou is a French philosopher who is appalled that a leading French philosopher would support this intervention. The reasons (essentially three) for his position are clearly stated in an open letter to Nancy:
Yes, dear Jean-Luc, the position you adopt in favour of ‘Western’ intervention in Libya was indeed a sorry surprise for me.
Didn’t you notice right from the start the palpable difference between what is happening in Libya and what is happening elsewhere? How in both Tunisia and Egypt we really did see massive popular gatherings, whereas in Libya there is nothing of the kind? An Arabist friend of mind has concentrated in the last few weeks on translating the placards, banners, posters and flags that were such a feature of the Tunisian and Egyptian demonstrations: he couldn’t find a single example of these in Libya, not even in Benghazi. One very striking fact about the Libyan ‘rebels’, which I’m surprised you didn’t note, is that you don’t see a single woman, whereas in Tunisia and Egypt women are very visible. Didn’t you know that the French and British secret services have been organising the fall of Gaddafi since last autumn? Aren’t you amazed that, in contrast to all the other Arab uprisings, weapons of unknown origin emerged in Libya? That bands of young people immediately began firing volleys in the air, something inconceivable elsewhere? Weren’t you struck by the emergence of a supposed ‘revolutionary council’ led by a former accomplice of Gaddafi, whereas nowhere else was there any question of the masses who had risen up appointing some people as a replacement government?
To begin with, there wasn’t a mass movement in Libya; to middle with, women did not participate in any of the small (small in comparison with Egypt and Tunisia) demonstrations; to end with, the speed with which the protesters became rebels, with which the demonstrations became a war, indicates that the military turn in events was not spontaneous and related to the democratic revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt but had been in the works for some time. I’m do not fully agree with Badiou, but I think to exclude his three points from any thinking or consideration about the situation in Libya is unwise.
Isn’t there something to be said for the fact that unlike Tunsia and Egypt it became clear very early on that Gadaffi (sp?) was willing to put down the uprising with military force. I don’t doubt for a minute that western leaders would have been planning regime change there (held back by corporate interests which had been established under his rule no doubt) but I think his show of force was what pushed the issue here.
Additionally, I clearly remember the lack of women on the streets in Egypt as the protests were beginning. I think that point is a bit silly.
First of all, Baidou should be known as Sluggo, for the purposes of reference.
Second, Sluggo seems to ignore the distinct differences in the countries; in Tunisia and Egypt, gatherings of the public were accepted despite the government; however, Khaddafi is an absolutist dictator, and created a very real threat to any protestors; when carrying a protest sign is a death sentence, you might want to protest without signs.
The same applies to all of the other arguments that Sluggo makes; brutal government suppression is very effective at preventing public protest (see Cuba), but rebels will eventually get their way (see Cuba). They just may not make it in the most public way, rather choosing for guerilla action.
Lastly, are we to be somehow surprised that foreign governments may have been supporting and supplying Libyan rebels? Really? Perhaps someone needs to tell Sluggo the truth about the Easter Bunny, too… Feigned naivete is an asinine rhetorical tactic.
@1: exactly.
@1, it’s apparently impossible to mis-spell the guy’s name. Don’t worry about it.
Charles: This may be the best thing you’ve ever posted. I’m impressed.
Oh it’s possible. I saw the headline bar on MSNBC the other day that spelled it Kadaffy.
In all fairness, this was at midafternoon primetime elderly viewing hours.
This has been clearly the hidden story behind what is happening in Libya; there is plenty of independent evidence to suggest it, but this evidence has been suppressed by a media too willing to coast on a wave of ‘pro-democratic’ sentiment.
Charles, what a hilarious coincidence — I came here just now to procrastinate from reading Jean-Luc Nancy’s The Literary Absolute.
This is obviously a sign I should get back to work. You give me no rest!
Badiou’s third point seems rather ignorant. The amount of weapons stored in just one country like Libya during the Cold War is enough to arm the entire continent of Africa a couple of times.
But weren’t the rebels demanding more weapons from NATO? Qaddafi must have built his weapons cache amongst tribes he knew he could trust.
Does it matter at all that point 1 and 2 are not true? Point 3 is suspect in several respects, not the least of which is that the uprising became a war by Ghaddafi’s declaration and concrete initiative.