Western allies continual air strikes on military targets in Libya greatly reduce Gaddafi's military force and influence many by evoking a debate on which is more important, Human Rights or Sovereignty, as others official Medias are arguing that the mean intention of such intervention is petroleum.
The purpose of sovereignty is to protect people's human and other rights. If any country cannot fulfill this function, it loses such purpose and existence as a country. Therefore, in order to protect the safety of the people in Libya, the United Nations (UN) has the responsibility to take appropriate actions.
When people's human rights are trampled, only international intervention (militarily or otherwise) can help. There are some however, who think sovereignty is supreme, and that it is part of the human rights… exhibiting strong nationalism. But should a country without human rights deserves sovereignty?
Any government being overthrown by a people's revolution is a direct result of its disrespect for human rights, opposition of the majority's wishes, and infuriation of the masses. And as such, under the United Nations’ purpose, any country without human rights would inevitably not have sovereignty.
Can one honestly believe that though a merciless regime like Gaddafi’s, the UN Security Council’s Resolution 1973 real intention is to give Libya to France, United Kingdom and the United States?
The sad reality is that the said UN Security Council comprises of member states who believe such, criticize its own actions, confuse its people's conception on sovereignty - with some even publicly denying the supremacy of human rights.
Sovereignty without human rights has no meaning, fake and is inhumane. The stability created by depriving people's human rights is false and temporary – and violates nature's order.
The purpose of sovereignty is to protect people's human and other rights. If any country cannot fulfill this function, it loses such purpose and existence as a country. Therefore, in order to protect the safety of the people in Libya, the United Nations (UN) has the responsibility to take appropriate actions.
When people's human rights are trampled, only international intervention (militarily or otherwise) can help. There are some however, who think sovereignty is supreme, and that it is part of the human rights… exhibiting strong nationalism. But should a country without human rights deserves sovereignty?
Any government being overthrown by a people's revolution is a direct result of its disrespect for human rights, opposition of the majority's wishes, and infuriation of the masses. And as such, under the United Nations’ purpose, any country without human rights would inevitably not have sovereignty.
Can one honestly believe that though a merciless regime like Gaddafi’s, the UN Security Council’s Resolution 1973 real intention is to give Libya to France, United Kingdom and the United States?
The sad reality is that the said UN Security Council comprises of member states who believe such, criticize its own actions, confuse its people's conception on sovereignty - with some even publicly denying the supremacy of human rights.
Sovereignty without human rights has no meaning, fake and is inhumane. The stability created by depriving people's human rights is false and temporary – and violates nature's order.
Posts
.png)
No comments:
Post a Comment
“Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity” – MLK.