While Arab nations struggle to recover their dignity, we squander ours in abundance. In foreign policy, doctrine stated its intention to apply the same principle of action in a series of events that represent similar challenges. President Monroe in 1823, announced that under the principles of non-intervention and non-colonization, the United States would regard as an unfriendly act any attempt to expand into the Americas by European powers.
In 1947, President Harry Truman proclaimed that his government would support "free peoples who are resisting attempted subjugation, whether by armed minorities or outside pressures." The USSR in 1968 outlined the Brezhnev Doctrine, which allowed the Soviet Union to intervene militarily to restore order in the socialist countries of Central and Eastern Europe.
In 1989, the death certificate of the Cold War was again established as a doctrine on the day the spokesman for Gorbachev questioned the validity of the Brezhnev doctrine on democratic reforms in Hungary and Poland surprised his interlocutors by saying that it was now the "Sinatra Doctrine" that prevailed in reference to the song My Way ["I did it my way" - I did it my way], which caused an effect domino democratization in the region.
Today, instead of seeking a doctrine, the European Union market on tiptoe. His doctrine has no name or content. She has no name because of the glaring lack of leadership at all levels: in the capital, where leaders observed the corner of the eye to not be the first to make the mistake of betting on change, and Brussels, where [the High Representative for Foreign Affairs] Catherine Ashton would not take any chances either.
Yet this crisis would have been the occasion for Ashton to invent its function. But Baroness accepted in perfect submission to be only the spokesman of what the bloc decided unanimously - when they succeed. There will be no doctrine Ashton. Anyway, this doctrine would have no content, because our leaders want your cake and eat it: to protest without disturbing influence without interference, without sanction order, help without taking risks, participate without pay.
And, above the market, in line with the hypocrisy they have shown so far, they do not even bother to hide what really worries them, they are refugees and the course of hydrocarbons . A miraculous image of the Coca-Cola without sugar or caffeine, Europe has turned the doctrine Zero: change, nothing in exchange.
If we wanted to develop a doctrine, we can learn the principles outlined by Saif al-Islam, sinister son of Gaddafi, in his doctoral thesis in 2007 at the London School of Economics under the title of amazing: "The role civil society in the democratization of the institutions of global governance.
" In this book, Saif al-Islam takes over the distinction made by the theorist of justice John Rawls between, on one hand, companies "orderly" which, if not fully democratic, are peaceful, whose leaders enjoy a certain legitimacy to the public, respect human rights, and, on the other hand, regimes "outlaws" or companies "unfair" that systematically violate human rights and must therefore be the under pressure and sanctions resulting in the rejection of any military or other assistance to them and by the freezing of all economic ties with them.
On page 236 of his thesis, Saif Al-Islam concludes (thinking of radical Islam): "This thesis is consistent with the idea that Rawls should not allow states outlawed take their ease." And on page 237, he adds: "The isolation and, ultimately, the transformation of primordial states are forbidden to global stability." therefore, apply the principles of Rawls (already listed in their account by the UN under the concept of "responsibility to protect") and make a clear distinction between those who, these days, use violence against the population and those who dialogue with the opposition.
Libya is an outlaw state, then treat it as such. 
In 1947, President Harry Truman proclaimed that his government would support "free peoples who are resisting attempted subjugation, whether by armed minorities or outside pressures." The USSR in 1968 outlined the Brezhnev Doctrine, which allowed the Soviet Union to intervene militarily to restore order in the socialist countries of Central and Eastern Europe.
In 1989, the death certificate of the Cold War was again established as a doctrine on the day the spokesman for Gorbachev questioned the validity of the Brezhnev doctrine on democratic reforms in Hungary and Poland surprised his interlocutors by saying that it was now the "Sinatra Doctrine" that prevailed in reference to the song My Way ["I did it my way" - I did it my way], which caused an effect domino democratization in the region.
Today, instead of seeking a doctrine, the European Union market on tiptoe. His doctrine has no name or content. She has no name because of the glaring lack of leadership at all levels: in the capital, where leaders observed the corner of the eye to not be the first to make the mistake of betting on change, and Brussels, where [the High Representative for Foreign Affairs] Catherine Ashton would not take any chances either.
Yet this crisis would have been the occasion for Ashton to invent its function. But Baroness accepted in perfect submission to be only the spokesman of what the bloc decided unanimously - when they succeed. There will be no doctrine Ashton. Anyway, this doctrine would have no content, because our leaders want your cake and eat it: to protest without disturbing influence without interference, without sanction order, help without taking risks, participate without pay.
And, above the market, in line with the hypocrisy they have shown so far, they do not even bother to hide what really worries them, they are refugees and the course of hydrocarbons . A miraculous image of the Coca-Cola without sugar or caffeine, Europe has turned the doctrine Zero: change, nothing in exchange.
If we wanted to develop a doctrine, we can learn the principles outlined by Saif al-Islam, sinister son of Gaddafi, in his doctoral thesis in 2007 at the London School of Economics under the title of amazing: "The role civil society in the democratization of the institutions of global governance.
" In this book, Saif al-Islam takes over the distinction made by the theorist of justice John Rawls between, on one hand, companies "orderly" which, if not fully democratic, are peaceful, whose leaders enjoy a certain legitimacy to the public, respect human rights, and, on the other hand, regimes "outlaws" or companies "unfair" that systematically violate human rights and must therefore be the under pressure and sanctions resulting in the rejection of any military or other assistance to them and by the freezing of all economic ties with them.
On page 236 of his thesis, Saif Al-Islam concludes (thinking of radical Islam): "This thesis is consistent with the idea that Rawls should not allow states outlawed take their ease." And on page 237, he adds: "The isolation and, ultimately, the transformation of primordial states are forbidden to global stability." therefore, apply the principles of Rawls (already listed in their account by the UN under the concept of "responsibility to protect") and make a clear distinction between those who, these days, use violence against the population and those who dialogue with the opposition.
Libya is an outlaw state, then treat it as such.
- Maison Européenne de la Photographie (13/02/2011)
- Moderately Extreme At The Maison Européenne De La Photographie (02/03/2011)
- Alain Badiou: "Tunisie, Egypte : quand un vent d'est balaie l'arrogance de l'Occident" (27/02/2011)
- UEFA (Union of European Football Associations) (13/01/2011)
- The cheap policy of the government BERKA JECLIYAA ...XAYDHA JECLIYAA (30/09/2010)
No comments:
Post a Comment