Libya: behind the politics of humanitarian intervention http://www.pambazuka.org/en/category/features/72300

Seeing the bombing of Libya only as an exercise in saving civilian lives barely scratches the surface, writes Mahmood Mamdani.When it came to the assets freeze and arms embargo, the Resolution called on the secretary-general to create an eight-member panel of experts to assist the Security Council committee in monitoring the sanctions.Libyan assets are mainly in the US and Europe, and they amount to hundreds of billions of dollars: the US Treasury froze $30bn of liquid assets, and US banks $18bn. What is to happen to interest on these assets?In the absence of any specific arrangement assets are turned into a booty, an interest-free loan, in this instance, to US Treasury and US banks.

Like the military intervention, there is nothing international about implementing the sanctions regime. From its point of view, the international process is no more than a legitimating exercise.

If the legitimating is international, implementation is privatised, passing the initiative to the strongest of member states. The end result is a self-constituted coalition of the willing. War furthers many interests. Each war is a laboratory for testing the next generation of weapons. It is well known that the Iraq war led to more civilian than military victims.The debate then was over whether or not these casualties were intended. In Libya, the debate is over facts. It points to the fact that the US and NATO are perfecting a new generation of weapons, weapons meant for urban warfare, weapons designed to minimise collateral damage.The objective is to destroy physical assets with minimum cost in human lives. The cost to the people of Libya will be of another type. The more physical assets are destroyed, the less sovereign will be the next government in Libya.