Reactions to the Anti-Muslim Film and Protests

I will let these quotes from the below heads of state and political leaders speak for themselves. 

Prime Minister Abdurrahim Keib of Libya:

"This is a criminal act that will not go unpunished. This is part of a series of cowardice acts by supporters of the former regime who want to undermine Libya's revolution."

President Mohamed Magariaf of Libya:

"We refuse that our nation's lands be used for cowardice and revengeful acts. It is not a victory for God's Sharia or his prophet for such disgusting acts to take place," Magariaf said. "We apologize to the United States, the people of America, and the entire world. We and the American government are standing on the same side, we stand on the same side against outlaws."

President Mohamed Morsi of Egypt:

“The presidency denounces in the strongest terms the attempt to insult the Prophet Mohammed (peace be upon him) and condemns the people who produced this extreme action. The Egyptian people, both Muslims and Christians, reject this insult against the sacred.

The presidency also emphasizes that the Egyptian state is responsible for the protection of private and public properties and thereby the diplomatic missions and embassies of different countries.

It also affirms the protection and respect for the freedom of expression and the right to peaceful protest within the confines of the law while firmly opposing any irresponsible attempt to create lawlessness.

The president and the embassy of the Arab Republic of Egypt in the United States have commissioned the undertaking of all possible, legal actions to respond to these individuals who seek the sabotage the relations and dialogue between peoples and nations.”

Deputy President of the Muslim Brotherhood Khairat El-Shater:

“Despite our resentment of the continued appearance of productions like the anti-Muslim film that led to the current violence, we do not hold the American government or its citizens responsible for acts of the few that abuse the laws protecting freedom of expression.” (The Muslim Brotherhood cancelled its call for a nationwide protest against the video.)

Former Governor Mitt Romney: Released Tuesday night

“I’m outraged by the attacks on American diplomatic missions in Libya and Egypt and by the death of an American consulate worker in Benghazi… It’s disgraceful that the Obama Administration’s first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks.”

President Barack Obama: Released Wednesday morning
"I strongly condemn the outrageous attack on our diplomatic facility in Benghazi, which took the lives of four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens... While the United States rejects efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others, we must all unequivocally oppose the kind of senseless violence that took the lives of these public servants."

Update 9/27/12: Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, Producer of the ‘Innocence of Muslims’’ film has been detained.  The judge cited an increased risk of Nakoula fleeing as cause for the detention. 

Ghostbusters!

The second part of the, "Who You Gonna Call?" post from last week.

“We can't afford to give governments in Russia and China a veto over how we defend our interests and the progress of our values in the world.” – Senator John McCain

As I’ve already broken down, we are addressing whether the United Nations or the United States should be the preeminent keeper of international peace and defender of human rights, and the precedent this would set. 

My simple answer is the United Nations should be the preeminent keeper of international peace and defender of human rights.  If for no other reason, the UN can speak for the will of the world, transcending diplomatic allegiances like NATO or the Arab League.  Because of this, involvement by the UN can hardly be said to advance any one nation’s agenda over another’s.  Furthermore, when the UN acts it is in the interest of international peace and the protection of human rights.  I say ‘when’ because history and current events have shown the UN doesn’t always act.  The United Nations has proven unable to consistently uphold these responsibilities, and I am concerned it will take another Rwandan Genocide for the world to realize this. 

Since you aren’t going to call the UN, it seems like the only other option is the United States (and France, Great Britain, and Turkey to name a few).  But what precedent does this set when three of five Permanent Members of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) ignore the vetoes cast by the other two? 

This is a difficult question.  On the one hand, by going against the UN we are saying, “The UN doesn’t have authority over us.”  Suppose in the near future China asks the UNSC to sign a resolution declaring the South China Sea as exclusively Chinese maritime territory.  Given recent events in the region I have no doubt the United States would respond, if needed, by casting a veto vote.  If the United States just defied the UNSC by intervening in Syria, who are we to scold China for continuing to occupy islands and waters claimed by Japan, Philippines, and Indonesia.  A situation that should have been resolved through diplomatic channels would them come down to a military standoff, with the possibility of small conflicts between nations. 

Conversely, if the United States and other likeminded nations respect the will of the UNSC they won’t intervene in Syria.  The conflict will continue to escalate, with more crimes against humanity being committed by both sides. 

The phrase ‘between a rock and a hard place’ doesn’t begin to quantify the moral dilemma we face here.  Respect the United Nations and aspire that one day it will be able to act in every case of crimes against humanity… or try to save the lives of thousands of Syrians while labeling the UN as irrelevant. 

The answer, in my opinion, is both clear as day and invisible.  It is what Jack Nicolson was referring to when he screamed, “you can’t handle the truth!”  Covert operations cannot replace policy, but it can support it.  In this case the United States hasn’t been shy about favoring the Free Syrian Army and calling for President Assad to step down, but it has been unable to openly support the FSA with weapons, intelligence, or funding.  It is these capacities that the Agency excels at. 

This is a difficult issue, but I believe it is an unfortunate reality that there are occasions when otherwise morally questionable actions are justified.  I can think of several examples but I will end this tirade here.  If there are any differing opinions out there I’d love to here them.