Hi, Stanford students!
Nice to be able to introduce ourselves and to start our collaboration on the course” Intercultural Communication for leadership” with you!
We enjoy learning first-hand strategies for international collaboration and communication. We believe that these practical skills will benefit us as future collaborators and global leaders.
All members of our group are young energetic people, 3d year students, interested in a variety of issues. Anna and Lera are interested in the activities of international organizations, Stepan and Irina are fond of participating in different debates on political topics, Philipp enjoys serfing the Internet, trying to find something new about intenational politics. We would like to discuss this topic of international relations through our Presidents’ interrelation to recent events, because this is a good chance to have more readings and reflections in order to understand things better.
We have read the article “Togetherness of Lybia” and a few other articles on the topic and would like to comment on some of the issues, as well as to hear your opinion on them.
The situation in Libya is a very complex one. And it is interpreted in a variety of ways by our media. Some newspapers call it a revolution and the UN actions as an armed intervention in the political affairs of an independant state, other sources refer to using military force in Lybia as an attempt to help the opposition struggling against Qaddafi. We think it is extremely important to think critically and to examine different sources of information critically.
As you know, there was UN Security Council’s Conference on Libya, organized by the Western powers in London, where Resolution 1973 on using the military force, was passed. Some countries, including Russia, did not use their veto to ban this resolution. Until recently, Russia was a fierce opponent to any “foreign interference” in the affairs of a sovereign state and regularly used its veto in the Security Council. This time it let the resolution pass. But Russia did not join the military actions either. President Medvedev said, it was the only possible way for Russia to go, because, on the one hand, Russia doesn;t approve Qaddafi’s military actions against civilians, but on the other hand, Russia can’t afford to join the coalition. There occured a disagreement between Medvedev and Putin on this issue. Putin sounded more disapproving of NATO’s military actions in Lybia, while Medvedev argues that there is a good reason to use military force to stop Quaddafii. May be the Russian government did not use the right to veto this military intervention because it doesn’t directly affect its interests…Would be interesting to know how American media covers this attitude of Russia – passive approval of intervention but lack of active actions to support the opposition.
The article “Togetherness in Lybia” is very informative regarding Obama’s actions, “challenging an American habit of mind”. First, he referred to the military intervention as “an international mandate for action”, as” the support of Arab countrie”|, and then,as a reaction to ” a plea for help from the Lybian people”. The strongest statement he made was ” We would have betrayed ourselves, if we had turned a blind eye to Lybia under such terrible circumstances” . We understand that according to Obama, the reasons for interference were to protect the people and the moral principles. We would like to believe that the true aim of the Resolution itself is the protection of civilians, but not establishing of a new «democratic» regime in Lybia. We also know that with the introduction of coalition forces civilians did not cease to suffer. More than that now they are under the fire of both warring parties now. Do you think there might have been another way to stop Quaddafii? What do you think of America sharing its leadership with other countries, regarding the war in Lybia?
We look forward to hearing from you and to getting to know you personally, by videoconference.