How would feminist international relations explain the military intervention in Libya, 2011?

Here are the questions I would ask about the Libyan situation from a feminist IR perspective. Last update: November 6, 2011


EMPIRICISM
Feminist IR would compile as much information as possible about women’s social and economic status in Libya. It would note that its world ranking (53rd out of 190 countries approx on the Human Development Index) for gender equality was quite respectable given its traditional culture. It would note that the higher Libyan women are on the social scale, the more gender equality they have.
Feminists would also note that the women’s organizations must be formally recognized by the Libyan State. The state is often critiqued as promoting interests of patriarchy (rule of male elites over subordinated women and men). Feminists would question why non-state approved NGOs are not permitted to exist in Libya.
Feminists would ask the following questions about
• The ‘underside’ of globalization:
• Migrant women workers- domestic workers-sex trafficking- sex tourism- women garment workers
• Sex discrimination
State inflicted torture of women (and men)
• Foreign and national policymakers: are they mainly elite men; is there political representation of women?
• They would want to know the impacts on women and children of the long UN and US blockades (1992-2005) that Libya has been under. It is known that sanctions impact women and children more than male elites. Half a million Iraqi children died from the UN sanctions imposed 1990 to 2003. They might say that Libyan women are under dual oppression by competing patriarchies: by male elites internationally (the UNSC) AND by national male elites, as well as in the home.


Feminists might note what a former female CIA analyst wrote in July 2011: "Gadhaffi’s got no ties to terrorism. Way back in 1995, Gadhaffi became the first leader in the world to report Osama bin Laden to Interpol. Egypt posted the first arrest warrant for Bin Laden in 1996. But Libya was the very first to warn about Bin Laden’s agenda."Susan Lindauer is a former US asset covering Libya at the United Nations during the Lockerbie negotiations (http://theintelhub.com/2011/07/10/not-so-fast-mr-president-how-obama-got-it-all-wrong-on-libya-and-how-to-fix-it/).

Feminists would check out reports that the 'rebels' are using child soldiers and that in July 2011, "Human Rights Watch condemned rebels for looting shops, homes and medical facilities in towns seized in the western mountains."

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2014236/Libya-Children-young-7-trained-fight-Gaddafi.html#ixzz1Rzp0Q34qp


ANALYTICALLY
The bifurcation of the personal and the political is an analysis that leads to such contradictory concepts as ‘bombing a country into democracy’.
So feminists would ask: is bombing Libya helping citizens or killing them? Have the rebels consulted women or women’s groups when they launched an armed attack on the government? How would women like to see change in their country, do they want peaceful change, and how could they get help from outside? Are the materials being used as explosives harmful to women’s health (for example the use of ‘depleted’ uranium)? Will women be part of peacekeeping efforts, as required by UNSC Resolution 1325? Are there women armed combatants in the government and/or rebel forces?

NORMATIVE
Women’s voices are conspicuously absent in this crisis in Libya. Yet they are end users of national and foreign policy…what are they doing to change the androcentric norm?
Feminist IR would ask the following normative questions:
1. Is the intervention a manifestation of androcentric competitive North-south, left-right politics? Libya has nationalized its oil, a model not adopted by the North. Italy, Spain and France are the principle buyers of Libyan oil; they are the principle military actors in the intervention. Libya enjoyed up until recently, good relations with NATO countries and US, and agreed to give up its nuclear weapons program. Yet it is being attacked. Will other countries not want to give up their WMD programs?
2. Is the intervention by foreign powers approved of by the ‘dictates of public conscience’? Here one would look at global opinion surveys.
3. Are there a normative double standard in operation? Why aren’t protesters in Syria, Bahrain being protected who are not engaged in armed combat as are the Libyan protesters? Why didn't the 'international community' come to the aid of Burmese monks protesting for democracy a few years ago?