Brazil was right to abstain.

To defend civilians, we kill civilians. That is the logic of the countries that promote attacks on Libya under the pretext of preventing civilians, armed or not, from being massacred by Gaddafi's troops. No one is so stupid or naive as to think that the bombings of Libyan territory are only destroying military installations and killing officers and soldiers who defend the Libyan government. Civilians are dying and being wounded on both sides of the conflict.

This, among other reasons, is enough to justify Brazil's perfectly correct position of abstaining from the vote held in the UN Security Council. Alongside the other countries of the BRIC group (Russia, India, and China) and Germany, Brazil, without defending Gaddafi, was consistent with its stance of considering political negotiation as the initial step in attempting to resolve a conflict. Ten other countries opted for war.

The resolution demonstrates the UN's incompetence in promoting peace and the ease with which it endorses war. What the Security Council did was legitimize the traditional warmongering arrogance of the United States, NATO, and some European countries when their interests are thwarted and they seek to impose their "peace." By approving the no-fly zone and "all necessary means" to defend the Libyan population, the UN declared war when it should have been striving for peace.

This is not about eliminating the possibility of a no-fly zone. But this legitimate recourse is being used, as in other previous situations in the East and Europe, as a pretext to bomb a country, overthrow its rulers, and devastate its infrastructure. Under the guise of "any means necessary," anything goes. Then all that's left is to put a puppet in power and call on American and European companies to rebuild what was destroyed by the bombs and missiles. Civilian deaths and injuries are, as the military likes to say, mere collateral damage.

Those who criticize Brazilian abstention are either those who advocate total alignment with the United States, or who unconditionally oppose Dilma Rousseff's government, or are influenced by the superficial and simplistic analyses so prevalent in our press. Or all of the above.

The old double standards

Little has been said about a fundamental difference between what happened in Egypt and Tunisia and what is happening in Libya. In those two countries, there was a peaceful popular rebellion that showed consistency. Without a strong internal social base, without the backing of the armed forces, and having lost international support, the governments of both countries fell within a few days.

In Libya, the government's violent reaction to peaceful protests led to armed resistance, which was perfectly legitimate. Dissension within the armed forces facilitated the rebels' acquisition of weapons, and tribal divisions created a scenario of civil war. It is impossible to quantify, but undeniably Gaddafi received popular support that his counterparts in Tunisia and Egypt did not. Therefore, he saw conditions that allowed him to confront the rebels.

Civilians have been killed in Yemen and Bahrain, where the popular uprising has not yet escalated into a civil war, as in Libya. But the United States, NATO, and those attacking Libya have limited themselves to issuing official statements deploring the violence in these countries. It is the old hypocrisy of colonial and neocolonial powers. After all, the governments of Yemen and Bahrain are important allies of these powers, although just as dictatorial and as violating of human rights as Gaddafi's. Saudi Arabia, perhaps the worst dictatorship in the Middle East and the greatest ally of the United States, remains unscathed by the Arab rebellions thanks to its fierce repression of opponents.

The so-called international community can and should intervene, legitimized by the UN, if an internal war in any country degenerates into human rights violations, massacres, and genocide. But this does not mean that it has the right to violate a country's sovereignty and bomb its territory, preparing an almost inevitable land invasion to support one side of the conflict.

Pressed in negotiations by the UN, the Arab League, and the European countries that previously supported him – some even enthusiastically – Gaddafi would certainly have to seek a peaceful solution to the conflict. An intransigent stance on his part would not have found support within his own government or among the population. There could be, as Brazil advocates, a peaceful transition. But this would not give the hawks of the international scene the pretext to wage a war that only benefits them, politically and economically.

And who will govern?

It's obvious that the United States, France, and the United Kingdom, among others – including Arab countries – want to overthrow Gaddafi. And nobody bombs a presidential palace unless they want to kill its occupants. The question that is beginning to worry many people is who and what kind of government will take the place of Gaddafi and his "Jamahiriya". The Green Book goes out, and what comes in?

In the New York Times, Paul Sullivan warns: “It could be a big surprise when Gaddafi falls and we find out who we’re really dealing with.” There are many examples of bandits, corrupt individuals, and murderers leading governments in Asia, Africa, America, and even Europe (remember Kosovo and Uzbekistan) with the support of Western powers. If the Afghans, armed and trained by the United States, had won the war against the Soviet occupation, Bin Laden would likely be the president of Afghanistan with American support.

To appeal to international public opinion and please Americans and Europeans, all those who oppose authoritarian governments call themselves radical democrats. But they are not always so. The Libyan rebels have only two flags: one, literal, that of the monarchy dethroned by Gaddafi in 1969; the other, the decision to overthrow Gaddafi. They have no defined political line, nor parties or civil organizations.

The underlying issue, in fact, is tribal. The Tripolitania region, in the west, has always been a Gaddafi stronghold. Cyrenaica, in the east, resisted Gaddafi. Just look at the map of the civil war to see this. The country is divided. Who will unify and govern it after the conflict? The UN? Obama? Sarkozy? Or will Libya, in the old colonial style, be divided in two?

Unlimited terrorism

Terrorism is the attack on civilians, unjustified under all circumstances. Palestinians who plant bombs in public places in Israel are terrorists. Israelis who indiscriminately attack Palestinian civilians in occupied territories are terrorists. There is no good side or right side in this sad story.

Without resorting to terrorism, Palestinians have the right to fight for a Palestine free from Israeli occupation. The UN recognizes this, but not with such emphasis, of course.