The UN-sanctioned Western invasion of Libya is attracting world-wide condemnation; the Russian premier compares it to a "crusade" exposing the real mindset of the Western 'democrats' and the UN who lecture the world on balancing its concern for the people with respect for territorial integrity of their states.
The civil war in Libya poses no threat to the West, not even the 9/11 type that 'justified' the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq, making the intervention by the US, France, Britain, Denmark and Italy illegal. Given the biased leadership that the West is continually blessed with despite periodic 'elections', nothing responsible was likely.
Neither the US, nor EU, nor the UN considered intervening in Tunis, Egypt, Bahrain, Yemen (al Qaeda base) or Algeria, where people rebelled against their despotic rulers. No resolutions were moved over the "right to protect" people in these states, nor denounce, demonise, isolate, or press for intervening there.
Reason: people in these pro-West states don't matter; what do matter are the resources to which rulers of these states provide access. However, Libya, which compromised the Muslim world's nuclear capability to please the West didn't qualify for the 'truly' pro-West category, and was condemned on all counts. In his Nobel Prize acceptance speech Obama had said "force can be justified on humanitarian grounds....to stop a civil war whose violence and suffering can engulf an entire region." But a senior BCC reporter in Tripoli thought bombing Eastern Libya (where Libyan forces were restoring order) seemed an attempt at regime change.
The West is using Libya's unrest for its own benefit: its criminal ventures in Afghanistan and Iraq exposed the truth about "stopping genocide and establishing democracy" but claiming to 'preserve' regional stability (that (exploits the hatred for Qadhafi in pro-West Arab states) and may help such deceptive interventions regain lost credibility.
Intervention in Libya will secure the interests of BP, Eni and Halliburton. In Libya, oil production cost is the lowest - $1 per barrel and its known reserves are 42 billion barrels besides huge gas reserves. If these European companies get a free hand, they could drill for oil and gas much faster to meet Europe's rising demand.
The US claims (and its media will make us believe) that al Qaeda has active cells in Libya that will exploit the power vacuum to be created by Qadhafi's exit. This justification (oddly, not applied to pro-West Yemen) is a 'silencer' for the otherwise well-informed West, and will nurture public support for legalising a ground assault.
If al Qaeda is indeed present in Libya, why are the rebels welcoming the Western intervention? The fact is that al Qaeda doesn't have a foothold in Libya because Libya is rated among countries with widely shared economic benefits, and has virtually no pockets of adverse poverty that al Qaeda exploits.
That being so, the West will end up in an Afghanistan and Iraq like mess that will lower oil output in a scenario of rising global demand, and worsen the misery that people confront everywhere. The chaos will benefit only the speculators, which will strengthen doubts about the integrity of the 'democrats'.
Trouble in Arabian oil-producing states and Western role therein, is an eye-opener. Measured on the yardstick of exchange reserves, none of them is poor; Libya's reserves equal its imports of 42.5 months, Algeria's equal its imports of 38 months and Saudi Arabia's equal its imports of 34.2 months.
Yet, masses in these states are complaining about neglect and poverty while these reserves remain invested in US and European government debt because rulers in these states are West-friendly. If these investments were at the expense of impoverishing people in these states, why were they not warned about the consequences?
Had Western leadership been visionary (or clever), it would have issued warnings to these states to forestall trouble, and disruption of oil supplies to the West. The blunder - occupying oil-producing states rather than reforming governance therein - led to invasion of Iraq. Same is the case (and its likely outcome) in Libya.
Tragically, greed for clinching every penny of Arab wealth without visualising the fallout from this blunder over a prolonged period overcame sense. Western leadership also did not realise that letting their own people become addicted to living on borrowed money destroyed their innovative and earning abilities.
The huge fiscal and trade deficits that the Western economies preside on manifest the vision of their leadership that periodically descends via a flawed democratic process that prioritises majority over vision and proven capability. Besides, parliamentarians don't always serve national interests.
About US politicians, veteran US reporter Helen Thomas recently told the Playboy magazine that "everybody is in the pocket of Israeli lobbies, which are funded by wealthy supporters... same with the financial markets. There's total control... it is real power when you own the White House, when you own these other places..."
Dual Western standards allow India to keep butchering the Kashmiris, and Israel to keep slaughtering the Palestinians; the West never felt obliged to intervene in either. Then why condemn Nazism? Isn't Europe treating the Muslims along the same lines? Yet it calls itself a crusader for human rights.
America has pushed Europe into a war to slow its recovery from the current recession. For America the most pleasing outcome would be the demise of the Euro that threatened the Dollar and US access to global wealth that it now survives on instead of its traditional innovative abilities.
With Japan falling from its place in the global economy after the latest tsunami and a devastating earthquake, and Europe engaged in a self-damaging war courtesy US-backed 'Napoleon-II' (ie Nicolas Sarkozy), America may again rule the world in its typical gun toting cowboy style.
For Europe, the lasting blow will be to its image. After former Danish premier Rasmussen (defender of the right to publish blasphemous cartoons) took control of Nato, Europe suffered a blow to its image; invading Libya will expand that damage and the US will quickly get out of this quagmire. Smart, isn't it?
When it suits the 'democrats', veto by a single UNSC member can 'legally' over-rule the majority. Otherwise it is the majority (not civilised logic, morality, and equality) that dispenses justice. Three cheers for the democrats! What a clever-by-half but totally exposed lot they are, and how self-serving is the justice they dispense!
Comments
Comments are closed.