It is with great consternation that I view the United Nations decision to authorise a no-fly zone over Libya. Air strikes are in progress by the US and its allies and while many may unwittingly be in support of this due to their opinions being informed by anti-Gaddafi reports in the media, right thinking people are left to wonder about the sobriety of such a decision and the motives behind it. Not because we are on the other side of the world we should feel removed from the plight of the Libyan people for they are our brothers and sisters in humanity and their suffering should concern us greatly. It is precisely for this reason that their situation deserves careful scrutiny.
Once again history seems doomed to repeat itself for we do not have to search far back in the recesses of our minds to relive the horror of similar decisions and interventions authorised and approved by the UN and its controlling Western nations. Similar attempts to go in and "save" nations and peoples from their leaders have resulted in nothing more than a trail of destruction, disease and human suffering. In fact, tales of intervention are still unravelling in Iraq and Afghanistan with no obvious benefit brought to their peoples. Anarchy and chaos reign with basic amenities of life in short supply. Despite these situations being propagated and promulgated by the US andits allies, the rest of the world has simply accepted the explanation, after thousands of lives have been lost and billions of dollars in damage caused, that someone somewhere was misled about the existence of weapons of mass destruction. This simply cannot be good enough.
In light of this I ask whether the air strikes on Libya are really designed to relieve the suffering of the Libyan people or is it a case once again of the powers that be rushing in to protect the precious "black gold." Protests and rallies have raged over the preceding months in a multitude of Middle Eastern countries and prior to now there has been no indication of any willingness to intervene to "save the people." Monarchical dictatorships have inflicted similar punishments and hardships on their peoples as Gaddafi but in relation to some of these pro-western puppet regimes there has been no mention of intervention. Is there more than meets the eye therefore in the case of Libya?
Gaddafi has long been a target of Western nations which have accused him of funding and supporting terrorism. His regime was linked to the Lockerbie disaster and he himself has been regarded as a rogue. Yet none of this prompted intervention before. What then has changed so drastically? Surely it cannot be said that Gaddafi never attacked his people before. I can only surmise that yet again we have an example of the so-called superpowers wanting to further propagate an imperialist agenda. Can the world not see that both impoverished and prosperous nations alike have been reduced and relegated to ruin and utter financial and physical destruction by war? The examples of Iraq and Afghanistan are not so distant that we cannot observe the distress and suffering imposed upon their peoples by Western intervention. Can any different result be expected from a Libyan invasion?
After Gaddafi is deposed, what next? Is apparent order going to be displaced by sectarian violence and uncontrollable grabs for power? Are the Iraqi people any better off after Saddam? Has their standard of living been raised? The answer is obviously no. Instead, Iraq and to a greater extent Afghanistan have been sent back in a time warp to the Stone Age where the level of damage and destruction to physical infrastructure and services has led to much greater suffering amongst the people. What is stark and alarming and really brings home the point is that in newspaper reports adjacent to the Libyan stories we read about Yemeni snipers authorised by their Government killing at least 40 people. Isn't this the exact same thing as is alleged to be happening in Libya, the regime attacking and victimising its citizenry?
Of course it is. The only difference is that Yemen is amongst the poorest Arab nations without vast oil resources and so it does not matter to the powers that their people also need saving. In other nations like Bahrain also security forces have been turned on the people with no international condemnation. There has been no talk of intervention by the US or UN in these cases to save the people. Why these double standards. The obvious answer is that intervention is only an option when it suits the West to do so in cases of economic longevity. In nations where the despotic rulers are supported by the West and the oil is safe to be sold to them, there are no issues of sanctions and no-fly zones and saving the people.
In the case of Libya, however, the West has never been able to control Gaddafi and while it has bought his oil, it is obviously more advantageous to have him displaced and deal with a more pro-Western regime. Come on people, open your eyes and understand the world of economically driven international politics and do not be fooled by tales of humanitarian agendas and interests.
Imran S Khan
Via e-mail