Libya: The West’s selective vigilantism

Issue 
Washington DC, March 26.

The US-NATO intervention in Libya, with United Nations Security Council cover, is part of an orchestrated response to show support for the movement against one dictator in particular.

In doing so, it aims to bring the Arab rebellions to an end by asserting Western control, confiscating their impetus and spontaneity and trying to restore the status quo.

It is absurd to think that the reasons for bombing Tripoli or for the French airforce’s “turkey shoot” (the bombing of fleeing Libyan soldiers) outside Benghazi are designed to protect civilians.

This particular argument is designed to win support from the citizens of Euro-America and part of the Arab world.

“Look at us,” say Obama/Clinton and the EU satraps, “we’re doing good. We’re on the side of the people”.

The sheer cynicism is breathtaking. We’re expected to believe that the leaders with bloody hands in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan are defending the people in Libya.

Civil society is easily moved by some images. Gaddafi’s brutality in sending his air force to bomb his people was the pretext that Washington utilised to bomb another Arab capital.

Meanwhile, Obama’s allies in the Arab world were hard at work promoting democracy.

The Saudi military entered Bahrain at the same time as Western bombing began. In Bahrain, the population is being tyrannised and large-scale arrests are taking place.

Not much of this is being reported on Al Jazeera. The station seems to have been curbed somewhat and brought into line with the politics of its funders, the Qatar royal family.
All this takes place with active US support. The despot in Yemen, loathed by a majority of his people continues to kill them every day. Not even an arms embargo, let alone a “no-fly zone” has been imposed.

Libya is yet another case of selective vigilantism by the US and its attack dogs in the West.

French President Nicolas Sarkozy was desperate to do something. Unable to save his friend, Tunisian dictator Zine El Abidine, he’s decided to help get rid of Gaddafi.

The British always oblige. Having shored up the Libyan regime for the last two decades, they’re making sure they’re on the right side so as not to miss out on the division of the spoils.

The divisions on this entire operation within the US politico-military elite have meant there is no clear goal.

US President Barack Obama and his European satraps talk of regime change. The generals resist and say that isn’t part of their picture. The US State Department is busy preparing a new government composed of English-speaking Libyan collaborators.

We will now never know how long Gaddafi’s crumbling and weakened army would have held together in the face of strong opposition. The reason he lost support within his armed forces was precisely because he ordered them to shoot their own people.

Now he speaks of imperialism’s desire to topple him and take the oil and even many who despise him can see that it’s true. A new Hamid Karzai, the US puppet in Afghanistan, is on the way.

The frontiers of the squalid protectorate that the West is going to create are being decided in Washington. Even those Libyans who, out of desperation, are backing NATO’s bomber jets, might — like their Iraqi equivalents — regret their choice.

All this might trigger a third phase at some stage: a growing nationalist anger that spills over into Saudi Arabia.

Here, have no doubt, Washington will do everything necessary to keep the Saudi royal family in power. Lose Saudi Arabia and they will lose the Gulf states.

The assault on Libya, greatly helped by Gaddafi’s imbecility on every front, was designed to wrest the initiative back from the streets by appearing as the defenders of civil rights.

The Bahrainis, Egyptians, Tunisians, Saudi Arabians, Yemenis will not be convinced, and even in Europe and the US, polls show more oppose this latest adventure than support it.

Obama talks of a merciless Gaddafi, but the West’s own mercy never drops like gentle rain from heaven upon the place beneath. It only blesses the power that dispenses, the mightiest of the mightiest.

[This article originally appeared in the British Guardian It is reproduced for non-commercial education and discussion purposes.]