Intervention in Libya and the Whirlpool of More War
By Peter Ewart
Monday, March 21, 2011 03:44 AM
By Peter Ewart
I don't buy it.
For weeks, we have been bombarded with urgent news stories and statements from politicians in the U.S., Canada and Europe that, following the so-called doctrine of "responsibility to protect", we must impose a "no fly zone" over Libya, an action which, in effect, is a declaration of war against the country.
As in the lead up to the invasion of Iraq, as well as the bombing of Serbia in Yugoslavia back in 1999, both which included the imposition of "no fly zones", we are presented with images of an "insane" dictator who must be stopped before he slaughters thousands.
Of course, as was the case in Iraq and Serbia, nothing happens until the U.S. government makes the decision to go in, and now other Western powers have piled on, including an oh-so-eager Harper government in Canada, as well as the anti-democratic kings and despots of Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states.
A spineless U.N. Security Council endorses the "no fly zone" and even expands it to include taking "all necessary measures". And so the bombing of yet another Middle Eastern country begins.
There is something profoundly hypocritical about all of this. Why, of all the countries in the Middle East, is the Libyan government being singled out for a "no fly zone" and possibly full scale invasion?
Take for example Bahrain where hundreds of people have been killed by the dictatorial regime in power there. Or Yemen where a civil war has been going on for years and thousands have been brutally killed and tortured. In fact, on the very day that the bombing of Libya was authorized, the regime in Yemen shot down and killed over 40 people who were demonstrating against it. Or how about Israel, which has defied dozens of UN resolutions, and, in 2008, invaded the open prison that is Gaza and killed over 1,400 people, many of whom were civilians.
The difference, of course, is that the governments of Bahrain, Yemen and Israel are all allies of the U.S. And then there is the other little difference that Libya just happens to have vast deposits of high grade oil beneath its sands. There is some obvious cherry-picking going on here.
It doesn't get emphasized in the media, but the fact is that both sides of the conflict in Libya (as in Yugoslavia) have weapons and both sides are shooting at each other. It is a civil war. Not too much different than the civil wars that have taken place over the centuries in the U.S., Britain, France, and, yes, Canada, in the 1837 rebellion.
The entire world is with the people of the Middle East who are struggling to change or reform their dictatorial and anti-democratic governments. However, it is also a fact that the U.S. and other big powers have been the main supporters of these repressive governments for many decades. Witness the American support for the regime of Saudi Arabia which is the most backward and dictatorial of all.
To think that the U.S. and these other powers don't have their own economic and political interests in mind regarding Libya and the entire Middle East is the height of naivete. The one thing these big powers don't want is for any old or new governments in that region, whether Islamic or relatively secular (like Libya), to chart an independent course and do such "nasty" things as nationalize their oil reserves or grant oil concessions to competitors. And, of course, Colonel Quaddafi has been most "unreliable" in that regard.
A "great game" is being played out by the big powers in the Middle East and Central Asia for control of energy resources. One of the favoured weapons in this "great game" is the so-called doctrine of the "responsibility to protect" which is being used to override the fundamental principle of international law of "non-interference in the internal affairs of other countries".
The principle of "non-interference", which has developed over the centuries, became especially prominent in world affairs because of what happened in the Second World War. It was Adolf Hitler's infamous version of the "responsibility to protect" doctrine which sparked the outbreak of the War. In 1939, Hitler invaded Czechoslovakia and Poland using the pretext of "protecting" the Germanic citizens of those countries from the "repression" of their own governments. As a direct counter to this doctrine, and to protect the sovereignty of nation states, the UN, after the War, enshrined in its resolutions the principle of "non-interference".
Now we have a new, dusted-off version of the old doctrine making a comeback. But, in a globalized world, it is a recipe for disaster. Whenever a dispute breaks out within a particular country, whether it is a rebellion or civil war, other countries can now seize the opportunity to intervene with military force and stack the outcome in their favour. There is no international law, only the law of the jungle.
So what will happen if conflict breaks out within Canada sometime in the future, for example, over the issue of Quebec independence? Can now France or the U.S. intervene militarily utilizing the doctrine of "responsibility to protect"? The way the world is going such a possibility is not so farfetched. Indeed, during the FLQ crisis of 1970 (as was revealed some years later), the U.S. had leapfrogged its troops close to the Quebec border.
A current is developing in international affairs that, in the next few years, as more big powers get involved, and as more countries give themselves the right to interfere in the affairs of others, could end up sucking us into the whirlpool of a catastrophic world war.
We need to find ways to ease conflicts between countries and within countries, not ramp them up. If we don't, given the military hardware and technology in place today, there will be terrible consequences for all human beings and for the future of the human race itself.
Peter Ewart is a columnist and writer based in Prince George, British Columbia. He can be reached at: peter.ewart@shaw.ca
Previous Story - Next Story
Email
Print
Facebook
Twitter
Digg
Del.icio.usReturn to Home
Posted by: gus on March 21 2011 9:28 AM
http://HarperGovernment@War.con (not really a website...yet) may be thinking of his political fortunes by moving so fast on this, perhaps before the writ is dropped.
As "The Voice" on CBC's The Current stated so well... "Is this Operation Jet-fighter Justification?!"
On the subject of R2P, might we better apply ourselves to billeting nursing and pregnant women and small children from Japan whose exposure to radiation is particularly critical to their health?! I would think in the dying days of this government we might direct our energies to cutting RED TAPE to enable 6 month visas as a demonstration of Responsibility to PROTECT... by getting these innocents out of harm's way, and providing respite.
The bottom line... war is good for big business... and incumbents facing election.
John Grogan