Well it’s started and I am sure the xenophobes will be delighted. British aircraft are attacking Gaddafi’s forces in Libya and already (according to reports from the BBC) 110 missiles have been fired.
Now, don’t get me wrong, I am no apologist for Gaddafi – the man is a tyrant and so far removed from socialism it is untrue. Even worse, it is a disgrace that internationally, supposedly socialist states like Venezuela have continued to support his regime.
The rebels in Benghazi have legitimate claims and should be supported and encouraged – but not through gunship diplomacy. Far better that we had sent them humanitarian aid – doctors, nurses and medical supplies. Instead, the United Nations has determined we should intervene in the internal affairs of another country.
US President Barack Obama revealed the doubled standards of American foreign policy when speaking during a visit to Brazil. He said the US was taking "limited military action" as part of a "broad coalition … We cannot stand idly by when a tyrant tells his people there will be no mercy."
Oddly enough, the US, or the UK didn’t feel the same when Pinochet was massacring thousands in Chile, and they have remained silent about genocide in Uganda, Rwanda Zimbabwe, Darfur, or the Sudan. No offers here of sending in military support to protect civilians from the acts of oppression by a tyrant.
So, is this really about preserving a budding democracy? Of course not, it’s about two things. Firstly, it is about oil. In 2007, BP and its Libyan partner, the Libya Investment Corporation (LIC) signed a major exploration and production agreement with Libya's National Oil Company (NOC). The initial exploration commitment was set at a minimum of $900million, with significant additional appraisal and development expenditures upon exploration success.
Similarly, Royal Dutch Shell has an exploration programme in the country, started after sanctions were lifted in 2004.
The International Energy Agency (IEA) said last week that Libya's oil output had slumped to a "trickle" and this had helped to drive up the price of Brent crude by 20pc this year. The IEA also said exports from Libya, which are light, "sweet" oils favoured by refiners, may take "many months" to return to normal. International capitalism cannot afford to see these supplies dry up and if rebel forces continue to fight unopposed, Gaddafi will carry on his resistance. Fighting could go on for weeks, or even months before he could be finally able to reunite the country. Even then the marks of division will be transparent and ruling the country would become virtually impossible.
Military intervention will effectively end Gaddafi’s attacks on the rebels and international governments can reasonably assume that once the resistance has taken control of the country, they will be ‘friendly’ to Western pressure to resume oil supplies.
Secondly, Cameron recognises his position as prime minister is insecure. Opposition to his policies is running high and he is expecting matters to get worse. A similar situation occurred under the Thatcher regime – until she sent the warships in to support the Falkland Islands. Suddenly opinion polls started to swing the other ways and Maggie found herself running on the crest of a wave.
It was a strategy John Major tried with some considerable success in 1991 and kept him in power for another six years. His approach was repeated by Tony Blair in the second Iraq War, but this time the British people were less enthused as they watched the dead returning from the battle front.
Now Cameron is repeating the same mistakes – using military forces to stimulate our own xenophobia and prop up his government. The trouble is that Gaddafi is not like Hussein. He will not walk away quietly, or hide in a bunker. He will arm civilians … and that will stimulate a bloody civil war between pro- and anti-government forces.
In sending in fighter planes and warships, the West has effectively guaranteed that the military action in this sad country will increase and as a result thousands will die as brother and sister fight each other. As the “Stop the War” Coalition has argued – this is not our war. If the rebels fail, it is sad and they will have to fight another day.
CND stated it far more clearly than I and I reproduce it in full.
“CND regrets the British government’s decision to pursue military intervention in Libya and opposes the current attacks taking place on Libya. CND urges a political and diplomatic response to the Libyan regime's ceasefire declaration.
Intervention is difficult and dangerous and runs the risk not only of major civilian casualties - and some have already been reported - but also escalation into a major war in Libya and even further afield. The lessons of the last decade’s interventionist wars have not been learnt: military intervention is not the answer to the just demands of the Libyan people for freedom and democracy.
CND urges political solutions including increased sanctions on the Libyan regime and calls on the British government to guarantee that civilian life will be protected and depleted uranium munitions will not be used in any attacks.”
If we are to avoid a repeat of the Afghanistan problem, we must stand down from all future military engagements in Libya.
No comments:
Post a Comment