It is appropriate to be skeptical of the supposed altruistic intentions of Western governments as they lead the charge into Lybia, we have good cause for this given their track records. While I felt it was necessary for some kind of UN backed humanitarian intervention in this situation, it has become quite apparent, in the light of the enthusiastic bombing campaign, this was less about protecting civilians, more about neutralising Lybia's military capacity and instigating regime change. The data graphic below might lend some support to Vincent Browne's thesis.
It is worth noting that since the 1967 Israeli Blitzkrieg, subsidies from Libyan oil revenues have been used to support revolutionary groups across the region. While these activities were to have stopped with the recent dénouement that lead to a lifting of sanctions, Qaddafi was never to be trusted and it is reasonable to assume elements within the US administration would strongly favour regime change to a more pro Western/ Israel government. The three biggest opponents to the US/Israel influence in the region are Syria, Libya and Iran and by neutering Libya's capacity they will have removed one potential threat to Israel in the event of a war.
Parallel to this and more relevant, were developing relations between Chavez and Qaddafi and recently negotiations between Putin and Qaddafi with a view to establishing energy accords that would serve to challenge Anglo-American dominance of the petroleum industry. It was telling that among the five states that abstained from voting on resolution 1973 were the BRICs, Brazil, China, Russia and India, those countries now in direct competition with the US for global energy resources. Albeit disillusioning, it appears that Vincent Browne is correct in his analysis, this was not a military mission conducted with any real humanitarian intension in mind but rather undertaken for selfish strategic reasons.
No comments:
Post a Comment