Rinse & Repeat: Libya and the Mistakes of History

Well it didn't take them long, but Cameron, Sarkozy and Obama have got themselves stuck into a nice, juicy war. It's headline-grabbing stuff and mainstream papers like The Sun are having a field day, pumping the public full of patriotism in support of our air strikes on Gaddafi and his forces as he continues to brutalise his own people and stifle the rebel movement. Colonel Gaddafi has been transformed into an international pariah (again) in the space of time it takes to fire a Patriot missile into Tripoli.

I have to admit, when I saw the United Nations Security Council had actually authorised the no-fly zone over Libyan airspace, I was amazed and actually a little bit excited. First Tunisia, then Egypt - why not Libya? Maybe this was international justice at work, the world actually rising up in support of the oppressed Libyan people and oppressed peoples everywhere! It's always a day to remember if the UN finally gets off its backside and agrees to do something - bogged down by international politics and by the reputations of the sums of it's parts, it's almost a spitting image of it's failed prototype, the League of Nations. But then you notice how many countries abstained from the vote in the UN - Germany, Russia, China. Not so united, then. That's well over one-sixth of the international community that backed away from military intervention, and China's abstention is closely tied with the point I'll be making later.

As you can tell, my stance on military intervention went into disarray almost as soon as I started looking up the details, and then pairing that up with the wider international scene. First-off, there's no clear end goal for the intervention - regime change is not explicitly stated. What do we do once Gaddafi backs off? Carry on letting him oppress his people in a more everyday sense as he has been for years, but that's ok because he's not using big tanks that look cool on news reports anymore? Then there's the Arab League. The West has been very sensitive in ensuring that the Arab League stands in continued support of military action against Gaddafi. It's only when you take a good look at the members of the Arab League that you realise that something is very wrong - Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Yemen, Syria, Somalia and more. Oh yes, these countries, bastions of social and democratic freedoms, want us to help them put down a tyrant! A lot of these countries have governments that are tied up in their own demonstrations and uprisings as the Arab Spring has taken a firm hold of the Middle East, and some of them are almost as vigorous as Gaddafi to shut them up, no holds barred.

There's no way that Western leaders can fail to see the irony here, and it's such a crying shame that the petty politics of trade (oil in particular, as always) continues to blind our leaders to repressive regimes the world over. China's abstention at the UN is made quite clear in this light - unwilling to have the spotlight thrust on their own brutal treatment of political prisoners and frank disregard of human rights, China will hope that by refusing to take action against a fellow despot, those countries will remember the favour, and return it when the PRC's time finally comes.

Of course, we would be easily overwhelmed if we tried to take on every tyrannical regime the same way as we are Gaddafi's (we don't even have enough resources for intervention in Libya). But that does not mean that we should pledge our support to them and help prop them up, or maybe even say, sell weapons to them. Does that sound consistent to you? Didn't think so. It's part of the reason that Gaddafi is still clinging onto power, all these years on - his support from figures such as George W. Bush, Tony Blair, Silvio Berlusconi and even Sarkozy (now the leading figurehead of the conflict against him) at the beginning of the 21st Century were more than happy to overlook the disgraceful human rights record of the man with the green book in order to broker irresistible oil deals to keep our relentless modern wheels turning. 

The same insatiable appetite for oil dictates our failed and disgusting policies in Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia and elsewhere. If a government in the Middle East is unwilling to open up trade to the West, fuck it, bomb the shit out of them, give weapons to their enemies (which will inevitable end up being turned upon defenceless citizens) and install a new leader, or better yet, create a brand new royal family and let them rule absolutely - as long as you get something out of it, of course! If you don't, then BOMB THE SHIT OUT OF THEM AGAIN! And you'd better hope that some of these countries don't actually democratise themselves - because they'll be mighty pissed when they see what you've been doing all these years! This micro-management of the Middle East creates dictators and causes far more disruption than if we'd just let the area get on with it, and we are going to have to live through the results of our follies in the examples of Iraq and Libya for years and years to come.

Maybe in an age without oil our approach will finally be even-handed, honest, and just. It's about time the West's foreign policy represented a new, more respectable age. And hopefully, with a stroke of luck, the Libyan people will gather enough courage to oust Muammar Gaddafi themselves and establish the government they want, but for the oppressed in Saudi Arabia, Syria, and everywhere else, they will keep on dying whilst the rich turn a blind eye to their agony.