UN resolution 1970 gave authorisation to the Western Nations to use air strikes against Libyan forces in an effort to protect civilians. But is this International Intervention about protecting citizens, or something else?
Declarations from western powers that the military strike against Libya is motivated solely by a desire to protect the civilian population cannot be taken seriously. In Yemen, protesters have been massacred on the street, in full view of the world and the Wests "Philanthropy". No intervention has been taken in Yemen. Yemen is one of the poorest and least developed nations in the Arab world, with no valuable natural resources.
Last week, one of the richest dictatorships in the world, Saudi Arabia, invaded the small nation of Bahrain, following pro democracy demonstrations there. No action was taken against the Saudis. No Intervention was announced. The UN passed no resolution to deal with this stamping out of fledgling democracy. Saudi Arabia is an oil rich nation, and one of the West's closest allies in the Arab world. The Saudi regime bans political parties, has declared protests ‘un-Islamic’ and continues to incarcerate almost 8,000 political prisoners.
It is clear for the world to see that the "Intervention" in Libya is not about protecting the Libyan people, but rather about insuring the ready supply of oil. In 2005, Shell reached an agreement with the Libyan state oil company to explore for gas in the Sirte Basin. It is obvious that this giant multinational company will not see its investment lost, should rebels take control of Libya. Only four years ago, the British government were happy to sell missiles to the Libyan government. Hardly the actions of a nation that puts democracy and civilians safety first!
No comments:
Post a Comment