Yemen threatens to descend into the kind of violence now taking place in Libya. But there the situation on the ground could be far worse for the west than what is happening in Libya. For one thing the tribal differences and entrenched factions can spawn a serious, bloody civil war. For another there is an ongoing insurgency in Yemen that is closely linked to Al-Qaeda and terrorism. A disintegration of Yemeni society can be a very dangerous thing for the west and evokes parallels to the situation in Afghanistan.
Will the United Nations be used to rubber stamp a widening military engagement by the western powers?
To answer that question we must look at what are the motivations of the so-called coalition forces now rendering Libya to rubble under the guise of protecting its civilian population. First, military action against Libya only came after western nations and Egypt got their nationals safely home. Next, Italy is very interested in Libyan oil as is Britain. Both want to see a malleable and supine leader that both can control and "own." 1.5 million barrels of oil a day is nothing to sneeze at and is a powerful incentive to use Cruise and Tomahawk missiles to try and pry this bonanza from a hated dictator's hands.
Like the demonized and executed Saddam Hussein of Iraq the erratic Libyan leader has been ostracized, criticized and resoundingly demonized by western governments and willing news media. So President Obama is in safe political territory because he's taking on the "bad guy" and riding in to save the poor Libyans in distress. The French, still with egg on their faces over Tunisia, ran to the arms of the British and Americans only after Germany balked at the idea of attacking Libya.
As for the Arab League they are the remaining elements of the region's opportunistic bourgeoisie that have grown rich and fat from the sponsorship of the kings, monarchs, despots and strutting generalissimos. For many years now the leaders of the League have turned a blind eye to every atrocity committed against long-suffering populations by despots like Gaddafi. The League does not represent the interests of the people of the Arab world. Rather they are more closely aligned to their western masters.
For the Arab League and the western coalition the belief that you can resort to war and military means to protect and save innocent lives without taking more lives in the process is plain stupid. As is the United Nations' action that legitimizes rebellion. When peaceful democratic protests morphed into armed insurrection and the holding of territory in Libya the hard fact is that the legitimate government -- no matter how despotic and brutal -- has a right to defend itself and its territory as much as Israel, in the eyes of the United States and Company, has a "right to defend itself." I hear no moral outrage or shouts to protect civilians in Gaza and the West Bank when Hamas or some militant faction launches crude rockets and Israel responds with disproportionate force and kills innocent children.
Herein lies a looming conundrum for those western powers suddenly struck with a moralistic epiphany on Libya. Israel acts with impunity and is defended by the United States and its allies; Gadaffi, as odious a leader as they come, legitimately acts against an armed group or groups bent on removing him from power by military means and he is "a leader killing his people." No wonder Muslims and Arabs are so angry with the hypocrisy that comes from the west only defending, seeking its present and future interests. In this case, for all their sermonizing and sudden, new-found love of Libyans, the undergirding considerations and engine for military action is one three-letter word: oil.
So what's the end game?
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
