It sounds familiar. The reason given for the U.S. war against Iraq was, "Iraq's WMD is a threat to international peace and security." Libya poses as much threat to world security and peace as Iraq's fictional WMD did -- another figment of imagination conjured up by the West to provide an ostensible excuse to pound on another Muslim country.
The U.S., British
and French proposal of a no-fly zone was an easy sell to the Arab League member
countries whose many rulers depend on the good will of the U.S. for their
continued rule. Amr
Moussa, Secretary-General of the Arab Le ague, who is
running for president of Egypt in the country's coming elections, was
instrumental in pushing for the quick and unanimous support in favor of the
proposal. The Arab vote of approval gave the needed legitimacy the West was
looking for in its campaign against Libya.
However, when the sentiments
of the Arab populace turned sour over another round of senseless death and wanton
destruction of an Arab country and its people at the hands of western powers,
the Arab League changed its tune and criticized the international coalition
operation, saying the strikes have gone beyond what the league had supported.
"What happened differs from the no-fly zone objectives", says Amr Moussa. "What we want is civilians' protection, not shelling more civilians." It was a statement made for Arab public consumption. However, Moussa could not wander off too far from his European and American mentors and masters and, in less than 24 hours after criticizing the international coalition over killing of civilians, he turned around and qualified his comments, "[The Arab League] respects the U.N. Security Council resolution, and there is no contradiction."
One wonders if Amr
Moussa would be another Mubarak in the Egyptian President House.
The rebels fighting
to overturn the 40-year tyrannical rule of Muammar Qaddafi were losing ground to the superior
air power of Libyan forces. The proposal was only to impose a no-fly zone to
protect anti Qaddafi forces from air strikes, in the manner surveillance planes
flew over the Balkans back in the mid 1990s to prevent the Serbian air force from
attacking civilians. It was never meant to be a fierce bombing and intense
missile attack mission.
However, the NATO countries have turned it into yet another
crusade of shock and awe and show of force, a magnitude not seen in the Arab
world since the Iraq war against an Arab and Muslim country. In flagrant
violation of the original intent of establishing a no-flying zone, the U.S.,
France, and Britain attacked Libya with fighter jets and pounded it with over 100 missiles, killing a number of civilians. The oil tanks that feed to
cities were also targeted and destroyed creating a dire situation for the
already overwhelmed civilians.
forces insist that Libyan leader Qaddafi is not a target; nevertheless, Qaddafi's
residential compound Bab Al-Aziziyah in Tripoli was missiled and destroyed by
the coalition forces. The same residence was targeted in 1986 by then U.S.
president Ronald Reagan, and Qaddafi's daughter was killed in that attack. There is
a puzzle to be explained -- how an attack on Qaddafi's personal residence will
help the declared mission of creating a no-fly zone? As during the Gulf war,
Saddam Hussein and his sons were targets for elimination, Qaddafi is also fair game for the western forces. British Defense Secretary Liam Fox was
honest and forthcoming when he said it was possible that allied forces might
treat Qaddafi himself as a legitimate target for air strikes. He stressed, "If
Colonel Gaddafi went, not every eye would be wet." Killing of a Muslim
head of state is an offense not proscribed in the war manual of the U.N. Security
If the past is any
indication, the coalition forces' stated objective of protecting civilians is
just a noble disguise for a not so hidden agenda. It is a lot of hogwash that
the invasion --yes, it is an invasion -- is a humane mission to stop the Libyan civilians
from being killed. Libya under the maverick Qaddafi remains outside America's
sphere of influence; it hurts the pride of the solo super power and
is unacceptable. The agenda, therefore, is to effect regime change to install a
more submissive government in Tripoli with close affinity with the U.S that
allows the exploitation of Libya's vast oil reserves.
The U.S. and its
European allies' hypocrisy gets blatantly exposed when one considers that
Libya, a country bold and unyielding to the U.S. pressures, is rained with
missiles for fighting a mutiny at the hands of well-armed rebels while the
regime in Bahrain, a country under U.S hegemony control, is aided in its brutal
crackdown on unarmed anti-government protesters. Saudi Arabia, a kingdom
subordinate to U.S. dictates, dispatched its troops to help sustain the
200-year-old Khalifa family's dictatorial rule in Bahrain. The U.S. overlooked
the Saudi invasion of Bahrain. The U.N. did not call on the Saudi-led forces to
Saudi's assistance to Bahrain is not a
gallant act but an act of self-preservation. Saudi rulers know too well that a successful
popular uprising in the neighboring Bahrain could very well sound a death knell
to their own royal rule.
A regime change in
Bahrain is not in the interest of the US-European scheme. Bahrain is home to the US Navy's Fifth Fleet, which ensures the flow of oil through the Strait of Hormuz
and the Gulf, and safeguards U.S. interests in the region. Controlling Bahrain
means controlling passage of about 20-percent of total oil traded
worldwide. The concern is that any political gains by Bahrain's Shiites
majority will be a victory for Iran, and U.S. navy fleet will no longer be
America may preach democracy and majority rule, but it is not willing to accept the conditions that result from free elections. If free elections are allowed in Bahrain, the unwanted outcome will be that a Shiite regime will likely emerge with close ties to Iran. And, of course, that is not acceptable to the U.S. because democracy and majority rule is acceptable only when it produces a pro-U.S government. Hypocrisy at its finest!