Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
I am no Qaddafi fan but it is interesting that the West is now flexing its muscles against Libya while ignoring the other three violent nations that went through the similar insurrection. This selective intervention only demonstrated one thing; if you kill your own people and you are a friend its okay, we come after you if you are not a friend. While it is true that Qaddafi had killed his own people, so too did Hosni Mubarak and the government of Tunisia and Bahrain - home of the US Navy Fleet in the Gulf. Bellow are some reasons, amongst others, why the West is flexing its muscles against Libya.
Qaddafi is indeed an insane, polarized man, but very predictable. This is the man who ordered some hijackings, assassinations and terrorist attacks against the West, particularly US, in the past. He was behind the hijacked plane which was blown up in the air over Lockerbee, Scotland. He remained an enemy of the US up until the War Against Terror started when he made an "about-face" turn. Watching US and UK rolled into Iraq and toppled Saddam Hussein in matter of days, Qaddafi announced that he wanted to give up his nuclear program to the US led coalition and vowed to support the war efforts. As a payback for this courageous move, the US lifted sanction against Libya.
However, the relationship between Libya and the US became sour yet again when the only survivor convicted in Scotland over the bombing of the flight over Lockerbee that killed more than two hundred Americans, was released through some under-the-table deals with UK and Scotland administrations. It was a move described by many in the US as cruel and a deal made to satisfy some oil deals between UK and Libya as sources released by the "Wikileaks" explained. To this day, the relationship between Libya and the US still remains somewhat fluid.
But is this why the US and EU flexing its muscles against Qaddafi? To punish him of the crimes he committed during the Cold War error or is it something else? Is it because of Qaddafi ordered his military to suppress Libyans or is it because the oil-fields are at stake and the West don't have any readily available solution to a serious hike in gas price?
The events in Tunisia, Egypt and Bahrain are not far removed from what is taken place in Libya. These regimes have something in common, they cracked down violently on protesters; in Tunisia, civilian protesters were killed, so were the crackdowns on protesters in Egypt and Bahrain. Even when civilians were mowed down by police and military in these countries, President Barrack Hussein Obama and the EU did not condemn the acts until much later when condemnation (weak at best) began pouring out. Had they done that earlier, lives would have been spared.
The way I see it, this Libyan uprising is more important to the West, esp. US, for reasons I've stated earlier. I wont be surprised if the US/NATO intervened militarily in Libya. As of now, US warships closing in on Libya and the West now began talking with the leader of the uprising in Libya. I think that government installed hereon would be seen as a government installed by the West and would more likely, than not, to change the narrative; it may give Qaddafi an alternative to his claims that the uprising is an Al Qeada orchestrated demonstration, and fueled by some kind of "hallucinating" drugs. His next claim would be that the uprising was instigated by the West and the West toppled him and installed a puppet regimes. If things turned out like this, future Libyans will see Qaddafi as their leader who was overthrown by the West.
No comments:
Post a Comment