There Is Always Money For War: Libya And Britain's Cameroon War
25 March 2011By
Mustaqim Sahib Bleher
Taking a break from
lecturing the British people on tightening their
belts, accepting pay freezes and bearing with cuts in
social services and infrastructure,
British
prime minister Cameron has found the necessary
resources without batting an eye lid to send expensive
British war planes to
Libya
for an imperialist intervention justified as support
for the Libyan democratic movement and protection for
the country's civilians. This argument is, of course,
badly flawed:
Saudi Arabia's military has just recently intervened
with arms bought from America and
Britain in supporting the Bahraini government
against a popular uprising; no wonder the
Arab
league has repaid Western nations for their
support by adding their voice to intervention in
Libya. More poignantly, when
Israel
went on the rampage during operation "Cast lead",
neither Britain, nor
France
nor the US nor the UN security council thought it
necessary to declare and enforce a "no fly zone",
although the brutality meted out by Israel against
Palestinian civilians - since officially declared a
war crime - dwarfs anything
Gaddafi
has done or might do into complete oblivion.
The all-out war against Libya's defence capability is
essentially a small scale "shock
and awe" operation after having learnt the
lessons from
Iraq: that declaring an official war is highly
unpopular and costs credibility at home: Let the
people believe that this is a humanitarian mission.
Far from it, however, it is a grab for oil just like
Iraq and proves that the recent restructuring of the
Middle
East has not been about democracy but about
securing the region for Big Oil and Israel, with not
tangible outcome or benefits for the people themselves
who naively believed in the false promises of the
West.
What is unprecedented in the Libyan adventure is the
shameless dropping of the last fig leave of legality:
The UN security council, an exclusive club of
second
war victor nations completely unrepresentative
of the UN general assembly, has never before
authorised force against a government dealing with an
internal opposition. Using the justification for
intervention, it would have been equally acceptable
for
Russia or
China to have bombed the UK in order to stop
the British government from cracking down on Irish
terrorism and "brutalising" Irish dissidents, and it
thus sets a dangerous precedent. Maybe the
American people will soon rise up against their
ever more dictatorial government and ask for outside
help?
America, France and Britain, having propped up so many
unpopular dictatorships around the world, are not the
least bothered about humanitarian or democracy abroad.
Cameron's reference to the national interest, a
euphemism for the interests of the national industries
and banks who run the country, is a more honest
admission. And it is in the interest of the very same
corporations that the British people should remain
enslaved to them perpetually and pay off the debts the
government has got into by
borrowing money from banks after allowing them
to create this very credit out of thin air in the
first place, backed by nothing tangible other than a
fraudulent claim on
tax revenue. So taxes have to go up, wages have
to go down, services have to be cut, but there is
always plenty of money for war.
©
EsinIslam.Com
Add Comments