Tuesday, March 29, 2011

Crocodile Tears - Politics of Expediency and Self-interest


An International Gathering of the foreign ministers of the countries supporting military intervention is being held in London, even as I write, on the initiative of the British Prime Minster David Cameroon.
Sounds like the Wild West. Strike first, talk next.  Having intervened militarily in Libya without much conversation, the Western Powers are now trying to bring some consensus about the nature and purpose of the wild adventure.  These leaders, we are told, are trying to find various ways to get Qaddafi to leave Libya. Meanwhile, President Obama has said that to oust Qaddafi by military action would be to invite disaster.  But it is precisely that he is trying to do.
He also spoke the truth that is so self evident. He defended the American-led western military assault in Libya on Monday, saying it was in the national interest of the United States to stop a potential massacre that would have “stained the conscience of the world.” National interest is the motive, not really saving lives, which was the supposedly humanitarian motive.

Intervening in Lebanon and the Gaza strip where the Israelis have  been displacing and even massacring innocent civilians for years would not really be in American national interest.  Neither would it be in Yemen, Bahrain and Saudi Arabia. It wouldn’t be in national interest to lose the support of these strategic partner governments! “We will pick and choose which government to oust, and which governments help remain in power.”
I didn’t hear anyone talking about a no fly zone over Israel, while it was bombarding Palestine. Neither was there a western alliance formed to protect the civilians there. So why the haste about Libya? Getting rid of a leader who has been a thorn in the side of western governments for over 40 years? Or, the promise that the rich oil and mineral reserves of Libya hold out for western corporate interests?
Obama vowed that the United States would stand by the democracy protesters across the Middle East, that it would put down violence directed against one’s own citizens; support the freedom of people to express themselves and choose their leaders; support governments that are ultimately responsive to the aspirations of the people. But he also  said that “progress will be uneven, and change will come differently in different countries,” a partial acknowledgment, the New York Times reported,  that complex relations between the United States and different Arab countries may make for different American responses in different countries. Plain acknowledgement, I would say, “it is not your interests that really matter, but ours.”
“The United States will not be able to dictate the pace and scope of this change,” Mr. Obama said. But that is precisely what he along with the western alliance was trying to force through the military intervention.
The truth remains unchanged: Politics is about expediency and self interest, and not really about humanitarian concerns, even though often self-interest is couched in humanitarian concerns!

Friday, March 25, 2011

RUSHING IN WHERE THE ANGELS FEAR TO TREAD!


That’s what the United States and its allies love doing. There was unseemly haste and a hard one unanimity in the UN Resolution to impose a no-fly zone over Libya.

The intervention was swift. The western allies have been pounding Tripoli and destroying not only Qaddafi’s air power but also the capital’s infra-structure. But to what purpose?

It now appears that the allies have no clear idea what they hope to achieve by the intervention, and most tellingly, they have no exit strategy. That’s what the New York Times reported today.

“The questions swirling around the operation’s command mirrored the larger strategic divisions over how exactly the coalition will bring it to an end — or even what the end might look like, and whether it might even conceivably include a Libya with Colonel Qaddafi remaining in some capacity.’ Said the Times. 

“‘We should never begin an operation without knowing how we stand down,” said Joseph W. Ralston, a retired general who served as NATO commander and vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. “We did a no-fly zone over Iraq for 12 years and it did nothing to get rid of Saddam. So why do we think it will get rid of Qaddafi?’

But they did get rid of Saddam, after a land invasion. And what good did it do -getting rid of Saddam, anyway? Iraq sank into a quagmire of violence and bloodshed.

I guess post-Qaddafi, Libya will also be scarred by civil war and thousands of lives will be lost, not to mention the destruction that will be unleashed.

The ostensible (what do you think is the hidden agenda?) objective of the allied offensive – to save civilians from Quaddafi’s brutality– will have become a mockery.

It is Mai Lai – that is the village in Vietnam that the US destroyed “in order to save it” – being repeated all over. Destroying in order to save!

The futility of war! The lessons are never learnt.


Thursday, March 24, 2011

SPRING IS IN THE AIR

Spring is in the air in the Jeolikote hills. We wake up to the music of birds. The cheerful singing of one particular blackbird stands out in the avian symphony.

As the sun rises over the hills, the slight chill of the night disappears and a warm glow envelops me and the gentle breeze welcomes me to the possibilities that another day brings me.

I feel so blessed to be in these hills!