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!