Phil Mirzoev's blog

Saturday, June 11, 2011

Why did the West start a war against Gaddafi but not against Syria?

Needless to say how reluctant the West was to utter a single word against Yemen bloody government or against Bahrain etc for a lot of 'special interests' and 'special relationships'. There's also little doubt that relatively 'inimical' Syria traditionally used by the USA in its rhetoric as 'a medium strength bad guy' has been and still is all in all to the liking of the same USA and the West in general so long as it is not a democracy (one of the main priorities of the foreign policy of the West being to keep the privilege of democracy from the Middle East as long as possible) and is not a military or economic threat (no difference for that matter from Uzbekistan or Turkmenistan etc etc). So this is too a self-explanatory question why the West has held out hope to the last that the Syrian government at last will be successful in suppressing its people and regaining the full state control (so that the traces of all the killings could be cleared and relegated to the category of 'suspected but not proved).
But as I see, there are still a lot of misunderstanding and delusion among the public about the belated but inexorable decision of the USA and other Western countries to get rid of - actually just KILL Gaddafi - a butcher and terrorist much worse and better proven than the recently killed Bin Laden, Gaddafi who up until recently had been to the liking of the West SO MUCH that had been not only completely legitimized and legalized by the latter, but embraced, kissed, wooed in all manner of ways and invited to all sort of parties personally by |Western leaders as a guest of honor.
Why did the West in general and the US in particular finally (however reluctantly and belatedly) take a decision to get rid of Gaddafi? The answer, I believe, is very simple. They - Western governments - just didn't have any other way-out of this situation (though, they DESPERATELY searched for one - no doubts about this). Otherwise, if they didn't, there would arise a ridiculously and most obviously and unprecedentedly 'perverse' and unhidden situation where after the Gaddafi crushed the rebellion the West would just continue oil business with him as unusual, despite the fact that the huge 'genocidal' killings and tortures by Gaddafi of its own people would be a 120% proven fact - just something like continuing the blossoming trade and investment relations with Hitler after the Holocaust had become a PROVEN fact. It would destroy to the ground and for evermore all this, however already flimsy, house of cards of the Western 'high moral democratic grounds', the myth about its promoting and supporting democratic values around the globe beyond the borders of its nations (of cause not all western democratic countries belong to 'the West' in this context, but an overwhelming majority of them; I don't want to blame e.g. Sweden which neither was involved in the sweet oil friendship with Gaddafi nor even bought a barrel of oil from Libya ). Of cause, there would be an ethically acceptable middle way - just leaving Libya alone with huge sanctions, denying its leaders from entry for good, freezing their accounts for good etc, and... of course (!) STOPPING BUYING OIL from Gaddafi and freezing all the oil investment projects there... But this quite legitimate way would be UNACCEPTABLE for the... of course.. these magic words trumping any morals, ethics and values, and justifying anything on Earth (if there's no direct PROOF of the crimes on a scale of Holocaust with thousands of skulls found and revealed publicly)  - 'SPECIAL INTERESTS'! - a key word combination which even Nobel prize laureate Obama is absolutely not shy about using as an argument for everything going against democracy in the rest of the world. Those special 'wallet interests' which for the USA and many of their Western allies in the end measure any democratic values and those very 'high moral grounds' in the units of oil barrels....

No comments:

Post a Comment