The Western Worlds Pseudo-Humanitarian Mission
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8396946/Libya-target-Gaddafi-war-of-words-over-next-phase.html (Last updated at 10:20pm, 21 March 2011)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12813392 (Last updated at 09:47am, 22 March 2011)
The West irrefutably has an ulterior motive in its involvement in the Libyan crisis. There is no doubt economic gain plays a greater role in their 'humanitarian mission' in the region, with moral principles necessarily being subordinated against this goal. Claims of purely altruistic intentions out of pity for the plight of Libyans then beg the question of why there has been no involvement in, for example, Bahrain and Yemen (Middle East nations) and the Darfur region of Sudan; these nations also feature despotic, tyrannical regimes which stand opposed to democracy, and are also undergoing civil uprisings and experiencing conflict!
It seems the measure used to determine whether or not to perform this pseudo-humanitarian function is predominantly a question of the extent to which the West can derive financial benefit from its quest, in this particular case, a question of how much oil is produced by the nation, as was the motive for entry into Iraq in 2003. The UK has enough financial woes to be rectifying at home, to selectively choose to embroil itself in this particular nations conflict in the Middle East defies both economic and political soundness!
If you take a look at the following link, you will see just how precious and lucrative Libya's oil reserves are to the West.
If we are really getting involved because, as is purported by France's Foreign Minister Alain Juppe:
The Security Council could not stand by and “let the warmongers flout international legality"
then why was Ghaddifi's regime not dealt with earlier on?
However, is this necessarily a bad thing? Britain cannot implicate itself into every international crises which does not directly affect domestic affairs. Our domestic political and economic interests will necessarily prevail, more often than not, over international affairs. Whilst I admire David Cameron's diplomatic ability in the past week to generate a general consensus calling for the cessation of Ghaddafi's regime, what unnerves me is that the West largely entertains such obligational diplomatic relations with the Middle East, to the extent it is willing to intervene in its national issues, in order to preserve oil supply from these heavy oil producing regimes, irrespective of the ramifications for the future of these nations. It is quite clear that military intrusion into conflicted nations (think Iraq and Afghanistan), does not help to solve political instability, and can merely serve to exacerbate or establish new issues post-regime disbandment.
Furthermore, the Western concept of democracy cannot simply be imposed upon the Arab world; one shoe cannot fit everyone, hence I wonder how liberalisation of the nation will be bourne out in reality. I suspect that this initial air-only interference will soon descend into ground-force occupation, as regime change cannot be instigated from air alone. In terms of the political climate post-Ghaddifi, there will likely be a strong amount of external interference as a new regime is shaped following the disbandment of that regime, which may lead to more public unrest and resentment of Western forces. *Sigh* Conundrum indeed.
