STOPPING DEMOCRACY? April 3, 2011Posted by wmmbb in Middle East, Terrorism Issues.
Pepe Escobar has the low down at Asia Times.
Pepe Escobar’s sources indicated a deal was done between the US and Saudi Arabia by which the Saudi dictatorship would be given the go ahead to support the crushing of the pro-democracy movement in Bahrain in exchange for “Arab League” support for the UN Security Council resolution authorizing the No-Fly-Zone over Libya. There were two sources. One was from Europe; the other from a BRIC country. Syria and Algeria opposed support for the NFZ, but this did not matter because of the eleven countries at the meeting, six were from the Gulf Cooperation Council. Full Arab League support for the measure is a myth.
This sets the scene for a conspiracy, or perhaps the usual practice of international politics of neo-imperialism. Pepe Escobar writes:
Thus, in the beginning, there was the great 2011 Arab revolt. Then, inexorably, came the US-Saudi counter-revolution.
. . . There’s been wide speculation in both the US and across the Middle East that considering the military stalemate – and short of the “coalition of the willing” bombing the Gaddafi family to oblivion – Washington, London and Paris might settle for the control of eastern Libya; a northern African version of an oil-rich Gulf Emirate. Gaddafi would be left with a starving North Korea-style Tripolitania. But considering the latest high-value defections from the regime, plus the desired endgame (“Gaddafi must go”, in President Obama’s own words), Washington, London, Paris and Riyadh won’t settle for nothing but the whole kebab. Including a strategic base for both Africom and NATO.
. . . Gaddafi’s Libya must be taken out so the Mediterranean – the mare nostrum of ancient Rome – becomes a NATO lake. Libya is the only nation in northern Africa not subordinated to Africom or Centcom or any one of the myriad NATO “partnerships”. The other non-NATO-related African nations are Eritrea, Sawahiri Arab Democratic Republic, Sudan and Zimbabwe.
While it may well be true that television sets the political agenda, social upheavals and social movements, despite repression are often long in gestation. The Egyptian democratic movement, which has not been fully accommodated or compromised or subject to repression remains critically important for the democratic expression of protest in Bahrain, Yemen and Syria. It was no small matter to oust the dictator, figure-head or not.
It it not especially interesting that the mainstream media do not source their news, or news investigations, from the sources such as the Asian Times. The process of framing the story is a function of political power.
Despite his journalistic credentials it is unlikely (I could be wrong) that Jeremy Scahill’s account of the situation in Yemen published in The Nation, “The dangerous US game in Yemen” will be given much attention. You can listen to his interview with Scott Horton.
The inconsistency of the US position in relation to Libya is plain to the anybody would makes an attempt to follow events, but the details are often not clear.
Tom Hayden reviews the role of the humanitarian interventionists in the framing of the Libyan War. He notes:
The national security establishment is disconnected from the everyday concerns of the American people.
And yet the prevention of massacres, the promotion of human rights and justice are important issues for the global community. What is to be done?
Eric Margolis in his radio discussion with Scott Horton is dismissive of the grounds of humanitarian intervention.