Mutterings about oil and imperialist designs on Libya stem from a knee-jerk reaction, writes DAVID ADAMS
WATCHING DAVID Cameron in the House of Commons arguing the merits of a no-fly zone over Libya was reminiscent of Tony Blair making a similarly impassioned plea for parliamentary support for military intervention in Iraq.
The marked difference this time is that a UN resolution is in place, and even the Arab League is on board (at time of writing, anyway). Still, there was a distinct sense of déjà vu about it all.
One can only hope other lessons have been learned from Iraq, and that Cameron et al have given more consideration than the previous coalition did to whatever may ensue from enforced regime change. There can be little doubt the removal of Muammar Gadafy and his cohort from power is now the only conceivable outcome in Libya.
Neither a UN resolution nor Arab League support, nor concern for the wellbeing of the citizens of Benghazi and other restive Libyan areas, will prevent a western chorus of opposition to intervention. Nor could such factors reasonably be expected to.
Sadly, most of this opposition will be aroused by the fact the west is involved. The loudest voices will belong to those whose long-standing knee-jerk opposition to the West has led them at times to support the epitome of virtually everything they purportedly despise.
They argued, by default, that the genocidal but supposedly secular Saddam Hussein should be allowed remain in power, and are forever attempting to blame the West for the actions of mass murderers, misogynists and homophobes such as the Taliban, al-Qaeda, Hamas and other religious absolutist groupings, provided they aren’t of the Christian or Jewish variety.
They will mutter about oil and imperialist designs, while waiting in breathless anticipation of the first body bags arriving home.
In such circumstances the BBC can usually be relied upon to act as conductor-in-chief of an anti-western chorus. Already it has created an issue around supposed “ambiguity” in the UN resolution and a “split” between British politicians and military chiefs over its interpretation.
What ambiguity? What split? Everyone that I have heard, both political and military, seems to be in agreement that Gadafy is not specifically a target, but will become one if he personally leads a charge against his own people.
The best that can be said for the BBC is that it sees its duty to be to afford equal credence to every view, no matter how outrageous. Its often selective reporting and skewed analysis makes it sometimes seem just as pernicious as News International, Rupert Murdoch’s media empire.
The issue of Libya boils down to this: should the rest of the world stand idly by while a regime commits acts of mass murder against a section of its people? I believe the answer must be no.
It is important to point out that not every voice questioning the implications of intervention in Libya will necessarily be other than genuinely motivated. For instance, from a UK perspective, one has to wonder how such an undertaking can be squared with government plans for significant cutbacks in defence spending.
More obviously, why choose only Libya from among such brutal dictatorships? What of its neighbours in the north Africa and Middle East region – such as Bahrain, Syria and Yemen?
Perhaps it could be argued the difference in approach is at least partly to do with Libya’s history of support for terrorism. But Saudi Arabia has been a breeding ground for, and has provided indirect sponsorship to, religious terrorists. The list goes on and on. Perpetual military intervention is not the answer, but neither is sucking up to dictatorial states until they overstep the mark.
Until recently, Libya was head of the UN Human Rights Commission, for God’s sake.
Just occasionally, even the West-hating chorus has a point, not least about the hypocrisy on display.