Not too long ago, we were told that we had to get involved in Libya because the ruthless dictatorship in control of that country was intent on murdering its own citizens. The very least that we in the West could do was to step in and protect those people. OK, whilst I was, admittedly, sceptical about that (no real plan about what to do once the Colonel's troops were stopped outside Benghazi; not enough leadership from Arab countries so that it looked like the West meddling (yet again) in the Middle East for example), it was probably the right thing to do plus we actually had UN backing for it too (that is, as long as we leave aside declarations of 'no mission creep' whilst targeting "command and control assets" that just happen to contain the dictator and his family. Of course it is not about regime change is it? No, leave that aside).
However, the inconsistency of the West in its dealings in the Middle East has come to the fore once again when we see the massive non-response to what is happening in Syria. As far as I can see we have a despot in power using the state machinery to try to crush fairly peaceful demonstrations against his rule. People are being arrested in large numbers (the adolescent males from all households in some places?!), whilst others are being killed and tortured. Um - what is the difference here? It sounds as if these people need 'protection' too. I'd hate to think that, just because Syria is counted as a rare ally of the West in the Middle East, it should be given carte blanche by the West to go about the mass murder of anyone calling for greater democracy in that country.
That couldn't happen, could it?
No comments:
Post a Comment