Once upon a time, the cynic within me used to listen to and then read between the official lines western governments peddled when they wanted to take military action. What I found was that this could give a reasonable approximation of the real reason that lay behind government desires and reasoning.
But lately the lines coming from officialdom seem to have moved so far from reality that they just can’t be read. It’s as though they are intent to invent any fiction – any fiction at all that – if reality, would in some way excuse their actions. And this is qualitively different to days past when propaganda, twisted as it was, at least made a nod to the reality it sought to bend. And so I find myself wondering if western governments are being heeded by anyone these days – or whether they even care if they are being listened to or not. Is it unreasonable to suggest they are now pursuing a policy whereby they are relying on peoples’ inability to formulate a counter argument or response in the face of outrageous bullshit?
I’m not going to go through the tsunami of claims and counter claims on the detail with regards Syria; of who did what to whom and who is really the bad guy/good guy. That just leads to the same futile waste of time and energy as was the case in arguments pertaining to Libya…Egypt…Mali…Iraq…Afghanistan…
In the broader context, there are a couple of constants. These are simple to recognise and lend a good degree of explanatory insight with regards the posturing and bullying of the west.
If there are resources (we’re principally talking oil here) that either reside in a country or can transit through a country on their way to ‘the west’ – and if those resources aren’t coming west, or there is a chance that they won’t – then that’s a reason to destabilise, bomb and/or invade.
And that runs in parallel with another consideration. If China has investments in a country – such that their investments might encourage a degree of ‘pro-Chinese’ sentiment that could lead to western governments being robbed of their ‘rightful’ access to resources – then destabilise, bomb and/or invade to render investment impossible.
To one degree or other, both of these considerations have played their part in the policies pursued in the countries listed above.
Libya had resources. But Gaddafi was also a peace broker in Northern Africa. And China had and has growing investments throughout Africa. Those investments do, of course, come with strings attached – access to raw materials and resources. Daylight robbery from the perspective of the west. And so Mali, or more precisely the people of Mali, cop it in the form of destabilisation.
Egypt looked east after Tahrir Square, with Morsi having the audacity to snub Obama in favour of a meet with the Chinese. That situation is being ‘put to rights’ now. So there will be no sanctions or no fly zones or invasion in the case of Egypt.
Iraq. Well, is there any need to say anything at all on the case of Iraq? I think not.
Afghanistan. A part of Pipelanistan. If you don’t understand the term or what it refers to, then google search Pepe Escobar and read his excellent analyses. (btw. NZ has a direct financial stake…NZ public money… in the proposed US$ 8 Billion pipeline that is slated to run north to south and bring gas west.)
And so it goes.
But of course, no western government can go anywhere near those realities if it hopes to gain any domestic public support for its actions. So they bang on about ‘bad guys’ while, for example, arming Al Qaeda in Syria as they simultaneously bomb the shit out them via drones in Yemen. And they bang on about democracy as they render countries utterly ungovernable and lay their resources open only to those who can defend their locations and transit routes militarily.
The only bright note I see is that even the commentariat, who routinely buy into or excuse calls for war, just don’t seem to be playing the game on this latest Syria round of nonsense.