Libya, Conspiracies, and Double Standards

Mar 28th, 2011 | By | Category: Conspiracy Theories, Daily Mail, Daily Times, The Nation

Libyan Muslims Demand No Fly ZoneLast week, director at the South Asia Free Media Association, Khaled Ahmed, held a mirror to the nation’s commentariat and observed the uncomfortable truth that it’s only when non-Muslims kill Muslims that we complain. He was writing about how so many turn a blind eye to daily atrocities committed by Taliban jihadis, choosing instead to express all anger against a random event like the Raymond Davis case. But the point continues, and is perhaps best illustrated by media coverage of the international enforcement of a ‘no-fly zone’ in Libya.

Daily Times calls the Libya no-fly zone a ‘disastrous military intervention by the western forces’ and claims that the no-fly zone is part of a plan for American global domination.

Ever since the Cold War ended with the collapse of the Soviet Union, the world has seen a horizontal expansion of capitalism into the formerly socialist countries and under the rubric of globalisation into the rest of the world. The world’s dominant countries, who like to call themselves the ‘international community’, have set out to re-conquer the world through military means. It started with the Balkans, and via Afghanistan and Iraq, is now being witnessed in Libya. The goal is Pax Americana (global empire).

Sadly, this Daily Times editorial follows the position of the anti-American far right wing as expressed by Gen (R) Mirza Aslam Beg.

…another Muslim country has been invaded with such arrogance of power, which is seen as continuation of the last thirty years of state-sponsored terrorism against the World of Islam

If the enforcement of UN resolution 1973 is part of a conspiracy by the US to conquer the world, why did the US hand over control of the operation to NATO? And if this is a western conspiracy, why are fighter jets from Qatar and United Arab Emirates participating?

According to Daily Times, “Libya is a relatively weak country when it comes to the global powers but this provides no justification for attacking it”. But this claim ignores the reasoning behind the UN resolution which was was passed because the dictator Col. Gaddafi vowed “no mercy” against pro-democracy demonstrators and had actually been using air strikes against his own people which prompted the Arab League to request the UN resolution, a resolution that was celebrated in the streets of Libya after it passed.

The Nation accuses the US of a hidden agenda because it is participating in the no-fly zone against Libya but not intervening in Bahrain.

If the US purpose in Libya is democracy, it does not seem interested in democracy for Bahrain, which is not just up in arms, but also a US fleet HQ.

While it is valid to examine why intervention is carried out in some countries and not in others, it is ironic to question America’s dedication to democracy considering that we are presently sending thousands of our own people to Bahrain to serve as pro-regime mercenaries willing to fight against pro-democracy demonstrators. It is also ironic considering that just last month The Nation published promoted the position that America was employing a double standard by not supporting Arab democracy movement.

They only know the stark hypocrisy and double standards: Western societies enjoy democracy and prosperity, while American influence is preventing our people from having their freedom by the force of weapons and oppression. They are forcing poverty on our people by squandering their wealth and laundering the money of their friends, the corrupt dictators.

Now that America is supporting the pro-democracy movement against a corrupt dictator, The Nation has changed its position. Of course, The Nation is not the only media group to make this sudden change of position. In fact, it seems that many of the same people who only a few weeks ago were asking why America was not using its military might to support pro-democracy movements against corrupt Arab dictators are now defending those same corrupt Arab dictators and condemning the Americans support for the pro-democracy rebels.

The UN resolution authorizing enforcement of a no-fly zone in Libya and the way such enforcement is carried out is a valid topic of discussion. But any discussion should be honest and based on the facts, not twisting positions to fit an anti-American ideology. At present, what we are seeing from much of the media on the Libya story is not an honest and objective analysis of the issues, but a repetition of conspiracy theories and double standards that undermine the credibility of our media and make us look like the only principle we stand by is that “if America is for it, we are against it”.

Tags: , , , , ,

Leave a comment »

  1. […] See the article here: Libya, Conspiracies, and Double Standards | Pakistan Media Watch […]

  2. I disagree with your analysis on this one. I don’t think there is ANY conspiracy theory in saying that the US aided by Western European countries wants to dominate & control the oil producing regions. If you think otherwise you must be extremely naive. The UN resolutions don’t mean shit. The UN is dominated by the US & its European lackeys. The US spends almost as much on its military as the rest of the world combined. Why do you think it does that? To spread democracy? Please tell me you are not that naive. I can quote countless articles by well respected people like Chomsky that accuse the US government of exactly what these newspapers have written.

    I disagree with just one point of theirs – the US is not attacking these countries because they are muslim – it hardly matters to them – it is attacking them because it wants to secure its economic interests that are invariably tied to controlling oil flows.

    Apart from that there is hardly any conspiracy theory in what they are saying. It is plain to see for any sane person.

  3. As for Libya specifically, there is a civil war going on. There are certainly people there who would have welcomed the US intervention but there are people that support Gadaffi as well – regardless of the fact that he is a murderous tyrant.

    This is what Chomsky says in his recent interview:

    “When the United States, Britain and France opt for military intervention, we have to bear in mind that these countries are hated in the region for very good reasons. The rich and powerful can say history is bunk but victims don’t have that luxury,”

    Chomsky adds that in Egypt public opinion polls have shown about 90 per cent of the population thinks the US is the worst threat they face.

    He stresses that Libya is a humanitarian problem. “It is also a civil war and intervening in a civil war is a complicated business,” he says. “We may not like it, but there is support for Gadafy.”

    On the subject of oil and current events across North Africa and the Middle East, Chomsky says: “The overriding concern for control over oil has dominated British policy for a century and US policy for almost that long. Of course that will remain.”

  4. Also read this article by Tariq Ali in the Guardian:

    Makes the same point.

Leave Comment