09 March 2011

NATO in Libya- What is says about the UN and Russia

I'm not sure yet how the whole Libya affair will fall out, but yesterday I was thinking about all of the Christians who are so afraid of the United Nations.

Many view it as this powerful and sinister globalist entity that seeks to remove national sovereignty from the United States and become the basis for global government.

For years those who are interested and in the know regarding geo-politics continue to insist the United Nations is something of a joke. The General Assembly has no power…the Powers of our day won't allow it to. The only teeth the UN possesses lay within the Security Council, but the way it is set up it almost never can accomplish anything. The countries that have Veto power can stop any resolution from going forward. This is why nothing is ever done with regard to Israel, the United States blocks it, and it's why nothing is happening now.

If there is a global government…it's the Plutocratic powers behind the United States. It operates through various mechanisms….sometimes the UN, sometimes the IMF and World Bank, sometimes NATO.

While the American public may fall for the propaganda line that the United States wants to act out of humanitarian motives in Libya, the rest of the world is not persuaded. It's geo-politics and oil, and much more. Even Ted Baxter, I mean Ted Koppel admitted as much on NPR today when discussing Iraq. Yes, the 'liberal' Koppel always seems to support militaristic and nationalistic positions. While he wasn't overly keen on unilateral Libyan intervention, he was very devoted to a semi-permanent American presence in Iraq. He also thinks that only American reporters from abroad should provide news to American audiences. Pro-military, Pro-occupation, Nationalist foreign correspondents….

Wow, that's pretty left-wing. I’m afraid it’s pretty typical of NPR. It’s neither right or left, like most of the American media spectrum, it’s Establishment.

Any United Nations sponsored operation in North Africa will fall under European and thus American domination and so…Russia and China will not support it. They will veto any motion put forward in the Security Council.

So now what's being kicked around? NATO action.

NATO has been struggling to find its mandate since the fall of the Soviet Union twenty years ago. Supposedly a defensive alliance, an attack on one member being viewed as an attack on all…it has taken up a new role in recent years.

A Russia in chaos could do little as it watched NATO intervene in the dismantling of Yugoslavia during the 1990's, and it was unable to do much to stop NATO's expansion into Eastern Europe.

What was supposed to be a defensive alliance was starting to look rather expansionist and aggressive. Now the American military complex has bases throughout Eastern Europe. They got Russia out and made sure they won't come back.

I'm not cheerleading for Russia, rather I'm trying to look at it from a non-Americanist viewpoint. Set aside that lens and the narrative looks a little different.

Like him or not, Putin was able to check NATO expansion by denying them access to the Ukraine, and slapping down Georgia to keep NATO out of the Caucasus. And now riding the wave of success the Tymoshenko, Yushchenko and the rest of the Orange Revolution were tossed out. The reinstatement of Yanukovych was a major success for the Kremlin.

Putin was recently criticized by the now quite elderly Gorbachev. Indeed Russia has hardly taken the direction he might have hoped. Is Putin a bad guy? Of course, but his actions make sense and he strives to make Russia a strong country once again. The American Right may not like it and it seems hard for them to grasp that people in Russia might feel the same way about their country that the Right feels about America.

Reagan was voted in because he brought a spirit of optimism to counter the depression and malaise of the 1970's. After Watergate, Ford, Carter, the Energy Crisis, Inflation, and the Iranian hostages, Americans wanted a strong leader who spoke boldly and strongly.

We all cheered while Reagan called the Soviets an evil empire (they were) and told Gorbachev to tear down the Berlin Wall.

Look at it from the perspective of people outside of America….who is this guy that thinks he can boss everyone around? He's firing the unionized Air Traffic Controllers? The wars in Central America? Bombing Libya? Taking out the great and terrible threat in Grenada?

We didn't see it that way…but to others, Reagan was, well, kind of aggressive and scary. He was inspiring to some, but so is Putin.

And Reagan was nothing compared to George W. Bush. Bush was far more aggressive than Putin but he was out of his diplomatic league when he drove around with Putin on the ranch in Texas. Bush didn't understand Putin at all.

So NATO involved itself in the Balkans…a threat to the stability of Europe. That's something of a joke. There were humanitarian concerns, but ultimately it was about NATO domination of Europe and that's what they got. Europe was the prize, if some Kosovar Albanians were helped by it…so be it.

NATO intervened in Afghanistan because supposedly Afghanistan attacked the United States on September 11, 2001. Of course none of the hijackers were Afghan and the Taliban had nothing to do with 9/11. The Taliban were and are an evil lot and it was apparent at least a year prior to 9/11 that the United States was looking for an excuse to deal with them. They were happy to do business deals with them, if they could provide stability, but the Civil War was still going on. After 9/11 the Americans made use of what had formerly been a detriment by allying with the Tajik and Uzbek Northern Alliance. I suspect the only reason they did not act prior to 9/11 was the logistical nightmare in getting there and supplying any kind of operation there.

After 9/11 the Bush regime had the geo-political capital to threaten Pakistan with destruction if they did not facilitate the Afghan invasion. What could Pakistan do? Musharraf agreed, and an alliance of convenience was born once again. In the 1970's and 80's the United States allied with Pakistan to counter non-aligned India, the hated Indira Gandhi, and to aid the mujahideen against the Soviets. They left Pakistan with a mess in the 1990's and then forced them into an alliance again.

Pakistan is a disaster waiting to happen and the actions of the United States are like poking a Cobra with a big stick. When it strikes it probably won't affect us…it will probably affect our new ally….India…meant to check Chinese expansion in Southeast Asia.

What a dangerous web we weave. The alliance with Pakistan is like holding a poisonous snake…threatening to those around you, but dangerous to the holder. That would be true from Pakistan's perspective as well. Their alliance with America keeps them strong in relation to their neighbours, but can just as easily prove their undoing as their population becomes increasingly hostile and destabilized.

This is only further complicated by the game going on in Afghanistan and America's two-faced game it's playing with India and Pakistan. They're using Pakistan but also trying to keep them in check. India is trying to expand into the Afghan picture and their recent attempts to build bases in Central Asia demonstrate that America is playing all their cards in that pivotal region.

I discuss the Central Asian chessboard in this post: Beasts at Play

And now….NATO in Libya? What's the justification? Libya has attacked no NATO member. It's not even in Europe?

If NATO intervenes in Libya, then Putin's meddling in Ukraine and South Ossetia has been vindicated, because NATO has declared itself expansionist and thus is a threat to Russian security. The Kremlin’s meddling in Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan also seem to be vindicated by NATO’s activities couples with India’s new role in the region.

And once again the UN is shown to be impotent, incapable and more a theatre for drama than a forum for action.

And I ruefully smile and try not to roll my eyes as I hear Christian Right radio hosts sound the alarm about the United Nations. They're so wrapped up in their Americo-centric Theology they're missing what's happening around the rest of the world. They're looking for a global government, a beast rising and they've missed it. In fact they're striving to preserve it and worship it before it transforms into something else that won't be as appealing to them.

No comments: