Madam, – Michael McLoughlin is correct to call our government to task for failing to take a cogent stance on the Libyan crisis (March 9th). However, in deeming it “encouraging that some Nato and UN Security Council members are considering meaningful action”, one can only assume that he wishes the Government to back Western air-strikes.
The sad reality is that the West intervenes only when it is satisfied that it can exploit the ensuing inevitably unpredictable situation to its own advantage, which is never to the advantage of the people whom it is purportedly defending. The examples of Iraq (in 1991 and 2003) and Afghanistan should deter any faith in the West’s benign intentions.
In the case of Libya, any Western intervention, however plausible and “humanitarian” its pretext, will be designed to ensure the replacement of Gadafy by a puppet regime guaranteeing Western control of that country’s oil.
The revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt were against Western-backed dictators, and the West has not as yet found a means of appropriating these revolts.
Given that Gadafy is a more recent friend and evokes ambivalent feelings, there is a great risk that the West will now seize upon Libya as an opportunity to control and subvert the process of Arab democratisation in its own venal interests. – Yours, etc,