On
March 19, the eighth anniversary of the invasion of Iraq, U.S., British
and French planes began bombing Libya, launching a new war against
yet another Arab country. Two days earlier the U.N. Security Council,
under intense pressure from the U.S. and its allies, had voted for
Resolution 1973. Res. 1973 called for taking “all necessary
measures,” supposedly to “protect
[Libyan] civilians and meet their basic needs.” The real U.S. aim
was immediately made clear by Pres. Obama and Secretary of State
Clinton—regime change in Libya.
The
day after the Security Council vote, March 18, armed forces of Ali
Abdullah Saleh’s government in Yemen carried out a massacre. The
massacre took place in broad daylight at the central square in
Sana’a, Yemen’s capital. At least 52 people were killed and more
than 200 wounded, most by snipers firing from atop government
buildings. Despite the use of live ammunition by snipers, tens of
thousands of demonstrators who have been demanding the ouster of the
U.S.-backed Saleh regime for several weeks courageously refused to
back down.
What
was the reaction of the U.S. government to the March 18 massacre?
Clinton disingenuously stated: “The U.S. government “is alarmed
by today’s violence in Sana’a against anti-government protesters and
is
seeking to verify reports that this is the result of actions by
security forces…We
call on Yemeni security forces to exercise maximum restraint, refrain
from violence, and permit citizens to freely and peacefully express
their views.” Translation: If
the security forces did carry out the massacre (as if that was really
in question), Clinton urged them to show “maximum restraint” in
the future.
No
calls from Washington for a U.N.-imposed “no-fly zone,” or the
bombing of Saleh’s military. Not even a whisper from Washington
about sanctions.
On
the contrary, U.S. military and other aid has continued to flow
unimpeded to Saleh and his army.
On
March 16, the government of Bahrain, with the assistance of 2,000
invading Saudi troops and hundreds of United Arab Emirates security
forces, dispersed the mass protests in the capital Manama and
elsewhere. The governments of all three countries are hereditary
monarchies and police states, long subservient to U.S. and British
imperialism. The U.S. Fifth Fleet, a key element in U.S. strategy of
domination of the entire Persian/Arabian Gulf region, is based in
Bahrain.
According
to a White House statement, Pres. Obama called the client kings,
Abdullah of Saudi Arabia and Hamad al-Khalifa of Bahrain, to express,
in the blandest possible terms, his “deep concern over the violence
in Bahrain and stressed the need for maximum restraint, “ and also
“stressed the importance of a political process as the only way to
peacefully address the legitimate grievances of Bahrainis and to lead
to a Bahrain that is stable, just, more unified and responsive to its
people.”
As
in the case of Yemen, no threats of military intervention, sanctions
or anything at all in the face of a blatant invasion and brutal
repression. More than 20 Bahrainis have been killed and hundreds
wounded, out of a total population of just over a million, over the
past month.
What
explains Washington’s mild response to developments in Yemen and
Bahrain, while it was at the same time launching a new war against
Libya?
The
answer is that while the Qaddafi government in Libya has, under
pressure, made many concessions to imperialism and opened the
country’s economy in recent years, it is not a client regime. After
hedging its bets in the initial stages of the Libyan conflict, the
Obama administration decided to rescue the opposition, which was
facing imminent defeat.
This
decision had nothing to do with the claimed reasons: democracy, human
rights, civilian suffering, and so on. The leaders in Washington,
Democrats as well as Republicans, have proven over many decades their
willingness to not only tolerate but promote—and in numerous cases
create—the most repressive and vicious regimes in the world.
Take
Saudi Arabia, for example. The British and U.S. armed and funded one
extended family, the al-Sauds, in their drive to conquer most of the
Arabian Peninsula. The country was founded in 1932, and its name
literally means the Arabia of the al-Saud family. Today it is ruled
by 2,000 princes. There has never been an election in the country’s
history, women are denied the right even to drive cars, and the
slightest sign of political dissent is met with torture, imprisonment
and often execution. But in Washington and the corporate media here,
Saudi Arabia is treated as a “moderate” and friendly state.
The
fact is, Saudi Arabia holds over 25 percent of the world’s known
oil reserves, and while the royal family has grown very rich, U.S.
oil companies, banks and the military-industrial corporations—the
core of U.S. ruling class power—have reaped even greater wealth.
What
moved the Obama administration to action on March 19 was the
realization that the leaders of the Libyan opposition, who pleaded
loudly for imperialist intervention, would better serve these same
powerful interests if they were to become the new government of
Libya. The president and his advisers do not share the same view
about the opposition movements in Yemen or Bahrain. They see the
movements in both of the latter countries as potentially threatening
to the U.S. Empire, thus the mealy-mouthed statements of “concern.”
But
while the U.S. is the most powerful military state in the world, it
is not all-powerful. Despite Washington’s overt and covert support
for the regimes in Yemen and Bahrain, the popular movements there
have not been defeated.
In
Yemen, there has been a major split in the military, with one faction
now providing protection to the protests, which continue to demand
the ouster of Saleh. In Bahrain, the movement defied the regime’s
security and the occupation troops and returned to the streets in
massive numbers on March 25.
