A Deafening Silence

With recent events across North Africa and the Middle east, Western Governments were quick to comment on "the rights of democracy" and "the call of the people for freedom" in Tunisia, Egypt and Libya in particular. Cameron's recent speech stated that "the UK would no longer support authoritarian Arab regimes in pursuit of regional stability." which was ill thought out to say the least, especially when there were rumblings of protest in Saudi Arabia and Bahrain.

Surely someone within the UK Government could see the approaching trap?

If Cameron expressed an opinion such as this, then this would apply to all States within the Middle East? If the people of Saudi Arabia and Bahrain decided they wanted freedom and change, then the ruling families must allow peaceful protests to take place? After all, according to Amnesty International it is a breach of International Law NOT to allow peaceful protests?

Apparently not.

There has been a deafening silence from both the US and UK Governments with Hillary Clinton insisting that there should be "talks" and the violence and unrest should stop. This blogger has yet to hear Obama make any kind of statement directly associated with these protests in Bahrain and Saudi Arabia. So why?

This change of tack is not coincidental. The US Administration knows that it is obligated to keep it's nose out of Saudi affairs. In 1943, President Franklin Roosevelt made Saudi Arabia eligible for Lend-Lease assistance by declaring the defense of Saudi Arabia of vital interest to the U.S. In 1945, King Abdel Aziz and President Roosevelt cemented the tacit oil-for-security relationship when they met aboard the USS Quincy in the Suez Canal.

Unfortunately for the people of Saudi Arabia and Bahrain, the US is in no rush to oust the ruling families. This may be conjecture, but there's no rush by the US to implement a no-fly zone unilaterally unlike Iraq, because the US Administration, unlike the UK Government can see the impending trap.

The message from Cameron and Obama, has always been to denounce the violence and support democracy and freedom. That is why we are in Afghanistan, and Iraq isn't it?

Listen closely in the near future to whether we hear that message extend to Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Bahrain. I'll wager we don't!

"No-Fly's" on Gaddafi.

Would it be possible to create a "no-fly" zone over Libya?

Unfortunately at the moment, it would be virtually impossible. The first job when creating a no-fly zone is to take out any anti-aircraft batteries. You can't have US or NATO planes flying with those still operational, and that will take a lot of planes. I Have noticed various bloggers commenting on technology to take these out from a distance, possibly off the coast of Libya, however in order to secure the entire country, and make the no-fly zone safe, they would all have to be taken out.

The problem is, many of these mobile AA units are in civilian hands, so there's the risk of killing the protestors which would be internationally unacceptable. No country, without at least a UN sanction for military action, would condone killing protesters in order to secure a no-fly zone. There would have to be a ceasefire first and the hope that the civilians relinquish those guns so they can be destroyed. There can't be any left operational in case they get back into the hands of Gaddafi's forces to be used against NATO or US planes. It's doubtful any protester would give up these arms because if they do, then there is no resistance to Gaddafi's military.

It has to be remembered as well that perhaps the uprising civilians don't want help and may see it as an excuse for more Imperialism by the West. Iran has certainly made noises along those lines.

Cameron needs to calm down the rhetoric. After Hague announcing that Ghaddafi was en-route to Venezuela, these knee-jerk responses are making our Government look incompetent. Even the US is cautious about no-fly zones and is distancing itself from the UK announcement.

There's no quick fix here. We need to get humanitarian help to those trying to flee, and get back to the UN to increase the pressure on Ghaddafi to go. Other than that, the International Criminal Court needs to examine if he has committed war-crimes or crimes against humanity and arrest him by force if there's grounds to do so.

There is a possibility that NATO might actually be patient here, at least until after March 11th, because if a no-fly zone is in Libya, then it will be expected in Saudi if events are similar and that can't happen because of the US military involvement. After all, we support all democracy don't we? If the Saudi people rise-up for freedoms, democracy, and change then we'd support them too...

Wouldn't we?

It appears not. Reports suggest that Faisal Ahmed Abdul-Ahadwas who was calling for a day of unrest on March 11th via facebook has been murdered. However, this has not been reported on any mainstream media only the independent press. It seems we support those poor oppressed citizens of Libya, Tunisia, Egypt, Yemen, Oman, etc but not those in Saudi Arabia.

This puts the West in a very difficult position because if there were to be unrest in Saudi, where would they stand? They have already made it clear that if the people want democracy and are prepared to die for it, then they must be supported. But there are so many reasons why we cannot support it in Saudi, the first and foremost is oil, and the second is because the US has such a military involvement. Where would the US stand if Saudi turns it's (UK/US) made) guns on it's own people like Ghaddafi?

We have already seen a Western media blackout on the transportation of Saudi tanks into Bahrain to "assist" the Bahraini Government. If there was a contagion from Bahrain to Saudi, we have a serious problem on our hands, and not just because of the disruption to the oil supply, but also politically.

It's no secret that US corporations made huge in-roads into Saudi in the 1970's ("Confessions Of An Economic Hitman" - John Perkins) via The U.S.-Saudi Arabian Business Council. So the US depends on Saudi for it's economy as well as it's oil.

This is escalating fast, hence I have recently increased the warning on my website to "critical". TroubledTimes.co.uk If March 11th passes without incident, I will drop it down again, but until then, be vigilant, and don't listen to people that haven't taken the time to actually read what's going on. A recent post I made on this subject at a forum board sent one respondent into a tirade of "what is the answer then?" and another into comments about the capabilities of Libyan Anti-Aircraft Guns. If they are being manned by civilians, and they will be a threat to US/NATO planes, a No-Fly Zone CANNOT be implemented.