As the days of the Qadafi regime seem to be numbered all appears quiet in neighbouring Egypt to the east and Tunisia to the west. Meanwhile one of the nicest people in the Arab world who believe it is high time for a regime change after decades of brutal oppression are not getting any of it. Assad seems quite keen on exterminating all of his own who don’t agree with him rather than giving them what they long for; more freedom. The West’s concern about Libya has been touching and has apparently paid off although we obviously have to see what the post-Qadafi era is going to look like. That the West is so timid when it comes to interfering in Syria’s humanitarian and political tragedy is a bit of an enigma.
Syria has been an ‘axis of evil’ pretty much since its existence as a modern state, while ‘mad dog’ Qadafi officially became a friend of the West in the ‘war on terror’ after Blair clutched the bedouin chief to his bosom in 2004. You would think one would like to get rid of the enemy when the opportunity arises and pussyfoot around with the friend like they did with good ol’ Husni in MaSr. But nay sir, that was not the case. The simplistic reason behind all military (non-)intervention ‘because of the (lack of) oil’ has been uttered many times to the why of NATO action in Libya and not in Syria. As I stated in a previous post if it were for the oil in Libya it would’ve been more logical not to interfere in the sandbox with all its goodies. Syria possesses oil reserves too. Not as much as Libya, but oil nevertheless and in the light of the so-called ‘energy challenge’ every piece of land or sea with a drop of black gold will do. Why is Assad allowed to play the brutal oppressor while politicians and diplomats don’t do much more than ‘condemn the situation’? I guess world leaders are just people and their behaviour too might be rather irrational. I believe the reasons for interfering in Libya was the sense of vicinity. The country is on Europe’s doorstep, at swimming distance from Crete, Malta or Sicily. While the wind of change had been howling across the Middle East the West hadn’t ‘done good’ yet in terms of action until the humanitarian sh*t was about to hit the fan in Libya. Then the West, mainly in the form of France the UK and the US, decided to do good. Perhaps Syria kicked off at the wrong time; one was already playing Super Westerner in North Africa. Perhaps it is indeed because of the oil and there isn’t enough of it in Syria to make it of such strategic importance. Perhaps Syria doesn’t feel as close to Europe as Turkey forms a solid buffer and although Cyprus is close it’s an island in the furthest periphery of Europe so no one really cares. But when you think of it, aiding Syrian opposition forces to bring about regime change would most definitely create a new and possible safer order in the region. Iran would or could lose a strong ally. Syria might stop its support to Hizbollah in Lebanon and perhaps make peace with Israel. These are all hypothetical scenarios but not that unlikely. But as Obama is dealing with an even further deepening of the economic crisis and mass unpopularity, the UK is dealing with their economic b*llocks and is doing overtime putting rioters on trial while France is way too busy being French, I guess there are no resources left to help the Syrians in their struggle. I hope God is with you sha’b sooria, people of Syria, ’cause the world sure ain’t.