The planets’ police force (#7)

Click the picture for the full article at PressTV

It seems as if Turkeys’ will to join the European Union, exceeds its will to make the right decision for its country.  I feel as though the EU frowns upon unfavourable moves that Turkey makes, but will wink, nod and brush shoulders with them when they go along with the “west”.  I am unconvinced that a radar system and missile defence system in Turkey and Eastern Europe is the answer for anything.  The message I get from this aggressive manoeuvre, is simply that the United States, through NATO is looking to heavily expand its military presence.  I can completely see how countries in the region perceive this as a threat… Say for example you live on a street with all modest houses, except there is a single house in the middle of the block thats bigger, everyone who lives on this block knows that this guy has more money and power than the rest.  So one day the richer more powerful guy on the block tells everyone else one day, “I have concern for everyones safety and my own, so I have taken it upon myself to install a street cameras in front of everyones house so we can keep track of intruders that might be lurking around, I also took it upon myself to install automatic machine guns that can pop up from underground and that I can control from the command centre in my basement..i will be the only one with access to the cameras and machine guns, but it is completely for your safety, trust me”

Would you want your neighbour controlling a camera and an automatic machine gun that is pointed and monitoring your premises at all times? ….I didn’t think so

So why should Russia, or Turkey, or any country in this region have to put up with a similar situation.  Since the end of World War 2 and even throughout the entire cold war such a radar and missile defence system was never installed or used, so why is it needed now? what purpose would it serve other than aggression? It is clearly militaristic and aggressive approach by NATO and the US for more control of a region.  It is clearly a step AWAY from peace, not going towards it.  Have we not learned anything from previous wars and acts of aggression?  Obviously not.

From an American perspective, it is easy to justify the installation of this system for many reasons, of course their own safety: the US feels threatened by Russia, this gives the US better air control over the Middle East and Eastern Europe, but probably most importantly is the resource factor.  Strategically, this is a highly resource rich part of the globe, oil just to the southeast, minerals and water to the northeast.  But we cannot also forget that the Americans feel a strong sense of duty, they are the worlds “police” after all…but does the world really need another police officer? I guess nations are only actually sovereign when the US chooses, where was the worlds police force when the genocide in Rwanda happened? The murderous Khmer Rouge? The oppressive and brutal Burmese military Junta? The Serbian onslaught of Bosnians? Tell me where was the US during these atrocities? of course they showed up way too late or came up lame  , or didn’t show up at all.  Why did they not intervene? Maybe politically there was nothing to gain, and most likely there were no resources available and short and long term economic benefits would be unfavourable.

Where did the US intervene? Places where all of a sudden sovereignty was no longer an issue? Iraq, Iran? They already have a deal with Saudia Arabian for their oil, so no need to attack them..

The most popular slogans for US justification to itself and its people to unlawfully enter foreign and sovereign soil has been “saving the people” and “Stopping the tyrant”, “instilling western values”, “spreading democracy”, and “giving the people freedom” to name but a few.  It is quite evident from looking at the two very different international trespassing non trespassing scenarios that the worlds police force will only police when it is to their direct benefit. Period. Resources such as oil are highly coveted by the highest oil consumer on the planet, but there is much political benefit on the homefront from these resource expeditions as well ….  Next on the list will likely be water, watch out Canada! But not to worry Canada, you will be saved from the tyrant leader sooon!!! The Americans will safely lock down all “suspicious” sites in Canada and make they are contained and dealt with “properly”.

“Our prime purpose in this life is to help others. And if you can’t help them, at least don’t hurt them.”
― Dalai Lama


The struggle to save Somalia (#5)


This latest update from the London Conference comes as bittersweet news for this broken nation.  Large portions of Somali territory are controlled by other nations or factions while the transitional government struggles to gain full control of it’s country.  Rather than having an elite group influence a situation for the better, I would say much the opposite, they are doing everything possible to stay neutral and have no influence.  This support for Somalia is completely counterfeit since the international community has acknowledged that  group of militants, the Al-Shabab who openly made an alliance with Al-Qaeda are still not worth committing military resources.  If Al-Qaeda was working with militants in any western world nation would there be calls for military action? Probably.  But not here, Hilary Clinton even said that “there was no case for that kind of action”.  Why is Somalia not worth committing more resources?  Does this situation in Somalia reinforce the idea that countries will only commit serious resources if there is a economic benefit for them?  It seems that for such strong words this group of elite leaders is lacking resolve.  Previous international interventions such as Iraq and Libya had vast resources at stake.  If Somalia had large oil and petroleum deposits, would we see a different story here?  Its difficult to believe that there would be no intervention.  The US most notably seems to fight for freedom and human rights whenever it seems convenient for them, but when they do not wish to get involved, than a nations sovereignty should not be metalled with.  Even though this conference had 50 plus nations, I bring up the US specifically since many countries seem to follow suit with their decisions, they have immense influence on the decisions of other countries.  Whether it be the IMF, the World Bank or NATO, the US seems to have most influence on everyone, so it is no wonder that the agreement at the London conference was less than abysmal.  It appears that the only people interested in resolving this issue is Africans themselves, committing 12000 troops to the cause with support from surrounding states.  Hopefully the international community will soon realize that their lack of initiative to influence change and commit serious resources to nations in desperate need will only serve the status quo.  This peaceful rhetoric by international leaders clearly shows where western powers ideals lay by carefully picking and choosing which conflicts to engage in.