In Greek mythology, Scylla and Charybdis were two monsterous creatures living on a narrow channel of water – when sailors were attempting to avoid the one they were passing very close to the other.
This legend could descibe perfectly today’s situation in Libya. From one side, Libyans have to face a 40 years-old regime which tries to suppress their revolt through the use of violence. Colonel Muammar al-Gaddafi seems to be possesed by the idea that he and his family are the eternal autocrats of the country. For him, like most leaders in the Middle East, is a matter of honour to keep his authority alive. That is why his regime reacts fiercely against those who directly challenge the leadership that lasts since September 1969.
On the other side, it is the West and its North Atlantic Alliance. During the last days, the international media refer to a possible “NATO intervention in Libya”, in case Gaddafi’s air forces continue to attack anti-government protesters. Taking into account NATO’s precedent of so-called “humanitarian interventions”, the above scenario is the worst that could happen.
In Libya’s case, a bloodshed initiated by the United States and its North Atlantic Alliance would be disastrous, not only for Libyans themselves but for the whole region. The past tells us a lot about that. If Colonel Gaddafi is interested in his own political survival and his – already lost – honour, NATO certainly aims in tranforming Libya in another rich-in-oil protectorate. Because, from a theoretical point of view, the reasons that NATO usually appeals in order to intervene in foreign countries sound noble and idealistic. For the the 1999 massacre against Serbia they used the claim of protecting Bosnians from Milosevic, in Afghanistan it was “the war against terror” doctrine and in Iraq “Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction” (which, coincidently, were never found).
After the revolutions in Tunisia, Egypt and the current popular uprising in Libya, the West became extremely concerned about the possibility of a domino-effect reaction in the Arab World. The markets started to tremble in the prospect of a rapid rise in oil prices. The interest of the U.S. and the E.U. for the case of Libya is not accidental – it is definitely connected to the position of the country as the third largest oil producer in Africa.
Among the international oil companies operate in Libya are Shell, BP and ExxonMobil. Taking advantage of the “civil war” between anti-government rioters and Gaddafi’s supporters, NATO is preparing its war-machinery for an invasion that would protect the interests of Washington, Brussels and their loyal allies. But, what lies beneath NATO’s usual excuses for intervention? The term of neo-colonialism describes the usual attitude of the West in such cases. In fact, the interventions of the North Atlantic Alliance have not only produced numerous civilian casualties but, in the end, transform sovereign states in feeble and fragile protectorates. And all these under the mantle of promoting democracy, human rights and peace. Noam Chomsky, the famous American professor and thinker, had wisely pointed out once: “Everybody says they’re for peace. Hitler was for peace. Everybody is for peace.
The question is: “What kind of peace?”. Indeed. I am very much afraid that even if the Libyans escape from Scylla they will be eaten by Charybdis. For the sake of peace and democracy.