The Arrogance And Hypocrisy Of Imperialism

As the UN Security Council meets to thrash out a resolution on Syria, it seems like the arrogance and hypocrisy of the imperialists knows no bounds. Recently there have been calls from Western powers for Syrian President Assad to step down from power, with Jay Carney, the White House spokesman saying "Assad's fall is inevitable". UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon, supposed to play a neutral role in world conflict situations, even chipped in saying "he hoped the Security Council would reflect international will to get Dr Assad to quit power". It seems that the Western imperialist thirst for regime change has not been quenched by the removal and murder of Gaddafi in Libya. Yet the standards that the imperialists apply to others are never applied to themselves. Such is the nature of the world order we live under.

While the dictatorships of both Gaddafi in Libya and Assad in Syria were and are undemocratic and outdated, it does not give the powers of imperialism the right to change the regime. In both Libya and Syria we have seen evidence of popular uprisings and elements of civil war, yet in both cases we have seen the imperialists intervene and take the side of anti-government forces. In Libya, this resulted in a direct military intervention which resulted in the murder of Gaddafi and the overthrow of his regime. Already we are seeing a similar story in the process of playing out in Syria. In both Libya and Syria it is undoubted and undeniable that government forces have killed protesters and those involved in the uprisings. This is a deplorable occurrence no matter what the situation. This is the justification given by the imperialists as to their intervention and interference into the affairs of a sovereign state. However, it is this justification that exposes the arrogance and hypocrisy of the major powers.

When the state of Libya or Syria cracks down on the dissent within its borders, then that state is only following a natural course of action that any other 'democratic' state follows. The only difference between the the dissent from the people in North Africa and the Middle East  and the dissent expressed all across the Western world through the 'Occupy' movement is that lives have been lost in the former. Whilst lives have not been lost in the West, the expression of state violence to suppress protests and dissent has been extreme in many cases. 

Now this is where the crucial question must be posed. If the Occupy movement (or some other) developed into violent protests that exploded on a huge scale in the United States and beyond, would the governments of these countries suppress that violence in a similar fashion to Gaddafi and Assad? Would these governments 'step aside' and relinquish power as Gaddafi and Assad have been urged to do? It is not for me to answer that question, but for you to question yourself and come to your own conclusions. What is for sure is that violent suppression of protest and dissent in one place is the same as another. It is wrong. It does not however provide the justification for imperialist intervention. It is for dissenters and protesters themselves to effect change in their state, and not for the imperialist states to intervene for them under false altruistic justifications.

Be Moderate? We Only Want The Earth