Goals

The news from the Commons seems good, the west is encouraging a coalition bringing aid to Syria, civil war is being debated by non-aligned powers and the approach of dictatorial policy is rebutted. Domestic interests may convince the public at home, but refugees and military esperadoes tell a different story. Syria lies next to some of the most vigorous states, Israel, Egypt, Lebanon and Iraq. Key points of interests in the past has been an attack on Iraq, a revolution supported by the west in Libya, next to Egypt, and Israeli war in Lebanon and Egypt's revolutionary status since the fall of a dictatorship. The problem is that none of this happened without the west's active participation.

Iraq was an attempt by the west to secure vital oil interests, Israel attempted to find its own solutions through Lebanon in the 1980s and then America supported a revolution in Egypt. These relationships show an interest in oil and powerful arguments about keeping a weight on Arabia. Syria turns to the west's ennemy to uncover a plot to realign interests behind Iraq's invasion. I suggest the backlash is in no-one's interest, neither the east nor the west.

British involvement shows an American relationship behind superpower politics, and would not be expected to intervene without the massive use of American military. Other events like Egypt's revolution is neither about interference or side stepping, it is an inability to solve the sovereign question without a major war. This was attempted in Iraq and by Israel, both led to uprisings that were defeated. But why was oil left out of these conflicts, when all sides had so much to lose. Secondly why did only a few states successfully overthrow their dictatorships? The reason is to safeguard the politics of oil, Iraq and Syria were never an attempt to overthrow western interests. Israel and Syria are an attempt to undermine domestic politics by the west, while domestic forces have their own reasons for their approach.

The 1990s were a poor attempt at finding economic markets by the west while the 2000s have tried to find support in the south through domestic constituencies. The 1980s started this institutional approach to policy-making, relying on the east to counter pressure applied by the west. The danger is that in the South there are domestic movements and regional powers and the there is little choice but to support a balance between left and right. While this is going on Europe has consolidated in its traditional approaches, America and Russia also have traditional neo-colonial aims and regional powers have attempted to fight from a position of strength. Domestic movements have used the choice wisely despite an attempt by all these authorities to provide a client regime.

The civilians are not combatants and have been fought over by regional forces and local movements. The west has held back much like earlier post-colonial ideologies suggest. Israel has been consistently forceful as has Syria. The movements have been ruthless in their butchery and lack of  basic humanitarian policies. Oil has created an amphitheatre like trade in the colonies and the consequence has been a shaming of the west and a rise of regional forces, including Syria and Israel. Domestic forces have used this leverage to undo humanitarian resolutions, and divided communities. The rules has shown a regional dislike for community politics and conflict  has assumed a Shakespearian brutality. Of course this happens at the same time and oil is flowing despite strong local traditions and economic hierarchies.

Domestic constituencies have largely ignored images of this in Afghanistan and troops have fought in a sideshow bloody in intensity and colonial in ambition. The difference lies in conflicts over natural resources, and Afghanistan is about sovereign aims as well as political journeys. This focus has remind us that the east gets away from confronting the west through western aims, complex as its seems both are shaping history in their political rights they ignore and the foreign policies they try and hide. Politically obscure these states have terrorist leanings, as they have no standing army and although the relationships are stated that shift power away from the centre, a sort of resistance movement. Both sides have propaganda, but one is in charge and the other undermining it. The side show is worth it, there is a director and citizens and terrorists mix as one, but the west fails to show that both have a common identity and fare badly in international prestige.