My honor is solidarity! They make Novichok, we make light sabers. One a hideous weapon that is specifically intended for assassination. The other an implausible theatrical prop with a mysterious buzz.
I mean, I think these are all important considerations that, frankly, we have to concede are among the motivations. Clinton had added that America will continue working with [Bahrain] to promote a vigorous civil society and to ensure that democracy, human rights and civil liberties are protected by the rule of law.
Reuters recently reported that US Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates said Syria, Libya and Iran were examples of authoritarian regimes that have suppressed their people and have been willing to use violence against them.
It is probably not surprising those 3 were mentioned as they are typically the anti-West ones; the pro-West regimes were not listed by him. Though Gates is not the only Western official to say something like this over the years. In addition, as Pepe Escobar reveals in the Asia Timesthere may be a deal of convenience behind the scenes: Two diplomatic sources at the United Nations independently confirmed that Washington, via Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, gave the go-ahead for Saudi Arabia to invade Bahrain and crush the pro-democracy movement in their neighbor in exchange for a yes vote by the Arab League for a no-fly zone over Libya — the main rationale that led to United Nations Security Council resolution Saudi officials say they gave their backing to Western air strikes on Libya in exchange for the United States muting its criticism of the authorities in Bahrain, a close ally of the desert kingdom.
Former British Ambassador, Craig Murray, was the source for the second diplomatic source Escobar referred to and is worth quoting further: A senior diplomat in a western mission to the UN in New York, who I have known over ten years and trust, has told me for sure that Hillary Clinton agreed to the cross-border use of troops to crush democracy in the Gulf, as a quid pro quo for the Arab League calling for Western intervention in Libya.
We just had Sky News rationalising it by telling us that the Gulf Cooperation Council have a military alliance that a state can call in help if attacked. But that does not mean attacked by its own, incidentally unarmed, people.
NATO is a military alliance.
It does not mean Cameron could call in US troops to gun down tuition fees protestors in Parliament Square. Many feel it is just because of oil interests. It is easy to see how that is because the past geopolitics of the region has seen the West happily or reluctantly support brutal dictatorships in the region to secure various national interests such as ensured access and control of energy and vital geostrategic locations.
Yet, if oil was the sole interest in Libya, would the West not have just happily continued to entertain Qadhafi, as they had been doing in recent years? That would have been cheaper for them. Although, it would have become less palatable for their own populations who are maybe becoming increasingly cynical of their own governments words.
One problem with the above is that Qadhafi is less pliable than most of the typical dictators and autocratic regimes the West has preferred, typically. Noam Chomsky also notes the difference between both oil and non-oil based interests in the region and implies that imperial thinking may still be there behind the scenes: While control over oil is not the sole factor in Middle East policy, it provides fairly good guidelines, right now as well.
In an oil-rich country, a reliable dictator is granted virtual free rein. In recent weeks, for example, there was no reaction when the Saudi dictatorship used massive force to prevent any sign of protest.
Same in Kuwait, when small demonstrations were instantly crushed. And in Bahrain… … In states lacking major hydrocarbon reserves, tactics vary, typically keeping to a standard game plan when a favored dictator is in trouble: Libya is rich in oil, and though the US and UK have often given quite remarkable support to its cruel dictator, right to the present, he is not reliable.
They would much prefer a more obedient client.Despite the growth in literature on political corruption, contributions from field research are still exiguous.
This book provides a timely and much needed addition to current research, bridging the gap and providing an innovative approach to the study of corruption and integrity in public administration. Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do.
He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth because there is no truth in him. This article examines current patterns and risks of corruption in Vietnam's health sector and reviews strategies for addressing corruption in the future.
The article builds on the findings and discussion at the sixth Anti-Corruption Dialogue between the Vietnamese government and the international donor community.
Each university, however, manages its own budget and administration. From the late s to the present day there has been a rapid and steady increase in the number of registered students in higher education. Download-Theses Mercredi 10 juin Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do.
He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth because there is no truth in him.