Regime change – a few thoughts about power in the light of Syria

So. Cameron is considering arming the opposition in Syria. This would be a logical sequitor to the breach and abuse of UN resolutions 1970 and 1973 on Libya by France and the UK.

The purpose of these interventions is to get in with what they think will be the new regime. So that they can ‘do business’ with the new regime. The opposition in Libya spelled this out during their uprising; whoever armed them would come to the top of the queue for oil and weapons deals.

It is nothing to do with ‘democracy’. Britain works with undemocratic regimes all over the world all the time.

It is nothing to do with humanitarian reasons. Britain did nothing to stop the genocide in Rwanda for example. Many of the non-democratic regimes with whom Britain does business have appalling human rights records.

The motive is to develop and support markets for UK corporate business, especially oil and arms. The ‘personal motive’ for politicians is that they get kick-backs from these corporations in the form of directorships etc. when they leave office.

There is no popular call for the UK to send arms to the gangs in Syria whose human rights abuses are well-documented.

How do politicians get away with it? With this transition from being democratically elected by the people to represent the interests of the people to representing the interests of a small nucleus of power and capital, and their own personal interests? Part of the answer is that they lie to the people that these interventions are about democracy and humanitarian reasons (or protecting the people from non-existent threats). Some in the population believe them. The large media companies are owned and controlled by people who have links to these centres of power. They broadcast the lies. There is a campaign of disinformation.

The underlying problem is that most human beings when they see power have the craven reaction that they align themselves with it.

The long-term solution is not revolution. In a revolution the majority of people cravenly align themselves with whoever looks like they are going to seize power. Power just changes face. The long-term solution is to cure human beings of their lust for material power and their craven willingness to allow themselves to be subject to power. Is this possible?

Arguably the lust for material power is a feature of the species. It is what has allowed us to become top animal. Now; it is the biggest danger to the human species and all life on earth. Again, the question; can human beings consciously and deliberately transcend the lust for material power and their willingness to be subject to it?

Author: justinwyllie

EFL Teacher and Photographer