The government has to explain why so much money has suddenly become available for the war in Libya, why these "reserves" are available for arms but not for health, education or housing.
Morning Star
21 April 2011
Jeremy Corbyn MP speaking in parliamentary debate on Libya
It could be the onset of Easter, the good weather or just self-denial that prevents Parliament from being recalled to discuss Libya and the British role in yet another "Nato-led mission."
The West, like everyone else, was taken by surprise over the uprisings in north Africa and the Middle East.
However Libya has received a different kind of medicine from its other Arab neighbours.
When the first uprising occurred in Tunisia, the West issued no more than a few warm words - after all, president Ben Ali was an ally in the "war on terror."
The huge revolt in Egypt prompted a commentary from Tony Blair - even though until days before Hosni Mubarak was finally toppled Blair was saying that he was a "force for good in the region."
Our erstwhile PM seemed more concerned with preserving the 1979 recognition of Israel than anything else.
Contrast this with Libya.
Here the revolt was discussed at the UN and a half-hearted attempt was made at diplomatic talks, accompanied by sanctions.
This was quickly followed by UN security council resolution 1973 and the implementation of a no-fly zone.
The situation is one of turmoil.
The Arab League, which some hoped might have been able to broker a peaceful solution, is seriously weakened by ongoing instability.
Few of its leaders are in secure positions, so it's hardly surprising that it has been ineffective in bringing about any kind of peace move in Libya. Indeed, it seemed unwilling to seriously try.
The African Union, which did make a serious effort, sent mediators to Tripoli, who appeared to make progress.
It then sent another delegation to Benghazi with a view to establishing a ceasefire.
Their efforts were quickly rejected by the rebel forces.
This is not surprising as the discussions coincided with the release of a letter signed by Nicolas Sarkozy, David Cameron and Barack Obama saying they could not envisage a future for Libya with Muammar Gadaffi in power.
This joint statement removed any doubts that Nato wants a political settlement - it wants total regime change.
The chicanery surrounding the oil, banking, arms and arms industries shows where Nato's real interests lie.
Libya has large oil reserves.
It has relied on foreign expertise and technology extract and refine it.
Its economy relies on foreign workers and the poorest Libyans are now suffering the most.
Among Gadaffi's many political shortcomings was his refusal to ensure that oil wealth was spread among all the Libyan people, allowing his paranoia about opposition to dictate his policies.
When Tony Blair cut his infamous "deal in the desert" with Gadaffi, the result was huge deals involving BP, British training of Libyan security forces, arms sales to Libya and an end to sanctions, meaning Libyan investment in Britain and Europe.
The London School of Economics and others did very nicely out of this.
But it is oil above all else that motivates the Western governments. Exports from the east of Libya have already begun, handled by Qatar which appears to be in charge of the Libyan banking system.
A Western takeover headed by Qatar seems to be in process.
Next Tuesday the House of Commons returns for three days and then adjourns because there is a wedding taking place in Westminster Abbey.
The government will have to make a statement to Parliament and explain why so much money has suddenly become available for the war in Libya, why these "reserves" are available for arms but not for health, education or housing.
They will also have to explain why we are involved in a civil war in Libya, yet so muted about the shocking events in Yemen, Bahrain and Saudi Arabia.
It's almost certain that the real reasons won't be mentioned.
Jeremy Corbyn is Labour MP for Islington North.
