The X and Y of geo-politics in the Middle East

Posted on Updated on

By John Millington

Imagine this scenario;

A place called (X) comprising mainly young people, mostly unemployed and many classified as having refugee status.

Despite this they manage to elect a government on a mandate of self defence against foreign aggressors and social security provision for its people.

However instead of being assisted by the region’s most powerful neighbour (Y), (X) is subject to a bombardment and threatened invasion by one of the most powerful and sophisticated armed forces in the world.

Key figures in the democratically elected administration of (X) are assassinated with “surgical strikes” which also kill innocent women and children.

The images are heart rendering and could be the subject of any charity appeal for aid and international assistance.

Live footage of (X) displayed on the international networks show devastation equivalent to a natural disaster or a war zone with buildings destroyed including civil infrastructure where people get passports and where international media check in to access the country.

And all this is justified by (Y) as “self-defence” against (X)’s “rocket attacks.”

Militarily the two sides bare no comparison.

(X) have the power to kill on occasion unspecified persons of (Y) but with no possibility of threatening that government’s ability to run their country.

(X) have no army and no means of waging a war of aggression.

(Y) on the other hand has an expertly trained military, weapons of mass destruction including nuclear, the backing of the most powerful country in the world and the ability to invade, disrupt and entirely obliterate its enemies.

Foreign leaders, one from the country (Z) attempting to broker peace, enter the warzone under the promise from (Y) that it will halt all bombing while they are there.

However this proves to be a lie and two more civilians are killed whilst the diplomatic mission is in progress.

The definition of national sovereignty recognised by the UN and which is applicable to all countries regardless of political ideology is as follows:
“The supreme, absolute, and uncontrollable power by which an independent state is governed and from which all specific political powers are derived; the intentional independence of a state, combined with the right and power of regulating its internal affairs without foreign interference.”

However (Y) is not violating (X)’s sovereignty.

The people of (X) have no country because (Y) will not allow it.

(X) have accepted to concede most of their original land to (Y) but that is not enough for the government of (Y).

(Y) are now preparing to invade a key part of (X) with the slaughter of innocent and impoverished civilians guaranteed.

Why will the world not help (X)?

And if (X) were (Y) it would not be allowed to happen.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s