Here we share Jeremy Corybn's article from the Morning Star on Wednesday 30 March 2011. In it he argues that the whole history of western involvement in the Middle East is largely guided and motivated by economic interests, always backed up with the threat of force.
The obvious divergence of the US and the leading Nato players Britain and France over Libya has as much to do with public opinion as any real debate over tactics or objectives.
President Barack Obama is frightened of being involved in another war with no obvious end or clear purpose.
Prime Minister David Cameron and President Nicolas Sarkozy are aware of public opinion polls.
They also see an opportunity to distract public opinion with yet another display of force in a much poorer, less well-armed country.
The rapid unravelling of the decisions made less than two weeks ago are becoming more apparent.
The UN security council voted on establish a "no fly zone" over Libya.
It was repeatedly stressed by the Prime Minister that this was a peaceful humanitarian act and not about regime change.
He then, almost eight years on to the day from Tony Blair's attack on Iraq, went to opine that he would not be sorry if there was regime change as a result.
Russia and China, clearly sceptical about the whole endeavour, abstained as they were assured it was a specific and limited operation that was envisaged.
Within hours of the decision and announcement to Parliament, but two days before any vote, British planes unleashed a barrage of Tomahawk missiles and the US followed suit and have kept up the barrage ever since.
A hundred and fifty were set off on one night alone.
Each of these weapons of destruction costs around $500,000.
As the 10 days of the conflict have unrolled the bombing is increasingly co-ordinated with the "rebel" forces and looks more and more as though the Nato-led forces are actually almost organising the war effort.
The hell for people in the towns in both east and west of Libya continues with fighting on the streets as rival forces move in. It is a civil war.
Like all wars, it is a failure of politics.
The Libyan revolution of 1969 brought down the regime of King Idris, himself put on the throne by the former European colonialists only 17 years earlier in 1952.
Eventually the action of the officers brought Gadaffi to the fore and with it his "green book" revolution and appeal to the rest of Africa as well as support for diverse causes all round the world.
Vilified by the west and isolated, he nevertheless survived the bombing of 1986 and the economic and trade blockade.
After the Iraq invasion and aware of Bush's "axis of evil" speech Gadaffi effectively manipulated a position of being at least neutral towards the west, and his country, oil-rich and very wealthy, began trading and investing.
However, the largesse he showered around the world was not evenly spread in Libya and the seeds of revolt, never far below the surface, rose up in the wake of the demonstrations in Tunisia and then Egypt.
The calls were of the need for jobs and a share of the wealth but also opposition to censorship and frequent abuses of the human rights of many people.
The forces of the state went to Benghazi and to their surprise lost control of the city very quickly and then similar uprisings happened in all major cities. Some army defections brought weapons and the fighting intensified.
Sarkozy, in particular, decided to do all he could to promote the idea of a "no fly zone" as a form of intervention and quickly the west lined up.
No real or obvious effort was put in by the UN representative or indeed Arab League states to promote an internal dialogue.
The more Sarkozy talked of military action the less likely any grouping in Libya was to think in terms of dialogue.
Gadaffi was being backed into a corner and the "rebels" were encouraged to believe they were going to receive outside military assistance.
The world's media, or most of it, dutifully came in behind the calls for intervention.
Most of them conveniently ignored the absurd contradiction of the western position.
Vast arms sales, oil imports and investments in Saudi Arabia and Bahrain meant there was no serious consideration of the appalling human rights records of both kingdoms.
The Gulf Co-operation Council was convened to provide a handy fig leaf to give authority to the Saudi invasion of Bahrain.
Deaths and human rights abuses are not peculiar to Libya but are rife across the whole region.
Western military and intelligence systems maintain the most oppressive regimes in office while the opponents are either in exile, hiding or prison.
The uprising across the Arab world is exciting and hopeful but does not appear to present a coherent political programme beyond opposition to autocracy.
The debates now taking place with such huge intensity are being threatened by the remains of the security services in Tunisia and Egypt.
There are no certainties of the immediate outcome.
Beyond the north Africa/Middle East axis the killing machines of warring factions, militias or the state operate.
The appalling death rates in west Africa from conflict continue to rise and there is no talk of action or involvement by the west.
Last Monday in Parliament, at a meeting called by the Great Lakes Group and supported by Liberation, women described the systematic rape and torture in the mineral-rich east of the Congo.
Government forces engage, with impunity, in large-scale looting, militias working in support of mining interests put their own greed ahead of protecting human rights.
The UN has on the ground a 17,000-strong peacekeeping force with a mandate to use lethal force to protect civilian lives but it has failed to do this effectively.
Fifty years after independence and 125 since the Belgian King Leopold was "granted" the Congo by fellow Europeans, the rape of the whole country goes on.
The meeting, quite rightly, wanted to know who was making money out of the misery and why the world was so silent.
Their demand, is a demand that every colonial people want an answer to.
The whole history of western involvement in the Middle East is largely guided and motivated by economic interests, always backed up with the threat of force.
As the delegates emerged from the London conference to discuss Libya's future there was plenty of talk of the next stage of military action, precious little talk about giving time, opportunity and space for a political settlement and non violent way forward.
The toxic combination of oil, arms and self-aggrandising military adventures is once more being played out.
In Parliament on Monday some MPs wanted to know about "reconstruction."
How about stopping destruction instead?