The Arab League is upset with Western sympathy for Syria's protesters in their battle of wills with the Assad dictatorship. The Arab League's top man, Nabil Elaraby, expressed his outrage over "foreign interference" in Arab internal affairs, after a little chat with Boy Assad.
Huh. Funny how "interference" is only when foreigners support people against the dictator. It isn't interference when foreigners support the government. Like Iran's support for killing Syrian protesters.
Oh wait, it isn't even just a bias towards foreign interference in support of a government. Because the Arab League couldn't seem to work up outrage over Iranian interference (with weapons, training, and people) against the fledgling Iraqi government the last 8 years. Indeed, the Arab League--a bastion of Sunni Arab governments--seemed downright hostile toward the Iraqi government.
So what's the outrage, again?
UPDATE: Oh bloody heck. And how can I forget that NATO's war on Libya relies on an Arab League request for NATO to conduct a no-fly zone over Libya? Granted, NATO took that no-fly zone request and turned it into a half-hearted war, but still, the Arab League actually asked for Western intervention--"interference" you might say--in the internal affairs of an Arab state!
Man, the Arab League could give lessons in foreign policy nuance to our State Department.
UPDATE: Oh bloody heck. And how can I forget that NATO's war on Libya relies on an Arab League request for NATO to conduct a no-fly zone over Libya? Granted, NATO took that no-fly zone request and turned it into a half-hearted war, but still, the Arab League actually asked for Western intervention--"interference" you might say--in the internal affairs of an Arab state!
Man, the Arab League could give lessons in foreign policy nuance to our State Department.
