The Jasmine revolution originating in the nation of Tunisia was followed with great interest by the international community. It was the first of the Arab countries to rise against decades of suppression and deprivation of fundamental democratic rights. The protests were peaceful and successful and acted as an inspiration to the most populous of the Arab nations – Egypt. International interest increased exponentially. Events in Egypt were liable to affect not only the Arabic and Islamic nations but could also indirectly affect most of the world. Economically Egypt was certainly no heavy weight but politically its position in the African continent and its role in the Israel conflict allowed it a certain degree of prominence on the world stage. The protests this time around were longer drawn out and contained some instances of violence. Eventually Hosni Mubarak was forced to step down and the army took over. There were great celebrations all around in what was being touted to be a success for democracy. In the meanwhile however the situation in Libya was rapidly changing. Mass protests had erupted and were being brutally suppressed by the dictator Col. Qaddafi. In this context the first question to be raised was the international treatment of Col. Qaddafi and Hosni Mubarak. Political analysts pointed out that they had been extensively patronised and supported by the Western powers in the previous years being treated as legitimate leaders at multi-lateral forums. One of Britain’s most prestigious institutions – The London School of Economics – has recently been quagmired in row regarding the thesis of Qaddafi’s son who had completed his P.hD. from the university. Subsequently Howard Davies, the head of the institution has resigned. Furthermore Hosni Mubarak has been received at the White House by the American President. The question raised was: “Why had the Western world ever recognized these leaders when they were fully aware of the suppression of democratic rights in their nations?”
In the face of such arguments it is important to examine the question in a strategic light. Yes, these pictures do seem embarrassing in the face of vociferous protests, civil war and brutal suppression. Yet it is important to examine the history of the Western nations, primarily America. Their most significant war in the 2nd part of the 20th century – the Vietnam War – earned them vast unpopularity across the globe. The war and the draft were both deeply unpopular in the United States too. Indeed the primary objective had been achieved. The domino effect of spreading Communism had been prevented. The price however had been extremely heavy. The war had dragged on for years and destroyed most of the infrastructure and farm land of Vietnam along with massive casualties of American soldiers and Vietnam civilians. Following the Vietnam War was the War in Afghanistan followed by the invasion of Iraq. These wars had a deep impact on the Islamic and Arabic world. The United States was accused of waging wars with the objectives of securing oil and strategic interests in the region, while all its explanations of nuclear weaponry and flushing out terrorists were ignored. There were no nuclear weapons to be found and the war enraged the radical Muslims and provided them with fuel to fan the burning embers of hatred against the America. This led to even more radical Muslims taking up arms even as Osama Bin Laden, the mastermind behind the 9/11 attacks remained at large. Iraq meanwhile continued to be a mess having no infrastructure, governance, institutions or democratic structure. Saddam Hussein’s regime had been over thrown but not much had changed. Obama predicted in 2002 that the war would lead to the strengthening of the recruitment arm of the Al-Qaeda. It did. Thus in terms of achieving objectives all three wars were not spectacularly successful; they were long drawn out, expensive, led to loss of lives, fanned hatred and did not substantially help the citizens that the United States had set out to rescue.
In the face of these issues the United States was not in a position to intervene into every non-democratic nation in the world. To impose democracy through force was out of the question. And to impose democracy through sanctions is also not a wise option. Studies have shown that long term sanctions seek to harm only the hapless citizens of the nation rather than the government. On the other hand inclusion of these nations on the international stage would be mutually beneficent. Egypt has played a substantial role in maintaining peace between Israel and the other Arab Nations. Libya, at the head of the African continent and a prominent exporter of oil to the European Nations was also important. Exclusion and bycott at the international stage would have ultimately led the citizens of those nations suffering. Thus cooperation and inclusion was the best option for the prosperity of Egypt and Libya while the USA and Europe too gained from the alliances. After protests erupted in Egypt and grew to popular uprisings the Western Nations were stuck in a quandary. There were 2 contrasting opinions. The protesters represented a new order, a new governing structure. To recognise the protesters would mean severing ties with their traditional allies in the region. However as the Egyptian protests grew in terms of scale and visibility at the international stage, the Western Nations, after much strategic analysis recognised the aspirations of the people and demanded that Hosni Mubarak should leave. Silvio Berlusconi made an utter fool of himself and his nation while calling Hosni Mubarak a ‘wise man’ in the midst of the ferocious protests in the now famous Tahrir Sqare.Silvio Berlusconi’s Italy was virtually the last prominent European Nation to side with the protesters. Thus now that the Egyptians were themselves demanding change it made sense for the Western Nations to change their alliance. And I personally believe that they should not be called either hypocritical, opportunistic or greedy for their tactical change of allegiance. It just makes sense.
Libya
Should the Western Nations have intervened in Libya?. Yes.
Firstly I shall present the arguments and questions presented against the Libyan intervention.
1) The primary arguments suggest that the United States should not get embroiled in another conflict that does not threaten their national security. Non-interventionists argue that the US has no stake in the fight.
2) While the Arab League has supported the intervention the real opinions and feelings of the Islamic world are much harder to gauge. Is the United States again fanning the fire of hatred of the Islamic Nations? Would it be another demonstration of Western imperialism?
3) In view of the poor record of the past interventions in the region, why would this be any different?
4) Will this intervention not lead protesting citizens from other nations to expect military aid too? (argument specific to Arab region protests)
5) The Western Nations did not intervene in other much bloodier conflicts in Africa and other parts of the world. Then why only Libya? Imperialistic ambitions related to Libya’s oil are at play here.
6) Most importantly they argue that the plan has no specified objective, no exit timetable and no specific definition of the mission.
I shall counter these arguments.
What primarily differentiates this military expedition from Iraq and Afghanistan is that this is not an invasion, the people of Libya had themselves appealed for help in the face of the threat of brutal retribution from the dictator. The Arab League itself called upon the United Nations Security Council to impose a No Fly Zone. Thus many of the comparisons are invalid. The United States does not at this stage even have troops on the ground and does not intend to. I believe that the United States and European Union have a moral responsibility to protect the people of Libya. The Libyan case is very unique from any other. Where political analysts sometimes fail is their tendency to draw parallels in all scenarios. In the Libyan case the Western powers were in a unique position to help without establishing a physical presence. There was a direct threat to human life that could be prevented. I feel that the main argument to justify the Western intervention is that fact that thousands of lives have already been saved. By clinically debilitating the Libyan Air Force the western intervention has already achieved its prime humanitarian goal and saved thousands of lives. This fact in itself is enough to justify the intervention. Moving on to other arguments however. It is said that the United States has no stake in the region. That is not completely true. The Libyan civil war needs to be reviewed in a wider context. The jasmine revolution is yet fragile with success achieved in only 2 nations – Egypt and Tunisia. Across the Arab world more nations are struggling towards democracy. Had the Western nations not intervened and the dictator been allowed a free hand to carry out his promised brutalities the Jasmine Revolution would have died a young death. The United States and Europe both have a lot to gain from a democratic Arabia. Democracy, freedom of press and access to international culture would lead to modernisation of thoughts and ideals and the concept of Islamic radicalism and jihad would die a natural death thus eliminating terrorism at its roots. Integration with international culture and globalisation would allow for rapid growth and diversification in regions that are over dependent on oil for revenues. Perhaps a democratic Tunisia and Libya would start looking more like the United Arab Emirates. The developed nations can develop deeper economic links that go beyond oil and natural gas. The fate of an entire region is potentially at stake in Libya and the United States and Western Europe must be lauded for looking at the wider aspects of the intervention. For now the Western Nations have set a positive precedent. The move against Gaddafi shows that where struggle for democracy is countered with brutal suppression in those circumstances the Western nations are ready to step in and rein in the dictators from destroying their own nation. Some contrasting parallels may be drawn with the Vietnam War. While that war sought to prevent a domino effect of Communism this war seeks to promote a domino effect of democracy. The Arab world deserves a chance at reform. Cynics that scoff at the idea of Arab democracy say that the Arabs cannot govern themselves in democratic institutions and say, “The Arabs have never done democracy”. Yet they do not sense the dawning of a new era, where an entire generation has been exposed to the ideas of the world through globalization and the power of the internet. This new generation of Arabs share similarities with their Western and Eastern counterparts. They demand their fundamental democratic rights, the right to free speech, free press, right to express and the right to dissent. Having being suppressed for long the new generation of Arab youth has awoken to take up the torch of democracy. The Western world ought to give them a chance instead of looking behind their shoulders at their past mistakes. Now that Egypt and Tunisia are in the process of establishing democracy the United States should seek to buy goodwill through sponsoring infrastructure and educational programs. In Libya the United States will have to help in rebuilding efforts. Gaining the trust of the Islamic Community was always going to be Obama’s biggest challenge. The support of the Arab League does lend an air of legitimacy to the military operations. The United States can never hope to gain the trust of Iran where misguided clerics slam the United States as a greedy imperialist while I personally believe the United States led by President Barack Obama has followed the highest moral standards of power and democracy. In terms of the argument regarding citizens expecting military help in every conflict I believe that that fear in unfounded. The sequence of events must be imported from Egypt. Non violent protests for democracy are raised by the citizens. Then the dictator will not retaliate brutally BECAUSE of the threat of international intervention. This shall allow the non violent protests to grow in momentum and stature meanwhile allowing Western nations to apply soft power. They can offer amnesty to the beleaguered rulers and allow them a quick exit. While such a move may be unpopular with a vengeful populace it does however allow a quicker transition to democracy. Had Qaddafi been offered a credible amnesty plan at an early stage in the protests the situation may or may not be different. It is difficult to predict what may have been the case because of the complex psychological mindset of Muammar Qaddafi. Therefore I am of the opinion that the Western Intervention has set a precedent fordictators NOT protesting citizens. With regard to the argument aasking why the W.N. (western nations) have not intervened elsewhere in the world in a similar manner, I reiterate that the Libya situation is positioned uniquely. For one it is part of a larger struggle for democracy and could have wider spread implications and thus begets the highest level of international importance. Even more importantly the W.N. were able to help without establishing a ground level physical presence while effectively grounding the Libyan Air Force. Thus by virtue of the uniqueness of the Libyan case I believe that comparisons with past conflicts, wars, invasions and interventions are unjustified. It is true that the W.N. intervened without a defined exit strategy or timetable. The primary objective was to prevent genocide and that called for quick action. The United Nations Security Council also acted expediently and was successful in preventing mass murder. However now that that goal has been achieved and the war has inched closer to a stalemate questions are being asked, especially in the corridors of power in Britain and US. The British defense ministry has been known to have informally asked the members of parliament to settle in for the long haul. In United States the non-interventionists lament that the US is embroiled in another long lasting Arab war. Meanwhile reports emerge that NATO air-strikes have killed civilians and rebels too apart from the Loyalist forces. Collateral damage is high in civilian areas. Britain and France however pressurized the United States for the usage of armed predator drones and succeeded. Obama authorised the usage of drones that could attack from a lower height with greater precision and accuracy. This is a step forward in the right direction. I believe that the W.N. must now target regime change. They must attempt to oust the dictator as soon as they can. Every passing day of the civil war leads to further destruction of the nation’s infrastructure. Casualties amongst civilians and rebels continue to mount. I firmly believe that while no ground troops must enter the battle themselves, the next round of attacks from the air must concentrate on destroying the chain of command of the Tripoli High Command. Destroying the vital infrastructure that allows Qaddafi to run his army may well prove to decisive. A large number of the Loyalist forces are mercenaries with loyalties that may come into question if they believe that the cannot win the war. Presently they have much to gain from fighting for Qaddafi. Once the rebellion is quelled they would all look for the spoils of war and would seek to be richly rewarded. However if they start believing that the war cannot be won and that they are risking their lives for a lost cause, they will be first to desert the Loyalist army. Without the expertise and number of the mercenaries the Loyalist army would be considerably weakened. Although by targeting the vital infrastructure of Qaddafi’s high command in Tripoli NATO may be accused of getting political I personally believe that the only way forward is to now aim for regime change. Without a change of regime the Civil war may perhaps drag on indefinitely and in case the Loyalists manage to reclaim lost territory the brutalities inflicted on the supporters of the rebellion will be too horrific to imagine. It shall also dampen the mood of optimism in the Arab world that the Egyptian revolution was able to project. Thus it is essential for the nations to redefine the mission from a humanitarian angle to that of regime change despite the political implications. Muammar Qaddafi must go and the Western Nations must do everything they can to accomplish that even if it includes bombing the Presidential Palace. Politically this shall ensure the support of the reformed nations. The Libyans would be grateful while Egyptians and Tunisians would approve. Syria meanwhile would be inclined to be more hopeful. Iran will rant and rave as it always does. But now that the Western Nations are already in the War, they are going to come out victorious only if they are able to establish a working democracy in Libya. That will help them gain the goodwill of the youth of the Arab world while also gaining substantial brownie points with their electorate. The intervention is already looking like one of the few major highlights of Sarkozy’s career. President Obama too has much to gain in time for the elections in 2012. But only if they are successful. A final push towards regime change will require political courage and determination but it is essential.