The West and indeed all countries are reacting to the expanding turmoil in the Arab world without a clear roadmap because while there are common causes for the protests the interests involved in each country are diverse.
In close allies of the West, such as Egypt and Tunisia change was managed relatively peacefully by engineering takeovers under the auspices of the armed forces, a gradual easing out of representatives of the old dictatorial regimes and new more open dispensations brought in. In the civil war in Libya, a troublesome non-ally the west, by bombing Gaddafi’s defence forces and installations has taken the side of a small unknown group of rebels who will ever be beholden to it. In Bahrain the US is squarely on the side of the Sunni ruling family, propped up by Saudi Arabia against the protesting Shia minority. In other words on the side of stable oil versus the ascendancy of a democratic regime that would be expected to lean towards Iran. In Yemen, a Western ally against terrorism as personified by Al Qaeda in Arabia, President Saleh is being counselled to do the impossible, to be responsive to the demands of the protesters to leave without further violence. Like Bahrain, unrest in Yemen has implications for Saudi Arabia with which it shares a long unruly border on the East. In Jordan, Oman and Morroco protests have been suppressed without too much violence and promises of reform. Syria which is emphatically not a Western ally, shares a border with Israel and close relations with Iran is suddenly exploding has yet to elicit a considered response from the West. Unsurprisingly Israel is stepping up pressure on the Palestinians even as it suffered the first major terror attack on a bus in Jerusalem in seven years.
The whole region is aflame and the international community is fashioning it’s response on the run, so to say, with Libya as a kind of test case.On Wednesday, March 24th, the Economic Times carried a headline encapsulating America’s dilemma in the Middle East: “US Warplane crashes, Libya policy in Flames”. Other countries, including India, have dilemmas of their own; namely, whether or not to help implement a UN Security Council Resolution imposing a no fly zone over Libya and measures to protect civilians.
Rushed through with unusual speed UN Resolution 1973 (2011), calls for an immediate ceasefire, an intensification of efforts to find a solution to the crisis which responds to the legitimate demands of the Libyan people and further asserts that the Libyan authorities comply with their obligations as stated under international law. Specifically, it emphasizes the responsibility to protect civilians first, by imposing a no fly zone; second, by imposing an arms embargo; third, by preventing the flow of mercenaries to Libya; and finally by freezing the assets of designated individuals and entities, owned or controlled by the Gaddafi family.
The Resolution which needs nine votes to pass just barely scraped through the 15 member UN Security Council, with 5 abstentions. These included two veto bearing permanent members China and Russia, and aspiring permanent members, Brazil, Germany and India. Japan, which is another aspirant, is not a member of the UNSC at this time. Although all the members of the BRICs formation abstained, interestingly Germany broke with its NATO partners by choosing to side with the abstainers. Along with Turkey, Germany also initially stalled US plans to hand over the leadership of the air assault on Libya to NATO.
Europe and Gaddafi
This voting pattern raises some interesting questions. France and the United Kingdom (UK) were among the first few nations to recognize the Transitional Council set up by the rebels in Benghazi. Sarkozy was in such a hurry for military action that they would not even wait for the UN Secretary General’s Special Envoy to first visit Libya, nor did they pause for the fact-finder mission of the African Union to report back from Libya. Both have said that they were acting to protect the Libyan people and that, had they waited any longer, pro-government forces might well have advanced further into the rebel-held city of Benghazi, where Colonel Gaddafi had sworn to show no mercy.
Gaddafi is a truly murderous dictator, but he was no different two months ago when the international community was quite comfortable doing deals with him. For years his regime has given the west nothing but grief while they sought access to Libyan oil, trade and projects and the spurious notion that the “Great Leader” might be a useful ally in the fight against Islamic terrorism. The Europeans also claimed, justifiably, that they were concerned about its nuclear weapons programme (fed incidentally by Pakistan’s AQ Khan), Gaddafi’s history of support for civil wars in Africa and terrorist acts in Europe, and possessed by a near hysteria about illegal immigration from North Africa. Perhaps the rush for military intervention was also due to less exalted motivations; like the UK Prime Minister’s embarrassment over the release of Al megrahi convicted for the Lockerbie bombing to facilitate the functioning of british petroleum in Libya and Sarkozy jumping at the chance to appear as a world leader in the run-up to next year’s hotly contested presidential election. Could it also be that Sarkozy needed to wipe out the embarrassment caused by his bungling of the peaceful revolution in Tunisia by clinging to that country’s brutal and venal dictator, Ben Ali? Is Libya then a chance to also recoup French prestige in North Africa, a region France has long considered important to its economy and security.
The US and its plans for Libya
Also puzzling is what motivated the United States to lead another war on a Muslim country. Could it be the pressure from its own oil companies to re-enter Libya? Not only the objective, the process of US participation itself is unclear. Defense Secretary Gates initially rubbished a no fly zone and President Obama while calling on Gaddafi to go said that no ground troops would be introduced in Libya. Although the American Chief of Staff said that one possible outcome was Gaddafi remaining in power, Obama later said that the US has participated for humanitarian reasons to protect the Libyan people and that the departure of Gaddafi is indeed an objective.
Representatives of the rebels are jubilant that Gaddafi’s forces have been checked in their advance on Benghazi but they are now calling for attacks on artillery and other large weapon systems and desperately require arms if they are to reverse the gains made by the Libyan army. So now the question will likely become whether the freezing of Gaddafi’s assets abroad to prevent him from buying armaments will be accompanied by the supply of weapons to the rebels in the civil war, despite the UN embargo on weapons supplies. In fact there are already reports that weapons are being supplied to the rebels through Egypt.
Just before launching the air attacks, Obama tried to sidestep the requirement for Congressional authorization by explaining in a letter that the US was acting to implement a UN Resolution. Although there was broad initial support for the strikes, Congressmen have started asking a lot of awkward but pertinent questions. The Republican Speaker of the House has reminded the Obama administration that it has a responsibility to inform Congress what the aims of US involvement are. In other words, to name the critical US national interests involved.
Influential American Senator, Richard Lugar, has put forth some of the elementary questions that any country needs to examine, such as: who will be in charge after Gaddafi? Will they share American democratic values? And given America’s straightened circumstances who pays for this third simultaneous war? Also crucially who are the Libyan rebels? Most are completely unknown, so comprehensively had Gaddafi eliminated any dissent. It is only with the defections of diplomats followed by some of Gaddafi’s own senior officials including the Justice and Interior ministers, that there are now faces and names that are recognizable. For decades they had represented Gaddafi’s views abroad but they now speak the language of pluralist democrats. For the moment, it is convenient to take them at their word. The tribal affiliations are important and could change as the action ebbs and wanes but Gaddafi still has the support of the largest tribe, the Warfalla, while the West seems to have thrown in its lot with the Eastern Senussi
The region in turmoil
One of the objectives set out by the Libyan rebels is for the country to remain united. However a stalemate in the fighting might leave the western Tripolitania region under the control of Gaddafi and the eastern Cyrenaica region around Benghazi in the hands of the rebels. Fortuitously, that is where most of Libyan oil is.
The Western powers claim to have begun the bombing only after UN authorization, after the rebels requested assistance and with the support of the Arab League, the African Union and the Organization of Islamic States (OIS).The Secretary General of the Arab League first supported and then criticized the air attacks as exceeding the UN mandate but Amre Moussa has since fallen into line. After all, he hopes to be the next President of Egypt and that would need the support, of the US, which has subsidized the Egyptian army for the last 30 years to the tune of billions of dollars annually.
One of the first principles adopted by the African Union when it was set up in 1963 was no change in colonial era boundaries. If Libya does end up with a de facto partition, it would be the second African country this year, after Sudan to be divided. It’s not clear what implications this could have for countries such as Ivory Coast, which is also presently divided following a contentious election, the results of which have been rejected by the incumbent president. What would be the fate of other African countries like Zimbabwe or Kenya divided on tribal lines which were forced into uneasy, poorly functioning coalitions, after the next elections? Another principle adopted by the African Union at the strong insistence of its Western partners was a rejection of change of government through a military coup and cessation of all aid and development. Will not the fall of Gaddafi as a result of Western attacks, amount to a military coup?
Indian interests
There has been criticism of India’s abstention on the UN Resolution and the External Affairs Minister’s subsequent call for an end to the use of force by all sides. Fortunately most of the 18,000 Indians in Libya who wanted to leave have been evacuated. But we have continuing stakes in the Arab world, including over 5 million workers, thousands of professionals and traders, ongoing projects, not to mention the global stake in the price and continued smooth flow of oil, and opposition to Islamic fundamentalism. The staying power of the invading West is doubtful; as is the outcome of the battle being fought by unknown new forces for control in Libya and other Arab countries in turmoil; and how long the region stays disturbed are all unknowns. There will come a time when we can be helpful but with Afghanistan unresolved and the ghost of Iraq hovering overhead, for now, discretion may be the better part of valour.