Decent folks everywhere are rooting for the brave rebels fighting the Gaddafi regime and its mercenary thugs. But no less than the top American intelligence chief is pessimistic about the rebels' ability to prevail, as time goes by, with the "international community" yet to act decisively, including enforcing a so-called "no-fly zone".
Modern day uprisings -- that is, since the advent of the nation state -- seldom have a happy ending for the challengers when they are ill-prepared and lack the immediate support of external powers vis-a-vis the incumbent regime which, no matter how ruthless it is towards its people, is still the accepted government. Witness what happened in Hungary (1956) and Czechoslovakia (1968).
What happened in Tunesia and Egypt last month was a series of positive developments for the protesters, chiefly, the rulers had lost of the support of even the military forces and members of the elite in swift order. In other words, comparatively "little" was required of the international community. No internal uprising of the sort that is occurring in Libya took place in those two countries.
I think many factors have dealt the rebels a poor hand.
First is the issue of sovereignty. Intervention came too late for many in Rwanda (1994) despite the evidence of genocide. Even the intervention by Nato in the former Yugoslavia (1992-1995) took a long time, again despite the evidence of ethnic cleansing. Many of Libya's neighbours are themselves despotic, yet intervention -- or appeals for such action by other powers -- should begin with them. But while the Arab League has finally come around to call for a no-fly zone, the African Union continues to resist making such a call (Libya straddles the Middle East and northern Africa).
Secondly, the United Nations -- as the voice of the international community -- can only act to endorse intervention if all major powers agree to it. This has not happened. Meanwhile, the wily Gaddafi makes sure his military operations are not so brutal as to attract an international outcry.
Thirdly, intervention by, say, a coalition, must carry domestic support from each coalition member's public. The country everyone is looking to for leadership, the United States, is still unsure of the wisdom of military action -- even the implementation of a no-fly zone. Pilots will have to enforce this and even if a single US fighter pilot were to be shot down by Gadaffi's thugs, it will be politically costly for the Obama government.
Finally, there is the "Who the hell are these rebels?" factor. To be cynical, Gaddafi is the known devil, he is no friend of Al-Qaeda, he had begun to "cooperate" with the West before the current turn of events (he even gave funds to a few British universities), he sits on 2 per cent of the world's oil (Libya is the No 12 producer, and Libyan crude is top-grade ie low in sulphur), and like it or not, if he regains control of the country, such a status quo will eventually be re-established.
The rebels offer no such "guarantee". Their leadership is amorphous and they were not a movement in waiting, with an ideology (that the West can live with). Moreover, one analyst has pointed out that the eastern region of Libya -- where the rebels are still holding out -- is where the most Muslim fighters had made their way to Iraq a few years back, to liberate it from the American occupiers.
Such is the Libyan imbroglio.
No comments:
Post a Comment