Weary from the Iraqi lesson, the US and its allies finally intervene in Libya amidst a growing humanitarian crisis. However with a violent crackdown on protests spreading fast in Syria and Yemen, where does this leave the boundaries for foreign intervention?
One often learns lessons from his past experiences while others become scarred from past events and Western governments are no different. After the acrimonious fallout from the second Gulf War in 2003 which saw the overthrow of Saddam and threw US foreign policy firmly under the international spotlight, the Washington administration has often worked hard to repair its foreign policy image and rebuild its ties with the Muslim community.
So when the next burning item on the agenda of the new Middle Eastern revolution that has rocked the regional balance in spectacular fashion became the 42 year old rule of Colonel Muammar Gaddafi’s Libya, the hesitant nature of Western intervention particularly that of the US became evident.
In many ways, Libya has echoes of Iraq and Iraq has somewhat clouded intervention in Libya. Both countries had brutal dictators that ruled for decades and violently suppressed opposition, both posses immense amounts of oil, both leaders had a love-hate relationship with the West and ultimately both became subjects of no-fly zones and international sanctions. However, while the US and its allies sat idly in 1991 as the Kurdish and Shiite uprisings were brutally crushed in the aftermath of the first Gulf War, they could not simply watch in vain as Gaddafi’s forces relentlessly attacked rebel held towns and before that opened fire on protesters in the cold light of day.
UN resolution 1973 was finally passed weeks after the initial revolt began in Libya, with the likes of the UK, France and US mindful of the escalating humanitarian situation but unsure just how to sell intervention to the wider international community. The common theme was the need to protect civilians and this was the overriding basis for the backing of the resolution from member states. The Western powers that backed action were weary of avoiding comparisons to the Iraqi invasion of 2003 and as such distanced themselves as much as possible from the idea of occupation or direct intervention in the battle between pro-Gaddafi forces and the rebel movement.
As violence and bloodshed is fast spreading in Syria as Bashar al-Assad’s regime tries to contain rising protests by force, the question for America and the West after resolution 1973 is how do you define the boundaries for intervention? Would Syria be any different if the protests snowballed into a large resistant movement (which may become a firm reality if the largely disenfranchised Kurdish minority join the uprising) and the civilian population were attacked?
As such, the wording of the resolution on Libya essentially afforded a wide range of options, short of a ground invasion to protect the civilians. Support from Arab powers and the Arab League was of fundamental importance, there was no chance that the likes of the US would take action against a Muslim and Arab state without greater regional backing this time round.
No doubt owed to the tainted image that the US invasion received from the Iraqi invasion, the question of who would command the enforcement of the no-fly zones has been somewhat of a hot-potato with the US keen to take a back seat in the operations and hand-over command without delay. Much like the response to the Egyptian uprising, the Washington administration has been at times slow to respond to escalating situations in the Middle East whilst been unclear what they want to achieve.
There is no doubt that the overall aim of the current mission is to ultimately see the overthrow of Gaddafi, even if the West has persistently dismissed any semblance of suggestions that they were aiming for “regime change”. However, it is clear from the heavy air strikes and missile attacks on Gaddafi defence sites and armour that it is hoped that Gaddafi’s forces would be paralysed enough to allow the ill-prepared and ill-trained rebels a chance to regroup, strike back and oust the regime.
In truth much of the actions of the Western powers can be masked under the pretext of protecting civilians, and it may well reach a stage where the rebels are directly armed.
However, under the current pretext of events, there are a number of permutations that may come to light. Firstly, there is the nightmare scenario for most that rebels fail to capitalise on Western air-strikes and eventually Gaddafi clings on to power, secondly there is the possibility of a civil war that rages for months or years that will undoubtedly cripple much of Libya and destabilise the region and finally there is the increasing likelihood of a de-facto partition of Libya as a result of any stalemate.
Both scenarios make anxious reading for the West, with a continuation of economic sanctions likely to cripple the people more than regime itself. The West know from the Iraqi experience that sanctions and no-fly zones do no always work against desperate dictators intent on holding on to power. Iraq suffered 12 years of sanctions and yet only the very people that the West is trying to protect at the current time suffered.
The actions of the West in the next week or so will speak volumes. Days of gruelling negotiations over handing command to NATO were only partially successful. Ironically, NATO is an alliance led by UK, France and the US anyway. However, by going under the NATO umbrella with the only Muslim nation of Turkey as a critical piece of the puzzle, it adds broader strategic weight to the operations.
The burning question is what is next for the Middle East and how will the West subsequently react to events that unfold under the international eye. The view of Arab states on how they prefer the Middle Eastern tide to unfold is not uniform. Some Arab powers would prefer a weakened Gaddafi to stay in power rather than create more political vacuums in the region, while some Arab countries with their own restive populations and who have suffered anti-government protests would have their own reservations in mind.
A great example is Syrian pan-Arab nationalist regime, it is very unlikely that the major Arab powers would support direct action against his regime.
At least for Libya, the people will have the limited consolation that the West did not just standby and finally took action although somewhat belatedly. In contrast to Iraq of 1991, where the people were encouraged to rise up and take matters into their own hand, but at their crucial time of need the West turned a blind eye. The 2003 invasion essentially came 12 years too late for the people and remarkably after decades of barbaric rule where opposition was frequently crushed and genocide and repression was rife, many people despised the US intervention in Iraq or criticised it as not having a moral or legal basis.
The lesson for the West is timing, realising that sanctions and no-fly zones are not enough to topple a regime and ensuring that intervention is marketed well. This is why the West this time around was careful in the wording of the resolution and in publicly setting their overall objective.
Ironically, the US led invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan was designed to achieve the very thing that the people of Tunisia, Egypt and Libya seek today, more freedom, change, liberalisation and democracy. However, the West can not pick and choose which uprisings they support based on the regime in question and their strategic objectives.
Protests in Yemen were violently suppressed while there have been brewing opposition in Bahrain, Saudi Arabia and particularly Syria. The tides of change will only get stronger if Gaddafi’s regime falls, and the next country to be swept by the tidal waves is yet to be seen. It will not only be regimes that change in this oil rich part of the world, strategic alliances, the regional power balance and the even the sectarian balance will be affected. Take Iran who voiced their great concern as the protests from their Shiite brethren in Bahrain were put down.
Too many changes, too fast and without a clear Western policy on guiding and supporting these “new” states or clear criteria for the need to intervene, may see the region in further turmoil than enter a new era of prosperity and democracy.
The US and its allies are needed to play a crucial and productive role in the Middle East more than ever.
Protests in Yemen were violently suppressed while there have been brewing opposition inBahrain,Saudi Arabia and particularly Syria. The tides of change will only get stronger if Gaddafi’s regime falls, and the next country to be swept by the tidal waves is yet to be seen. It will not only be regimes that change in this oil rich part of the world, strategic alliances, the regional power balance and the even the sectarian balance will be affected. Take Iran who voiced their great concern as the protests from their Shiite brethren in Bahrain were put down.
Too many changes, too fast and without a clear Western policy on guiding and supporting these “new” states or clear criteria for the need to intervene, may see the region in further turmoil than enter a new era of prosperity and democracy.
The US and its allies are needed to play a crucial and productive role in the Middle East more than ever.