As much as some people would like it to be, the current situation in the Middle East (particularly Libya) is not a "Mr Gorbachev tear down this wall" moment. Rather, it is a situation balanced rather precariously on a knife edge, where any drastic measures taken in any direction is likely to topple the whole region into even greater chaos. Yes, it certainly does seem that Gaddafi has lost his few remaining marbles and needs to be shown the door, and yes it is true that the US would do well to avoid any further military foreign entanglements, but just as the US and UN couldn't sit idly by watching a madman murder his people we also couldn't race in on a charging stallion and perfectly fulfil the crusader/imperialist nightmare that Gaddafi even now claims the military intervention to be. Instead, a delicate middle ground needed to be found - one that accomplished the goals of civilian protection and eventual peaceful democratic revolution.
Obama, and the West in general, was and is caught in a catch-22. Intervention in the Middle East will invariably be seen as imperialist meddling - we have a very very long history of doing just that to blame, and certainly the actions of the previous administration did nothing to help the situation. Any action taken quickly, and without the support of key regional and global players like the Arab League and UN, will merely give greater power to anti-Western forces. I certainly can't condone the fact that Obama largely ignored the Iranian protest movement, but I'm also not sure how we could have acted better in that situation - too much outward support and the Iranian administration would have simply branded the protesters as American puppets. Even now Gaddafi seems to be claiming that the unrest is equal parts imperialist aggression and al-Qaeda terrorism. Therefore, the road we ended up taking (though we almost left it too late) was absolutely what we had to do - a stop to Qaddfi's murderous aggression tempered with caution, an international coalition, and, most importantly, a mandate from the Arab League.
The future is not so clear however. While I'm sure that much of the behind the scenes diplomatic wrangling is much more expansive and thorough that what the press reports, it does seem clear that there is widespread dissension and lack of agreement on how to proceed. Ultimately the goal must be to prevent civilian casualties and bring the conflict to a peaceful, speedy, and durable conclusion. Unfortunately those three conditions rarely seem to occur together.
The role of military action in Libya cannot be regime change. Rather, it needs to be motivated by the need to create a level playing field where those seeking a way forward from the oppression of Gaddafi can negotiate with him (or whatever credible representative of his regime that may step forward). One complicating factor is that it truly does seem that the country has deep seated East-West divisions. This should not be a surprise to anyone who has studied that area with its massive tribal divisions and largely artificial unity. One possible result of a stalemate and eventual negotiated settlement could well be a referendum whereby Libya is split in two - there is an excellent example of this in Sudan which would be a very good test case for such an action. In any case, it appears highly unlikely that the rebels will be able to capture all of the country (and certainly now that the no-fly zone has been imposed Gaddafi has no hope of conquering the remaining rebel strongholds) so stalemate appears inevitable.
Stalemate could mean two things: it could mean endless low intensity (yet massively damaging) conflict, or it could mean a ceasefire while the two sides come together for peaceful negotiations - hopefully facilitated by either the UN or Arab League. The goal of military action must be the latter- and as quickly as possible. As long as real ceasefire is achieved negotiation must be the next step. Military protection for the rebel forces cannot become military support for a drive on Tripoli - the pendulum needs to stop in the middle, not swing fully to the other side. Indeed negotiation needs to (and probably is) occurring NOW, both in an effort to get Gadaffi to step aside and in order to bring sensible heads from both sides together. Furthermore, some sort of facilitation should be taking place within the rebel held areas to try to bring together a meaningful rebel coalition who can present their varied demands in a sensible and unified fashion. Military intervention needs to be used to create a cold peace under which the hard negotiation that is the only way to real peace can occur.
While the West's caution and tact in dealing with Libya is to be commended, their handling of authoritarian allies in the region leave a lot to be desired. Western administrations need to begin to put much greater pressure on the regimes that rule Yemen, Saudi Arabia, and Bahrain in particular. Granted, it would be best not to see open revolution and civil war in those areas, but the bell is tolling for authoritarian governments throughout the region. While it is unfortunate that the putative democratically elected groups that would rule the aforementioned countries are unlikely to be terribly friendly with the US (or West in general) it would be far better to have democratically elected regimes that we didn't oppose and tacitly supported, rather than democratically elected governments that gained power over the dead bodies of our allies. Democracy is coming to the Middle East whether we like it or not. Americans would do well to remember that what is best for the world is not necessarily best for the US, and vice versa, especially in the short term. I would argue that what's best for the world will always be best for the US in the long run, but then, I'm a bleeding heart liberal that doesn't have to worry about a four year election cycle.
No comments:
Post a Comment