This sudden Western concern for the people of Libya raises more suspicions than it raises hopes.

The Economist Debate: my contribution

Here is the new (on-going) Economist Debate about Western intervention in Libya, and my contribution.

Posted by As'ad AbuKhalil at 5:40 PM

Western governments, or "the West", never intervene in the Middle East without invoking the loftiest of ideals. Western armies, since the days of Napoleon, descend on the region uninvited, promising reforms and change that are never consistent with people's aspirations and desires. And the promises never materialise: or what materialises never resembles the early promises. But Western bombs always fall in conjunction with flyers rich in flowery language that is often associated with Arabic. This sudden Western concern for the people of Libya raises more suspicions than it raises hopes.

Hundreds of demonstrators have been killed in Tunisia, Yemen and Egypt, and Western governments did not only stand by: they in fact stood firmly in support of the dictatorships there (and it is not clear that the Libyan tyrant killed more of his people than Hosni Mubarak or Zine El Abidine Ben Ali, but Western governments exhibit more concern for civilians in countries rich with oil or gas, as it happens). Barack Obama did not call for Ben Ali to step down until he was sure that his plane had left Tunisian airspace, and he managed to conspire with Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah and Israel's Binyamin Netanyahu (neither of which stands as a champion of Arab democracy) to prolong the life of the Mubarak regime. The code word then was "reform", which is a euphemism for prolonging the lives of dictatorial regimes by implementing cosmetic changes to soften public anger and undermine protests. But the popular protests in Egypt were so massive that Western governments—the very patrons and champions of Mr Mubarak—could not but accept the reality. Of course, they quickly repositioned themselves and pretended that they had supported democracy in Egypt all along. Some American publications even tried to give credit for the Arab waves of democracy either to a retired professor in Boston or to workshops attended by some Egyptian youths.

Libya is a different matter altogether. Western governments were aghast: they did not know until the bizarre Libyan dictator, Muammar Qaddafi, recently used massive force against the population that he sits at the helm of a brutal regime. Hillary Clinton even feigned outrage: she called for a revisiting of the Lockerbie bombing to determine Colonel Qaddafi's role, as if there is a mystery about Libyan involvement when the Qaddafi regime agreed to pay financial compensation to the families of the victims (and the American government pressured the families to accept the deal and stop making noises about Libyan-sponsored terrorism). The American and other Western governments have been instrumental in rehabilitating Colonel Qaddafi in the past decade.

There are many reasons why Western governments cannot be trusted in their intervention in Libya. The Arabs are defying decades-long stereotypes about their passivity and fatalism, and yet the entire Western club seems intent on preserving the Arab tyrannical order that has served its political, economic and military interests. Saudi Arabia and Egypt were the linchpins of the American regional system. It is not that democracy cannot be imposed from outside—as liberal critics of George Bush often put it—but the notion that Western governments ever pushed for democracy and enlightenment in the Middle East is dubious at best.

First, they have opposed the progressive and liberal trends in the region all along: the Western alliance with Saudi Arabia—one of the most oppressive and exclusivist states on the face of the earth—is not a coincidence, and is not a footnote to our story here.

Second, Western military intervention always harms innocent civilians, despite various rationalisations, justifications and fabrications (more than 400 civilians were killed by NATO forces in Afghanistan in the past year alone—and NATO commanders were bragging that the figure represented a decline from previous years).

Third, there are reasons to believe that America is attempting to abort the democratisation of the region. There is talk of an early allocation of millions of America dollars to support favoured groups and organisations in Egypt. The American Congress has expressed far more support for the Egypt-Israel peace treaty than for democracy in Egypt. The Sadat-Mubarak regime was an American creation through and through, and enjoyed the support of all Western governments.

Fourth, why would the American or other Western governments be eager to intervene in the region when they are clearly opposed and detested by the Arab people? And the notion that the Arab League "requested" Western help is a canard because the league is nothing but a Saudi foreign-policy tool (and its secretary-general later criticised Western targeting in Libya).

The Middle East region is changing before our eyes; decades of accumulated frustrations and defeats are producing urgent calls and movements for change. America was taken aback and has been adjusting to a changing political map, especially now that its loyal client, Mr Mubarak, has fallen. But American adjustments are intended not to replace the decaying tyrants. Instead, America is working hard to preserve the regional tyrannical orders with a few cosmetic changes and with changes of faces where possible (it initially hoped that Omar Suleiman would inherit Mr Mubarak's job). But the Arab people are singing a different tune, and America never seems to care about or respect Arab political preferences.
==
Democracy and Hypocrisy in Libya

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian