Watching the extraordinary scenes in Tripoli last night, when Gaddafi’s decades of bloody tyranny were finally coming to an end, felt like déjà vu. I was reminded of the fall of Saddam and how the Iraqis had embraced their new freedom.
It is not too bold to say the Arab Spring had its origin in Iraq in 2003. At the time, George W. Bush, Tony Blair and a small group of like minds challenged the received wisdom of Arab exceptionalism – the myth that Arabs are somehow allergic to freedom, democracy and the rule of law. Condemning whole generations to despotism for historical reasons is no less than cultural relativism at its worst.
Bush’s and Blair’s Iraq policy further led to the disarmament of Libya, a result almost collectively ignored by the intellectual elite, political establishment and media. But given the current circumstances, it seems in order to stress once more the reason Gaddafi is no longer in possession of WMDs is because the regime dropped its nuclear advances after the fall of Saddam.
In the Middle East everything is linked. The circle is slowly closing. It provides the West with the unique opportunity to make unequivocally clear the era of dictatorships is over and a new zero-tolerance policy in place.
When Ben Ali’s regime crumbled into pieces, Mubarak said he would not go. Gaddafi reacted similarly when his Egyptian brother fled the country. Now Assad is fervently insisting Syria is not affected by the Arab Spring.
Over 2200 protestors have already lost their lives in Syria – 2200 souls too many. If the West is serious about saving lives, the time for action in Syria is now. There must be a line no sovereign nation should ever be allowed to cross. Assad crossed this line weeks ago and should pay for it.
Humanitarian militarism is far from perfect, but if the point of settlement has passed, the less of all evil. Cameron’s leadership over Libya deserves praise. The intervention also showed that, against all odds, the Blair Doctrine was not buried in the sand of Iraq but is alive and working.
As I have argued before: Those who oppose humanitarian interventionism have to understand that, if innocent people are killed en mass, the decision not to intervene is as much a declaration of interest as a decision to intervene is a commitment to bring to justice those who commit such crimes.
After Libya has been completely liberated, I think that instead of disbanding, the coalition should help pro-democracy protesters and forces in Yemen. I think the coalition’s help would be appreciated more there than in Syria.
The coalition should help pro-democracy movements across the entire region – from Yemen to Syria and indeed Iran.
Very good comment. There is no reason why young people especially with their lives before them, hearing and reading on the internet about freedom to live their lives as they would wish, should not have the opportunity to embrace freedom. I hope the Burmese will have that chance as well.
Thank you, Ruth. Appreciated.
I’m torn, Julie. On the one hand I accept entirely the case for humanitarian intervention, as I did in Libya and Iraq. On the other, all reliable sources seem to be saying that politically, ethically + geographically, Syria is an entirely different ball-game, which could entrap the West in something entirely unwinnable (I think the words were “vipers’ nest”). Need to understand why this is emphatically not the case, before signing up for a Western intervention if we cannot win it. Which I’m sure you’re about to tell me
And since the Assad family has survived such attacks once before as well as losing every war with Israel reveals a remarkable affinity for surviving. As well as adopting the Roman strategy of simply leveling two or three cities as a warning to the others. Unlike Libya Syria will be a much tougher nut to crack with the same tactics or any where close to the same amount of time.
I agree wholeheartedly with the sentiment, Julie. What sort of intervention in Syria did you have in mind ?
The accusations of hypocrisy directed against the West, because we intervened militarily in Libya but not in Syria, Yemen or Bahrain, are unjustified. Even leaving aside the unique broad international support for intervention in Libya, the difference was that there, the rebels had liberated whole areas of the country; the West could therefore defend these areas by using air-strikes to halt Gaddafi’s attempt at reconquest. Intervening militarily to halt straightforward military and police repression of peaceful protesters is a different matter. Even after our action in Libya had begun, we were not able, in the short term, to halt Gaddafi’s repression in Tripoli and other areas under his control; that had to await the final rebel victory.
So, we do need a strategy for intervention in Syria, but it will need to be different to the one that worked for Libya. Any thoughts ? Michael Weiss has made some suggestions over at the HJS:
http://www.henryjacksonsociety.org/stories.asp?pageid=49&id=2384
Thanks for your comment, Marko!
I too agree with what Michael Weiss writes in his brilliant article. Economic sanctions appear to be the best strategy at the moment, given the unique circumstances within the country and the fact that war against Syria probably wouldn’t stay in Syria (Iran, Hamas, Hezbollah, Golan etc.)
I just think it gives the wrong signal to Assad’s regime, if the West and NATO categorically eliminate the possibility of future military intervention. We shouldn’t encourage Assad to inflict intolerable cruelties upon his own people with impunity.