Libya is exploding Following the removal of autocratic leaders in Egypt and Tunis and violent protests in Bahrain, Yemen, and elsewhere, Libya is next.. These are truly remarkable times, reminiscent of the late 1980s when Eastern European satellites threw off the yoke of the Soviet Union and tore down the Berlin Wall, the symbol of Soviet-style oppression.
Unfortunately, the US administration has not a clue as to how to deal with the violent revolts spreading across the Arab world; this is demonstrated in how President Obama is reacting to the crisis in Libya. According to Nile Gardiner “the Obama administration is stuck in classic deer in the headlights mode, offering little more than mealy-mouthed statements condemning the state-sponsored violence against anti-government protesters on the streets of Tripoli, Benghazi, Tobruk and other key Libyan cities, which has already claimed at least 1,000 lives”
In fairness, Obama is not alone in confusion and ineptness. Former President George W. Bush and many others believed that the problem of Arab tyranny could be solved by elections. But democracy is more than voting; it also includes an independent judiciary, a free press, the rule of law, and the rights of minorities. When Palestinians voted in free elections in 2006, they chose Hamas and its totalitarian, radical program, leading inexorably to a distinctly undemocratic terrorist theocracy in Gaza.
Libya is different than the other Arab nations in at least two ways. It is the first of the major oil-producing countries to undergo a revolt with a probable change in leadership, and so the events have raised fears of oil shortages and higher prices. . And it is far more brutal than its predecessors. Along with Iran and Syria, Libya is truly an evil nation, and the fall of Col Muammar el-Qaddafi cannot come too soon.
Qaddafi has been courted by politicians who should know better. Tony Blair, Silvio Berlusconi, and others have embraced him in well-publicized photo opportunities. The United Nations, which condemns Israel with great frequency, appointed Libya to the Human Rights Council with no hint of irony. The Arab media delights in showing a photo of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton meeting with one of Qaddafi's sons.
As for democracy, Qaddafi has his own version, and knows how to deal with the opposition. In 1996 he murdered 1,200 political prisoners in Abu Salim prison. This is also the man responsible for the deaths of 270 innocents on Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, as well as killing or wounding over 200, many American, in a 1986 discotheque bombing in Berlin. He has been implicated as the chief financier for the Black September Movement which perpetrated the Munich massacre at the 1972 Olympics, and for financing Ilich Ramírez Sánchez (Carlos the Jackal) in the operation that kidnapped the OPEC oil ministers in 1987.
In the current uprising, we have no idea how many thousands have been murdered in Libya, or how many more will be. Qaddafi has ordered helicopters and airplanes to shoot or bomb demonstrators. Fearing correctly that his own forces may not obey his orders, he has imported mercenaries from other African countries to do much of the killing.
What is the White House’s strategy on the Libyan crisis? Quite simply there isn’t one. Alex Spillius points out that the US government has been far too reticent with Libya. It is fair to ask whether the response of our administration is the result of confusion, lack of foreign policy expertise, a misreading of history, or an unwillingness to take principled positions? I suggest it is all of the above.
So given the evidence of brutality and evil, why has Qaddafi been immune so far? And what is our administration doing now? According to Nile Gardiner, , almost nothing. Stated simply, while Qaddafi has been ruthless and anti-American, our response has been carefully worded expressions of outrage, lacking conviction, along with promises to meet with other nations to further “discuss” the situation. Unconvincing statements from the president condemning violence, respecting the rights of the protestors, and threatening to go to the UN, are clear examples of too little and too late. Is Obama afraid that he might upset Qaddafi? Or make him angry at the US? How much worse can it get?. And we certainly don’t need meaningless statements from a severely biased UN Security Council, or from an amoral UN Human Rights Council (of which Libya is a member)
Libya is a very rich country, and Qaddafi has stashed away much of its assets. According to WikiLeaks Libya has $32 billion in cash with U.S. banks as well as investments in London. David Pryce-Jones tells us that he also has holdings in Italian and German companies. In addition, many billions of dollars are available in Libya’s oil reserves.
Paul Wolfowitz and Jennifer Rubin have pointed out that there are a range of strong measures that could be deployed. We can condemn not just the violence but Qaddafi, who is perpetrating it. We can demand an emergency Security Council meeting. We can demand that Qaddafi step down. We can freeze Qaddafi’s assets and impose other economic measures. We can tell the Libyan armed forces that we will bomb their airfields if they continue to kill their people. We can consider arming the demonstrators
.According to Wolfowitz, the administration is apparently unprepared for these historic developments. By this time, they should have developed an effective response.. As he states, “For people who castigated the Bush administration and promised "smart diplomacy," they surely haven't demonstrated any prowess of their own”.
Please bookmark!
No comments:
Post a Comment