The ‘people power’ bug that first took hold in Tunisia and has since swept across north Africa and the Middle East has triggered a series of earth-shattering events that may well come to be seen as the crumbling of the once-unshakeable dominions of Arab power – a state of flux that has been so brutally resisted by Colonel Gaddafi in Libya this week.
The events have – wholly justifiably – gripped the world’s media and preoccupied the thoughts of many Western leaders for weeks. But the latter will be fully aware that the fallout is nothing like that which has been portrayed with a slight sense of righteous satisfaction by some within the former.
Fate is sealed
First and foremost, of course, there is unity between the two on one count – utter horror at and vigorous condemnation of the actions of the Libyan authorities. But while many journalists have found confirmation of long-held suspicions in Gaddafi’s actions, his Western counterparts will more likely sense a betrayal.
This is a man who responded to the Iraq War not by denouncing the West’s crusade but by first admitting to possessing WMD, then setting about destroying them. Similarly, it was shortly after the Madrid bombings in March 2004 that he held an historic meeting with Tony Blair whom he pledged to join in the fight against terrorism.
But this is also a man who many believe played a major role in the plot to blow up Pan Am Flight 103 in December 1988, and whose favour may well have been a consideration – if not a motive – in the release of the only person convicted of the biggest terrorist atrocity in British history.
His government also allegedly supplied arms to the Provisional IRA, and (belatedly) accepted responsibility for the murder of PC Yvonne Fletcher during an anti-Gaddafi demo in London in 1984.
In other words, as far as diplomatic relations go, his fate is sealed.
Friendly face
The same could not be said for President Hosni Mubarak. As a staunch defender of Israel but one whom envisioned a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, he was a valuable ally of Britain and especially the US throughout his reign, and often acted as a go-between in negotiations.
It was no accident that President Obama’s defining foreign-policy speech was made in Cairo.
However, one of the reasons for Mubarak’s perceived strength was the lack of a threat to his leadership. He first took power, and then retained it, through a series of unashamedly dubious democratic exercises. His style of rule contradicted Western values of openness and accountability, and thus did not fit with America’s ambitions for a democratic Middle East.
Therefore the Egyptian revolution – like others that will surely follow – presented a dilemma for Western leaders, between wanting to see the will of the people prevail over suppression, and being fearful of seeing a friendly face ousted in favour of a new, radical force.
No wonder they dithered, especially President Obama.
In the end, he managed to find himself subjected to criticism both that he had failed to take a lead by declaring his stance (and ensuring his Secretary of State was on message, which she often was not), and that he had prematurely shot a pivotal ally in the back.
Mubarak’s crisis in particular, and the surge of the Middle Eastern people in general, represent Obama’s trickiest foreign-policy challenge so far – but also an opportunity for him to oversee his soothing words being put into action; so far, the former is prevailing.
Mob rule
The danger is that the very prospect that is giving Obama, David Cameron and others cold feet about these dramatic and historic events will be allowed, by this exact hesitancy and absence of statesmanship, to become reality.
That is, a Middle East dominated by Hezbollahs and Hamas’s – barely-homogeneous congregations of radicals underscored by the fundamental legitimacy of democratic consent.
But the West cannot preach an Arab liberation that is subject to its own approval. Such an outcome would be seen in the region as interference that ranks alongside the saga in Iraq.
But this is where the media’s naivety lies. It is by no means a certainty that stable and legitimate will replace stable; that good will replace evil; that free will replace un-free. The celebratory tone of many an article or broadcast is uncomfortably premature.
The hasty ousting of Mubarak, brought about by the constant stream of concessions that merely spurred the protestors on (perhaps motivating Gaddafi’s vastly different approach), has left a power vacuum, papered over in the interim by military rule but in which a toxic atmosphere of uncertainty and opportunism may result in the victory of a highly undesirable force in a messy and unsatisfying battle.
After all, for all the hundreds of thousands who gathered in Tahrir Square, in the context of Egypt’s 80-million population the downfall of Mubarak was more like a victory for mob rule than a heart-warming triumph of fledgling democracy.
What will happen in Libya, meanwhile – with or without Gaddafi – is anyone’s guess.
A new beginning?
Obama in Cairo admitted that America does not presume to know what is best for everyone, but then reeled off an apparently indisputable list of the values that he said all people yearn for. It is exactly this non-committal and potentially hypocritical approach that has failed him in his quest to take a stand upon the tipping point that has now been reached.
Fundamentally, though, he sought to emphasise the common characteristics and shared interests between peoples between whom a wedge had been driven by previous events.
He called for a “new beginning”. Whether he likes it or not, he’s certainly witnessing one.
No comments:
Post a Comment