Colonel Muammar Gaddafi is a murderous tyrant. He has been a despot for all the 40 years of his rule in Libya – that has never been in doubt. So why is it only now that Britain, France and others are more or less committed to overthrowing his regime – and putting an end to it soon? Other dictatorial regimes around the world, including those in Zimbabwe, Yemen and Saudi Arabia, are as bad as Gaddafi’s or worse. Yet there seem to be no Western plans to remove them. In fact, among the usual enthusiasts for “regime change”, Libya was hitherto regarded as one of the least urgent cases for military action.
After the fateful invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, once again an alliance of coalition nations is bombing a Muslim country with the aim of liberating its people from their dictatorial rulers. Once again a British Prime Minster is telling us that innocent civilians are being massacred in another country and that the United Kingdom must intervene as a moral imperative. However, in this case – even as part of a broader, United Nations-sanctioned coalition to enforce a no-fly zone – the United Kingdom should not have intervened militarily.
The coalition forces cannot be blind to the fact that cruise missiles and aerial bombs do not just destroy enemy planes and tanks. They also kill people – and innocent casualties are inevitable. Regardless of the stated intentions of David Cameron and French President Nicolas Sarkozy, the West is likely to be portrayed as it has been depicted before –as predatory and anti-Muslim. And, as Justice Secretary Ken Clarke has warned, the danger is that Western nations, including Britain, will again be the targets of terrorism.
As it invariably does, the Arab League is sending decidedly mixed signals. No doubt, many of its members would not be sorry to see the back of Gaddafi. But they don’t care for revolution of either the democratic or theocratic kind and they seem more than a bit uncomfortable aligning themselves with a Western-led coalition that is violating the sovereignty of another Arab country.
The leaders of the Arab League are aware that, even before the dust has settled, Islamic fundamentalists will denounce what is supposed to be a humanitarian intervention as an ill-disguised Crusader attack on Islam. Further, many people are likely to see coalition military action as motivated more by the West’s desire to get its hands on Libyan oil and gas than any aspiration to save lives and spread democracy. Certainly, the West has long adopted a selective morality. Gaddafi was courted when he was deemed to be useful. Now he is denounced as a demented despot because that suits our interests.
Of course, we should hate Gaddafi’s high-handed brutality and his systematic abuse of the human rights of the Libyan people. But nor should we forget that, under Gaddafi’s rule, Libya has made substantial progress over the past four decades – socially and economically. Women are treated far better. For instance, there is a fairly liberal dress code, subject to family constraints.
The life expectancy of the population is in the 70s. The literacy rate is one of the highest in North Africa and the Middle East. Education is free up to college level and beyond. Great strides have been taken in tackling homelessness. According to the latest World Bank figures (for 2009), the per capita income in Libya is estimated at $12,000 (approximately £7,480), which is no mean achievement by any standard.
This is a country of young people with a median age of 24.2. Colonel Gaddafi has controlled the country for more than four decades by his mastery of tribal management. Libya has more than 140 tribes and clans with conflicting interests. Gaddafi will continue to manipulate these various groups with the aim of frustrating coalition attempts to bring a speedy resolution to the present turmoil.
For many in the international community, the purpose of enforcing a no-fly zone through the use of extensive bombing may well be to prevent the killing of innocent Libyan civilians by government troops and to protect the country’s pro-democracy forces. But if their objective is “regime change”, then Britain, France and their allies must tread warily.
Have the lessons of the intervention in Iraq been learned? It is high time that the West stopped trying to act as the world’s policeman and let regional institutions such as the Arab League or the larger Organisation of the Islamic Conference mount a humanitarian intervention at their own cost in terms of blood and money. The Organisation of the Islamic Conference has 57 members, well-equipped troops and modern jet fighters (sold to it by the West).
While Britain and its allies must be sensitive to people’s concerns, they must also recognise that prudent politics involves taking account of national interests, including various possible scenarios regarding oil and the supply of it. We in the West should stick to expressions of honest moral and financial support for democrats and humanitarian dissidents throughout the Arab world.
Kailash Chand is chair of Tameside and Glossop NHS
