Newspaper

• Home
• News

.

Against the bloodied backdrop of the recent Arabuprisings; the terms ‘freedom’ and ‘protest’ arecharged with images of starving civilians, batteredand blighted, yet quietly determined to overthrow their op-pressors. Plagued with these scenes; the Western conscienceconsiders its moral debt to the Libyans, whose dictator it fa-mously helped to arm. In response: a no-fly zone is estab-lished. But the righteous zeal of the coalition crusade soundstinny in the ears of the troops still grafting, understaffed andunder-resourced, in Afghanistan. The stay-at-home scep-tics, too, question the deployment of Tornado jets to policeLibyan skies, when the British Defence budget is set for a squeeze. Why there? Why now? And then, the recalcitrant question: oil.

Other, more spurious motives aside; there is a valid justifica-tion to be found for intervention in Libya. In a state where civilians are not citizens but subjects, without any stake in the regime that represses them, the sovereignty of the people is not vested in that ruling regime. Particularly in Libya, where Gaddafi’s military might is an insurmountable barrierto any manifestation of discontent or opposition to present governance, the people cannot self-determine. By intervening to level the playing fields, this inordinate hurdle can bedemolished; allowing ordinary Libyans a fairer fight againstthe established order.

The restraint shown, thus far, by the coalition forces mustcontinue. Further encroachment, as the annals of history must remind us, will be characterised as a Western imposition. Already, the Arab League has expressed its unease after initial cries for help. With ever shifting dynamics, the powers that be in the region cannot be relied on to provide constant support for Western involvement.

More essentially, the very crux of ‘self’ determination is that it is achieved organically. Artificial direction necessarily chokes it off. To remain justfiable, then, Western intervention must allow the uprisings freedom to fail. The protesters comprise many disparate groups, underscored by tribal and religious divides. If these groups are united only for the moment by their shared grievances, without shared goals for the future; failure must inevitably ensue. To propel one of these groups into power ahead of another is to condemn the beleaguered nation to a future of fighting and prolonged instability.

But how long can we count on the West to temper its gun toting tendencies? Already, whispers of ‘mission creep’ are reaching the press. For, as the loyalist forces change tactics, so too must the coalition. Embedding themselves in civilian territories, Gaddafi’s troops have forced the West to make tough choices. NATO’s first rebel casualties point to the confusion that now reigns over the mission.

Whatever the outcome, such political manoeuvring by the coalition’s key players does little to ease concerns that the intervention is founded on shadier motivations. With similarly heinous oppression reigning in Yemen and, now, Syria; the particular exigency for involvement in Libya is hard to determine. If it is so morally repugnant to stand aside and watch Gaddafi persecute his people, why is it not so repugnant to let President Ali Abdullah Saleh continue unabated in Yemen? Why is it not imperative to stop the bloodshed in Bahrain? Such moral “double standards” (as they have been dubbed by George Galloway) risk discrediting any good being done in Libya.

Perhaps it is too late to avoid the catcalls of ‘moral hypoc-risy’; but it is not too late to do some good in Libya. We are now invested in the struggle, whether for right or for wrong. Let us not damage its progress by wading in too far. We must remain, as long as and to the extent that we are required and no more.

Comments