The ‘mission creep’ syndrome

West’s claim that its intervention is humanitarian is false, evident from its failure to react in Yemen and Bahrain.

It is ironic, but not surprising, that it should be the French and British who took the lead in galvanising international support for the rebels in Libya. After all, they have had a century-long involvement in the region, the after-effects of which continues to haunt it.

Of course, Qaddafi is least deserving of sympathy. In the pantheon of the region’s dictators, he is amongst the vilest, embodying both brutality and weird behaviour that left both friends and foes confused. Reacting to events in Libya is, nevertheless, neither easy nor simple. It arouses excitement at the prospect of a brutal regime’s end, but also deep anxiety at what may be in store for its people, as the Anglo-Saxon powers engage in their usual machinations, driven by their lust for Libya’s oil riches and strategic location. The pretext is human rights, but the speed and enthusiasm of their intervention has given the game away.

Although UN Resolution 1973 allows only for measures to protect the people, the triumvirate’s (Britain, France and the US) intentions are obvious. While insisting that their aim “is not to remove Qaddafi by force”, they also stress that “it is impossible to imagine a future for Libya with Qaddafi in power”. How do you square this circle? France and Italy have joined Britain in sending liaison officers to support the rebels, while the US has allocated 25 million dollars of ‘non-lethal’ weapons to them. The CIA is already there and, of course, the ubiquitous drones have entered the fray! That the Arab League wilted under pressure and gave cover to Qatar and the UAE to join Nato in fighting a war in Africa may prove to be a dangerous precedent that could come to haunt a region given to huge internal contradictions. Add to that the attack on Qaddafi’s office, so reminiscent of the ‘mission creep’ syndrome that afflicts all such adventures!

Admittedly, few tears will be shed at Qaddafi’s departure, but foreign intervention to achieve this objective lacks both legality and morality, but then such niceties do not concern big powers. The West’s claim that its intervention is to save human lives is false, evident from its failure to react to events in Yemen and its acquiescence in what is taking place in Bahrain. More importantly, if there had been any truth in it, they would not be complicit in the crimes being committed against the Palestinians. Concepts such as the ‘Responsibility to Protect’ sound great in debates, but become shorn of legitimacy when applied selectively to advance the western agenda.

It looks like an eerie replay of a sordid past, when, from 1943 to 1951, Britain and France took control of Libya, which earlier had been an Italian colony, while the US established a huge military base in the south. Sadly, the four major emerging economic powers, China, Russia, India and Brazil, all voted in favour of the resolution, even though China and Russia could have used their veto power to kill it. It is disingenuous of them to now claim that “we share the principle that the use of force should be avoided”.

Western intervention is unlikely to bring democracy to Libya, or even ensure protection of human rights. That is the least of the West’s concerns, as evident from the cast of characters that are their favourites in Libya. The so-called Interim National Council (reminds one of the Iraqi National Council) is commanded by Colonel Haftar, who, for the past 20 years, may have been in the pay of CIA while living in Virginia. The others are Mustafa Jalil, Qaddafi’s justice minister, and General Younis, his interior minister, both of whom were well known for the savagery with which they dealt with political opponents. If anything, foreign intervention is likely to frustrate and weaken those who want to bring about a genuinely representative government in Libya.

Published in The Express Tribune, April 28^th, 2011.