Posts Tagged ‘Libya’

Western military intervention in Libya has caused rumblings within the Left, as Mark Bahnisch and Guy Rundle have noted.

Anti-Imperialist Leftists remain adamant in their opposition to the imposed Libyan No Fly Zone, with the usual arguments that such action equates to aggression, and not revolution.

Liberal Leftists – those that believe human rights supercedes the sanctity of a state’s sovereignty – are clearly supportive of the intervention on humanitarian grounds, and in sympathy with the democratic aspirations of the Libyan people. The latter also fits neatly with traditional right-wing values, in addition to knocking out an old foe in Colonel Qaddafi.

And thus my Twitter has become polarised between left-leaning activists of the two opposing views.

However, whilst I am supportive of intervention on humanitarian grounds, the anti-Imperialist contention that Great Powers only ever intervene when it serves their national interest – and are often entirely cynical of such measures as a consequence – holds some merit. It reflects a realist and pessimistic view of world affairs where humanity simply has no role in international relations,  and state decisions are calculated purely on self interest.

Indeed, one can see a plethora of Western interests at play in Libya:

Oil – that lucrative black resource that the West can’t get enough of. World energy supplies are becoming less available to Western markets as emerging powers demand sufficient oil imports to support their growing economies. Much of Libya’s oil reserves lie in the east of the country, where the West has drawn the red line for Qaddafi. Will they exploit Libya’s wealth, even if it means a long-term division of the country?

Qaddafi - No friend of the West, and an erratic figurehead leads to unpredictable behaviour. When sovereignty rests with a sole leader, the importance of the personality of such a leader magnifies in determining that state’s policies and behaviour in the international community. Think Kim Jong-il.

Replacing Qaddafi with a stable form of governance that the West can rely on will ensure smooth relations, and a steady and secure flow of oil without the threat of an eccentric dictator changing tune at the flick of a switch.

Legitimacy – Following the debacle of Iraq and Afghanistan, and the subsequent decline of US global power, legitimate intervention in Libya via the UN and in the name of humanitarianism is a significant step towards regaining global legitimacy. Much political analysis has foreseen the decline of the West in international relations. As emerging powers push forward competing foreign policy agendas, the West’s flexibility to operate as a world’s policeman – as it has for the past four centuries – is curtailed.

A demonstration of military power and projection, whilst upholding liberal democratic values to justify its intervention, signals that the West is still determined to ensure its values define the norms of 21st century international relations.

Nevertheless, with such interests in mind, it is necessary to redress the pessimistic realism that anti-Imperialists often seek to draw upon to justify their cynicism of military action.

The argument that states function purely on national interest is one that is accepted across most international relations theorists. However, what determines such interests is often a source for contention. Anti-Imperialists and realists each assume that national interests are a given for every state, and thus all pursue the same goals (greater power) in the same manner, if given the opportunity.

I do not share such a reductionist view of international affairs. National interests vary considerably between states, and are often contingent on the identities within the state, and thus, the domestic arena plays a significant role in determining the shape and behaviour of a state.

Universal values underpin Western societies. The age-old Christian notion that one must help a man in need lies at the heart of Western thought, even if – admittedly – Western policies seldom reflect such compassion.

That such a conscience exists, however, incredibly influences how the West perceives its role in the world. Whilst many rightly label the West as hypocrites for their inconsistent approach to human rights, it is also true that the West’s self-perception of holding superior moral values grants it – in the West’s views – the legitimacy to police a world where its values are not entirely shared. In 19th century terms, it is the distinction between the civilised, the barbarian and the primitive. The West still retains this view – although in less direct terms – of the world, and adjusts its policies accordingly. The Arab world is still the barbarian other in need of further civilising.

This may appear, and for many it is, a racist outlook. But – and this is entertaining right-wing thought – do we not consider the Western form of governance that upholds the liberal democratic values of freedom of speech superior to the repressive dictatorships of China, Iran and Libya? Does the West still have the right to retain such a distinction between itself and the world, thus giving it the legitimacy it is using today to intervene in Libya?

Indeed, if we are to accept that national interests determine state behaviour, we must also be open to the domestic agents and identities that determine such interests, for the state system is not filled with like-units.

Whilst, yes, the West will intervene in Libya for the benefit of its resources, it is equally simplistic to ignore a humanitarian imperative that lies within the West’s identity and image. That is, the legitimacy the West awards itself, courtesy of its self-perceived view of holding the higher moral ground vis-a-vis other states for the reasons aforementioned.

Libya is a rare case of the Left and Right aligning in pursuit of the same goal: to remove a repressive dictatorship to permit the emergence of a revolutionary liberal democratic Libya that respects human rights. It is the unique occasion where Western ideals and interests coalesce to enable an intervention without much dissent and soul-searching, as was the case in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Indeed, enthusiasts in both camps believe that such an approach should be extended to the Gulf, where Bahrain, Yemen and Saudi Arabia deploy similar brutal measures to contain pro-democracy protests.

However, where ideals and interests clash, one can expect the West to shelve its rhetoric to safeguard core interests. The Gulf is simply too precious and fragile to tinker with. Intervening in the Gulf is not a question of Western legitimacy, but of Western capability. Can the US – in particular – cope with a revolution in the Gulf? If Egypt is any indication, it would seem not.

Failure to support the democratic uprisings in the Gulf is more a signal of America’s declining ability to influence states to accede to its interests.

But if we can take one, Libya, then it is better than none.