The No-Fly Zone in Libya: Hijacking the Arab Uprisings

Karl Sharro

Republished with permission from KarlRemarks

Last night’s UN Security Council’s decision to authorise military action in Libya was greeted with almost universal jubilation revealing how confused the anti-imperialist camp has become. The very same people who had been opposed to the US invasion and continuing presence in Iraq and Afghanistan cheered the decision that will supposedly prevent Qaddafi from massacring his people. This also revealed the left’s lack of faith in revolutionary politics: overnight the Libyans were turned from subjects attempting to take control of their destiny into victims in need of protection. The most troubling aspect of this is the willingness to recognise the West’s moral superiority, failing to acknowledge that Western intervention has been actively propping up authoritarian Arab regimes for decades. The no-fly zone is nothing to celebrate, on the contrary it signals a major turning point that will hand the West the initiative allowing it to ensure its interests are maintained in the region. It will also undermine the legitimacy of the autonomous Arab uprisings as they begin to be associated with Western sponsorship. We have entered a new phase with direct Western intervention that will pose serious threats to the pursuit of freedom in Arab countries.

There is no doubt that many people who support the no-fly zone are driven by good intentions, and it’s tough to watch Gaddafi’s forces regain ground and advance towards Benghazi without feeling the need to ‘do something’. This is particularly understandable given the early success of the Libyan uprising and the sense of expectation it created, contrasted with the current frustration of seeing Gaddafi about to crush the democracy movement. Yet, it is very important to resist the temptation to intervene at any cost. Let’s not forget what the uprisings are about: people attempting to shape their destiny. In other words, they are about autonomy, self-determination and the manifestation of popular will. No matter how well-intentioned outside intervention is, and Western intervention in the region has proved to be far from well-intentioned, it contradicts those principles. 

The celebrations that erupted on the streets of Benghazi following the announcement of UNSC resolution 1973 were seen by many as legitimising this intervention, since the people of Libya are asking for intervention then the UN decision becomes credible, so the argument goes. Again it’s understandable that the rebels when facing the prospect of defeat would reach out for any form of help, but this does not justify military intervention, whether sanctioned by the UN or not. The UN and Western governments are deciding for themselves which voices to listen to in Libya in a clear contradiction of the principles of sovereignty and self-determination. The dubious nature of the decision to override Libya’s sovereignty is only amplified by the near-silence over the crackdown on the protests in Bahrain, which has hardly moved Western governments to act. Of course intervention in Bahrain would be equally illegitimate and ill-advised, but it reveals the West’s hypocrisy and opportunism in taking the moral high ground over Libya while ignoring the situation in Bahrain, where the West’s regional allies are actively participating in putting down the uprising. 

The astounding aspect of the West’s rush to intervene in Libya, led in particular by David Cameron and Nicolas Sarkozy, is how quickly the lessons of the Iraq invasion and its catastrophic aftermath have been forgotten. The UN and Western governments have sought to make distinctions between the two Libya and Iraq by sanctioning all military action but ruling out an invasion, in an attempt to portray this as a humanitarian intervention rather than regime change. But the utter folly of this distinction is remarkable. The most that a no-fly zone would achieve is a stalemate. Gaddafi’s forces would be prevented from making any advance and attacks on civilians would be stopped, but given the meagre military capabilities of the opposition, they will not be able to achieve victory either. How long would be after that when the calls for further intervention would be intensified, in a situation that we have witnessed several times before from Bosnia to Iraq? The West having already committed itself would be unable to withdraw from the situation, eventually making an invasion a very likely prospect. Not that there is a distinction anyway, the UN resolution is a declaration of war on Libya that can only escalate in magnitude. 

Already there are voices making the case for such an increased intervention. Today David Aaronovitch, one of the main cheerleaders of the Iraq war, wrote an article in The Times arguing that ‘the price of inaction in Libya is far too high’. Aaronovitch’s article clearly reveals the prism of risk through which the West now primarily regards events in the world, as he put it: ‘if we don’t bomb Gaddafi’s tanks, Europe is likely to face a wave of refugees and a new generation of jihadis’. Like the argument for the Iraq war, this reveals the precautionary approach that drives Western pre-emptive interventions. In the case of unpopular leaders like Cameron and Sarkozy, it’s also about trying to find a moral sense of purpose abroad to compensate for their lack of credibility at home. Obama was convinced to tag along after his earlier hesitation, with the attractive prospect of compensating for his incompetent handling of the Egyptian uprising and his failure to reign in his allies in the Gulf. But, in effect, this is a recipe for disaster as the intervention has neither a clear purpose nor a desirable outcome that could be achieved without further military intervention. 

The West was undoubtedly caught off-guard with the Tunisian and Egyptian uprisings, and the actions of Western governments over the past few weeks have revealed astonishing levels of incompetence. They also revealed the extent to which their influence in the region has deteriorated, robbing them of the ability to dictate the course of events. Enforcing the no-fly zone over Libya will allow the West to portray itself in a better light and take back the initiative, but in effect it is only likely to complicate the situation on the ground further. The legitimacy of the Libyan uprising can only be undermined through its association with Western powers, while Gaddafi will be able to deploy the anti-Western card that he is so adept at. It will also weaken the autonomous impulse of the Arab uprisings, replacing popular action as a means for political change with Western sponsorship and protection. This can only mean the return of imperial influence under a different guise. The no-fly zone represents an attempt at hijacking the Arab uprisings and opposing it should become a political priority.

The Madness of King Muammar

Joseph El-Khoury

In addition to entertaining us Arabs with his antics and word games for decades, Gaddafi can be credited with turning everyone from the milkman to the news presenter into a diagnostician of mental illness. Words such as ‘nutter’ and ‘madman’ became ‘delusional’ and ‘psychotic’ in the hands of those more sophisticated twitter crowds. The consensus being that the dictator of Libya for the past 40 years is indeed clinically insane. And there lies the problem. This ‘madman’ has been ruling a country of 6 million inhabitants with an iron grip, has managed to fund every single revolutionary movement and subversive outfit throughout the 70s and 80s (From the Abu Nidal group to the Basque ETA passing by the Irish Republican Army), has charmed 2 US presidents and challenged many more while finally turning friend of the West in the trade deal of the Century. And what does that say about us then, the rest of humanity, blessed by sanity and mental equilibrium but until 2 weeks ago bending backward to accomodate the Libyan ruling clan's outrageous behaviour. Few have actually attempted to, publicly at least, get to the bottom of Gaddafi’s modus operandi. I suspect that much more of that effort is being done behind closed doors within intelligence agencies where psychological analysis if foreign dignitaries is a routine exercise. Nonetheless, I have my doubts over how successful Western experts have been at studying human psychology outside a narrow Western context. Indeed one former UK ambassador urged analysts to view Gaddafi’s speeches from the angle of his target audience: His supporters and foes on Libyan soil, which he respectively attempts to embolden and terrorise. Using direct, unconditional street language might look strange to a Washington official but not to a militiaman in Green Square.

On one hand Gaddafi’s eccentricity is not in contention and independent of any cultural relativism. The man is capricious and unpredictable. But these are personality traits common to many and not signs of madness, at least not the type that diminishes one’s executive functioning and ability to skilfully manipulate and lead. The difference between Gaddafi and the common man is that he is able (and enabled by others) to live his fantasies in a very public manner and on a scale that impacts on the Libyan people and on the international scene. We have to remind ourselves that this man of humble background reached absolute power aged 27, faced little opposition from the start and is granted the status of patron of an international revolutionary movement for decades Based on what I have seen and heard so far, I suspect Gaddafi is neither psychotic nor on drugs (Interesting that he uses the same accusation for the rebels opposing him). His smile to Jeremy Bowen as he unashamedly declares that the Libyan people loved him is similar tactical posturing to his son’s tongue-in-cheek comment that Libya was ‘the most democratic country in the world’ which earned him laughs and applause at the LSE.

The way to read Gaddafi is to remember that absolute monarchs/leaders have always behaved irrationally/emotionally the way we all do sometime. In the absence of any systems of checks and balances the people find themselves at the receiving end of such behaviour. World history is littered of such figures from Alexander the Great to the Roman emperors and medieval Kings to modern day autocrats. Unfortunately for us, the Colonel is an all too common 20th century dictator with a superficial penchant for theatricality. Dismissing him as an ineffective ‘nutcase’ is simply an insult to the Libyan people shedding blood and tears to oust him from power.

Al-Megrahi and the Swiss Bankers

By Joseph El-Khoury

The Al-Megrahi controversy illustrates one of the basic misunderstandings that poison East-West Relationships. The scenes of celebrations upon his return cannot have come as a shock to those who remember the history of Colonel Kaddafi(Gaddafi) and his consistent talent at irritating, insulting and keeping everyone on their toes. This is not about a clash of cultures or an Arab insensitivity to the suffering of others. Leaving aside whether Al-Megrahi is guilty of Lockerbie or whether the Libyan people feel his detention was a political one, the public display of jubilation are unlikely to have been spontaneous and can only have been blessed and orchestrated by a regime bent on sending messages as part of a conversation with London and Washington of which we know little. Capricious tyrant or Machiavellian visionary? The jury is still out on that one. What is clear is that the West is showing a great deal of tolerance in the name of pragmatic cooperation.

I remember a conversation with A Libyan doctor in self imposed exile who complained above all of the ‘unpredictability’ of a regime run by an unpredictable man. In a way Kaddafhi is not different from a Henry VIII changing wives like you would change socks, then creating a church to accommodate his personal needs. These, after all are the prerogatives of absolute Monarchs...and Rock stars. Kaddafi probably aspires to both status: omnipotent and dramatic. He is a figure as recognisable as Michael Jackson since the 1980s and will mostl likely become a pop-art icon for years to come. But the values of the 16th century are no longer in operation. This is 2009, supposedly dominated by liberalism, governance, accountability, fairness and...Democracy. Wars are being waged in the name of these values in Iraq and Afghanistan at a high cost for all those involved. Unfortunately, and since September 2001, Kaddafhi has been sold to Western public opinion as a repentant bad guy, turned anti-terrorist campaigner and business partner. Dropped were concerns over sustained human rights abuses, oppressive policies and lack of political freedom. Libya had become in 8 years the ideal investment spot, as longs as you managed to woo the ruling inner circle by accepting invitations to share food in the presidential tent or admiring the artwork of the heir to the throne Seif El Islam in a London Gallery. Britain, but also the US and others have only their governments to blame for marketing the regime as a model for the future Middle East.

Only a few days prior to Al Megrahi’s release on compassionate grounds -A decision that can only be praised if its premises are genuine- Switzerland was apologising to Kaddafi’s other son Hannibal for having smeared his image following allegations him and his wife had abused their staff while sojourning in the country. Libya had retaliated by withdrawing funds deposited in Swiss Banks and cancelling contracts. The sight of Swiss officials begging for forgiveness was more repulsive than the scenes in Tripoli. It was also more symbolic of the hypocrisy framing East-West relationships, a relationship of business and political powerhouses over which the average Arab has no influence.

Kaddafi’s “Performative Act” in the NY Times

By Bachir Habib

Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi, right, meets with US Secretary of State
Condoleezza Rice, in Tripoli, Libya, Friday, Sept. 5, 2008, AP/Nasser Nasser

Only last week, The New York Times featured the Libyan leader Colonel Muammar Kaddafi as an opinion writer. We are used to such credible newspapers publishing articles by prominent diplomats, political advisors, and occasionally former or actual heads of State. We have read for example in the New York Times and other newspapers, Henry Kissinger, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Bill Clinton and many others, expressing their views on controversial issues.
The article written by the Libyan leader is somewhat ambiguous and raises many questions regarding its timing and its intention. It is equally clear that Kaddafi’s piece entitled “The One State Solution” is less a “way out” of the Middle Eastern crisis than it is a political statement reminding President Obama’s new Administration of Libya’s “achievements’ with George W Bush. Hence, the idea of writing an article in the NY Times is loaded with symbols and messages that can be summarized in three headlines:

The first one is the ability of Libya to propose a peaceful solution to the Israeli Palestinian conflict. The second is the adhesion of “the new” Kaddafi to a version of History when he writes: “The basis for the modern State of Israel is the persecution of the Jewish people, which is undeniable. The Jews have been held captive, massacred, disadvantaged in every possible fashion by the Egyptians, the Romans, the English, the Russians, the Babylonians, the Canaanites and, most recently, the Germans under Hitler. The Jewish people want and deserve their homeland”. Finally, the third strong message Kaddafi sends is through denouncing religious extremists that he accuses of “feeding on the conflict as an excuse to advance their own causes”.

The Libyan leader is determined to get these three main messages across to the new American president. And to make sure nothing is lost in translation, he has chosen the NY Times as a reliable mailbox.
However, the Kaddafi who wrote the very conciliatory article a few days ago is the same one who requested “an open door for voluntary participation of Arabs to fight beside the Palestinians in Gaza” and urged “Arab countries to reactivate their common defense treaty to face the Israeli aggression on the Gaza Strip”.
I am not surprised to see an Arab Leader, formerly a “champion” of Pan Arabism making such a call to fight Israel and defend the Arab cause. It is not surprising either to see that our cherished leader is insulting Arab minds by presuming our ignorance and our illiteracy.
From an American point of view, Kaddafi’s well written article can be considered a gesture of goodwill and a sign of moderation. But placing his words in the context of his recent declarations on the matter shows how disrespectful and inconsistent our leaders can be when they use one discourse to ease tensions “at home” and another one to satisfy Washington.
One last word to the Colonel: While it is usually considered prestigious to be featured in the NY Times, on this occasion it smacks of insolence.

Related links:
Kaddafi's article in the NY Times
Kaddafi's declarations during the war on Gaza

Our Friend Muammar Kaddafi

By Joseph El-Khoury



Muammar Kaddafi is a dictator. That has been a banal fact of life since the 1980s. What is more interesting is that this predecessor of Saddam as embodiment of pure evil in the minds of many westerners is now welcome in France. Actually he, along with his millions in oil revenues, has received the best of French red carpet hospitality. After years of being ostracised from the international community for ’ irresponsible’ behaviour Muammar is now back in fashion. If there was one example of collusion between the interests of what has been called the Military-Industrial complex and the foreign policy of a government, that would be it. To be fair, during the photo opportunities Nicolas Sarkozy looked slightly uncomfortable and many of his ministers appeared lost for words while others in his own party and the opposition made their views clear on the visitor’s record on human rights. Mr Sarkozy did ‘ask’ his Libyan friend to ‘do better’ on democracy (A statement later denied by Kaddafi on French TV) but despite her brave stand, Rama Yade, French secretary for human rights, was unfortunately wrong. France can be treated as a doormat when its economy is doing badly and foreign investments can translate into jobs for French workers. Airbus and Dassault might be the direct beneficiary but faced with the prospect of long term economical benefits the French Left is unlikely to challenge the Realpolitik adopted by their opponent for fear of upsetting the working class and the business world alike. On a positive note this rapprochement between Paris and Tripoli could facilitate Mr Bernard Khouchner’s mission in Lebanon by endearing France again to the Syrian regimes. If Kaddafi can still turn up at the Elysee with his head high despite looking like an ageing rocker (Anyone noticed the resemblance to Johnny Holiday!) then surely the brilliant ophthalmologist from Damascus would shine with his elegant wife at his side.

The picture was taken from
http://www.20minutes.fr/article/199906/Monde-Les-dollars-de-Kadhafi-n-ont-plus-d-odeur.php