The Real Signal Sent by NATO's Libyan Intervention
Evelyn Gordon | @evelyng1234 11.02.2011 - 10:09 AM
NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen proudly declared this
week that "What has happened in Libya sends a clear signal to
autocratic regimes all over the world — you cannot neglect the will of
the people." That might have been true, had he not declared in the
very same breath that NATO's military intervention in Libya would
under no circumstances be replicated in Syria. "I can completely rule
that out," he said. In light of that corollary, here is how autocratic
regimes – and many ordinary people worldwide – will actually interpret
the "clear signal" sent by events in Libya:
First, you're much better off being friends with Russia and China than
the West. Almost two decades ago, Muammar Qaddafi decided to start
courting the West: He paid billions of dollars in compensation to
victims of various terror attacks allegedly perpetrated by Libya, most
notably the bombing of Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie, and
dismantled his nuclear program. Syria, in contrast, repeatedly thumbed
its nose at the West while courting Russia and China.
The result: Western countries sought and obtained a UN Security
Council mandate to intervene militarily in Libya and ultimately
toppled Qaddafi's government. But Russia and China vetoed even far
milder resolutions targeting Syria. And since the West refuses to act
without a UN mandate, Syria is safe from any Western military threat.
Second, joining the radical Islamic camp led by Iran is a good
investment. Libya posed no military threat whatsoever to the West, nor
did it have any allies who did. But Syria is backed by Iran, with its
proven willingness and ability to make mischief for Western interests
in the Gulf and to foment terror overseas, most notably by means of
Hezbollah. The West has repeatedly shown its reluctance to confront
Tehran, even when, for instance, intelligence estimates deemed Iran
responsible for more American casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan than
Sunni radicals were. And since intervention in Syria almost certainly
would trigger conflict with Syria's Iranian patron, the West isn't
interested.
Corollary: The West really is a paper tiger, just as Iran, Al-Qaida
and other radical Islamists have always claimed. It's perfectly
willing to attack comparatively defenseless Libya, but avoids taking
on countries capable of striking back.
Third, the West really does care about nothing but oil. If you
discount oil – of which Libya has a lot and Syria very little – it's
hard to explain why the West intervened in Libya but not Syria. You
certainly can't explain it on humanitarian grounds; Bashar Assad's
regime has been killing, torturing and jailing its own citizens with
Qaddafi-style abandon ever since Syria's uprising began in March. And
from a strategic perspective, Syria is by far the more important
country: Libya has no strategic significance whatsoever for the West,
whereas regime change in Syria would deprive Iran of a key ally and
sever its land bridge to Hezbollah.
If the West doesn't understand that this is how much of the world will
interpret its behavior, that is deeply disturbing. And if it knows
about it, but doesn't care , that is even more disturbing.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the "USA-Africa Dialogue Series" moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin.
For current archives, visit http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
For previous archives, visit http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
To post to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue-
unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
No comments:
Post a Comment