It is said that no country (especially world powers like the United States, Russia, Britain, etc) ever does a thing for another country without having its (the former's) own interest as paramount.
That fact is well-known and even allowed. It is also said that world powers can go to any length, even disobeying principles of international law, to achieve their goals. Same cannot be said of developing countries who, because of their dependence on world powers, are subject to international treaties, conventions and laws.
The Arab spring which began in late December 2010 saw the clamour by some Arab nations for the resignation of their leaders, all of whom had ruled for a long time. It started from Tunisia where Ben Ali was unseated to Egypt where Mubarak was removed to Libya, Syria, Yemen, Algeria (which failed), Bahrain (where it also failed), etc. There was a crackdown on anti-government protesters by most of the leaders of these countries. However, we can say that the worst of this crackdowns was witnessed in Libya and Syria. How did the international community led by super powers respond?
On Libya, the United Nations (UN) declared a no-fly zone and mandated member countries to enforce it. Some countries who were also members of NATO volunteered to enforce the no-fly zone. Soon, NATO as a body began to enforce it in what was tagged "Operation Unified Protector". As usual, the United States (US) and its allies were at the fore front of this operation. Although it was called" Unified Protector", it was actually targeting Gaddafi forces and sparing the rebels. The activities of NATO made the formation of the rebel army faster. If the rebels captured a Gaddafi artillery, they would paint it in rebel colors so that NATO airstrikes would not target it. This made Gaddafi lose the war in the way he did and in such a short time when compared with the situation in Syria. Thus, NATO led by the US played the role of the rebel air force and violated Libya's territorial integrity. One obvious reason for this was that none of the mega powers were allies with Libya under Muammar Gaddafi. Gaddafi had a strained relationship with the US. Discussing that relationship would be really painstaking, and a subject for another day. In front of his compound (palace) was a statue of a hand (his hand) crushing an American plane. The US' allies were also not in good terms with him. In fact, Gaddafi described the Western nations as 'imperialists'. Russia and its allies on the other hand were also not allies with Gaddafi (though it remains to be said whether they also had a strained relationship), so they were indifferent. Eventually, it was a NATO airstrike that attacked Gaddafi's convoy while he was fleeing Sirte (his hometown) thereby enabling the rebels to capture him.
On Syria, the world largely maintained a stand of non military involvement, at least earlier on. This led people to form a rebel army to fight Assad. This is not to say that there won't have been any military intervention. However, it was suppressed by Russia, an ally of the Syrian government led by Bashar Al Assad. When the Security Council of the UN was to vote on military intervention in Syria, Russia vetoed it, China was indifferent. When the US wanted to by pass the UN and intervene militarily in Syria against the government of Assad for using chemical weapons against the rebels, Russia once again brokered a peace deal which saw Syria declare its chemical weapons cache and submitting same for destruction. It was only speculated that the US were arming moderate rebels.
The near recent military intervention in Syria by the world powers is hinged on fighting the terrorist elements that have begun to thrive in Syria. Notable among these terrorist elements is the Islamic State (IS). The US now leads an international coalition which it says is targeted primarily on IS. Russia has also joined the war and claims it is equally fighting IS. The ulterior motive is to sustain the Assad regime. Turkey is the latest country to join the war in Syria. It claims it is fighting the Kurdish militants in Syria who are a threat to Turkey. There are suspicions that the Western nations led by the US are also using the opportunity to also fight Assad.
In Libya, the world struck because it was Gaddafi who was not their ally. In Syria, where the government crackdown on protesters was just as bad, the world powers were reluctant to intervene militarily because Assad had a strong ally. In Syria, the international community respected territorial integrity (until the issue of terrorism came up). In Libya, territorial integrity was utterly disrespected. The Libyan civil war lasted about 8 months. The Syrian civil war has lasted over 5 years (and still counting). In Syria, dialogue was attempted through Kofi Annan and Lakhdar Brahimi. In Libya, there was no serious attempt at dialogue. Now both countries are war torn and without a single leadership. In Syria, there are Assad forces (and allies), moderate rebels and terrorist groups. In Libya, there are rival armed militias who have turned the country into a state of anarchy.
While not saying that there should have been military intervention in Syria because it happened in Libya, the point is that there was a display of bias by the international community. They applied dialogue in Syria but didn't do the same in Libya. If they could restrain themselves from attacking the Assad regime, they should have done so in Libya. A mere display of double standard.
No comments:
Post a Comment