> ## Content Index
> Fetch the complete content index at: https://www.opendemocracy.net/llms.txt
> Use this file to discover other available public pages before exploring further.

# Libya, Arab democracy, and western policy
- URL: https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/libya-arab-democracy-and-western-policy/
- Published: 2011-03-29T04:03:42.000Z
- Updated: 2019-02-14T22:11:18.000Z
- Description: The United States and European intervention in Libya leaves open key questions about the future of western power in the wider region, says Godfrey Hodgson.
- Author: Godfrey Hodgson
- Tags: Africa, #Migrated, Conflict & security, Middle East & North Africa, Politics & activism, democracy & power, american power & the world, Democracy and government, middle east, politics of protest, conflict, International politics, Human Rights and the Internet, #en, #Import 2026-04-09 17:11

The United States and its European allies are at war again, and at the time of writing things in Libya seem to be going reasonably well by the standards of the previous (and ongoing) interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq. Barack Obama's [address](http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/03/28/remarks-president-address-nation-libya?ref=opendemocracy.net) to the American people on the evening of 28 March 2011 gave a deft presentation of the United States's "responsibility to act" in Libya, while emphasising that "the burden of action should not be America's alone". The president was most [emphatic](http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/03/29/3176474.htm?section=justin&ref=opendemocracy.net) that the painful and costly experience in Iraq "is not something we can afford to repeat in Libya".

Yet the speech, delivered only hours before a [conference](http://www.fco.gov.uk/en/global-issues/mena/libya/london-conference-on-libya/?ref=opendemocracy.net) in London to [discuss](http://www.fco.gov.uk/en/global-issues/mena/libya/london-conference-on-libya/?ref=opendemocracy.net) Libya's future, answers none of the many questions that remain: both about the outcome of the conflict there and the west's future role, and even more its [policy](paul-rogers/libya-bahrain-and-arab-spring) towards the contest between the old Arab world and the new one the [democracy movements](www.opendemocracy.net/vidar-helgesen/arab-democracy-rising-international-lessons) are seeking to create.

The background of Obama's speech and the London [conference](http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12889383?ref=opendemocracy.net) appears broadly positive for the anti-Gaddafi coalition. The domestic publics are being shown the effects of French Mirage and Rafale jets [strafing](http://www.upi.com/Business%5FNews/Security-Industry/2011/03/25/Typhoon-debut-in-Libyan-strikes/UPI-57731301055324/?ref=opendemocracy.net) Colonel Gaddafi’s tanks on the outskirts of Benghazi, and of British and American submarines pouring expensive cruise missiles into [Libya’s](http://www.spiegel.de/flash/flash-25431.html?ref=opendemocracy.net) command, control, communications and intelligence centres.

The focus on military strikes - so far almost wholly free of the disastrous misfirings that have killed many civilians in previous wars - helps to sustain the glow of a “good war”. The main story [holds](http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middle-East/2011/0328/How-Libya-s-Qaddafi-brought-humanitarian-intervention-back-in-vogue?ref=opendemocracy.net), that the reassembled good guys are protecting Libyans [civilians](http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2011/04/04/110404taco%5Ftalk%5Fanderson?ref=opendemocracy.net) from a monstrous dictator; and this time they have even taken the precaution of having [some](http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-03-12/arab-league-gathers-in-cairo-to-discuss-libyan-crisis-options-.html?ref=opendemocracy.net) of the “others”, in this case the Arab League, on side.

**The realist frame**

For the time being, then - which could be short in this fast-moving [conflict](http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,753572,00.html?ref=opendemocracy.net) \- Libya is quite a different story from Iraq. The combination of military success and intensive television coverage makes it resemble more the short (seventy-eight days) war in [Kosovo ](http://yalepress.yale.edu/yupbooks/book.asp?isbn=0300083130&ref=opendemocracy.net)in 1999\. More generally, and here the comparison extends to the earlier wars of Yugoslavia’s [break-up](http://www.opendemocracy.net/goran-fejic/midnight-in-belgrade-dusk-in-europe), a strong motivation of western states is to wage the anti-Gaddafi campaign while saving their electorates from having to watch on the [television](http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/03/28/the%5Frevolution%5Fwill%5Fsoon%5Fbe%5Ftelevised?ref=opendemocracy.net) news the distressing effects of military combat.

The real conflict over Libya’s [future](http://www.opendemocracy.net/alison-pargeter/libya-hard-road-ahead) is thus filtered through western political worlds that are pressed by intensive news-cycles. These pressures, powerful enough in “normal” times, accelerate where (as with [Bosnia](www.opendemocracy.net/conflict-yugoslavia/srebrenica%5F2651.jsp), Kosovo and now Libya) unequal conflicts in which state forces are committing or threatening massacre of vulnerable populations can produce among domestic audiences a “something-must-be-done” mood.

In a democratic society this exerts a powerful influence on the response of political leaders (most prominently in this case [Nicolas Sarkozy](http://www.elysee.fr/president/la-presidence/le-president-de-la-republique/nicolas-sarkozy.482.html?ref=opendemocracy.net), [David Cameron](http://www.number10.gov.uk/meet-the-pm?ref=opendemocracy.net) and [Barack Obama](http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/president-obama?ref=opendemocracy.net)), even if it is only one of several. Indeed, their motives are complex: the chance to break free from difficulties at home often plays as much of a part (especially true of [Sarkozy](http://www.opendemocracy.net/patrice-de-beer/france-europe-and-arab-maelstrom) in the current war) as the desire to [save](http://www.cfr.org/libya/libya-responsibility-protect/p24480?ref=opendemocracy.net) innocent lives.

Where Libya is concerned the [intervention](http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2011/03/the-strikes-on-libya-humanitarian-intervention-not-imperial-aggression/72740/?ref=opendemocracy.net) almost certainly did prevent a horrible atrocity, though in itself that is no guide to what might occur later. Moreover, the oft-made point about consistency stands: the western powers do not attempt to [protect](http://www.opendemocracy.net/article/the-responsibility-to-protect-holding-the-line-0) all innocent civilians or punish every tyrant, for these powers are so often - as in Gaddafi’s Libya - deeply complicit in [authoritarian](www.opendemocracy.net/article/libya-s-regime-at-40-a-state-of-kleptocracy) rule.

After all, no one called for attempted “regime change” in Uzbekistan after the massacre in [Andijan](www.opendemocracy.net/globalization-institutions%5Fgovernment/Andijan%5F2527.jsp) in 2005, or the revelations of torture under [Islam Karimov](www.opendemocracy.net/article/andijan-germany-and-europe), far less proposed a “no-fly zone” over China after the shooting of student protesters in Tiananmen Square in [1989](www.opendemocracy.net/article/tiananmen-1989-2009). And though the [prospect](http://www.opendemocracy.net/paul-rogers/israel-vs-iran-washington-factor) of an attack on Iran (by the United States or Israel) has often been [discussed](www.opendemocracy.net/paul-rogers/israel-vs-iran-rumours-of-war) in recent years, the context is always Tehran’s nuclear plans rather than its cruel repression of the democracy movement after the [stolen](www.opendemocracy.net/article/iran-s-stolen-election-and-what-comes-next) presidential election in 2009.

“There is such a thing”, said [Woodrow Wilson](www.opendemocracy.net/article/versailles-1919-2009-a-new-world-order-s-legacy), shortly before he accepted the inevitability of American involvement in the first world war, “as being too proud to fight”. His recent successors have been willing to fight many small countries, from Grenada and Panama to Lebanon and Serbia - but not since [1945](www.opendemocracy.net/article/a%5Fcentury%5Fon%5Fthe%5Fedge%5F1945%5F2045) have they taken on a military equal (with the partial exception of China after it unexpectedly entered the [Korean war](http://www.randomhouse.com/book/35571/the-korean-war-by-bruce-cumings/9780679643579/?ref=opendemocracy.net)). America’s [allies](http://www.number10.gov.uk/news/statements-and-articles/2011/03/joint-statement-on-libya-by-the-pm-and-president-sarkozy-62601?ref=opendemocracy.net) use force against violating states even more parsimoniously, as the examples of Chad or Sierra Leone illustrate. Their defence is often expressed in realist terms: “liberal interventionism” against [China](www.opendemocracy.net/william-callahan/new-approach-to-human-rights-and-china) is unfeasible, but it is right to save lives where that is possible.

**The friendship game**

Beyond [inconsistency](http://www.irrawaddy.org/opinion%5Fstory.php?art%5Fid=21006&ref=opendemocracy.net), the important argument relates to how the current military campaign relates to the future. The intervention in Libya [creates](http://www.tnr.com/article/against-the-current/85621/libya-iraq-muammar-qaddafi?ref=opendemocracy.net) a set of new questions: whether and how much to help the rebels, what to do in the event of stalemate, what a post-Gaddafi Libya might look like, and what should be the exit strategy. In turn these are a subset of dilemmas facing outside forces in the broader region. The continuing protests in [Syria](http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2011/03/201132818173548579.html?ref=opendemocracy.net), [Yemen](http://www.opendemocracy.net/paul-rogers/al-qaida-yemen-factor-0), and [Bahrain](www.opendemocracy.net/christopher-davidson-kristian-coates-ulrichsen/bahrain-on-edge); possible unrest in Saudi Arabia, [Morocco](http://www.opendemocracy.net/valentina-bartolucci/moroccan-exception-and-kings-speech) and Algeria; and the challenges of creating proper governance in Tunisia and Egypt - all this crucially tests the nature and depth of the western powers’ proclaimed commitment to democracy. 

It is fundamental to the the United States's global [self-image](http://www.opendemocracy.net/godfrey-hodgson/america%E2%80%99s-world-salesman-and-missionary) that it upholds democracy against tyranny and dictatorship (indeed, though nowadays only in whispers, against monarchy). But here too, the consistency - and the history - is not encouraging. During the cold war, the US upheld many autocrats - from [Syngman Rhee](http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2011/01/113%5F64364.html?ref=opendemocracy.net) and [Ferdinand Marcos](http://tagaloglang.com/The-Philippines/History/the-era-of-ferdinand-marcos.html?ref=opendemocracy.net) to [Mobutu Sese Seko](http://partners.nytimes.com/library/world/090897obit-mobutu.html?ref=opendemocracy.net) and numerous Latin American *caudillos* \- just so long as they were anti-communist. In the middle east, Henry Kissinger’s diplomacy led to a situation where Washington after [1973](http://books.simonandschuster.com/Kissinger/Alistair-Horne/9780743272834?ref=opendemocracy.net) increasingly supported “strong men” who tacitly agreed not to attack Israel or pursue a “radical” regional agenda. The Hosni Mubarak [regime](http://www.opendemocracy.net/tarek-osman/egypt-after-revolt-transition) in Egypt, the [Ali Abdullah Saleh](http://www.opendemocracy.net/article/the-travails-of-yemen-unity) one in Yemen, and the Saudi monarchy are prominent examples.

The Saudi [example](http://www.opendemocracy.net/christoph-wilcke/saudi-ferment-and-king%E2%80%99s-choice) is all the more stark in exposing the inconsistency between claim and policy, in that its brutal justice system at home has been combined with heavy investment in *madrasas* in a dozen countries where young Muslims are taught to hate the United States, [Israel](www.opendemocracy.net/thomas-odwyer/israel-and-arab-awakening), and indeed democracy. None of this mattered against the kingdom’s status as the world biggest single [producer](http://www.opendemocracy.net/paul-rogers/al-qaida%E2%80%99s-business-jihad) of oil. So the US and Britain sold $100-billion worth of the latest weaponry to the Saudis, and treated leading members of the royal elite as honoured guests (as they will be at the forthcoming Windsor [nuptials](http://www.officialroyalwedding2011.org/tag/procession/page/1?ref=opendemocracy.net), unless they have the tact to stay away).

**The history test**

There is nothing new about *Realpolitik*, even if Americans used to denounce it as a base European practice. But *Realpolitik* suggests a rational calculation of interest. What recent experience suggests is that the west in the middle east and north Africa is [entangled](http://www.opendemocracy.net/paul-rogers/libya-view-from-where-you-are) in unsustainable contradictions that threaten its security as well as its reputation. This poses a series of difficult questions.

What do the United States and Europe mean when they [say](http://shadow.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/03/28/obamas%5Flibya%5Fspeech%5Fsatisfactory%5Fbut%5Fnot%5Fsatisfying?ref=opendemocracy.net) they believe in democracy? Is it that Libyans, and [Egyptians](http://www.opendemocracy.net/asef-bayat/egypt-and-post-islamist-middle-east), and Yemenis, and Bahrainis, and the people of what is now Saudi Arabia, and Algerians, and Moroccans, have the right to choose their government, under constitutions that they choose for themselves? 

These are rights that the west is proud to claim for itself, and proud to have encouraged the [former](www.opendemocracy.net/david-hayes/1989-moment-legacy-future) communist nations of east-central Europe to [win](http://chnm.gmu.edu/1989/?ref=opendemocracy.net) for themselves. Does the west believe that the peoples of the middle east would still have that right if they were to choose governments of which the west disapproves, or which threatened the west’s economic or [security ](http://www.opendemocracy.net/paul-rogers/arab-rebellion-perspectives-of-power)interests? In a word, do the United States and Europe *really* believe in democracy?

If a point comes when the west must [choose](http://www.opendemocracy.net/paul-rogers/libya-washington-london-dilemma) between supporting Arab peoples as they courageously resist oppressive rulers, and backing those rulers to guarantee oil supplies and help subdue [Islamist](http://www.opendemocracy.net/article/al-qaida-today-the-fate-of-a-movement) terrorists, which side is it on?

It is one thing to send fighter-bombers to suppress the Libyan air-force and army. What if the [Saudi](http://www3.cambridge.org/aus/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=9780521747547&ref=opendemocracy.net) monarchy and all its sophisticated weaponry were to be violently defending their unjust status quo against brave and vulnerable protesters in Riyadh or [Dhahran](http://www.opendemocracy.net/conflict/abqaiq%5F4080.jsp) (where Aramco has its headquarters)?

The answers are far from obvious. They are also neither academic nor unrealistic. Perhaps sooner than they expect, western states will have to consider not what they *would* do in such circumstances but what they *shall* do. Better, surely, to rethink their whole approach in the little time they may have left.