Where Next, NATO?
NATO may be a spent force. Its purpose as a north-Atlantic treaty organization, with the fall of the Soviet Union saw it being re-purposed to present as a unified international military support team in defence of the defenceless. But it has made some questionable decisions in the period since the fall of the U.S.S.R., seemingly in an (vainglorious) attempt to remain relevant, to make its member-countries prideful of their membership.
Its stout defence of the Muslim population of Yugoslavia, Albania and Kosovo, against the Christian Serbs appeared as righteous indignation that a superior military power was violently overpowering a helpless population. NATO member countries viewed the Serbs as brutal oppressors determined to cleanse the areas they controlled of all Muslims. Whereas the truth lay closer to both the Muslim populations and the Christian populations of Serbia and Kosovo being equally brutal to one another.
Both engaged in ethnic cleansing, in committing dreadful atrocities one against the other. But the humanitarian defence of Kosovo by NATO bombing missions benefiting Albanians and painting the Serbs in the sinister black colours of vicious predators overlooked the mutuality of the conflict. And now we've seen an occasion where NATO has once again launched protection of a population, this time from its own tyrannical regime.
Apart from verbally cheering on the protesters in Tunisia, Yemen, Egypt and Syria, no Western powers, let alone an agglomerate like NATO sought to become involved. The exception was Libya. Despite that there was no clear-cut idea of who was being represented by the revolutionaries, unlike what occurred in Iran, where moderate Muslims with a liberal, more secular ideology opted to protest for liberties denied them and no one outside Iran seemed to care.
Britain and France were incensed with Moammar Gadhafi's ignoring of the demands of the protesters. So they claimed. These were, of course, countries and heads of state which had formerly and not all that long ago, welcomed with open arms this tyrant into their own countries, garnishing him with plaudits and entertaining him like royalty. Which he believed he was. And which they were anxious to confirm, to exploit their countries' investments in Libya.
So here was NATO, with the good wishes and sanction of the United Nations, entering the fray from the air to ensure, they said, that the regime wasn't given free reign to bomb its civilian population that had risen in protest, into oblivion. Messages were coming out and being steadfastly ignored that lingering in the background were groups associated with al-Qaeda, and other assorted Islamist terrorists.
Sometimes good intentions blindly followed lead to bad results. The unguarded and looted weapons depots that the Gadhafi regime had scattered on the landscape became welcome booty for any number of shadowy groups involved in terrorism. Gadhafi encouraged terrorism abroad, not in his own domain. Tribal antipathies that were held more or less in control under his regime may yet spark and combust.
His own tribal defenders will not be too likely to join the consensus of other tribes agreeing - if they indeed do - to tamp down their grievances against one another, with none attempting to lead in favour of collectively forming a modern, responsible society. Simmering rage against the indignity and loss of honour conveyed to the tribe through the execution of their loved leader may yet lead to all-out civil war.
The declaration of Libya as an avowed Islamist state under Sharia law may yet see an Iran-type theocracy with pretences at Islamist-style democracy develop. None of which scenarios might have been potentials had Libyans themselves decided which way their preferences would direct their attention and actions. But for the moment, celebrations are in order, the night sky lit up with celebratory munitions.
And the population has celebrated by satiating their appetite for revenge by visiting the putrefying corpse of the man who had ruled them ruthlessly and occasionally responsibly, for four decades. They are wealthier now than they were before his rule, more educated, with far better health services. But tribal instincts and clannish fealties are no less evident now than they were then.
For this attempt would have fizzled had not NATO been propelled into action. Where next, NATO?
Its stout defence of the Muslim population of Yugoslavia, Albania and Kosovo, against the Christian Serbs appeared as righteous indignation that a superior military power was violently overpowering a helpless population. NATO member countries viewed the Serbs as brutal oppressors determined to cleanse the areas they controlled of all Muslims. Whereas the truth lay closer to both the Muslim populations and the Christian populations of Serbia and Kosovo being equally brutal to one another.
Both engaged in ethnic cleansing, in committing dreadful atrocities one against the other. But the humanitarian defence of Kosovo by NATO bombing missions benefiting Albanians and painting the Serbs in the sinister black colours of vicious predators overlooked the mutuality of the conflict. And now we've seen an occasion where NATO has once again launched protection of a population, this time from its own tyrannical regime.
Apart from verbally cheering on the protesters in Tunisia, Yemen, Egypt and Syria, no Western powers, let alone an agglomerate like NATO sought to become involved. The exception was Libya. Despite that there was no clear-cut idea of who was being represented by the revolutionaries, unlike what occurred in Iran, where moderate Muslims with a liberal, more secular ideology opted to protest for liberties denied them and no one outside Iran seemed to care.
Britain and France were incensed with Moammar Gadhafi's ignoring of the demands of the protesters. So they claimed. These were, of course, countries and heads of state which had formerly and not all that long ago, welcomed with open arms this tyrant into their own countries, garnishing him with plaudits and entertaining him like royalty. Which he believed he was. And which they were anxious to confirm, to exploit their countries' investments in Libya.
So here was NATO, with the good wishes and sanction of the United Nations, entering the fray from the air to ensure, they said, that the regime wasn't given free reign to bomb its civilian population that had risen in protest, into oblivion. Messages were coming out and being steadfastly ignored that lingering in the background were groups associated with al-Qaeda, and other assorted Islamist terrorists.
Sometimes good intentions blindly followed lead to bad results. The unguarded and looted weapons depots that the Gadhafi regime had scattered on the landscape became welcome booty for any number of shadowy groups involved in terrorism. Gadhafi encouraged terrorism abroad, not in his own domain. Tribal antipathies that were held more or less in control under his regime may yet spark and combust.
His own tribal defenders will not be too likely to join the consensus of other tribes agreeing - if they indeed do - to tamp down their grievances against one another, with none attempting to lead in favour of collectively forming a modern, responsible society. Simmering rage against the indignity and loss of honour conveyed to the tribe through the execution of their loved leader may yet lead to all-out civil war.
The declaration of Libya as an avowed Islamist state under Sharia law may yet see an Iran-type theocracy with pretences at Islamist-style democracy develop. None of which scenarios might have been potentials had Libyans themselves decided which way their preferences would direct their attention and actions. But for the moment, celebrations are in order, the night sky lit up with celebratory munitions.
And the population has celebrated by satiating their appetite for revenge by visiting the putrefying corpse of the man who had ruled them ruthlessly and occasionally responsibly, for four decades. They are wealthier now than they were before his rule, more educated, with far better health services. But tribal instincts and clannish fealties are no less evident now than they were then.
For this attempt would have fizzled had not NATO been propelled into action. Where next, NATO?
Labels: Conflict, Crisis Politics, Culture, Islamism, Libya, NATO
posted by Pieface | 7:28 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home