POST-QADDAFI LIBYA AND ITS IMPLICATIONS

       By Kazi Anwarul Masud( former Secretary and ambassador)

             FOR PUBLICATION ON  FRIDAY THE 28^TH OCTOBER 2011

Finally Qaddafi is dead. Another dictator has fallen in the face of the wrath of the people heralding the  continuation of the Arab Spring, an unquenchable thirst for liberty, equality and fraternity among the people, the essence of democracy that many in the Western world thought to be incompatible with Islam. Princeton Professor Bernard Lewis, the intellectual anchor of the Bush Jr administration’s pursuit of democratization of the Middle East  to lessen the “threat” posed by the Muslims, believed that democracy was a peculiarly Western way of administering public affairs  that might or might not be suitable for others (meaning Muslims) and that Islam from its birth looked down upon Christianity as  inferior  “in much the same light as the remoter lands of Africa- as an outer darkness of barbarism and unbelief   from which there was nothing to learn, and even little to be imported”.  In Islam, he argued, law was already given, there is no place for debate or legislation, all that is required is submission. But then sociologist Vincent Tucker in his critique of Eurocentric discourse wrote “For a society to claim universal desirability, while turning its back on others from which it is convinced it has nothing to learn, is not  only cultural elitism but cultural racism”.  Despite such pearls of wisdom there is widespread belief among the Westerners of suspicion of Muslims, consequent to the terrorism wrought on 9/11 before which, as Henry Kissinger said, the Americans were blissfully unaware of a faith that nursed such vitriolic attitude towards the Christians. Tony Blair and Barak Obama tried to convince the Muslims that “the War on Terror” was not directed against the Islamic world but against the wayward Muslims, an infinitesimal minority, who believe in forcible establishment of Islamic state, not only in the world ruled by the “infidels” but also in the Islamic countries who, in their eyes, have strayed away from the “true path” and hence have to be purged.   Though great majority of the Muslims as well as the others   have welcomed the departure of Qaddafi from the global scene with his eccentric and unpredictable behavior that had made Libya a pariah state   for decades and  a safe haven for terrorists  for quite some time, yet the final moments of his death has become controversial because it is not yet finally known whether Qaddafi was captured alive and then executed or whether he was indeed killed in a crossfire between Qaddafi loyalists and the revolutionaries. The UN and Amnesty International would like to be satisfied on this account as the NATO was primarily instrumental in the seven month old revolution against Qaddafi and no less on the air sortie that destroyed  the Qaddafi caravan fleeing the capture of Sirte, Qaddafi’s birth place for unknown destination.  Qaddafi had long time ago lost any legitimacy to rule, as is now alleged against Bashar al Assad of Syria and Abdullah Saleh of Yemen, because he had declared war on his own people. In a way Qadafi and those of his type could be termed as terrorists because they aspired to rule through the instrument of terror.  If one accepts this argument then his killing is no different from those of Osama bin Laden and Anwar al-Awlaki, and many other Taliban leaders in Pak-Afghan region. Besides the 1985 UN Summit legitimizing the responsibility to protect innocent civilians from genocide and crimes against humanity effectively has changed the traditional concept of sovereignty and territorial integrity inscribed in the UN Charter. In the present day world a country to remain a member of the international community has to follow a certain code of conduct vis-à-vis its own citizens as well as to foreigners. In other words, the days of absolute monarchy is gone and the rule of law has come to stay. Professor Robert Jackson asserts that sovereignty is a contested academic concept whose instrumental value has been found wanting by the members of the European Union who have surrendered    a part of their sovereignty to an Union that they expect would be able to provide greater politico-economic benefits than if these states had stood alone. The scramble by former East European states in post-Soviet era to become members of the EU proves this point. In any case globalization has had a diminutive effect on sovereignty by making it less relevant in the interactions among the members of the international community. Libyan episode has also given NATO a raison d’être to survive in the post-Cold War era. Though for the first time since its inception NATO had undertaken an “out of the area” task by engaging in Afghanistan, NATO’s engagement in Libya makes a possible case   for the organization to become an international policeman in troubled areas that would threaten global peace and tranquility. Besides as opposed to Kosovo campaign when then Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld  complained of the inordinate burden put on the US when the Europeans should have taken the lead, in the case of Libya Obama’s more limited intervention ( Scott Wilson & Karen De Young-Washington Post-October 21) “highlighted a national security strategy that emphasizes a global-burden sharing…without putting a single US service member on the ground”. While Bush Jr’s invasion cost the American tax payer US  $ one trillion and more than 4000 American lives Obama’s far more targeted approach and his decision to allow European allies to take the lead in Libyan military intervention cost US tax payer just over $ one billion and no personnel loss  has earned him praise at home. Yet as one Republican Senator observed that the next US Presidential election would be held on more jobs than Qaddafi losing his head. A recent Wall Street Journal/NBC poll found 16% of the Americans view national security and terrorism as one of their two top issues versus 70% who picked job creation and the economy. Elections have just been held in Tunisia, Egyptians are again in furor over delay in implementing the process of democratization, and Syria and Yemen facing international wrath, the West shedding its “hypocritical” cry for Middle Eastern  democracy has to remain prepared to accept to interact with the Muslim Brotherhood which is believed to have significant support among the people and when elections are held Brotherhood is expected to do well under a pluralistic political system. The recent election of a Coptic Christian as the second Vice President  of the Brotherhood’s new political party in Egypt indicates its abdication of strict Islamic beliefs. It would be beneficial to Europe in particular , if it does not want to be side lined and marginalized in the Middle Eastern politics, to leave aside its stereotyped view of Orientalism, as described by late Edward Said, as an entrenched structure of thought, a pattern of making certain generalizations about a part of the world known as “East” and cast them as “them” as opposed to familiar “West” being “us” but to deal with the emerging reality that would be willed by the people of the region.