The dawn of a new world order?
Photo: beyondthecurtain
There has been a revolutionary change in the Arab world with people calling for the removal of autocrats. Starting with Jasmine revolution it is now facing a stiff challenge in Libya where bombardment of NATO force is going on indiscriminately. With the UN resolution authorizing its members "to take all necessary measures… to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya", this war is raging on without any particular leadership. The legitimacy of the war itself is questioned and the way this war is being handled points towards a strategic shift of policy.
Libya's regime was using limited force to subdue internal rebellion where the rebel group consists of motley kinds of people. The African Union was against any military intervention and was planning to negotiate as against the stance of Arab League which on 12th March backed the idea of a no-fly zone over Libya. As chapter VIII of the UN Charter allowed a broader mandate to regional bodies to deal with regional matters of war and peace, the African Union (AU), of which Libya is a leading member, was definitely the one to be consulted with. But in reality it was barred from entering Libya by NATO forces prior to the NATO offensives.
This war is actually a hastily prepared one with England and France spearheading it. America was reluctant in going into war but the announcement of Gaddafi to cleanse Libya house by house prompted Obama in taking actions. America has again started a new war against a Muslim country when it has already been mired in wars against Afghanistan and Iraq. Obama, the 2009 Noble Peace Prize winner is trying to avoid being the ringmaster.
This war actually has seen a shift in America's stance towards crisis or conflict management. America always used to take a proactive role in the case of identifying crisis, taking actions and bounding threatened countries to join in the 'collective action.' America is showing less of its imperialist nature now due to a variety of factors.
We can see a moderate temperament of US president over dealing with Libya which is already been criticized in his own country. America has not shown its big brother attitude as it has been pursuing an aspiration of repairing the damaged relation with the Muslim world. The Cairo speech of US president in June 2009 signaled towards a change in this direction. He mentioned that US was seeking "a new beginning" based on "mutual interest and mutual respect." The irony about this speech is that he was the guest of Hosni Mubarak then. He further mentioned that "no system of government can or should be imposed upon one nation by any other."
Another fact which might work here is that US election is not so far away. Barack Obama has already declared his intention to stand for a second term in office in 2012. Obama's Democratic Party in November 2010 suffered a huge blow when it lost control of the House of Representatives and had to give away several Senate seats in mid-term election to Congress. At such a point of time it is normal that Democratic Party would not want to jeopardize its position more by taking the lead of this war as the economic condition of US is not also robust now.
But America had to intervene at last in conformity with their previous records. America involved with First World War just when it was imminent for them to tip the balance of the war. The same happened in the case of Second World War as US involved with this war only when Japan attacked it and Hitler declared a war. America used to call any war against Islamic countries as 'crusade'. But with the realization that they could not make friends with this strategy, America used the term 'war' for the first time in the Gulf War of 1991. From then on America always remained a proactive state in case of warfare as opposed to their pre-Gulf war position as reluctant imperialist.
As US was reluctant to spearhead this attack, England and France came forward. These two countries got involved in this war in haste mentioning that they are to save the people of Libya from the atrocities of Gaddafi and that they can remain inactive bystander in such a moment. As US was reluctant to further entangle in another war, they came to the forefront. Only saving the people (their stated intention) may not be the only target, rather if we take history as any guide there may be some stealthy intentions. We need to understand the way leading western countries perceive Arab countries. When RAF Middle East command in Cairo approached Winston Churchill (Secretary of State at the War Office in 1919) for permission to use chemical weapons "against recalcitrant Arabs as experiment," he authorized this experiment and found nothing "unreasonable" in it. He said "I do not understand this squeamishness about the use of gas… I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes... It is not necessary to use only the most deadly gasses; gasses can be used which cause great inconvenience and would spread a lively terror and yet would leave no serious permanent effects on most of those affected." Another thing which history tells us that England itself was a big imperialist country which lost its dominance over time to US. So this war is a way to penetrate further to the Arab countries and to exert more control over world politics and thus consolidating their own positions by this war.
By the UN resolution itself, this allied force can stay there as long as they want as there is no mentioning of the time period and can do whatever they think is necessary to save the people of Libya, even if it means the loss of civilians as the war has been carved out so far. The 'New World Order' starting with the introduction of US troops into the Middle East during the Gulf war consolidated US hegemony and military power. Now we may be witnessing another dimension added to this 'New World Order' where past imperial countries will also have the chance to flex their muscles as they were used to and we may witness a new type of hegemony.
Comments