
*A Version of this article was published on Muftah.
Vladimir Putin’s bold New York Times op-ed piece is a calculated step by the “bear-wrestling” Russian president to reassert his country’s power at the international level.
After publicizing
an improbable eleventh-hour plan to disarm Syria of chemical weapons to halt U.S.
strikes, Putin penned a public rebuke of the U.S. government. In an article
titled, Plea for Caution, Putin publicly
chided the United States for its recent military interventions in Afghanistan
and Iraq, and rebuked the true basis for its military adventures, namely, the
much-vaunted “US exceptionalism.”
While Putin’s
writing style is terse and direct, his op-ed contains various false and
misleading claims. These include Putin’s insistence he was motivated by
democratic values and international norms in proposing the disarmament plan.
In fact, Putin’s
intervention in the Syrian crisis is a calculated geopolitical move that seeks
to reinvent Russia as a super power in the international arena, and major power
broker in the Middle East.
Putin also harps
on the usual themes of Islamist extremism in the Syrian civil war, as well as
radical Islamist abuses against civilians, while ignoring the equally violent
and atrocious violations committed by the Syrian regime for the last two years.
But what is
perhaps Putin’s most blatant misrepresentation is his attempt to paint NATO’s
intervention in the 2011 Libyan conflict as leaving the country worse off.
Putin’s article
presents Libya as a country “divided into tribes and clans,” thanks to NATO’s
intervention. Contrary to Putin’s claims, however, it is the Libyan experience
that demonstrates the positive impact that international intervention in Syria could
bring. It is also a reminder of the role Russia has played in ensuring that no
such benefit would be realized by the Syrian people.
It is true that,
since Muammar Ghaddafi’s regime fell in October 2011, Libya has effectively
become a nation of various tribes and clans, and that, at times, this has
created various security issues for the North African state’s nascent political
system.
But, what Putin
failed to mention in his article is that however imperfect the Libyan
experience is now, ordinary Libyans are much better off today than during Ghaddafi’s
four-decade dictatorship.
Post-Ghaddafi Libya
has avoided large-scale civil strife and is slowly moving toward a system of
governance that in due time will likely ensure security and order. Libyans currently
enjoy a great deal of freedom, particularly when compared to their experiences
under Ghaddafi’s regime.
For the most
part, the people of Libya remain grateful to the United States and the
international community for the military intervention, which greatly degraded Ghaddafi’s
forces and precipitated the fall of the country’s authoritarian government.
Libyans are
cautiously optimistic about their nascent political experiment, and cognizant
that acts of violence and terrorism, which are largely perpetrated by foreign
radical factions, are growing pains for their infant country.
Libya’s General
National Congress (GNC) has made marked strides toward democracy despite
security challenges; the GNC still has no standing military and relies on a
fickle mercenary militia force made up of former rebels.
The GNC, along
with the current government led by Prime Minister Ali Zidan, has had an
unsurprisingly tough time building a new political system after decades of
institutional void, amid rising political overreach by Islamist groups.
But, not all is
gloom and doom in Libya. The country is still engaged in a slow process of
constitution drafting, and is pursuing a National Dialogue initiative that, if
successful, will further the country’s democratic transition. Libyan civil
society is more vibrant than ever, with various groups and organizations
pursuing their particular conceptions of the public good.
Libya is
certainly undergoing a tumultuous time, but this might well be a necessary part
of the process of birthing a new state and society based on the rule of law and
civil rights. Every step forward, no matter how unstable and slow it may be, is
viewed by many as a step away from the country’s dark political past.
Unfortunately,
at this point, a Libyan-style intervention in Syria might not be possible for
several reasons. Libya had a relatively unified opposition in the form of the
National Transition Council and a leadership figure in Mustapha Abdul Jalil who
managed to rally all Libyans factions behind the cause of fighting Ghaddafi.
Syria lacks such leadership, as well as a cohesive opposition amid the
thousands of rebel groups, domestic and foreign, that are actively fighting on
the ground. Other obstacles to intervention relate to the nature of the U.S.-Russian
rivalry in the region as Russia is determined to back its Syrian ally and challenge
US historical dominance in the Middle East. Other obstacles are traceable to
Russia’s obstructionist posture in the United Nations amidst Russian continuous refusal of any UN Sec
Council resolutions on Syria.
While Putin is
unfortunately correct in his assessment of Iraq and Afghanistan, Libya has
enjoyed monumental institutional achievements since Ghaddafi’s fall.
Libya is
arguably one of the hopeful stories of the Arab uprisings, a country in
transition that merits international help, in areas such as military training,
economic development, institutional building, and conflict resolution, and is
far from a cautionary tale for international intervention.
1 comment:
Putin is a dickweed.
Post a Comment