Colin Wright

March 2, 2011

After decades of arms sales to their oppressors, Arab protesters are rightly sceptical about our support.

THE waves of unrest sweeping the Middle East suggest that democratic reform is spreading across the region. Or, at least, that’s the optimistic view being peddled in Washington and other Western capitals. Twenty-two years after Francis Fukuyama published his influential ”end of history” thesis, Western pundits, armchair generals and politicians are preparing to welcome the ”Arab street” into the democratic fold. Better late than never, I suppose.

Fukuyama had bravely, some say foolishly, argued that ”liberal democracy” was victorious and that all the major ideological battles had been fought and won. The 9/11 attacks put an end to that. Instead of Fukuyama’s global liberal democracy, we faced the harsh realities of Samuel Huntington’s ”clash of civilisations”. The war on terror confirmed this pessimistic return to business as usual in international politics.

In many respects, Washington’s neo-conservative response to September 11, 2001, was a distorted combination of Fukuyama’s and Huntington’s world views. Irving Kristol famously defined a ”neo-con” as a liberal who had been mugged by reality. This pretty much sums up the Bush administration’s attitude to global politics post-9/11.

Events in Iraq and Afghanistan subsequently proved just how misguided this view was. Democracy can’t be defined in terms of a simple voting system once every four years or so; and neither Afghanistan nor Iraq seems particularly democratic at the moment. John Stuart Mill’s essay on non-intervention should have been required reading for politicians in 2001. According to Mill, an external power could not impose freedom on an oppressed group. Freedom was only possible when enough of an oppressed population were brave enough to fight for their own liberation.

So far, the West has managed to get this about right in relation to events in the Middle East. Public pronunciations of support for the right of people to protest, robust diplomacy, and pleas for regimes to show restraint have helped bring about radical change, at least in Egypt.

The situation in Libya looks very different. With the possibility of Muammar Gaddafi unleashing his army, his supporters, and foreign mercenaries on protesters, pressure will surely grow for some form of intervention. Gaddafi seems to have no intention of going without a fight.

When faced with such violence, it’s normal for well-meaning publics to urge their governments to do something, perhaps even citing the responsibility to protect as legitimate grounds to intervene. Australians seem to be particularly taken with this argument, but it’s gaining momentum in the US as well.

This would be a mistake. The Libyan protesters don’t want Western intervention because Western governments have long supported repressive regimes in the Middle East. Britain led a concerted effort after September 11 to bring Libya in from the diplomatic cold. In 2004, then PM Tony Blair declared a ”new relationship” with Libya and claimed that while people ”should not forget the past, they should move beyond it”.

Blair’s visit to Libya was part of a co-ordinated campaign in which British business leaders, politicians and academics visited the dictator in the hope of normalising relations; ”normalising” in this context meaning increasing trade. Blair even claimed that Gaddafi was an ally in the war on terror.

At the same time as Blair was enjoying sumptuous hospitality in Gaddafi’s infamous tent, Anglo-Dutch oil giant Shell announced a  £550 million deal for gas exploration rights with Libya. And other British companies had already begun developing business links in Libya, among them British defence contractor BAE Systems.

Britain is not alone in supplying weapons to Arab dictatorships, weapons now being used to suppress and kill their own people. The French, Americans, Belgians and Russians are all known to be major arms suppliers to the region. Now they complain about the use of force against protesters; what did they think these regimes were going to do with the weapons when faced with revolt?

Britain stands out in this list, however, particularly in relation to Libya. According to the Campaign Against the Arms Trade, in the third quarter of 2010, British arms exports to Libya included projectile equipment designed to breach walls and doors, crowd control munitions, small arms ammunition, and tear gas/irritant equipment; in short, arms for riot control. Also in 2010, the British government approved all requests for licences for arms exports to Libya with most of the material processed through an office in the embassy in Tripoli.

Hypocrisy doesn’t come close to describing this situation, but it’s unfortunately part and parcel of international politics. But it does help explain why the Arab street is sceptical of Western concerns about democracy.

What can we do? Stand by and do nothing if further violence erupts? That’s not really an option, so what is? First, intervention is the last option, and even then it’s best proposed, organised and co-ordinated through the UN by the League of Arab States. Second, stop selling arms to oppressive regimes. In the case of Libya it’s far too late, but learn the lesson.

Third, sanctions should be targeted to harm the Gaddafi regime, not the Libyan people. Fourth, expect to be surprised. Democracy may emerge in the Middle East, although the jury’s still out on that verdict. But we have to accept that it might not be democracy as we know it. Democracy comes in many forms and not all can, or should, fit the Western model.

Much will depend on how far the leaders in Arab states feel they can both control, or bribe in the case of the Saudis, their own populations while still maintaining support from the global community. Entering into business agreements and arms deals with these leaders sends a signal that it’s business as usual. And it is, but the Arab street can read the signs as well, so don’t be surprised if they don’t seem too grateful about our supposed support. After all, they’ve had decades of that.

Colin Wight is professor of international relations at the University of Sydney.

http://www.watoday.com.au/opinion/politics/mistake-for-the-west-to-intervene-20110302-1besh.html