Remember it was just a year ago. The murder of the US ambassador to Libya is a shocking reminder to Barack Obama that helping to overthrow dictators does not guarantee stability in the region. For anyone who still clings to a naive belief that recent dramatic changes to the political landscape of the Middle East have made the world a safer place, the murder of the US Ambassador to Libya and three other embassy staff on the anniversary of the September 11 attacks should act as a brutal wake-up call. For more than a year, politicians on both sides of the Atlantic have given their enthusiastic backing to the seismic changes taking place among the ruling elites who have dominated the region for decades. As dictator after dictator has been removed from power, either through force of arms or the overwhelming strength of popular discontent, Western leaders have universally given their support to what they mistakenly identified as an “Arab Spring” of Western-style pro-democracy movements sweeping aside despotism. In Washington President Barack Obama has sought, from the start of his presidency, a “new beginning” for America’s problematic relationship with the Muslim world. He has given unqualified support to those campaigning for change in the major Arab capitals, actively encouraging the overthrow of one of Washington’s longest-serving allies, Egypt’s President Hosni Mubarak, and backing the military campaign to overthrow Libya’s Colonel Muammar Gaddafi. The overriding question here is this: did the overthrow of Middle Eastern dictators – Saddam Hussein, Qaddafi, and Mubarak – with Western moral, financial and often military support benefit the people in these countries or, on a larger scale, world security? Will the most likely overthrow of Syrian president Bashar al-Assad contribute to peace, stability and democracy in the region? Unfortunately, at this point, the answer is negative, despite the huge human and material losses incurred both by America and its allies and by the Arab countries themselves. It may sound uncomfortable to many, but unfortunately the following conclusion is inescapable: democracy has no universal meaning; its role may vary from region to region depending on history, culture, religion and even climate, as well as many other factors that may be unique to a particular nation and culture. All this makes sense, of course, if we are indeed talking about democracy and not about geopolitical gains or, as Silvio Berlusconi claims, about more mundane matters like oil and gas.
Posted on: Tue, 10 Sep 2013 15:20:56 +0000