 |
 |
 |
 |
| |
|
|||||
|
||||||
|
Since the waves of Jasmine revolution hit the North Africa bringing down its ruthless leaders, who starved their people while they embezzled billions of dollars and unaccounted gold reserves, observers have been puzzled by not only the real power behind the revolt but by its rate. Some suggested it is a domino effect, assisted by the internet social networks; others argued there was a secret force behind it: Islamists or the Muslim Brotherhood whose ideology is dominant in the region. From the ousted leaders’ perspective, it was the Islamists and Qatar’s powerful media, Aljazeera that led to their sudden collapse.
Historically, North Africa has never known democracy by any standard but has been admired for its stability, geopolitical and economical weight by the West. So was the uprising and mayhem tormenting and painful to the West during the revolts that saw the fall down of Tunisia’s Ben Ali and Egypt’s powerful Mubarak. A similar Algerian conflict and the imminent danger that “free and fair elections” in the North Africa can pose to the Western interests were visible. So the long-used phrase was to be avoided. Undoubtedly, the Tunisian revolution; the “startling” Unlike Tunisia, Egypt’s uprising had further significance. Egypt is geopolitically important to the West as a long-time ally and partner in the Middle East peace process. In addition, it is a hub for political Islam- the Muslim Brotherhood. Therefore, the Western response to the Egyptian mayhem had to be carefully chosen. Obama administration was reluctant to call for a regime change which protesters had been demanding. Egypt needs political change not a regime change was repeatedly said by Obama’s administration without pressuring Mubarak to step down. But when the violence spiraled out of control, the army remained neutral, and the regime used violence to tighten its grip on power, the Obama administration was not left any other option but to abandon Mubarak and demand his resignation. Though he ruled out a revolution in his home, Muammar al-Gaddafi has been shaken by the storm that hit the eastern part of Libya before moving to Tripoli. His response was, however, predictable: use of lethal force that has been constructed, and modernized for the past four decades only to protect his throne from the Libyan people. Amazingly, his honorific, but tricky title, “Leader and Guide of the Revolution” has not helped him to survive the storm. “I am not a president to step down” he said defiantly with visible agony.
Because of its wealth, and the smaller size of its population, it was less predictable that the revolution would hit Libya before Algeria, Sudan and Yemen. But it also steered the revolution into unknown destiny because of the massive civilian casualty and the possibility of Somalia-style civil war which Gaddafi himself had warned his opponents. It has reshaped the upheaval. Nearly a thousand people have been massacred (figures confirmed by Italian Foreign Ministry as on Wednesday) by Gaddafi’s security and mercenaries. Those left behind are starving because they cannot go out without being shot by his mercenaries. The speech he delivered was very hostile and gave the clue of what he is thinking: splitting the nation into tribal lines, arming his tribe and fighting to the end. The international response to the crisis has been limited; it came short to criticize the tyrant regime while an immediate action was needed as well as a clear message to the Gaddafi family that they are accountable for the heinous crime to prevent another African Holocaust. However, with the support of Libya’s mission to the United Nations who too revolted against Gadafi, the Security Council has criticized the violence. Though it does not have in Libya the same political leverage in Egypt, the US delayed its response to the Libyan episode. It took President Obama until Wednesday to say Libya’s crackdown “violated international norms” and that his security team would map out a “full-range of options” to deal with the crisis. This may include as some European leaders proposed sanctions against the regime, and a no-fly zone to prevent a full-scale war. If a lesson is to be drawn from Somalia; a nation that has no functioning government for two decades, Gaddafi’s speech coupled with the air strikes against his own people echoes the episode that led to Somalia’s civil war. If Gadafi thinks with that extreme use of force and bloodbath, he could still rule Libya; critics had a reason to question his sanity. When the revolution started, the main thing Ben Ali, Mubarak, and Gadafi had in common was blaming the uprising on Islamists to gain Western support which its significance has died out in the face of the revolution waves. In fact, the people of the nations currently witnessing the upheaval, and the others still on the way, have been crying for political change for decades and relied upon the West for such ambitions to be realized. They could not think of protests of such scale before because they did not have the right to assemble and protest freely. The current economic hardship in the world has brought the corruption of those regimes to the shore. While the average people of those countries cannot afford the bread, their leaders embezzled billions of dollars and saved it in foreign banks. In addition, the development of the internet social networks; facebook, twitter, has made civilian organization possible and the free flow of information so easily. Secondly, people have despaired from the “rhetoric” democracy calls of the West, who put their national interests before the human rights of others, and decided to address the issue on their own at any cost. When Tunisians first succeeded in their mission of dethroning Ben Ali, there has been a domino effect in other countries facing the same political oppression. If the events in the North Africa are of anything, the people’s power is unchallengeable and political change and freedom is essential for World security and order. The West needs to end the double-standard policy, and push a meaningful change in the Middle East and Africa. David Cameroon, British PM hit the nail on the head when he said during his trip to Egypt, the youth in the Muslim world had to choose between extremism and oppression and dubbed the idea that democracy cannot work in Africa and Arab world as “racism”. Yes, the national values of each country may differ, but all world citizens should have free and fair elections, which is the real motive behind the uprising in the Arab world and Africa. ________________________________________________________________________________ We welcome the submission of all articles for possible publication on WardheerNews.com
|
