Categories
Conflict & disaster Society

[2473] A world without Iraq

I was almost late for my morning history class. I ran as fast as I could while trying to keep my balance on ice and snow. By the time I entered the classroom, I was gasping for air. For the not very athletic me, it was not easy to breathe hard during a cruel Michigan winter. As I settled in my seat thinking my heart was about to explode and my lungs collapsing, the instructor said, “Today will be about what ifs. What if you were early?”

The class burst into laughter at my expense.

After several minutes of friendly pokes, the instructor began to share his plan for the day. “But seriously, today will be about what ifs.” What if Venice and other cities had not monopolized the spice trade? What if old European powers were unsuccessful at colonizing Asia? What if Dien Bien Phu did not happen? What if the United States had not entered the Second World War? There were many more what ifs.

We were discussing colonialism in Asia and we were exploring the importance of certain events by trying to imagine an alternative history where those events did not occur. It required a broad understanding of history.

It also required all of us in the class to do our voluminous readings. A lot of us, being freshmen and still patting ourselves on our backs for getting into a storied school, did not finish our reading. We gave it a stab anyway. We had enough imagination to run wild.

That old memory reran in my mind as President Barack Obama finally, for better or for worse, fulfilled one of his election promises. The US is officially withdrawing from Iraq after more than eight years since the invasion that toppled the former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.

The withdrawal ceremony was being telecast ”live” on CNN. As I sat in my chair listening to Leon Panetta making his speech, my mind wandered to Egypt, Libya, Tunisia and the rest of the Arab world. Remembering my freshman lesson, I asked myself, ”What if the US had not invaded Iraq back in 2003?” Would Saddam Hussein’s regime have become a victim of the Arab Spring?

We will never know but nobody can say that would have been impossible. Whether a person is supportive of the war or vehemently rejects the invasion, he or she cannot deny that Saddam Hussein was a ruthless dictator.

That makes his removal desirable to some extent. If the 2003 invasion was legitimate in some ways, many in the anti-war camp would support or at least not reject the invasion. If Saddam Hussein was toppled organically by Iraqis just like how Hosni Mubarak, Muammar Gaddafi and Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali were toppled, many more would support the regime change.

An Arab Spring for Iraq would have been ideal. It would have removed a dictator without causing bad blood among various sides. Yes, it would be eight years later but in a time of terrorism and religious extremism, a world without the 2003 invasion of Iraq could have spurred deeper co-operation between the US and those that mattered.

A world without the war would have the US possibly swamped with goodwill of the kind it received in the aftermath of the September 11 attack but soon after squandered in the run-up to the 2003 war.

It could be the case, or it could not. Just as Japan in the Second World War made the colonized natives realize that colonial European powers were not invincible, the US invasion also reminded the Arabs that their dictators were not gods.

Sure, the United States of the 2000s was not Japan of the 1900s that was seriously underestimated first by the Russians and then later all the colonial powers in South-east Asia. Still, what is possible is not always evident until somebody makes it a reality. The US with its unmatched military might removed Saddam Hussein. The US made possible a regime change.

Or — this might sound repulsive, especially for those in the anti-war camp but consider this — the Arab Spring might not have happened without the 2003 invasion.

An alternative reality without the war would have taken away the realization of the possibility, and possibly affected the psyche of the Arabs. What was possible would have remained only one of the possibilities deep in the minds of ordinary men, never to surface to the real world.

A world without the war also would have taken away the anger against the US. The US in many parts of the Middle East and Northern Africa had close relationships with many Arab dictators. The relations were maintained in the name of stability and much to the detriment to the freedom agenda.

The ordinary man in the streets of the Arab world, already with a low opinion of the US, saw the relationship as a constant reminder of how much they disliked their own autocrats. This only added to local frustrations that had nothing to do with the US directly. All that anger and frustration, along with the cumulative effect of all those issues, created a momentum to push history to converge to a point that sparked the Arab Spring.

Without the war, part of the momentum would not have existed. The cumulative anger without the invasion might not have been enough to start the Arab Spring. That sans-Iraq anger might have been just a weak undercurrent, never to surface and threaten the dictators’ expensive boats, rocked gently by the pleasant waves.

There are a lot of other considerations as well. Maybe without the war, the US would have enough money to bail out Europe. Maybe, Obama would not have been elected as the president. Maybe, we would be still swimming in cheap oil. Maybe. Maybe. Who knows, really?

At least we know one part of history is ending. At least we know the next chapter is a whole new world, for whatever it is worth.

Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved
First published in The Malaysian Insider on December 18 2011.

Categories
Conflict & disaster Liberty

[2415] A legitimate good riddance to Gaddafi

Months ago, the Libyan rebellion appeared to be flattering. There were advances but despite indirect support from several world powers, forces loyal to dictator Muammar Gaddafi were able to defend their position. At one time, the rebels were pushed back to its home city in the far east. That in fact was the last time I truly gave attention to the Libyan conflict, until today.

I woke up today with CNN, the BBC and Al-Jazeera showing live scenes from Tripoli. The rebels are overrunning Gaddafi forces. News are making round that Gaddafi’s sons have been taken under custody by the rebels. This is a piece of wonderful news in time when the Arab Spring itself is turning out into almost a disappointment, and especially in Syria where a massacre is under way. This near victory by the Libyan rebels against the Libyan tyrant is a big encouragement to the participants of the Arab Spring, perhaps provide little pushes needed to keep the flame alive in the whole region.

I know those on the far left of the political spectrum are framing the struggle in Libya as the US against native government. For all their opposition to US “imperialism”, Gaddafi’s tyranny goes unmentioned.

Perhaps it requires no reminder. It should be obvious, but detractors of the Arab Spring allege that behind all this are the US and other western powers. That is not entirely true. It is not true when what matters is considered.

These powers are giving support to the rebellion, but I must add only indirectly. Regardless of the support in Libya, the rebellion is organic in nature just like in Egypt and Tunisia. It is born out of local discontent.

Remember, these western powers were caught by surprise at the intensity and the breadth of the 2011 Arab uprising. The initial responses by Obama, Sarkozy and Cameron to Tunisia and Egypt were inadequate and they were roundly criticized for failing to act against suppression of peaceful protests, fearing western support will make these organic rebellions less legitimate in the eyes of the world and more importantly, the undecided locals. That was probably due to them smarting from past mistakes. That is not exactly the reaction of a global mastermind favored by conspiracy theorists.

In Libya, suppression of peaceful protests has turned the rebellion into armed one. Somebody had to do something. The killing has to stop.

I have voiced my opposition to foreign military intervention, fearing that would rob the legitimacy of the rebellion. That fear on legitimacy did not bear out, and that eliminates my opposition to intervention. Even so, intervention has been limited to the enforcement of no-fly zone, endorsed by the United Nations for whatever it worth. And clearly, the UN-sanctioned foreign intervention was done out of reluctance: the US military was hesitant in participate in another struggle when its forces are stretched thin.

One disappointment that I have is these powers response to the discontent in Bahrain. The Bahraini government and Saudi Arabia were given a free hand to suppress non-violent protest over there. There is hypocrisy in US policy, sure.

But again, regardless of the hypocrisy, let it be reminded that many of these uprising is organic. It has native origin, not foreign. That is what important.

If the revolution is complete, when it is complete, then the next agenda should be about sustaining a democratic Libya. Not just a democratic Libya, but a Libya that is different from Gaddafi’s tyrannical socialist republic. A Libya that respects and protects its citizens’ individual rights.

Categories
Conflict & disaster Liberty

[2378] To impress, support tyranny

It is quite understandable why Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak wants to impress King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia is an important country to Malaysia. It is the largest oil exporter in the world. It is the leader of the Muslim world by default, for better or for worse.

But when the Prime Minister decided to offer military assistance to Bahrain and back the roles Saudi Arabia had played over the course of the Arab Spring,[1] that was just a little bit too much.

The government of Bahrain has suppressed unarmed protesters with brutality. Saudi Arabia aided Bahrain in suppressing demand for democratic change, fearing the democratic change that began in Tunisia and Egpyt would spread at the expense of autocratic rulers. Najib said those efforts by Saudi Arabia were noble.

Shame.

Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved

[1] — KUALA LUMPUR: Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak says the country is willing to send peacekeepers to help “de-escalate tension” in Bahrain while backing Saudi Arabia’s role in resolving regional unrest.

Bahraini authorities in the kingdom ruled by a Sunni dynasty have attempted to curb violent protests in recent months inspired by uprisings that toppled Egypt’s and Tunisia’s presidents.

“Malaysia stands ready to contribute peacekeepers to the Kingdom of Bahrain, if invited to do so by the Bahraini leadership,” Najib said in a statement on Friday following a meeting with Saudi Arabian monarch King Abdullah in Riyadh.

 

 

 

“Malaysia will consider it a great honour to offer assistance in this noble effort.” [AFP. Malaysia pledges to help Bahrain. New Straits Times. May 15 2011]

Categories
Conflict & disaster

[2327] No to foreign military intervention in Libya

There is a civil war in Libya and the one that started it is Muammar Gaddafi. He is a vicious man. The way he violently handled peaceful protests against his government justifies the rebellion that is underway in the country. Between the Gaddafi government and the rebels along with the protesters, I find it impossible not to support the rebellion morally. Despite that, I cannot support any foreign military intervention that sides with the rebellion.

The talk of military intervention gained prominence when there was suggestion to impose a no-fly zone in Libya. The fact that two US warships are approaching the waters off Libya heightens the possibility of US intervention in Libya.[1] It is a relief when US Defense Secretary Robert Gates poured cold water on the suggestion.[2]

At the risk of sounding sadistic, I do not support intervention because I like to see how the civil war will play out in the end. If the rebels and protesters won the war eventually, then it would be relatively easy to justify the new government arising from the popular rebellion. The new government would be formed popularly and organically.

Any foreign military intervention will rob some legitimacy from the new government. Accusation of US imperialism will fly, possibly making the rebellion less popular inside and outside of Libya. Furthermore, in times when the whole Arab world appears to move forward towards a more democratic environment, such external intervention is unhelpful.

Meanwhile, Gaddafi does have some support in Libya, however deluded he is about the level of support he has. There are still people fighting for him. These supporters would definitely try to justify Gaddafi’s so far outrageous claim of foreign intervention in Libya. Having an actual military intervention will hand Gaddafi and his supporters some undeserved moral victory.

Besides, the rebels themselves have stated that they do not want foreign government to intervene.[3]

If the rebels loses, then the Gaddafi government will further lose its legitimacy because the rebellion is seen by many as a popular movement.

And then, there is another issue which I have raised earlier: we cannot fight tyranny everywhere. If intervention is justified in Libya, what about other protests suppressed violently in other part of the world? Myanmar? Iran?

I do not even support any United Nations or any other organization’s peacekeeping mission in Libya, given the current situation. The rebels seem to be winning. An international peacekeeping force by the United Nations would halt progress made by the rebels and protesters, preventing or at least prolonging possible victory that would remove Gaddafi from power and along with it, hopefully his arguably socialistic policies. I do not want any intervention that would increase the likelihood of Gaddafi staying in power. I would support a peacekeeping mission only if Gaddafi has the upper hand.

Until then, I insist all we can do — apart from humanitarian aid — is sit, watch and hope for the best in the Libyan rebels and protesters.

Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved

[1] — WASHINGTON — A US warship with hundreds of Marines on board headed towards Libya on Tuesday, defense officials said, as US and European allies sought to pile pressure on embattled leader Moamer Khadafi. [US warship headed to Libya: officials. AFP. March 2 2011]

[2] — Military options, such as imposing a no-fly zone to prevent attacks on regime opponents, have consequences that need to be considered carefully, Gates said. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization hasn’t decided on any specific steps. [US signals caution about Libya military intervention. Lachlan Carmichael. AFP. March 3 2011]

[3] — Ghoga said the newly formed council was not contacting foreign governments and did not want them to intervene. [US signals caution about Libya military intervention. Al Jazeera. February 27 2011]

Categories
Liberty Politics & government

[2313] Of hook me up a new revolution?

While having a quiet dinner in Montmartre in Paris, I overheard the waiter talking in French to a group sitting at a table. The waiter answered, I assumed to an English equivalent of the question where are you from, “Tunisie. Révolution!” He further said, this time in English, “Now, I can go home”.

The whole table was excited. I do not need to understand too much French to know that. Some time within the conversation, somebody mentioned Mubarak. By the time I got back to my hostel, “Mubarak Steps Down” was written on the front page of the New York Times.

This is a joyous day. The Arab world is full of dictators. That is beginning to change. The wave that began in Tunisia begins to resemble the Spring of Nations that happened in 1848, when the revolutions across Europe prepared various states for real liberal change for decades to come.

Nevertheless, immediately in my mind, I remember a verse belonging to Foo Fighters’ Learn to Fly. As it goes, “hook me up a new revolution, ’cause this one is a lie.”

The protest in Egypt has been exciting to me because it is genuinely organic. Nobody can claim to lead the protest but everybody can claim to be part of it. While I was watching the BBC in London with an old friend less than a week ago, we discussed exactly this and we shared the conclusion of the danger how this revolution may end up, which could be a disappointment.

Mubarak has been reported of handing over power to the military. I am not an expert in Egyptian politics but the idea of having the military in charge, I would think, is not ideal. An interim civilian government would be great, although who should form the interim government, given the lack of leadership of the revolution, is unclear.

Let us just hope that the military will not be addicted to power, and stand ready to return its newly assumed power to the legitimate civilian government soon.