In February 2011, pro-democracy protesters in Libya quickly learned that their overthrow of the ruling regime would not be as peaceful or as quick as the democratic revolutions in Egypt and Tunisia. Widespread violence in Libya is entering its second month and forces loyal to Colonel Muammar Gaddafi have slowly, but steadily, advanced on rebel strongholds and have regained control of a majority of Western Libya and have made significant inroads into Eastern Libya. Gaddafi has regained control by utilizing a plethora of military tactics and weapons to route rebels; this includes the widespread use of fighter jets and aerial bombing campaigns. In the process of regaining control, Gaddafi has committed at least the most minor of crimes against humanity, if not more severe infractions, by indiscriminately bombing rebellious cities killing both rebels and civilians.
The aerial assaults have not been ignored by the international community, in fact regional and global powers have commented on the audacity of bombing fellow countrymen; France and England have been pressing organizations such as the EU, NATO and the UN to establish a no fly zone in Libya in order to protect pro-democracy protesters and civilians. The Arab League has even extended its support for a no fly zone; yet, the world has not intervened. There are several reasons for this lack of action. The greatest and most important element for avoiding establishing a no fly zone is assessing the strategic interest of intervening in Libya and the precedent this would establish in responding to the ongoing wave of democratization movements engulfing the Middle East.
The United States, as the world’s super power, ultimately influences the response of organizations such as NATO and the UN. Debate within the United States has centered on the strategic interest of interference in Libya and the effect it would have on other campaigns in the Muslim World. As of March 16th, 2011, the United States continues to request Gaddafi to abandon his aerial assault, but has not added substance to such requests. Although the United States has recognized the audacity of violence, the government has weighed the strategic interests of intervention in Libya and the effect it would have on soldiers already deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan and the impact it would have on relations with leadership in Bahrain, Saudi Arabia and Yemen.
Violence in Libya has interrupted the flow of a substantial portion of Europe’s oil and natural gas causing fuel prices throughout the world to increase, but the United States remains more concerned with important and intimate economic and military allies in the Arabian Peninsula. The Arabian Peninsula has experienced the tumultuous tide of democratization beginning in Yemen. After the bombing of the USS Cole, terrorists activities in Yemen have substantially increased; al-Qaeda has increased its recruitment efforts and has established several training grounds for jihadist fighters. The increase in terrorist activities culminated in the current strategic relationship between Yemen and the United States. The United States has continuously increased its intelligence efforts in the country and has carried out several missile strikes against suspected terrorist leaders and camps. The anti-government protests in Yemen threaten this current relationship; by largely ignoring violence in Yemen, the United States created its principle of non-interference and working with friendly governments in the region regardless of the citizens’ objections to the ruling regime.
Anti-government protests in Bahrain deeply threaten United States military interests in the region; a U.S. naval fleet is stationed in the country. Maintaining these military rights is crucial to strategic interests because of the island’s proximity to the Strait of Hormuz. By maintaining a naval fleet in the Persian Gulf, the United States can prevent interference of oil shipments by “rogue” nations such as Iran. Iran’s proximity to Bahrain also presents a dilemma in the United State’s measurement of strategic interests. The ruling family of Bahrain is Sunni, just as Saudi Arabia and other Arabian Peninsula allies of the U.S.; Iran is a Shi’a dominated country. Bahrain serves as a battleground between Shi’a and Sunni politics in the region and is often viewed as a pawn of Saudi Arabia. The United States has a great strategic interest in assuring the continuance of the Sunni royalty’s rule over the kingdom. The lack of action in Libya by the world’s leading countries has emboldened Bahrain to request the presence of regional Sunni militaries to assist in the suppression of anti-government protesters; in a country that continues to utilize violence as a tactic to suppress demonstrations, the presence of foreign militaries does not bode well for the safety and security of protesters.
Lastly, perhaps the United State’s most intimate ally in the region, Saudi Arabia has steadily increased the heavy-handedness of the government’s response to pro-democracy movements. The United States and most of the world has largely ignored the call for democratization because of the strategic importance of the Kingdom. Saudi Arabia is a leading exporter of oil, one of the most anti-terrorist Arab countries and provides a strong counterweight to another leading oil producer in the region – Iran. As protests spread throughout Saudi Arabia, the Kingdom deems itself free from international interference and condemnation in tackling social unrest.
The lack of physical response by the United States and other international powers in Libya has provided an important lesson for other nations in the Middle East. If the Western world remains vacant from Libya due to a lack of strategic interest, why would they interfere in countries that assume a far greater strategic importance? By crediting a lack of strategic interest as the excuse for ignoring government sponsored violence, countries such as Bahrain, Yemen and Saudi Arabia are emboldened to increase their physical response and repression of protesters because the leadership of these countries serves far greater strategic interests for the United States and her NATO allies than Libya does.
a global affairs media network
Emboldening the Arabian Peninsula
March 17, 2011
In February 2011, pro-democracy protesters in Libya quickly learned that their overthrow of the ruling regime would not be as peaceful or as quick as the democratic revolutions in Egypt and Tunisia. Widespread violence in Libya is entering its second month and forces loyal to Colonel Muammar Gaddafi have slowly, but steadily, advanced on rebel strongholds and have regained control of a majority of Western Libya and have made significant inroads into Eastern Libya. Gaddafi has regained control by utilizing a plethora of military tactics and weapons to route rebels; this includes the widespread use of fighter jets and aerial bombing campaigns. In the process of regaining control, Gaddafi has committed at least the most minor of crimes against humanity, if not more severe infractions, by indiscriminately bombing rebellious cities killing both rebels and civilians.
The aerial assaults have not been ignored by the international community, in fact regional and global powers have commented on the audacity of bombing fellow countrymen; France and England have been pressing organizations such as the EU, NATO and the UN to establish a no fly zone in Libya in order to protect pro-democracy protesters and civilians. The Arab League has even extended its support for a no fly zone; yet, the world has not intervened. There are several reasons for this lack of action. The greatest and most important element for avoiding establishing a no fly zone is assessing the strategic interest of intervening in Libya and the precedent this would establish in responding to the ongoing wave of democratization movements engulfing the Middle East.
The United States, as the world’s super power, ultimately influences the response of organizations such as NATO and the UN. Debate within the United States has centered on the strategic interest of interference in Libya and the effect it would have on other campaigns in the Muslim World. As of March 16th, 2011, the United States continues to request Gaddafi to abandon his aerial assault, but has not added substance to such requests. Although the United States has recognized the audacity of violence, the government has weighed the strategic interests of intervention in Libya and the effect it would have on soldiers already deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan and the impact it would have on relations with leadership in Bahrain, Saudi Arabia and Yemen.
Violence in Libya has interrupted the flow of a substantial portion of Europe’s oil and natural gas causing fuel prices throughout the world to increase, but the United States remains more concerned with important and intimate economic and military allies in the Arabian Peninsula. The Arabian Peninsula has experienced the tumultuous tide of democratization beginning in Yemen. After the bombing of the USS Cole, terrorists activities in Yemen have substantially increased; al-Qaeda has increased its recruitment efforts and has established several training grounds for jihadist fighters. The increase in terrorist activities culminated in the current strategic relationship between Yemen and the United States. The United States has continuously increased its intelligence efforts in the country and has carried out several missile strikes against suspected terrorist leaders and camps. The anti-government protests in Yemen threaten this current relationship; by largely ignoring violence in Yemen, the United States created its principle of non-interference and working with friendly governments in the region regardless of the citizens’ objections to the ruling regime.
Anti-government protests in Bahrain deeply threaten United States military interests in the region; a U.S. naval fleet is stationed in the country. Maintaining these military rights is crucial to strategic interests because of the island’s proximity to the Strait of Hormuz. By maintaining a naval fleet in the Persian Gulf, the United States can prevent interference of oil shipments by “rogue” nations such as Iran. Iran’s proximity to Bahrain also presents a dilemma in the United State’s measurement of strategic interests. The ruling family of Bahrain is Sunni, just as Saudi Arabia and other Arabian Peninsula allies of the U.S.; Iran is a Shi’a dominated country. Bahrain serves as a battleground between Shi’a and Sunni politics in the region and is often viewed as a pawn of Saudi Arabia. The United States has a great strategic interest in assuring the continuance of the Sunni royalty’s rule over the kingdom. The lack of action in Libya by the world’s leading countries has emboldened Bahrain to request the presence of regional Sunni militaries to assist in the suppression of anti-government protesters; in a country that continues to utilize violence as a tactic to suppress demonstrations, the presence of foreign militaries does not bode well for the safety and security of protesters.
Lastly, perhaps the United State’s most intimate ally in the region, Saudi Arabia has steadily increased the heavy-handedness of the government’s response to pro-democracy movements. The United States and most of the world has largely ignored the call for democratization because of the strategic importance of the Kingdom. Saudi Arabia is a leading exporter of oil, one of the most anti-terrorist Arab countries and provides a strong counterweight to another leading oil producer in the region – Iran. As protests spread throughout Saudi Arabia, the Kingdom deems itself free from international interference and condemnation in tackling social unrest.
The lack of physical response by the United States and other international powers in Libya has provided an important lesson for other nations in the Middle East. If the Western world remains vacant from Libya due to a lack of strategic interest, why would they interfere in countries that assume a far greater strategic importance? By crediting a lack of strategic interest as the excuse for ignoring government sponsored violence, countries such as Bahrain, Yemen and Saudi Arabia are emboldened to increase their physical response and repression of protesters because the leadership of these countries serves far greater strategic interests for the United States and her NATO allies than Libya does.
