OBAMA - LIBYA AND THE NEW WORLD ORDER

INTRODUCTION

Just a day before the "coalition" met in London together with Libyan opposition members, President Obama addressed the American nation, (and of course the world), to "explain" his rationale and foreign policy, particularly as it relates to the New World Order. It is obvious that in this New World Order, ( See blogs - Egypt and the New Future and the Middle East Domino Effect), this unstable situation can repeat itself again and again. The most important fact to remember is that neither the USA nor anyone else has started these revolts against the established order - these are all home grown.

Up till Obama's address, there had been only two, apparently contradictory, messages from his administration - "Gahdafi must go" and support of maintaining a no - fly zone that would not involve putting any American military boots on Libyan soil. This  uncertain state of affairs led to a Pew survey result, prior to his speech, finding that only 47% agreed with the President's no fly decision and 36% disagreed. This is a very rare outcome for an American intervention when the whole country traditionally rallies around the President.  Other than the above two policy decisions, Obama had been strangely quiet on the Libyan issue. In the last month, he had held a major policy address on the gas situation and spent a week in Brazil in the heat of decision - making time.


BROAD SPREAD CRITICISM.

This lead all and sundry having a field day attacking him from every possible direction. In fact this has proved beneficial to Obama as the opposition was all over the show and demonstrated about as much coherence as his own policies ostensibly did.

The Republicans were in the biggest quandary as they traditionally support American dominance and intervention. (Those that went to Iraq, boots and all, could hardly shun this exercise). However, Ron Paul, presumably speaking on behalf of the Tea Party, joined other Republicans and a few Democrats, who wanted nothing to do with Libya in any shape or form.  John Boehner  wrote that Congress "just wanted to be informed" and made a very big play about it. McCain believed we should go "all the way". John Sessons made it quite clear that the USA did not need to accept direction from the United Nations or anyone else and also focussed on the bypassing of Congress. Dick Luger, inter alia, wanted to know the cost of it all. John Bolton said that we should go in and assassinate Gadhafi. Newt Gingrich echoed what many Republicans did - advise the opposite of what Obama was doing - On March 3rd he said that Obama should support a no - fly zone and on March 22 he criticized him for doing so.

The Democrats were also at sixes and sevens. Mostly they remained silent. Jay Rockefeller expressed his reservations prominently. Dennis Kucinich believed Obama should be impeached for not getting Congress's permission for going to war.

The pundits as well, as politicians from both sides of the aisle, questioned the decision for the no - fly zone commitment, and the "extras" that came with it. They questioned the consequences if it failed to remove Gadhafi or if the Rebels turned out to be worse than Gadhafi? Or even worse, supported El Quaeda. How did we know that we wouldn't have to go in to salvage our honor and or the cause we claimed to support? Also looming large was the question as to the precedent this decision sets - do we intervene in all situations where humanitarian aid is the issue? And if we did what about the Ivory Coast or Rwanda for example? Not to mention all that was about to happen or is happening in Syria, Bahrain, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and the rest.

OBAMA'S RESPONSES.


On Intervention

Obama made an unassailable case for his interventional decision. All the ducks were in a row. Gadhafi had threatened a house by house extermination of all in Bengazi. Further more, the Arab league, UN and NATO were all idem on the no fly zone.

"We knew that if we waited one more day, Benghazi – a city nearly the size of Charlotte – could suffer a massacre that would have reverberated across the region and stained the conscience of the world. It was not in our national interest to let that happen. I refused to let that happen."


On Consistency and Principle


However, this did not answer the criticisms of the precedent he was creating and the double standard that was patently obvious of when and when not the US should intervene.  Obama's response was unashamedly frank.


"It is true that America cannot use our military wherever repression occurs. And given the costs and risks of intervention, we must always measure our interests against the need for action. But that cannot be an argument for never acting on behalf of what’s right. …."


So there it is. It is political realism. (Come back Kissinger all is forgiven). "Our interests" is a code word, for example for oil or whether allies are involved -  no way are we likely to make Bahrain, Jordan or Saudi Arabia "no fly zones" as simply as we did the odious Gadhafi regime.  


It is also very difficult to argue against the dictum that every situation is different and not withstanding our desire to save the world we can only really act on behalf of "what is right" when our interests so dictate. We have officially compromised on the moral imperative. The USA de facto foreign policy has become de jure. For practical purposes that nixes any need to defend any future decision solely on the basis of morality. This may well upset some of Obama's base but c'est la vie.


On what happens if things go wrong.


No guarantee was given by Obama that Gadhafi would be gone as a result of these actions. The only guarantee was that no American soldiers would be involved. Implicit in Obama's statement is "so what if things go wrong"! We can only do what we can do. (That incidentally includes bombing the bejesus out of Gadhafi's ground forces).  And of course there is a precedent for such a policy. The Cosovo intervention had exactly the same rationale. Not only did this policy stop the genocide it did so in spite of the fact that Milosovic remained in power for another two years.  Also included "in only doing what we can do" is arming the rebels. Although the precedent for that is not so persuasive!


 So you cannot frighten Obama with the failure to produce an outcome that he did not promise. All he promised was to keep American boots off the ground and to look at every situation "measuring our interests against the need for action."So while Obama's opponents think that there is ample room to keep their options open before going ballistic about what he did or didn't do right in Libya, the criticism may not  fly because Obama needn't take the bait. He has little policy capital invested in the outcome. 


In fact the whole hulabaloo has died down to such an extent that Obama could move onto a major policy speech on energy  just two days later.


THE NEW WORLD ORDER.


All this is taking place in a New World Order. The Arab world is topsy turvy. (See earlier blogs). The citizenry have had enough. The rebellions are far spread and spontaneous and it is obvious that Obama is going to manage each situation on it's merits. Tunisia did it all on their own. With Egypt, Obama hung around till it was obvious that his "ally" Mubarak was history. The Egyptian scene required a very, very delicate balance because Obama had made a widely acclaimed speech there on freedom. All the other Middle East dominos are about to fall and Obama's campaign rhetoric and altruism will have to give way to "our interests".


The other component of the New Order is consensus. The world is getting flatter and although Obama has stated he will act unilaterally in American interests, it is obvious that he is consensus builder. He is only too happy not to be the principal and only arbiter of international order.  He is foregoing the arena where America is still number one by far - military power. This has far reaching consequences - at the very least he is officially serving notice that America is not going to be the policeman of the world. This is also something that the American right will not feel comfortable about but it sets the stage for defense expenditure reductions in an economy that is in deep trouble.


There is no doubt that challenges lie ahead as the variables are many. One fact is for certain that Obama or no Obama the Arab citizenry are taking matters into their own hands. The motivation is not theocracy but basic human and civil rights, which the West have espoused.  All the West can do is react to these uprisings. The waters are muddied in so far that Russia and China, at least, have other "interests" in the outcome. All this in a world where there is financial stress and unemployment everywhere..... .




To be continued.