Round The World

New Delhi, 3 March 2011

Chaos in Arab World

INDIA WILL NEED TO ACT

By Monish Tourangbam

Research Scholar, School of International Studies

Dominoes are falling in the Arab world. The storm of the revolution sweeping West Asia and the North African region started in Tunisia when widespread people’s protests forced its long-time authoritarian leader Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali to leave the country after ruling it for 23 years.  What really caught the imagination of people around the world was the large scale protests that followed against Egyptian “modern day Pharaoh” President Hosni Mubarak who had dictatorially ruled the country for about 30 years.

The pent-up emotions and the people’s anger were out in the streets of the Arab world, catching the impulse of Egyptians people and the international audience alike. The young protestors in Tunisia as well as Egypt took to the streets largely for same reasons that have led to such an avalanche of suppressed frustration among the people. Namely, rampant corruption, cronyism, high unemployment, lack of justice and transparency and a sense of relative deprivation exposed through greater exposure.

Internet connectivity and social networking sites like Facebook are increasingly playing pivotal roles in organising and pooling together protestors and in shaping opinions around the world. In a matter of days, Cairo’s Tahrir Square became the focal point of the Egyptian protests that finally ousted strongman Mubarak, raising a debate between authoritarian stability and democratic chaos.

The international community has largely welcomed the relatively peaceful abdication of Hosni Mubarak but still the future is uncertain and there is a lot of spadework to be done to really make sense of the settling dust. The challenge is more about how to institutionalize the change and how to sustain an effective democracy.

Just as Egypt tries and grapples with setting in place a new beginning, the waves of democratic dissent seems to be crossing borders. The international spotlight is now on Libya as rebels battle it out with the supporters of Libyan strongman Muammar Gaddafi. The pro-Government forces have used a lot of firepower leading to bloodshed and widespread atrocities, thus, calling more attention and urgency in the international community.  Gaddafi unlike Mubarak of Egypt and Ben Ali of Tunisia seems highly delusional regarding his hold and popularity in the country.

Will Gaddafi burn his own country to save his “throne?” Will he take the country to a long-drawn civil war? As of now, the Libyan strongman seems to have lost touch with reality and seems less likely to relent.  International reactions to the Libyan crisis also have been quite steep and the United Nations Security Council has unanimously imposed an arms embargo on Libya, referred its leaders to the International Criminal Court (ICC) and slapped financial and trade sanctions on Gaddafi and his inner circle.

According to sources, More than a thousand protestors have been killed as pro-Gaddafi forces used might to crush the revolt that has shaken the dictatorial rule to its very core. The Security Council saw some opposition regarding the question of the ICC referral. But a letter from Libya's Ambassador to the UN, who has defected to the Opposition and supported an ICC investigation into possible crimes against humanity, helped clear the opposition and brought about a unanimous decision.

Diplomats at the UN have argued that the threat of war crimes investigations might push those closest to Gaddafi to abandon him. Moreover, there have been some significant military moves by the US and its European allies for contingent measures. But, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in an exchange with the Republican Committee Chairwoman Ilena Ros-Lehtinen, who urged a tough approach, made it clear that the Libyan rebel forces as of now had refused outside intervention.  

Clinton reiterated that the Obama Administration had taken no options off the table, including a military one, as long as Gaddafi’s Government continues to turn its guns on its own people. Speaking at the budget testimony to the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Secretary Clinton sought to clear suspicions about US intent in the region and also emphasized that Washington decided not to use military assets to evacuate its citizens from Libya out of concern that it might be seen as a prelude to seizing the country’s oil assets.

Libya is an oil exporter, and the unrest there has significantly impacted the oil market, with pressure coming on countries like Saudi Arabia to use its strategic reserves to fill the oil gap. This scenario has unsettled international crude oil prices and if a civil war-like situation continues in this North African country, oil politics would certainly play its own part in the whole game. The unrest does not seem to be hindered by boundaries anymore and protests have already been reported in Bahrain, Algeria, Iran and Yemen.

Importantly, fears of the unrest spreading to big time exporter Saudi Arabia is causing some uneasiness. Bahrain produces little oil but the country is strategically located in the Persian Gulf, a seaway that reportedly carries 18% of the world’s oil. Some analysts contend that the Saudis may also fear that protests by Bahrain’s Shia population could spill over their own borders.

Saudi Arabia’s Eastern provinces are home to both its oil industry and most of its Shias, who may also have cause for grievance with their Sunni rulers. The Saudi King had interestingly announced $36 billion in benefits for his people.

According to sources, foreign oil companies like Italy’s Eni and Spain’s Repsol YPF have already shut down vast amounts of production in Libya and the future of Libyan oil productions largely hinges on how the conflict plays out and for how long. If a protracted civil war-like situation continues in the country with insecurity and uncertainty reigning large, then the scenario could become bleaker, as strategic reserves are not going to fill in for a long period. Europe, the main importer of Libyan oil will be severely impacted.

India joined other UN Security Council (UNSC) members to back sanctions against Libya. It had some reservations with the question of referring Gaddafi and his associates to the International Criminal Court, preferring a “calibrated and gradual approach”. But the letter from the Libyan Ambassador calling for swift action eased India’s doubts and hence, it decided to go along with the unanimous UN decision.

New Delhi’s response to the Libyan crisis at the UNSC also serves as a mirror to the kind of responsibilities and decisions that India would continuously be called to take as it aspires to become a permanent member of the UNSC. At present, it holds a non-permanent seat at the Council.

Clearly, New Delhi cannot afford to be a benchwarmer anymore. As it increasingly becomes an important economic and political power in the international system, it will be called upon to make some hard decisions and it might have no choice but to give a voice. The Gandhian philosophy of the three monkeys who refuses to hear, speak or see bad things will not apply in the complex world of international politics, where conflicts and disagreements are more normal than peace and cooperation.  --- INFA

(Copyright, India News and Feature Alliance)