Events in the Middle East and North Africa precipitated by the Jasmine
Revolution in Tunisia undoubtedly mark a new page in man’s struggle for human
rights. Since the concept of men born free and equal in rights was espoused and
gained credence in 16th century Europe, it has been a constant struggle between
various interests to realize the practical application of the concept in society. During
the Reformation in Europe, the struggle centered on freedom of religion, leading to a
vicious thirty year war between interests aligned with the Catholic order and interests
aligned with the growing Protestant movement. In the post-Reformation era,
struggles ensued over issues like property and suffrage rights, with the lines drawn
between property owners and the masses without property. The Industrial Age
brought economic and social rights to the fore and the protagonists were the
entrepreneurial class and the working class peoples. In the immediate post-WWII era,
racial discrimination and self-determination of people living under segregation and
colonization were an area of struggle, pitting colonial and imperial interests against
republican and nationalist ones.
In our time, the struggle has been largely around the implementation of
internationally recognized human rights norms worldwide. The battle line for this
struggle is seemingly drawn between states in the so called global North and South.
The story goes roughly thus: states in the North have consolidated the practice of
human rights while states in the South have constantly hidden behind political and
cultural expediency to violate the human rights of their people—with Middle Eastern,
Asian and African countries usually highlighted as most culpable. Consequently,
states in the North have constantly felt a moral compunction to aid these blighted
people to attain their human rights. While the moral rectitude of this goal is
unquestionable, how to achieve its ends has always raised questions. One such
question in recent times has been whether the international community should
intervene militarily in states where egregious violations of human rights are
occurring.
The Jasmine Revolution and its ramifications chronicle a decisive step in this
battle. Governments in Carthage and Cairo have fallen. Yerevan and Tripoli seem at
the precipice. Many other centers of oppressive power in the region have expressed
their willingness to devolve some of this power in the wake of massive protests. It is
unquestionable that the Middle East and North Africa will never be the same after
this. In fact the message is unequivocal to states that still oppress their people: you
will find yourself on the wrong side of history. There is real hope that major strides
have been taken in attaining the dream of a world governed by a respect for human
rights. Moreover, the launch of Operation Odyssey Dawn on the 19th of March 2011
under the auspices of UN Security Council Resolution 1973 enforced a no-fly zone in
Libya to protect civilians from government forces loyal to Qadhafi, and has also
shown that the international community is willing to use military force to protect
civilians suffering gross human rights violations. The gravity with which the states
viewed the matter was clearly expressed by President Obama: “Our consensus was
strong and our resolve is clear. The people of Libya must be protected and in the
absence of an immediate end to the violence against civilians our coalition is
prepared to act and to act with urgency.”
While boding good tidings for the realization of human rights worldwide, the
“revolutions” and the current international military operation in Libya provide an
opportunity to take stock of the current nature of our struggle for human rights,
especially as regards the protagonists—the North and the South. Accordingly, the
operations of Operation Odyssey Dawn also present an opportunity to highlight some
legitimacy issues regarding our current humanitarian intervention.
Reassessing the Struggle
The sudden eruption of revolutionary fervor in the Middle East and North
Africa has surprised many with its democratic and human rights colors. Most
commentators have remarked with astonishment on the, at best, insipid religious basis
of these uprisings. Considering that prior to the “revolutions”, most of the
international news concerning the Middle East and North Africa was related to fears
about the increasing levels of Islamic radicalization in the region, the expectation
would be that any revolution in the region will have its basis in Islamic
fundamentalism. However, this has not been the case. Tunisians and Egyptians from
various walks of life, cutting across religious and ethnic affiliations in a bid to secure
their fundamental human rights rose up and toppled oppressive and predatory
regimes. The fact that Ben Ali and Mubarak had been invariably propped up by
Northern countries and been presented as friends and allies in the fight
against terror, raises questions of the above delineation of today’s human rights
struggle. It is pertinent to note that at the onset of these uprisings peoples from all
over the world—North and South—were spontaneous in showing their solidarity with
the peoples of Tunisia and Egypt, reinforcing the notion that human rights are
inherent in the aspirations of all men, while most of their governments inscrutably
called for orderly transitions in these countries. The question must then be asked why
this discrepancy—even in avowed liberal democracies—between the will of the
people and the actions of the state? Searching for the answer to this question will
inevitably lead to the conclusion that human rights have always ranked low in the
chart of state interests, especially in the international realm. Northern interests in the
Middle East, for instance, have evolved around the need for stable oil supply lines,
Israel, and the War on Terror to the detriment of human rights. This is not new
information as the inherent paradox between state interests and human rights has
been well scrutinized in International Relations and political science discourse.
However, current events in North Africa highlight the need to move this discourse
from the academic periphery to a central position in our struggle for human rights.
Northern elites in collaboration with their North African counterparts perpetrated a
ruse for decades presenting peoples of North Africa and the Middle East as fabled
bogeymen motivated by religious zealotry and seeking to vanquish a Western
civilization founded on human rights and democracy. This ruse legitimized systemic
violations of their human rights through the War on Terror, Guantanamo Bay,
discriminatory immigration policies, and even the very dictatorships which governed
them. This ruse not only suppressed the will of the people in North Africa and the
Middle East but, as highlighted above, also suppressed the will of most people around
the world who have been unequivocal in their support for these peoples, having
discovered that they aren’t bogeymen after all but people with similar fundamental
aspirations of human dignity.
Our struggle for human rights today is certainly transcending the North/ South
divide. Peoples of Tunisia, Egypt, Yemen, and Bahrain have all massively expressed
their desire for human rights in their societies, undermining narratives of a people
whose religion and culture was anathema to human rights. As these events have
heralded some level of global solidarity from citizens worldwide, they have also
exposed the level of culpability of states—Northern and Southern—in creating and
facilitating structures that continue human rights violations. US strategic support for
Mubarak, Saleh, and the Bahraini monarchy and French support for Ben Ali has been
critical in sustaining these governments and augmenting their reign of tyranny over
their people. Consequently, our struggle for human rights today is shaping up to be
between a global citizenry united in its human rights aspirations and states whose
narrow, strategic interests inhibit the realization of the peoples’ aspirations.
Despite belated condemnation of Ben Ali and Mubarak and the launch of
Operation Odyssey dawn in Libya, Northern powers still cannot be exonerated from
their part in fostering oppressive states in the region. In fact, the Libyan case has
tinges of a similar blind pursuit of state interests to the detriment of human rights.
Qadhafi has recently been the toast of Paris and Milan, signing lucrative deals and
even being described as a new partner in the battle against Al-Qaeda. It is ironic and
maybe even slightly suspicious that Paris and Milan have been strong catalysts for the
recent military operation in Libya. In doing business with Qadhafi, both countries
cannot claim to have not known about the plight of Libyan people under his regime.
To make matters even spicier, Saif al-Qadhafi in a recent interview claimed that
Tripoli had sponsored the presidential campaign of Nicolas Sarkozy—a statement
which deserves further investigation.
From the above, legitimacy issues surround some of the states currently leading
the military intervention in Libya. This combined with other legitimacy issues
surrounding the current campaign raises questions about the overall political aims of
humanitarian intervention. For example, The UN Security Council has mandated the
intervening forces to to take all necessary measures (excluding a foreign occupation
force of any form on any part of Libyan territory) to enforce compliance with the ban
on flights, and to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack.
This broad mandate has created wide room for interpretation and the commencement
of bombing of Libyan military targets immediately created cracks amongst states that
had acceded to the intervention. Some Arab states who had agreed to the intervention
immediately sought to put distance between themselves and the current interpretation
of the mandate, highlighting that they had interpreted the mandate in purely
humanitarian terms and that they would like to stay as far away from the emerging
complications as possible. This volte face by Arab states is not surprising though.
Many of them are facing similar unrest back home. The sight of Western bombs
raining down on Libya must have sent shivers down their spines as the irony of their
earlier accession to humanitarian intervention unfolded with potentially similar
consequences for themselves.
Claims by the UN and various functionaries of the intervening nations that the
current mission is not aimed at toppling the Qadhafi regime, as legitimacy for that
task lies within the sole preserve of the Libyan people, have not been in tandem with
events on the ground. Catalysed by the bombings, in the past week rebel forces
ceased the momentum and regained control of Adjabiya, Brega and Ras Lanuf and
were hoping to take advantage of coalition bombings of Qadhafi’s military strong
holds in Sirte and Tripoli. However, Qadhafi’s forces have managed to withstand
them and recently beat them back to Adjabiya. Wittingly or unwittingly, the
coalition’s actions are having serious political ramifications, raising the question of
whether these political effects augur well for future peace in Libya.
Considering the sectarian divisions within the country, it might not be
advisable for the sake of peace that the coalition be seen as blatantly taking the side
of one party in what can now only be termed a civil war. The perceived bias of the
coalition is further compounded by the fact that senior officials of countries in the
coalition have openly stated their preference for a Libya without Qadhafi. In addition,
recent reports indicate that President Obama has given his imprimatur to covert CIA
action in Libya in support of the rebels. In a country where tribal divisions have been
one of the organizing principles of power and governance, the current actions of the
coalition will increase the fears of populations in Sirte and Tripoli, especially people
of the al-Qaddadfa tribe—and maybe some members of the al-Magariha and al-
Warfalla tribes—who have been the mainstay of the regime. The end of the Qadhafi
regime portends gruesome tidings for them. The shrewd Qadhafi is already
capitalizing on this fear and it can potentially be a source of the regimes continued
subsistence during this tumult. It is important that the coalition be seen as even
handed in its handling of this situation, recognising the fears, aspirations and human
rights of all Libyan people including those that legitimacy to some revanchist and
maybe even some vengeful actions from tribes in Cyrenaica who were marginalized
by Qadhafi after seizing power from them in 1969. Iraq serves as a gnawing reminder
of how foreign intervention can escalate sectarian tensions when the ethnic and tribal
configurations of the country are not properly understood and considered. It is
important to the people of Libya—and the world—that their country escapes such a
fate.
The views expressed in this article should in no way be misconstrued as a
justification for Qadhafi’s actions. In the world of international villains, Qadhafi’s rap
sheet is as long as the worst of them. This is a man who tried to invade Egypt and
Chad with no provocation; a man who has provided active or passive support for
most acts of terrorism committed in the last four decades, including trying to
radicalize the Maoris to forge a rebellion in the Oceania region; a man whose political
associations have been rather macabre, personified in his protégés like Charles
Taylor, Idi Amin, and Mengistu Meriem; a man who Jafar Nimieri of the Sudan
characterized as possessing a split personality which were both evil. If he were to
meet his death during the course of this uprising or military intervention, there are
very few in Africa, the Middle East or, indeed, the world that would argue against
that being his due comeuppance. However, if the consolidation of human rights is to
emerge victorious from these uprisings in the Middle East and North Africa, we must
for once give them priority over political expediency. This might mean reaching a
cease fire that would accommodate some elements of the Qadhafi regime or finding
other means to assure the people of Sirte and Tripoli, especially the al-Qaddadfa, that
their fundamental rights and their aspirations can still be attained in a Libya without
Qadhafi and controlled by the eastern tribes. It is also important that the military
intervention upholds its mandate to protect civilians regardless of the side of their
affiliation. Common sense informs that abetting one side in a civil war might not be
the best strategy for achieving that mandate. The only way armed humanitarian
intervention can distinguish itself from other forms of politically motivated violence,
is that where it can it must be seen to hold all civilian life sacrosanct. Reports about
numerous civilian casualties from the bombings in Tripoli; the above mentioned CIA
sanctioned operations by the Obama government; and reports suggesting that the
USA and other countries were considering supplying arms to the rebels adversely
affect perceptions about the aims and purposes of armed humanitarian intervention.
The Next Phase of the Struggle
Events in the Middle East and North Africa have shed new light on our struggle
for human rights today. The North/ South divide is making way for a citizen/ state
divide. A world where citizens are united in their common aspirations for
fundamental rights while states in pursuit of their narrow interests create structures
that systematically inhibit these aspirations. The question then needs to be asked is:
how do we as citizens equip ourselves to adequately overcome this new element in
our struggle? After all states remain our main vehicles for implementing collective
decisions in the international arena, even as regards human rights enforcement.
Although this might be the case, it doesn’t necessarily have to be so. At a time when
the efficiency of the state in running national affairs is being questioned and calls are
increasing for broader civil society participation in national governance, it is natural
that the same questions be raised about the state in international affairs. Some might
argue that this matter has already been on the agenda, pointing to the rise in the
international activities of NGOs in the past two decades. However, the relationship
between NGOs and states has not been one of parity. States have maintained leverage
over NGOs through amongst other means funding, licensing, and registration.
Consequently, the legitimacy of NGOs as representatives of the people has been
questioned. It is time to shift from a representative system to a more deliberative
system of decision making at the international level. In the same way that the ILO
involves states, employers, and employees in its decision making structure, the UN
and other intergovernmental organizations need to be liberalized to allow equal
participation of a broad array of civil society in their decision making. The youth,
especially need to be properly represented and respected as equals in international
fora. Only through empowerment of citizens in the international arena can voices
muffled by national and international tyranny be enunciated. This will also go a long
way in avoiding the legitimacy paradox of armed humanitarian intervention where
decisions regarding intervention are made by the same states which are sometimes
part of the structure facilitating human rights violations. The Jasmine Revolution and
its domino effect have outlined the next phase in our struggle for universal human
rights. We must cease this opportunity to insist upon a place on the table of
international decision making. The clarion call is sounded once again for freedom
fighters worldwide to embark on this next campaign. A luta continua!
