"The
failure of the Bush Doctrine revealed that fundamentalism and jihadism thrive
in an atmosphere of oppressive tyranny. Because of this, in Tunisia, Egypt and
Libya, the U.S. and its allies have chosen a side. But this bold choice will
have to move beyond Syria to Bahrain and Saudi Arabia, otherwise it could
crumble into incoherence."
Foreign Minister Antônio
Patriota has explained that Brazil has refrained from supporting Western
intervention in Libya for fear of a "change in the narrative" of the
Arab revolution. The coalition began aerial bombing raids at the eleventh hour,
when the forces of Muammar Qaddafi reached the gates of Benghazi, a city of a
million inhabitants. Everything suggested that without intervention, the rebel
capital would have been a scene of a great human tragedy. The specter of the
1994 genocide in Rwanda (1994) and the 1995 massacre in Srebrenica, in the
former Yugoslavia, committed in full view of a horrified yet passive
international community, discouraged Russia and China from vetoing intervention.
The comfortable (should I say hypocritical?) Brazilian abstention is unjustified on the basis of legitimate patriotic concerns. But there has indeed
been a "change in the narrative" - and it began before the decisive meeting
at the U.N. Security Council.
Qaddafi changed the
narrative. In Tunisia and Egypt, popular uprisings provoked divisions in the
nucleus of power. Armies separated from dictators and these regimes fell.
Libya, however, is a peculiar state, which combines structures of clan power
with typical totalitarian socialist institutions, such as revolutionary
committees. The regular army took the side of the insurgents, but the armed forced
is more fully vested with "special brigades" that are loyal to the
tyrant. Qaddafi's counteroffensive proved that the popular insurrection would
be bloodily crushed. The message was heard in Saudi Arabia, which took advantage
of the Libyan precedent, challenged Barack Obama's position and sent its troops
into Bahrain. Bashar Assad's Syria also understood the "change in
narrative" as a license for killing protestors in the public square. The cycle
of Arab revolution isn't over, but it has entered a new stage that is more
bitter and dangerous.
The metaphor of an "Arab
Berlin Wall" gives a sense of the democratic direction of the revolution
sweeping North Africa and the Middle East. Contrary to those who herald a "clash
of civilizations," and who appear immune to the facts, Arab societies are standing
up for freedom, and not in the name of the salvationist promise of Islamic
fundamentalism. But the metaphor has its limits, because the political
topography of the Arab world doesn't look anything like the old Soviet bloc in
Eastern Europe. The satellite countries of the USSR showed remarkable
uniformity in their political systems and obeyed a singular external power center.
The Arab countries exhibit a diversity of political systems that range from the
republics based on pro-Western armed forces (Egypt, Tunisia, Yemen) to the
conservative Sunni monarchies (Saudi Arabia, Bahrain), through single-party
authoritarian republics (Syria) and one "state of the masses"
(Libya). We aren't in the Europe of 1989: the revolution in progress consists
of cascading singularities, the configurations of which reflect national
particularities.
The differences don't stop
there. The European Union served as a catchall for Eastern European societies which
emerged from totalitarian dictatorships. The specter of authoritarian nationalism
haunted the countries of the former Soviet bloc, but was cast by the magnetism
of the Western block of democracies. In contrast, the piecemeal revolution in
the Arab world has no road signs. These societies, some of which are today are
free from tyrants, lack democratic traditions or pluralistic experiences. Fundamentalist
currents and in some cases, jihadist organizations, are peeking over the edges
of these popular uprisings. Contrary to the mantra of Bush Doctrine enthusiasts,
Arabs aren't condemned to tyranny. But they've hardly begun a triumphant march toward
freedom.
The direction of the Arab
revolution is profoundly influenced by the actions of the West. France didn't
support its former client Tunisian dictator Ben Ali, and the U.S., after some
hesitation, blew up the bridge that connected it to the Egyptian Mubarak. The U.N.
resolution on Libya is more than a providential humanitarian initiative: the
massacre of the insurgents in Benghazi would have offered an unparalleled narrative of
martyrdom for Islamic radicalism and jihadist terror. Nevertheless, every Western
gesture hints at a lacerating conflict between values and interests.
"And to all those who
have wondered if America's beacon still burns as bright, (…) we proved (…) that
the true strength of our nation comes not from the might of our arms or the
scale of our wealth, but from the enduring power of our ideals: democracy,
liberty, opportunity and unyielding hope."
This passage from Obama's
victory speech in November of 2008 forms part of the Wilsonian tradition
that seeks to establish a link between American values and interests.
Realpolitik, however, exists in Bahrain, gateway to the Arab revolution to the
strategic stage of "Gulf oil," where Saudi troops take care of the
dirty work of repression under the complicit silence of the West.
Posted by WORLDMEETS.US
In Iraq in 2003, George Bush coated
himself in the cellophane of defending freedom and military occupation, which
was defined by his peculiar interpretation of American geopolitical interests.
In Libya, Obama sacrificed concrete U.S. interests by cooperating with Qaddafi
in the "war on terror" on the altar of the values preached by the
West. Now there is a strategic logic to gambling on the Arab revolution. The
failure of the Bush Doctrine revealed that fundamentalism and jihadism thrive
in an atmosphere of oppressive tyranny. Because of this, in Tunisia, Egypt and
Libya, the U.S. and its allies have chosen a side. But this bold choice will
have to move beyond Syria to Bahrain and Saudi Arabia, otherwise it could
crumble into incoherence.
*Dr. Demétrio Magnoli is a
sociologist that studies human geography, Universidade de São Paulo.
