THE IMPARTIAL OBSERVER
Age of Selective Morality and Its Consequences
Hank Eso
Sunday,
25 September 2011
You are distinguished by your inability to recognize the truth, no matter how
irrefutable
~~
Maummar Gaddafi
It
is immoral and unacceptable to apologize for any autocrat.
And no one should. However, fast-evolving global events, particularly the
fallouts of the Arab Spring, are quite instructive about the evolution of global
politics and the increasing absence of defined parameters.
Another clearly emerging trend is the clear employment of selective
morality in matters of collective security.
This development is definitely troubling, convenient as it might be for
its architects.
A confluence of global events in the Middle East, North Africa, and Sudan are
all pointers to the dichotomies in thought, policy, process and outcome.
Incidentally, there is growing suspicion
about the incongruity in pronouncements and conduct by those who undertake to
police the world out of their sense morality. Increasingly, the emerging pattern
points to a schizophrenic disposition, where the conduct and process can be seen
as selective.
The choice to intervene in any crisis when states fail in their responsibility
to protect their citizens while a clear imperative cannot be a matter of
selective approach, founded on strategic interests or for that matter
ill-deposition toward one autocrat.
Most autocrats still holding office survive, because they were once supported by
the very powers that now seek to stampede them out, even if only vicariously.
Most, also acquired weapons and arsenal used for suppressing their people from
these same global powers.
One does not discount that the end product of humanitarian interventions might
be democratic dividends, but regime changes foisted from the outside will always
subsist along with memories and residual corollaries of fractured politics and a
deep sense that the emergent leadership is beholding to foreign interests. It
becomes hard, therefore, to balance such perception or reality with the notion
of true impendence and sovereignty.
Glaring
dichotomies persist, relative to independence.
Kosovo and South Sudan are both independent. The former is not yet a
member of the United Nations, while U.N. membership for the latter was a walk in
the park. Egypt and Tunisia got rid
of their leaders and are still traversing a halting and uncertain political
transition. Yemen, Syria and Bahrain continue to struggle with prospects of
indefinite outcomes for their respective leaders and the nations. Yemen’s
President Ali Abdullah Saleh left the country but has returned. Could Tunisia’s
Ben Ali do likewise? And Gaddafi?
The greatest risk of the selective morality approach is that it lacks clear
ownership, and consistently risk being abandoned were it to falter.
Libya
is supposedly reemerging a new nation, mostly thanks to Western nations that
abetted the removal of Maummar Gaddafi, not without the complicity of some
African nations, one might add. But
the unfolding story of Libya is just beginning and the consequences, which might
be farfetched and profound, are hardly being contemplated.
Pretend as the international community may, change in Libya did not
entirely come about from within and has now taken an ethnic or tribal dimension.
While the attending international footprint might be stealth, they are hardly
light. There has been a civil war in Libya, lopsided as it was and it is not
over yet. The Transitional National Council (TNC)
must find ways of clearly declaring “no
victor and no vanquished” but also, ways if consistently implementing that
doctrine. As things stand, relations between the new Libya and sub-Saharan
Africa are badly strained due to the clear targeting and killing of African
immigrants.
The irony of Libya is, that draconian as the Gaddafi regime was, it undeniably
provided a vast array of modern amenities for its people that would put many
democratic African countries, Nigeria included, to shame.
Another irony of Libya is that the rationale for the regime change has
much to do with its oil and other natural resources less than it does with
democratic freedom and civilian protection.
Finally, even if considered an Arab country, Libya was not in any way
more draconian than several Arab countries that have aligned with the West,
while hardly practicing any form of democracy or offering their people
constitutionally guaranteed freedoms. What shades of freedom or brutality
separates Libya and Yemen?
What acts of repressive crackdown took place in Libya and Syria that did happen
in Bahrain? Would it have sufficed for the African Union to send in troops to
prop up the Gaddafi regime the way Saudi Arabia and
the United Arab Emirates sent in troops to prop
up the authorities in Bahrain? Questions and more questions!
Meanwhile, independence continues to elude Saharawi Arab Democratic Republic (SADR)
also known as Western Sahara and Palestine, two entities that deserve to be
independent, but have fallen victims of global realpolitik.
This week Palestine forced their issue by pushing against all odds, for a
U.N. membership. What is unclear to
many, is why democratic and independent countries, many which fought and shed
blood for their independence and thus value it highly, would willy-nilly stand
in the way of other deserving nations becoming independent.
The Palestinian question will lay bare the hypocrisy of many nations, who
opted to forge their response to the matter rather than take a principled stand.
One does not have to look back to find that the same cluster of nations
sided with apartheid South Africa, against black majority rule. Sadly history
does repeat itself, perhaps in different shades.
The World According to Might:
One shared commonality of all the counties mentioned afore, is the global
assessment of their respective strategic values and interest to major countries
charged with collective security. Vast differences exist in their thinking and
convergence of thought and action is dictated, not so much by the value interest
of the countries in trouble as much of the interests of member of the global
moral crusade and firefighters. The world is being shaped not according to
right, but according to might. This
explains why it has proven extremely difficult to gain any traction in the
conflict in Syria; especially after the regime change in Libya was accomplished
under the false pretense of “civilian protection”.
It is instructive that the world bestrides many zones of frozen and active
conflicts. Conflict in Somalia, Iraq and Afghanistan seems intractable, despite
ongoing peace efforts. Numerous other zones enjoy a semblance of peace only
because they are heavily policed by international forces.
Absent these forces, the state of paly becomes anyone’s guess.
The probability is on the high side for some recidivism.
Unintended
Victims and Casualties:
In considering the state of international politics, it is paradoxical that
certain enunciations by Gaddafi are pertinent, both to the fate that has
befallen him and his former counterparts in Tunisia and Egypt, as much as it is
to those who wish to impose a new world order, undefined as it is. As Gaddafi
once remarked, “You
are distinguished by your inability to recognize the truth, no matter how
irrefutable.”
This
characterization applies to him as well as his foes.
In war, truth is the first casualty.
That is true of Libya and all pertinent policies, both domestic and
international. Negative reaction to
handling of Libya can be measured by the number of countries that voted no,
abstained or merely chose to be absent when the credentials of the Transitional
National Council were recently taken up at the United Nations.
Africa is also a major casualty; so too, regional cooperation
between African Union and the international community.
This stark reality is being downplayed, but the wounds run deep and the
humiliation and marginalization is one that Africans would not forget in a
hurry. After the events in
Cote d’Ivoire and Libya, many African nations will think hard before ever
acceding to any collective action on the African soil.
Already, the aftershock of Libya has sorely dampened any enthusiasm for
international action in Syria. The
risk of massive anger on Middle East streets over the slanted handling of the
Palestine independence question remains credible.
It is commonly known that many African and Arab countries are being
pressurized not to vote for the admission of Palestine to the U.N.
For most African nations that proposal is galling and noxious, most
having just celebrated their fiftieth independence anniversary.
Strategically, the Palestinian authorities goofed.
Not that there is any particularly propitious moment to pursue touchy
issues, but months preceding U.S. national elections are renowned as utterly bad
to pursue any policy that pertains to Israel, more so those that might play to
its disadvantage. In this context, the Obama administration, Israel and
Palestine are equal victims. It is clear that Israel will also goof.
Imagine what would happen if it voted for a Palestine State, contrary to
all expectations. That mere act would put the pressure back on Palestine to go
back and negotiate the finer points.
It would keep a negotiated two state solution option alive. Importantly,
it would take the wind out of the Palestine State debate and put Israel squarely
on the driver’s seat. But that is wishful thinking by all accounts.
As things stand, Israel may win by blocking Palestine’s U.N. membership,
but weaken its relations with Turkey and Egypt, its key Arab allies.
Moving Beyond Rhetoric and Precepts:
What the world calls for is morally-correct and balanced policies that are not
skewed in favor of strategic national interests or fashioned to be
disadvantageous to perceptibly weaker states. The current trend of selective
morality is myopic. It serves well as means to an end and quick fixes; but it
leaves in its wake profound ennui and animosities that only complicate the
already intertwined and complex system which itself is buffeted by deep-seated
distrust and misgivings. Double standard international policies that reek of
favoritism and selective morality are defeatist, if not in the short term, then
in the medium and long term.
Collective policy mistakes linger eternally and there is
always a price to pay as evidenced by Somalia. Also, those who facilitate the
breaking up of an existing but perhaps dysfunctional state must take ownership
of the emerging toxic debris. It will not do to just walk away, after the fact.
In Libya, the unwitting unleashing of a broad array of weaponry including
sophisticated surface-to-air weapons is cause to pause. Most are already in the
wrong hands; only God knows which terrorist groups have them.
The international community has
arrived at a critical juncture; where the lone global police – the United States
– cannot do the policing alone as President Nicholas Sarkozy of France suggested
recently, but also where selective morality, convenient as it may be, will only
serve as a practical bridging tool, albeit one with dire and negative
consequences, akin to Chemotherapy.
The cure may work sometimes; in some cases briefly, in some cases well, but the
adverse consequences can only be ignored at one’s peril. That is the state of
the fate of our world.
With
neither anger nor partiality, until next time, keep the law, stay impartial, and
observe closely.
--------
Hank Eso
is a columnist for
Kwenu.com.
His observations on Nigerian, African and global politics and related issues,
has appeared in various print media, journals and internet-based sites.
© Hank Eso,
24 September 2011.
Email:
hankeso@aol.com