Opinion Libyan sideshow

Little Europe’s “big war” in Libya is only mildly controversial,for now. It has not drawn the kind of ferocious criticism that George W. Bush’s occupation of Iraq did when it was launched eight years ago this month.

Put simply,Libya is not Iraq. While Gaddafi owns the prized “sweet crude” of Libya,he is at the geopolitical periphery of the Greater Middle East. Whatever it’s final outcome,the current military intervention in Libya will not alter the region’s balance of power.

The only countries that have chosen to raise the stakes in Libya are France and Britain. If the Libyan intervention is successful,Sarkozy and Cameron,both battered at home,should come out looking taller. Nothing boosts political ratings in a democracy than a show of force abroad.

Imagine the TV coverage when Sarkozy and Cameron land triumphantly in Benghazi over the next few days.

For US President Barack Obama,Libya is an unwanted distraction.While providing the much needed military weight to Franco-British muscle flexing,Washington wants out,and fast.

Obama is expected to cede operational leadership of the military action to the Europeans in the next few days. Unlike Sarkozy and Cameron,Obama is not hunting for political credit in Libya. He wants to avoid political debit.

Russia or China could have easily vetoed the expansive UNSC resolution that gave so much room for France and Britain in Libya. But they didn’t. Moscow and Beijing have bet that they can wait.

If Gaddafi is ousted,Moscow and Beijing will exercise their leverage in the UNSC to define the terms of engaging the new regime. If Sarkozy and Cameron stumble,China and Russia can renew their bonds with Tripoli. India’s game is no different. It’s about minimising risks by sitting on the fence.

Bahrain hypocrisy

Many in India rightly point to the current double standards in the Western discourse. Paris and London say they have a duty to intervene in Libya and protect its people against a brutal dictatorship.

Neither of them has condemned the crackdown in Bahrain against peaceful protestors. Washington does not want to rock the boat in the tiny island nation for good reason. The US navy’s Fifth Fleet is headquartered in Bahrain.

Bahrain has no oil,and its population of about 500,000 is not much bigger than what Mamata Banerjee might draw to the Kolkata Maidan on a rainy day. But Bahrain’s geopolitical significance far outweighs that of Libya. It is now at the heart of the Saudi-Iran power play in the Middle East.

An overwhelming majority of Bahrain’s population is Shia,but is ruled by a small Sunni minority. Saudi Arabia can’t accept majority rule in Bahrain and chose to send its troops to put down the Shia revolt.

Iran,unsurprisingly,is the only country to protest Saudi intervention. Washington,London and Paris have much too much stake in Saudi Arabia to object.

If Western double standards in Bahrain are plain,so is Indian hypocrisy. Facing elections in Bengal,Kerala,and Assam — where the Muslim vote is of consequence — the UPA government wants to protect its left flank.

Delhi’s expression of regret at the use of force in Libya and deafening silence over violence and foreign intervention in Bahrain do measure up well against the Western standards on hypocrisy.

Our communist parties,as always,are good at simplifying matters with an easy rule of the thumb: Western interventions are “imperialist” and Communist interventions are “progressive”. Recall how the CPI and CPM defended the Soviet Union’s occupation of Afghanistan in the ’80s.

While they fulminate against the Western actions in Libya,the Left parties are yet to speak up against Saudi intervention. Maybe their newfound love for Iran will persuade them to speak up.

Iran’s intervention?

Meanwhile,Iran will find it hard to criticise its ally Syria’s crackdown on its protestors. In Syria,a small Shia and Alawite minority has ruled with brute force over the majority Sunni Muslims.

Iran is said to be mounting its own intervention in Syria. According to the Syrian opposition,Iran has sent elite units of its Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps attack the anti-regime protestors in the town of Dera.

Iranians,of course,can argue that if Europeans can intervene in Libya and Saudis butt into Bahrain,why can’t they protect their Syrian equities?

In the Middle Eastern “Hamam” there is no major power — global or regional — that is not naked in its pursuit of its interests. The question,then,is not about the legitimacy of interventions,but which ones might succeed and who might end up on the list of losers in the new Middle East.

The writer is a senior fellow at the Centre for Policy Research,Delhi