U.S. liberals callous to Libyan uprising

By Mustafa Malik

 President Obama always makes good speeches, and he gave an excellent one defending his administration’s participation in NATO’s military intervention in Libya.

The coalition bombing has averted, as the president pointed out, a “brutal repression and looming humanitarian crisis” brought on by Muammar Qadhafi’s forces.  Even though   the Qadhafi forces have halted the rebels’ advance toward his eastern strongholds, the United States and its allies aren’t going to let the dictator prevail.

I’m concerned about the resistance to the mission that the administration is facing from America’s political and intellectual establishments. Republican and Tea Party opposition to the operation was predictable.  I’m disappointed, though not surprised, by the Democratic and, especially, liberal resistance to it.  It’s hard to imagine more liberal Americans than Leslie Gelb of the Council on Foreign Relations, Washington Post columnist Mark Shields and Rep. Denis Kucinich, Democrat of Ohio. They’re leading a range of American liberals and progressives who oppose the U.S. role in the U.N.-sponsored military action. I’m not surprised by their stance because I have known conservative and liberal Americans who profess support for “universal” human rights and freedoms, but view their “universe” to be the West. (The neocons’ “democratization” propaganda about the Iraq war meant to camouflage a clumsy imperial project.)

I was a member of an “International Congress” that was pushing for military intervention to stop the Serbian slaughter of Bosnian Muslims.  At our August 1995 conference in Bonn, Germany, my fellow U.S. delegates and I were elated to hear American liberals being hailed as “the bastion” of support for such a campaign. Coincidentally, the NATO bombing of  Serbian aggressors began while we were heading back home. I didn’t hear Kucinich, Gelb, Shields or any other well-known American liberals denouncing the Clinton administration for leading that operation.   Four years later when the United States led the NATO air raids to stop the Serbian army assaults on dissidents in Kosovo, American liberals applauded it.  Bosnia-Herzegovina and Kosovo are part of the West.  Libya isn’t. Neither was Rwanda or Congo.

Kucinich and other liberals are criticizing Obama’s failure to obtain prior congressional approval of the Libya operation.  More revealing, however, has been their silence about the morality of the campaign. Shields and others have offered a moral argument, which is equally telling. The administration, they say, didn’t prove how defending the Libyan uprising would serve America’s “vital interests.”

Suppose tomorrow troops loyal to a neo-Nazi dictator begin mowing down protesters in the streets of Berlin or Vienna. Would we hear them denounce U.S. involvement in a NATO military assault to stop it? I believe that Americans, including Shields, would then find it in America’s “vital interest” to support such intervention, just as they did in Bosnia-Herzegovina and Kosovo.

I see defending the pro-democracy upheavals in Libya and other Arab countries serving an over-arching U.S. interest.  Most Muslims and Arabs in west Asia and North Africa have been deeply anguished by the United States’ long-standing support for their repressive autocracies. Their resentment is the biggest challenge to U.S. security and economic interests in the Arab world.  Embracing the “Arab spring” would help Washington douse the toxic anti-Americanism and court tomorrow’s rulers, generals and diplomats in that region.

Mustafa Malik
Mustafa Malik
Mustafa Malik, the host of the blog 'muslimjourney.com,' is a journalist, writer and blogger, based in Washington. He writes mostly about international affairs, liberalism and neoliberalism, U.S. policy toward Muslim societies, religious fundamentalism and Islamic renewal. Over the years Malik's writings have been published in the Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, Chicago Tribune, Boston Globe, Atlanta Constitution, Miami Herald and other American newspapers and journals and in a host of Middle Eastern and South Asian publications. He has conducted field research in Europe, the Middle East, Turkey and the Indian subcontinent as a fellow of the University of Chicago Middle East Center, German Marshall Fund of the United States and American Friends Service Committee. His recent research projects focused on the Palestinian-Israeli imbroglio, America's campaign against terrorism and Islamic movements, the Iraq and Afghanistan wars and the nationalist projects in the Indian subcontinent. Malik continually gives lectures and media interviews on U.S. foreign policy, Islam and international affairs and has served as a panelist at seminars in the United States, Europe, Pakistan and India. He worked 16 years as a reporter, editor, columnist and London bureau chief for the Hartford Courant, Washington Times, Glasgow Herald and Pakistan Observer newspapers; as news editor of then Bengali-language biweekly Nao-Belal of Dhaka, Bangladesh; and as the European correspondent for the defunct newsmagazine Pakistan Monitor, published in Lahore, Pakistan. Malik also served as speechwriter for the late Pakistani Prime Minister Nurul Amin and carried out diplomatic assignments from the Pakistani government at the United Nations and in several European and the Middle Eastern countries. Malik was born in India and lives in the Washington suburbs.
avatar

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.