Catch 22-The Situation in the Arab World

The events in the Arab world, both in North Africa and in the Gulf have caught the world’s largest democracy and the world’s most powerful democracy in a catch 22 situation. Whom to support in the Arab world – despotic tyrants who have ruled for decades with an iron hand and claim to have given stability to the region or the unfolding movements of the people, yearning for freedom, whose democratic aspirations have been consistently suppressed by these very same rulers?

When the scent of Jasmine had overthrown long entrenched despotic rulers in Tunisia and Egypt, it was the turn of the people of Libya to demand freedom from the four decades of Colonel Qaddafi’s autocratic rule.  The uprising in Libya has left hundreds dead, but has been dismissed as the handiwork of ‘Islamic radicals and Libyans in exile’ by Qaddafi and his supporters. ‘Libya is not Tunisia or Egypt’ is the constant refrain emanating from Qaddafi who has not only used the full might of his army and air force to suppress the revolt but threatened Libyans with the prospect of civil war that would break up the country should he be removed from power. The Libyan people have faced up to Qaddafi’s brutality - the country witnessing a continuous cycle of confrontations and killings, which has made the revolt the bloodiest in the wave of uprisings sweeping the region. Qaddafi might well have succeeded in quelling the revolt had not the United Nation’s Security Council, acting under the authority of Chapter VII of the Charter, approved a ‘No Fly Zone’ over Libya, via United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973, on 17 March 2011. At that time, the protesters had been pushed back to their final stronghold at Benghazi and thousands would most certainly have been massacred by Qaddafi, had the ‘No Fly Zone’ not come into force. The Libyan Government declared a ceasefire the very next day, but broke it shortly thereafter, with Government troops and tanks entering Benghazi on 19 March. The US led offensive to enforce the ‘No Fly Zone’, has seen the employment of missiles and air power which has destroyed or rendered ineffective the Libyan government’s air defence systems and air capability. It has also forced a pullback of government forces from Benghazi, much to the relief of the beleaguered citizenry and the rebels. The situation is fluid. While the ‘No Fly Zone’ has by and large been enforced with the aid of air power, it would be more difficult to enforce protection of the citizens which has also been mandated by the Security Council Resolution. Command of the forces has now been entrusted to NATO. They will be relying solely on air power to enforce the UN Security Council resolution and will not employ ground troops. The situation could lead to three different scenarios. Qaddafi could be overthrown; the rebels could be defeated or a stalemate could result leading to a long drawn out conflict.
 
India has spoken out against the use of force by all parties to the conflict in Libya as a means to implement the second part of the Security Council resolution which mandates protection of the lives of the people. India’s interests are very clearly aligned to economic concerns. The Libyan ruler has promised India, China and Brazil a strategic stake in Libyan oilfields and this has influenced Indian decision making as also that of China. Democratic principles have been given a go by in favour of commercial gains. While China does not live by those principles, it is an article of faith as far as India is concerned. By taking a median path, India attempts to play it safe. This is inconsistent with India's ambition of getting a permanent seat at the Security Council. By consistently falling short of taking hard decisions and being content to sit on the fence, India is not sending a positive signal to the world community. In the absence of the Security Council resolution, Qaddafi would have wiped out the resistance through brutal force. As of now, India appears to be caught in a catch 22 situation. But if Qaddafi was to be overthrown, which is not unlikely, or if civil war were to erupt, then what would the stakes be for India?
 
In Bahrain, we are witnessing a mass uprising against the Al Khalifa hereditary dictatorship. Two thirds of the population in Bahrain is Shia and the remaining one third is Sunni. But the Bahraini rulers belong to the minority Sunni community. The movement which began as a demand for democracy encompassing all sections of society has now taken on the overtones of a Shia – Sunni confrontation. Saudi Arabia has sent its troops to support the Al Khalifa regime. King Abdullah’s fear is that a Shiite uprising in neighbouring Bahrain could spread and embolden Saudi Arabia’s own minority Shiite population. This is worrisome because in the eastern coastal belt of Saudi Arabia, the Shias are in a majority and this region also holds major oil producing and refining facilities.

The brutal crackdown in Bahrain poses the greatest Middle East democracy dilemma yet to the Obama administration and has resulted in a considerable chilling of relations between the United States and Saudi Arabia. The US wants Saudi Arabia and Bahrain to allow political reforms that could lead to more representation for Shiites under Sunni rule. The Saudis believe that political reforms would only open the door to greater instability and could pave the way for Shia rule in Bahrain – a prospect with which King Abdullah is not pleased with and will not allow. Saudi Arabia is still smarting at the unceremonious exit of Hosni Mubarak of Egypt in the face of demonstrations and feels that the US did not adequately support the former Egyptian President. Consequently, Saudi Arabia ignored American requests not to send troops into Bahrain to help crush Shiite-led protests there.

The region is of great strategic significance to the US. Saudi Arabia is the second largest foreign supplier of oil to the United States, and Bahrain is home to the United States Navy’s Fifth Fleet. Even if the United States could wean itself from dependency on Saudi oil, the world’s largest petroleum reserves lie in Saudi Arabia and will continue to impact on global markets across the globe.

However, both the United States and Saudi Arabia have a convergence of interests on the issue of Iranian influence in the region which both would like to negate. Iran is a Shia country and as per a Saudi official, ‘there are people on the extreme end of the opposition who have been in touch with Iran.’ For the US administration, the stakes are higher in Bahrain and Saudi Arabia than in any other Arab country facing unrest now. The United States has long viewed Saudi Arabia as a last bulwark against an ascendant Iran in a crucial region, and does not want Tehran stepping in to back Shiites in Bahrain or Saudi Arabia. The message which the US is sending to Saudi Arabia is the need to move toward genuine and gradual reform, if the fate of Mubarak is to be avoided. The Saudi’s however feel those reforms are actually the path to Mubarak’s fate. So the Americans too are caught in a typical Catch 22 situation. Supporting the existing dispensation may give them some reprieve, but places them on the wrong side of history. On the other hand, supporting the freedom movement will lead to a new set of dynamics which could well result in an increasing Iranian influence in the region. An unpalatable prospect indeed. 

Maj Gen Dhruv Katoch (Retd) is Additional Director, CLAWS

(The views expressed in the article are that of the author and do not represent the views of the editorial committee or the centre for land warfare studies).