I HAVE always taken the line that Libya’s President and dictator Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi must step down to make way for democracy; to rid Libya of the bloody authoritarianism that has besmirched not only Libya but other parts of North Africa and the Middle East; and to which some Western allies were architects.

And now we have a letter by Cheddi (Joey) Jagan, Jr. to the Kaieteur News of March 21, 2011 stating: “I see that Prem Misir is at it again, this time ‘analysing’ the situation in the Libyan tragedy and trying to blame the USA and its allies, twisting the facts to impress his paymasters ensconced in their anti-Americanism…”

He makes general sweeping remarks without specifying any of my writings on the Middle East pro-democracy movement campaign. I will not engage in idiosyncratic modes of behaviour, as he seems to savor.
I believe that authoritarianism continues to degrade the Middle East and North Africa, and it is time for democracy to become all-pervasive in that region. There is sufficient evidence to show the reticence of the U.S., perhaps, justifiably so, to participate in military engagement over Libya. And the U.S. should not be apportioned culpability for this behavior, as it is in its national interests to engage in such conduct. But we have to say it as it is.
The New York Times and the Associated Press in contributions on March 20, 2011, in their caption ‘Europe, not U.S., pushed for military force in Libya’, indicated that “President Obama, initially reticent, joined in the call and seemed happy to let Europe take the lead publicly.”
The New York Times and Associated Press also alluded to the fact that France’s Sarkozy had to yank the U.S. and some others toward military engagement in Libya. Then on March 6, 2011, the New York Times reported that “The defense secretary, Robert M. Gates, and top commanders have warned of political fallout if America again attacks a Muslim nation, even to support a popular revolt.”
These statements indicate sloth and reticence in the U.S. decision to participate, again, perhaps, with good reasons. The U.S. is a significant force in the military engagement over Libya because it alone has superior capacity to degrade Libya’s defense systems. But reticence and slothfulness in its decision making did happen.
In a recent letter “U.S. policing its national interests in the Middle East”, I argued, in the context of the Middle East unrest, that the U.S. would quite rightly safeguard its national interests within the region, and, therefore, its actions would be measured.

Nonetheless, the U.S may act as it chooses, even if those national interests produce hypocritical and skewed positions in the region; that is its prerogative, but its actions will be subject to interpretation in international relations.

In that letter, I wrote the following: “Bahrain, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and Yemen represent the pillars of the U.S. Middle East policy, where currently pro-democracy movements are huge in their demand for change (less so in Saudi Arabia). A bridge links Bahrain with Saudi Arabia, where both countries are allies to the U.S. Ever since 1947, the U.S. has had a naval presence in Bahrain, and from 1991, Bahrain has become the home to the U.S. Naval Support Activity Bahrain, and the U.S. Fifth Fleet comprising 15 warships and an aircraft carrier; and Saudi Arabia accommodates a good number of U.S. military bases in conjunction with providing the U.S. with a favourable trade policy.”

“Victory for the pro-democracy movement in Bahrain could spell the end of the Sunni-governing Khalifa constitutional monarchy that ruled Bahrain since 1783, and possibly too, an end to the U.S. naval presence in Bahrain. The protesters, largely Shiites, are demanding a greater share of governance from the Sunni ruling family.” For these reasons, the U.S. has powerful and good reasons for wanting to shore up the Bahrain regime.

“The other pillar of the Middle East policy is Yemen, which is a U.S. friend, too, in the war on terror. The U.S. maintains a naval base in Yemen. For these reasons, Obama’s denunciation of the Yemeni regime’s violence against the pro-democracy protesters remains half-baked.
Iraq is the other pillar of the U.S. Middle East policy; where its measures are ubiquitous.”

Clearly, the U.S. position toward these fundamental pillars of its Middle East policy would be quite different from its stance toward Libya; Libya is not a pillar of U.S. Middle East policy. My letter “As Libya bleeds, the world does nothing,” points to the reticence and slothfulness that NATO, other Western allies (excepting France), and some Arab States, when over 1,000 peaceful Libyan protesters were killed.

As far back as February 23, 2011, France asked for a no-fly zone over Libya; and around the same time, former British Foreign Secretary Lord David Owen made his case for a no-fly-zone over Libya. The no-fly-zone over Libya is now a reality only since March 20, 2011, almost a month after the idea of a no-fly zone surfaced; in the interim, the dictator Muammar el-Qaddafi upscaled the killings of innocent pro-democracy protesters.

And in this interim period, too, U.S. President Barack Obama quite rightly called on el-Qaddafi to step down. Obama has not done this in the case of Bahrain and Yemen.

At that time, too, large numbers of protesters were killed in Yemen and Bahrain, but the U.S. was not rhetorical; the U.S. used and continues to utilize high-level diplomacy to bring an end to the unrest in Yemen and Bahrain. The reason is because Yemen and Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt (prior to the Lotus Revolution) represent the fundamental pillars of the U.S. Middle East Policy. Libya is not a fundamental pillar in this context.
Even at this time in Yemen, with the upscaling of violence against peaceful pro-democracy protesters and a barrage of governmental resignations, the U.S. has not called on President Ali Abdullah Saleh to step down. On March 20, 2011, Al-Jazeera reported the following resignations in protest against the Yemen regime’s violence on the pro-democracy protesters: Yemen’s Ambassador to the United Nations Abdullah Alsaidi; Human-Rights Minister Huda al-Baan; Undersecretary at the Ministry Ali Taysir Al-Baan; Minister of Tourism Nabil al-Faqih; Minister of Religious Endowments Hamoud al-Hattar; The Chief of the State News Agency; Yemen’s Ambassador to Lebanon; and 24 parliamentarians from the ruling party. Also, only a day or so ago, the Yemen President dismissed his Cabinet.
As the Western allies’ military action is now underway, the U.S. is playing a mighty role in degrading Libya’s air defense systems, radar, and communication systems; and only the U.S among its Western allies has this capability.
And Professor Haider Khan of the Josef Korbel School of International Studies at the University of Denver spoke about the flecked sincerity of the U.S., thus: “For the U.S., support for the democratic forces can yield a political dividend by helping to make possible a smooth regional transition to a democratic regime. Such support will not only re-establish the tarnished credibility of the U.S. to the democratic forces in the region but will also lead to genuinely amicable diplomatic relations with these new regimes based on mutual respect.”
The U.S. may have good reasons for acting with reticence and slothfulness in participating in the military engagement over Libya, as it might have wanted to distance itself from the image it acquired from Iraq; meaning that it does not want to retain the old image of the U.S. attacking a Muslim country. For these reasons, the U.S. action has been measured, but thankfully, the U.S. is part of the deal to protect civilians against the brutal onslaught of Muammar el-Qaddafi.