• All sorts of interventions  - Ziad Abu-Rish
Western and Arab powers have for some time been intervening in Bahrain and Libya.

• Libya's troubles: no clear way out yet  - Richard Dalton
The coalition must put more sustained effort into explaining its tactics.

• The Arab spring and interventionism  - Vitaly Naumkin
A crucial circumstance for Moscow was that the request came from the Arab states themselves.

• Limitations of foreign intervention  - Gamal A. G. Soltan
The GCC proved to be the most effective and cohesive regional bloc in the Middle East.

• Which side is the world on?  - Mai Yamani
Barack Obama chose dishonor, and he will get instability.

All sorts of interventions
 Ziad Abu-Rish

The focal point of the "Arab spring" has shifted from the successful uprisings of Tunisia and Egypt to the bleak developments in Bahrain and Libya. As the military forces of Britain, France, and the United States take "all necessary measures" to topple the Gaddafi regime, troops from the Gulf Cooperation Council Peninsula Shield Force continue to "stabilize" the al-Khalifa regime in the face of a peaceful democratic uprising in Bahrain.

The discrepancies between intervention for regime stability in Bahrain and that of regime change in Libya are undergirded by the fact that the interveners in both cases are ultimately one and the same. The GCC and Arab League member states that dispatched their troops to shore up the monarchy in Bahrain are the very same states that endorsed and offered to participate in a military campaign against the jamahiriyyah in Libya. Similarly, the western powers that cited the "responsibility to protect" principle as justification for intervening in Libya are the very same states that called for "restraint" in Bahrain.

In both cases--notwithstanding differences in the contexts and natures of the uprisings--authoritarian regimes are brutally attacking civilians through lethal force as well as arrests, detentions, and disappearances. In both cases--notwithstanding the difference in the purported justifications and natures of each intervention--the logic underlying the actions of western and Arab powers is one and the same.

When external powers intervene to prop up a regime and put down popular democratic demands by force, little needs to be said to convey the problem. But when the same powers intervene to topple a different authoritarian regime, we should not fail to appreciate the dangers of intervention. Many have convincingly argued that references to the historical legacies of colonialism and authoritarianism along with contemporary hypocrisies of fig leafs of accountability cannot alone justify failure to intervene in Libya. Indeed, to do so would simply advance ideological agendas at the expense of real possibilities for preventing a massacre or enabling a peaceful uprising-turned-armed-revolt to succeed.

Western and Arab powers have for some time been intervening in Bahrain and Libya. Thus, what is at stake here is not the question of intervening but rather one of changing the nature of ongoing interventions. In Bahrain, this has taken the form of arming and legitimating al-Khalifa's rule primarily for energy and geostrategic interests. In Libya, intervention has taken the form of bringing back into the fold the Gaddafi regime primarily for energy and immigration interests. To mark the US/EU-sanctioned entrance of GCC troops into Bahrain or the GCC/Arab League-sanctioned aerial assault on Gaddafi's forces as the starting point of intervention is to render invisible the myriad ways in which the authoritarian regimes of Bahrain and Libya were incorporated--albeit differently--into local and regional strategies of western and Arab powers. Thus, any inquiry into what is to be done at this particular juncture cannot simply start with the present. To do so--as did many who wanted to justify the continuation of the US occupation in Iraq due to the real threat of civil war--is to ignore some of the most important reasons why we find ourselves in this situation in the first place. External interveners will always act according to the logic of their own interests and there is no reason to assume an alignment between that logic and the interests of the people on the ground. Thus it is not only that the intervention in Bahrain points to a contradiction in principle and practice. It is also that such action points to the need to question the assumption that the current intervention in Libya is de facto in the interest of the Libyan people.

The choice that those of us wanting to act in solidarity with the people of Libya face is not a dichotomy between doing nothing (while leaving the Libyan people to their own fate) and doing something (while deferring to powerful external actors to determine what that something is). To call for direct intervention into Libya should not have been equated with providing a carte blanche to western and Arab powers. We should have discussed any and all possible forms of intervention. But we also should have only advocated types of intervention that were identified by a detailed cost-benefit analysis exclusively rooted in the needs and aspirations of the Libyan people. Instead, a broad set of tactics with no clear strategy has been authorized and taken up by powerful external actors. Bahrain--not to mention Afghanistan and Iraq--offers more than just a contradictory example of how western and Arab powers conduct themselves. More importantly, it cautions against surrendering our responsibility of solidarity to the very powers that we are in solidarity against.

Current developments in both Bahrain and Libya are forms of intervention that take control away from local actors. However, there is a difference: those of us in solidarity with the Bahraini people had little explicit say in substituting local agency; in Libya, those of us in solidarity facilitated the taking away of control from local actors. This is the case not because of intentions but because we did not struggle with the nuances of our call to action in Libya nor with the limitations on holding accountable those that we empowered to act.

Now, the decision-makers of the course of events in both Bahrain and Libya are outsiders, repressing democratic calls in one instance and visiting untold potential damage on a whole country in another. I fear for the peoples of Bahrain and Libya in the face of authoritarian violence. I also fear for them in the face of western and Arab intervention. History has shown both to be catastrophic for the humanitarian wellbeing and the political aspirations of the people of the region.-Published 24/3/2011 © bitterlemons-international.org

Ziad Abu-Rish is a doctoral candidate in the Department of History at UCLA. He is also co-editor of Jadaliyya Ezine.

Three weeks ago I wrote something that helps explain why foreigners have interfered in this crisis and not in others: "Humanitarian intervention is not yet firmly rooted as a concept or in practice. And UN members are selective in the crises they wish to address. They often disregard situations that are objectively worse than the Libyan one now. That can be because there is a powerful patron that blocks action that might be aimed at another state. Or it can be because the problem is simply too big for potential interveners to take on."

The states that voted for United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973 did so because they considered that the formal conditions for an intervention had been met: demonstrable need in terms of extreme danger to large numbers of civilians, demand from within Libya supported in the region, a legal base and clear limits to the mission set out in the resolution.

Further, and informally one might say, the object of the intervention--Gaddafi's Libya--had no loyal friends in the international community to argue against the course proposed by the sponsors of the resolution, and the military task appeared to be manageable.

None of the other crises in the "Arab spring" come close to satisfying these formal or informal criteria--not Bahrain, not Yemen. However reprehensible the repression of legitimate aspirations for freedom in each of these is, there is simply no consensus in the region or more widely that their very different situations require the permanent members of the Security Council to intervene by force.

I also wrote: "UN member states would have to be convinced that under cover of a rescue mission the states doing the job did not have an ulterior motive and that the mandate for it could be tied down to the minimum needed to help end the tragedy and hold the ring for a new set of well-intentioned rulers to emerge. They would have to be persuaded that the mission would succeed quickly, that there would not be a prolonged war that created yet more disruption and death."

It is here that the coalition carrying out Operation Odyssey Dawn has encountered political turbulence. On March 21 and 22, a number of countries questioned the nature and extent of the attacks. In response, the coalition partners have insisted both that they will not exceed the mandate in the resolution and that it gives them wide powers. As Prime Minister David Cameron said in the House of Commons on March 21, "We are in no doubt that Colonel Gaddafi is still arranging his forces to inflict further attacks on the civilian population--notably in Misurata--and we are determined to stop him."

This means that if there is no ceasefire as demanded by the UN, and uprisings in Libya's towns and cities face more merciless attacks, it is likely that the coalition will intervene by air, or even in limited extreme cases by land, to prevent people being killed in large numbers. They will do so because they believe that dictators should not be allowed to stamp out aspirations for justice, liberty and fuller and better lives, and that despite inevitable controversy in many quarters there is enough international, particularly Arab, support for such action. Nevertheless, the coalition must put more sustained effort into explaining its tactics, stressing its consistent position from the beginning that it is for the people of Libya to determine who rules them.

The weakest point in the announced strategy of the intervening powers is how they will permanently avert the risks to civilians, that is, how the end-game will go. They are improvising. All Cameron could say on March 21 was, "Inevitably information about the Libyan opposition is not complete . . . . It is important that in supporting the implementation of the resolution the international system plans now for stabilizing the peace that will follow . . . . . This could include rapidly restoring damaged infrastructure, keeping important services such as health and education running, reforming the security sector and ensuring an open and transparent political process to elections."

So far, UN Secretary General Ban Ki moon and his envoy Abdel Illah al-Khatib are lying low. At the right time they should give a strong lead. It was the UN that created independent Libya in 1951 and it is to the UN that many Libyans will turn if Gaddafi goes and a new government and constitution are needed, with reconstruction to follow.

That is not assured. It is too soon to be confident that Gaddafi will be defeated within weeks with his core support melting away. It would take a much more evident weakening of Gaddafi's position, including fresh successful uprisings in the west of the country, to nerve a critical mass of people to take on his enforcers in the crucial streets of Tripoli. It is possible that he will hang on in the west, where two-thirds of Libya's population live and from where state institutions can be controlled, and stave off the challenge from the East, leading to an unstable stalemate.

Those who support international intervention in Libya will need strong nerves as they cope with the ebb and flow of this complicated, media-scrutinized crisis that will be resolved in months, not weeks.-Published 24/3/2011 © bitterlemons-international.org

Sir Richard Dalton is an associate fellow of the Middle East and North Africa Programme at Chatham House. He is a former UK ambassador to Libya and Iran.

There is an age-old tradition of explaining everything that happens in the Middle East in terms of external conspiracies. The present-day "Arab revolutionary spring" is no exception.

I shall cite two conspiratorial theories purporting to explain current events in the Middle East. One, supported among others by certain Russian analysts such as Sergei Kurginyan, reduces everything to a long-standing plot by the West--the United States and Britain above all--that is presumably aimed at imposing their control over energy resources. One can only have a hearty laugh at Kurginyan's allegation that the Americans toppled Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, a loyal ally of many years whose regime, however shaky and one-sided, had been a pillar of peace in the Middle East and one of the main recipients of American foreign aid. Incidentally, in Egypt, not to speak of Tunisia, there are simply no energy resources for the sake of which it would be worth embarking upon such an unbelievable venture. The Americans even pondered long and hard before committing to the overthrow of Washington's old adversary, the demented Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, who is hated by all the Middle Eastern regimes and is a sponsor of terrorism. So much for strange conspiracies.

The second theory explains the Arab spring as an Islamist plot. But the Islamists clearly overlooked the onset of that spring and did not expect the "Facebook youth" to do what they themselves could only dream of. The masses of young people that thronged the squares and streets of North African cities did not hoist Islamist slogans like "Islam is the solution", nor did they demand the establishment of an Islamic government. This, of course, does not mean that Islamist organizations will not subsequently try to "saddle" the Arab youth revolution.

There is one more theory, related only to Bahrain: the Iranian conspiracy. It would be odd to expect Tehran not to sympathize with the Bahraini Shiites and lend them political, diplomatic and informational assistance. However, it would be even odder to expect the Shiite population of Bahrain not to try to exploit the revolutionary situation in the region. It constitutes roughly three-fourths of the country's population, has long considered itself a majority discriminated against by the Sunni regime, and believes it deserves a greater share in running the country. Certainly, on both sides there are groups of extremists prone to resort to force to further their interests. But on the whole, the Shiite movement has so far maintained a peaceful character. And there has been no direct Iranian military involvement here.

As for the intervention by Bahrain's partners in the Gulf Cooperation Council, the question is far from simple. On the one hand, the GCC is a regional organization whose members agreed to help each other in the event of a threat to their security, the more so when one of the member states itself requests the dispatch of an armed contingent. On the other hand, there was no question here of external attack; the regime might have tried to cope with the disturbances on its own, using political means. In this case, too, the Saudi intervention antagonizes the Shiites even more, creates added tension in Saudi-Iranian relations and, finally, sends the wrong signal to Saudi Arabia's own population. Having said that, fear of the emergence of an Iranian-type Islamic republic in Bahrain is extremely great in the Gulf Arab states (and elsewhere as well).

In connection with these events, it is also reasonable to pose the question: within what limits a legitimate, internationally-recognized regime has the right to counter rebellious and insurgent or revolutionary movements. Here a more general question arises regarding external intervention into crisis situations, its forms and limits. In 2005, the United Nations General Assembly approved the principle of "responsibility to protect", allowing outside players to intervene in cases where it is necessary to put an end to crimes against humanity. But this requires the sanction of the international community.

One western observer, Alan Philps, is right when he considers that the introduction of a no-fly zone "is the first step in a process that, by the immutable laws of mission creep, led to a full-scale bombing campaign (in the Balkans) and to land invasion." It is precisely for this reason that, fearing such a turn of events, Russia sought and ensured the insertion into the UN Security Council resolution on Libya of a provision on the inadmissibility of foreign occupation of that country in the course of the international military operation. Since certain issues were left unclear, notably the question of the limits of the use of force in that operation, Russia (like other members of the Security Council--China, Germany, India and Brazil--each for reasons of its own) abstained on the vote for the resolution.

By abstaining, Russia did not prevent the resolution from being approved. A crucial circumstance for Moscow, I imagine, was that for the first time the request for adopting such a resolution came from the Arab states themselves, which will take part in its realization. So this is not an operation of the West alone, which against the backdrop of the experience of Iraq and Afghanistan and the unsolved Arab-Israel conflict could only rally Libyans round Gaddafi as he plays the card of "imperialist and Zionist conspiracy". This is an operation of a coalition, which to some extent resembles the situation after Saddam Hussein's 1990 attack on Kuwait. It seems to me that the Obama administration, whose opponents and critics are accusing it of indecision (and even saying that America is today not so much a status quo power as a go-with-the-flow power), has in effect displayed restraint and responsibility worthy of a great power.

One more question remains with regard to interventionism: the enlistment by the parties to internal conflict of armed foreign nationals. International law bans mercenary activities. The Libyan insurgents accuse Gaddafi of having placed under arms the citizens of the Sahel states. For his part, the dictator has alleged that Egyptians and even al-Qaeda militants were fighting on the side of the insurgents. Hopefully, in the near future we shall find out whether this is true or not.-Published 24/3/2011 © bitterlemons-international.org

Professor Vitaly Naumkin is director of the Institute of Oriental Studies, Russian Academy of Sciences.

Revolutions in the modern age are never only a domestic development, and Arab revolutions are no exception. The state is one of several building blocks in an international system. A revolution in one country is a sign of change, for better or for worse, in one of these building blocks. It is likely to cause changes in the entire structure that other states cannot ignore.

Beyond this general rule, revolutions and interventions should be evaluated case by case. The revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt completed their initial phase of regime removal with minimal foreign intervention. Local political intervention was sufficient in both cases. But things are different in the cases of Bahrain and Libya.

Turmoil in Bahrain has had a strong regional dimension since day one. Long-standing Iranian demands in Bahrain have rendered its fate a matter of regional and international concern for decades. Bahrain's position on the frontier between the Arab-Sunni and Persian-Shiite worlds grants the conflict there additional regional significance.

Bahrain looks like a Sunni-ruled Shiite enclave in the heart of the Sunni Arab Middle East. Turmoil in Bahrain jeopardizes the regional balance among states, nations and sects; regional actors had no choice but to intervene. The uniqueness of the Bahrain situation is derived from the fact that regional allies of the government there took the lead in the intervention.

The Gulf Cooperation Council proved to be the most effective and cohesive regional bloc in the Middle East. Bahrain's GCC allies demonstrated a great deal of coordination and resolve from the beginning of the crisis. The GCC intervention in Bahrain followed a comprehensive plan with political, economic, media and military dimensions. Contrary to the typical western intervention, the GCC move aimed at defending the status quo and thwarting the challenge of the Shiite opposition. The GCC governments experienced no confusion regarding their goals--no conflict between ideological and pragmatic considerations--thereby saving them the hesitation and reluctance typically apparent in western policy.

First, the GCC countries under Saudi leadership made a show of political support for the monarchy in Bahrain. They then committed generous financial resources to the troubled country. During all phases of the crisis they employed their media and propaganda resources to serve their purposes without being restrained by professional and ethical considerations. They directed Gulf-controlled media outlets to play down the revolt in Bahrain. Al-Arabiya and al-Jazeera, which proved to be very effective in promoting the cause of revolution in Tunisia and Egypt, were used to achieve the opposite outcome in the case of Bahrain.

The pan-Arab media have been very effective in manipulating revolution around the region in past years. The role of media and propaganda wars in inter-Arab politics is as important as the role of direct military intervention. This was proven by Nasser in the 1950s and 1960s, and is being proved again in the current time of revolutionary change.

When all media, financial and other passive instruments failed to restore stability in Bahrain, the GCC countries did not hesitate to deploy military forces there. Even though Qatar did not take part in the military phase of the GCC's joint plan, it avoided causing any disruption in GCC policy. The GCC countries operated as a coherent concert of autocrats determined to avert revolutionary change at any cost. This unconfused realist approach applied by the GCC countries enhanced their chances of success. Their determination enabled them to render irrelevant western confusion regarding the crisis.

Thus, the distinct nature of the conflict in Bahrain and the well-defined priorities of its neighbors facilitated effective intervention. At least in the short term, this has contained the conflict and allowed an opportunity for reconciliation. This is the exact opposite of the situation in Libya, which is likely to develop into extended conflict with further foreign intervention and more serious consequences for Libya's neighbors. The absence of any credible regional institutions in North Africa similar to the GCC in the Gulf is conducive to further instability.

A lot of conflicting narratives have emerged from Libya. None is sufficient to shed light on the political dynamic underlying the conflict. The "National Council" in the forefront of the anti-Gaddafi forces has little credibility in commanding opposition forces on the ground, which look like a broad and loose coalition of tribal and political groups, including a wide spectrum of Islamists. The obscure political structure in Libya does not allow for a clear outcome of the conflict, which in turn explains western and regional reluctance and the incohesive intervention there.

The western intervention in Libya is a product of both the media and the atrocities committed by pro-Gaddafi forces. The unprecedented Arab League resolution demanding the enforcement of a no-fly zone over Libya neutralized any western pretext not to intervene. The Arab League decision was made possible through the support of the GCC countries that apparently chose to sacrifice Muammar Gaddafi's regime in order to protect theirs. Further, rescue of civilians in Libya is a popular demand in almost all Arab countries, where governments chose to respond as a means of improving their position at home, with little consideration of the wider regional implications of foreign intervention in Libya.

The vague western intervention strategy in Libya reflects both great uncertainty regarding the political reality on the ground there and an effort to avoid military entrapment. Western intervention can mitigate pressure on western governments concerning the suffering of the people of Libya. Western intervention, however, is not likely to be conclusive and decisive in determining the outcome of the conflict. Indeed, it is rather likely to prolong the conflict.

While western powers will strongly resist further involvement in Libya beyond the level of air assault, Arab and perhaps African neighbors don't have that luxury. Egypt, in particular, cannot avoid a role in the Libyan conflict. Even though it has adopted a low profile, Egypt's involvement is likely to increase.

The hundreds of thousands of Egyptian laborers in Libya, kinship relations between the tribes of Egypt's western desert and Libya's east, and pressure from conflicting Libyan parties all beckon Egypt to get involved. Fairly credible reports of Egyptian and other militants pouring into Libya across the two countries' border already exist. Prolonging the conflict in Libya is conducive to consolidating the influence of militants in the eastern part of the country, a scenario that Egypt cannot long ignore. Unfortunately, Egypt has to make serious choices in Libya even before fully recovering from the impact of the revolutionary upheaval it just experienced.-Published 24/3/2011 © bitterlemons-international.org

Gamal A. G. Soltan is director of al-Ahram Center for Political and Strategic Studies, Cairo.

The revolutions in Tunisia, Egypt, Bahrain, Libya, and Yemen--and protests in Oman, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and Syria--will all eventually result in a political solution. But influential outside actors, ranging from the United States and the European Union to the Arab League and the Gulf Cooperation Council, have greeted developments in these countries with very different types and levels of intervention--and not always in support of a democratic settlement when the dust clears.

Until March, intervention predominantly took the form of "soft power," with al-Jazeera and online social networking given a significant role in the revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt. Open political statements by governments outside the region against or in favor of a regime, or such governments' ties to armies in the region, also helped direct the process of change in these countries.

Likewise, outside actors' promises of financial aid (or threats of sanctions) had an impact on indigenous movements. But, as popular protests backed by legitimate demands for democratic reform spread from country to country in various forms, the initial soft-power strategies adopted by those countries with interests and influence in the region were abandoned in favor of hard-power military interventions.

At the same time, the international community has taken a bifurcated view of the Arab democratic revolutions, which is most obvious in the foreign policies adopted toward developments in Libya and Bahrain. What began in both countries with peaceful popular protests against a local dictatorship elicited opposite responses: in Libya, outside military intervention was undertaken in support of the people, while in Bahrain foreign military forces were deployed in support of the dictatorship.

This contradictory strategy of coercion uses the language of human rights. But the decision to protect Libyans raises questions about the absence of "humanitarian" interventions in Gaza in 2008 or in Yemen now.

To be sure, in Libya, Colonel Muammar Gaddafi was waging war against his own people, and his antagonism with the West and other Arab states had been a leitmotif of his 40-year presidency. Hence, a collective decision to intervene militarily would be relatively justifiable.

By contrast, in Bahrain, military intervention by Saudi forces to suppress the Shiite majority's demonstrations for equal citizenship rights appears more desperate, and it represents a sharp reversal of the country's moderate course of gradual political reform. Saudi Arabia's unilateral action--albeit under the umbrella of GCC "security"--has been met with US silence, a tacit gesture of continuing American support for Bahrain's ruling al-Khalifa family. The Saudi military, believing that they have eradicated all threats to "peace and stability," even removed the eponymous symbol of Pearl Square, where the protesters had established an encampment.

A crude truth has emerged from the charade and hypocrisy of the international response to the Arab revolutions: despite lofty rhetoric to the contrary, the rights of citizens really are secondary to their countries' oil wealth. The leaders of oil-rich Arab autocracies have known this for a long time--indeed, their hold on power depends on it--and proved eager to uphold their side of the bargain by giving Europe and the US the political support they needed to legitimize western military intervention in Libya.

But in this security theatre of the absurd--in which Qatar stands for "human rights" in Libya, Saudi Arabia stands for "stability" in Bahrain, and the West tries to stand for both--some leaders are sowing the seeds of their own destruction. The Saudi regime, for example, is obsessively linking the Shiite of Bahrain and its own Shiite minority to Iran, deepening the sectarian divide.

After Neville Chamberlain acquiesced in Nazi Germany's dismantling of Czechoslovakia in 1938, Winston Churchill famously told him: "You were given the choice between war and dishonor. You have chosen dishonor, and you will have war." In Bahrain, the West--and the US, in particular--thought the choice was between dishonor and instability. Barack Obama chose dishonor, and he will get instability.-Published 24/3/2011 © bitterlemons-international.org

Mai Yamani is an author, broadcaster and lecturer on politics and society in Saudi Arabia and the Middle East.