Implications – Libya vs. The West

I must say one thing before starting this article. I have been waiting for more than three months to write something about the NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) led assault on Libya to allegedly “free its people” from the tyranny of Muammar Gadaffi and his minions.

The reason I did not write anything on the topic till now is due to hope. Yes, hope. Hope that NATO would route the already teetering country led by Gadaffi in a matter of weeks. This hope stemmed from my now apparent overconfidence in the military strength of NATO. I was initially jubilant after the passing of Resolution 1973 of the United Nations which authorized military use (although it did not use the word regime change in any way) to liberate the Libyan people from oppression by an autocratic tyrant. The resolution passed after a lot of drama with the usual suspects, China and Russia (and some unusual ones like South Africa, Brazil, India and even Germany!) abstaining to vote on the resolution, signifying implicit opposition to such an operation.

Yet, I hoped the principles of Western idealism and belief in universal freedom and human rights was going to be upheld in a matter of weeks as NATO (primarily led by the UK and a resurgent and aggressive France) would send Gadaffi and his fellows packing into the sunset. My hopes were boosted with another unprecedented event when the Arab League decided to support NATO in Operation Odyssey Dawn with countries like Qatar and the UAE even promising logistical and military assistance. The UAE even promised air strikes in addition to aerial recon. Encouraging news indeed.

But where are we now. The initial objective of creating a No Fly Zone which basically meant the destruction of major Libyan air strike capabilities and the destruction of anti-aircraft capabilities has turned out to be a resounding success. But there has been little progress afterwards. Dare I say, there has been some regress! NATO has lost some credibility due to a surge in civilian casualties in the last month. There are no signs of clear progress. Gadaffi is still holding his ground in the West with the capital Tripoli and the oil town of Misrata still under his control. The rebels, after their initial advances have been pushed back as Gadaffi’s men still have superior firepower, especially the heavy weapons which the rebels can’t match.

NATO is reluctant to provide them with equalizers fearing a future “destabilization” of the region and the thought of even sending in ground troops is a taboo like none other, especially in the UK who still maintains a strong contingent in Afghanistan (they pulled out of Iraq some time ago). The British public support for the Afghan war is already waning and the ruling Tory led government knows that sending in ground troops would be political suicide. The French are even more against sending in ground troops. The presidential elections are coming up next year and the already politically cornered Mr. Sarkozy would think twice before taking up any such operation in a dangerous foreign theatre. America, NATO’s biggest sponsor and fan wants to stay as far away from the war as possible. A wise decision Mr. Obama.

There have been constant rumours since the last few months on multiple occasions which speculate on the “imminent departure” of Mr. Gadaffi and his near agreement on getting a “political solution” to the crisis. But they have been just that – rumours.

So where does that leave the war? In a stalemate? I think so.

The West needs to weigh in its options very carefully right now. After the “jasmine” revolution in Tunisia, Egypt, Syria, Bahrain and the “mini jasmines” in places like Jordan, Oman and Morocco it is imperative that the West stop this contagion from spreading further into sub-Saharan Africa which houses some of the most brutal dictators and repressed populations, who if inspired by these events in their neighbourhood could start a more bloody variety of “African Jasmines”. The recent separation of South Sudan from the North could inspire others in the region to follow the Sudanese example. Given that Africa is one of the biggest and most important suppliers of mineral wealth (including oil) and the most rapidly developing market for exports from all over the world, any destabilization of the continent (or even a reasonably sized chunk of it) could lead to significant global implications, the primary of which could be a rise in global commodity prices and inflation. A not so pretty picture emerges.

Therefore, it is of paramount importance that the NATO led operation make a stand on this decision for a change (unanimous decisions in Brussels are increasingly rare) and put an end to this to war and get on with the much difficult to task of rebuilding Libya.

One ponders whether if the West would succeed in getting rid of Gadaffi and successfully rebuilding Libya with a functioning democratic government, it would inspire the other repressed people of Africa to revolt against their leaders in hope of a better future. Will they expect similar help from NATO and the West? A question only time will answer. And perhaps oil too!

Mitul Choksi

July 10, 2011

Ahmedabad, Republic of India

Are we giving the press too much independence for our own good?

News of the World and the Phone Hacking Scandal

Are we giving the press too much independence for our own good?

The concept of “Freedom of Speech” and “Freedom of Expression” are two basic principles enshrined in our country’s constitution. These principles are constitutionally guaranteed in almost all nations of the free world and are recognized by the United Nations as “inalienable human rights”.

While governments of free countries throughout the world make It their mission and habit to extend these principles of free speech to countries around the world that do not recognize these rights as fundamental to the existence of their citizens, we as citizens of the free world must also ponder around the question “Are we giving too much leeway to the media?” in our own backyards on the basis of these very principles of “Freedom of Speech” and “Freedom of Expression”.

The answer to that question has always been a contentious one in free societies around the world. While it is generally believed that censorship is something that is eventually detrimental to the interests of society, the question I (and people like me) pose is whether there should be curtailment at times on the media’s power when interests of the public can be threatened by such a freewheeling press.

Like I pointed out earlier, these questions have been there for a long time and have always have been a rather controversial issue. But I am raising these questions in the light of the recent Phone Hacking Scandal in the United Kingdom. It has been alleged that the editors of the 160 plus year old tabloid News of the World (owned by Rupert Murdoch) had authorized private detectives and investigators to hack the phones of rape and murder victims, children victims of pedophilia, victims of the 7/7 London Bombings and even families of soldiers who had died fighting for their country in Afghanistan and Iraq.

This piece of news has just gone so viral in the public in the last few days that the British House of Commons (equivalent of India’s Lok Sabha) called a special discussion on the issue with major parties (the ruling Conservative-Lib Dem coalition) and the opposition Labour Party going at each other’s throats. British politics, being how it is today cannot be predicted as regarding to the specific actions they will take against this whole situation. But “censorship” remains a taboo word in Britain which has one of the freest presses in the western world.

The British PM has guaranteed that the guilty will be brought to justice. But, he made an even deeper point. He said in the House of Commons that the media industry has become used to these kinds of questionable tactics in the hunt for publicity of their papers in what is a highly competitive environment. Former Labour Deputy Prime Minister Lord Prescott made clear in an interview with the BBC on July 7th (ironically the sixth anniversary of the London Bombings of 2005) that he has produced evidence in collaboration with British intelligence about the involvement of 300 odd reporters of different media houses that have been involved in such questionable and invasive techniques to garner information for “cheap publicity”. The politicians, I believe will love going after the media for once this time rather than the usual other way round scenario.

But the happenings in Britain are in my humble opinion a warning signal for all free governments in the world that give the media a free hand in reporting basically anything (including unfounded doubts and rumours about people which may tarnish their reputation without any of their wrong doing). While “censorship” is too heavy a word to use in given its association with repression, there has to be a way in which the media can reined in to behave in a more civilized manner. The threat of media as a blackmail tool against people who have done no wrong needs to be stopped while at the same time its edges need to be sharpened against people who are involved in activities which are in essence against social good (corrupt politicians, the evil side of business and commerce etc.). That is what an ideal media organization is supposed to do anyway. It is the premise on which any media organization is found upon. If they don’t behave that way, isn’t it the job of the public to enforce their “moral constitution”?

The media will most likely scoff at these suggestions. But as an old saying goes “Too much of anything is a bad thing.” That includes too much independence.

The process of reining the “freewheeling” press has to be decided in a democratic manner with something like a joint government-media-civil society body debating and deciding as to basically “where the line should be drawn?” Such a debate and democratic decision process in itself signifies that it is not media censorship but rather “civilization of the media”.

All this internal restructuring of media rights and duties should not at the same time become a detriment to the free world’s major cause of promoting free speech in the repressed and less fortunate parts of the world that really suffer from some or the other form of censorship of individual freedom and expression.

I would like to hear the views of the readers on this issue as I think it is something everyone will have an opinion on. You have the “Freedom to Speak”!!!

Mitul Choksi

July 8th 2011

Ahmedabad, Republic of India