Confronting Gadhafi Is Not Enough

By TONY BLAIR

European Pressphoto Agency

Libyans celebrated in Benghazi Friday after the U.N. Security Council authorized a no-fly zone over the country.

The crisis in Libya has forced back onto the agenda all the tough choices of modern-day foreign policy. Should we intervene? Do we do so for moral reasons or for national interests? How do we balance the need for a policy that is strong, assertive and well articulated with the desire not to appear over-mighty and arrogant?

In today's world, the distinction between moral outrage and strategic interests can be false. In the Middle East, where our strategic interests are dramatically and profoundly engaged, it is unlikely that the effect of a regime going rogue and brutalizing its own people will remain isolated within its own borders.

If Moammar Gadhafi were allowed to kill large numbers of Libyans to quash the hope of a different Libya, we could end up with a pariah government at odds with the international community—wounded but still alive and dangerous. We would send a signal of Western impotence in a region that analyzes such signals keenly. We would dismay those agitating for freedom, boosting opposition factions hostile to us.

This underlines another point: Inaction is also a decision, a policy with consequence. The wish to keep out of it all is entirely understandable, but it is every bit as much a decision as acting.

So the decision of the U.N. Security Council to impose a no-fly zone in Libya and to authorize all necessary measures to protect threatened civilians comes not a moment too soon. Such a policy will be difficult and unpredictable. But it is surely better than watching in real time as the Libyan people's legitimate aspirations for a better government and way of life are snuffed out by tanks and planes.

Events in Libya cannot be divorced from what is happening across the Middle East. It is here that Western policy is still evolving. The implications are vast. Decisions taken now will define attitudes toward us for a generation; they will also heavily influence outcomes in particular countries.

The key to making those decisions is to develop a strategic framework for helping to shape the revolutionary change sweeping the region. We need a policy that is clear and explicable, and that marries our principles to the concerns of realpolitik. It also has to recognize that we are not spectators in what is happening. History, attitude and interests all dictate that we are players.

First, there is no doubt that the best, most secure, most stable future for the Middle East lies in the spread of democracy, the rule of law and human rights. These are not "Western" values; they are the universal values of the human spirit.

UPS AND DOWNS

View Full Image

Associated Press

Mr. Blair and Col. Gadhafi in 2004.

A brief history of encounters between Tony Blair and Col. Moammar Gadhafi.

• 2004 | Mr. Blair visits Col. Gadhafi in Tripoli, shortly after Libya renounces its weapons-of-mass-destruction program. Some protest in light of the 1988 bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, for which Libya accepted responsibility. Some commentators note that during the meeting, Col. Gadhafi revealed the sole of his shoe to Mr. Blair, which is considered an insult in the Arab world.
• 2007 | A second Tripoli visit results in an agreement allowing Libya to purchase British missiles and defense systems. Mr. Blair calls relations between the two countries "completely transformed."
• 2011 | Mr. Blair makes two phone calls to Col. Gadhafi in February to urge him to stop attacking protesters.

Getting there, however, is a lot more complex than it was for Eastern Europeans when the Soviet Union collapsed. In that case, hollowed-out regimes were despised by their own people, who were eager for change and, vitally, agreed as to the type of society the change should produce. They looked over the wall, saw the West and said: That's what we want. By and large, that is what they now have.

In the Middle East, those protesting agree completely on removing existing regimes but thoroughly disagree about the future. One group represents modernizing elements who essentially want to share the freedom and democracy we have; the other are Islamist elements who have quite a different conception of how the change should go.

In saying this, I am not "demonizing" the Muslim Brotherhood or ignoring the fact that they too have their reformists. But there is no point, either, in being naive. Some of those wanting change want it precisely because they regard the existing regimes as not merely too oppressive but too pro-Western, and their solutions are a long way from what would provide modern and peaceful societies.

So our policy has to be very clear. We are not just for change; we are for modern, democratic change, based on the principles and values intrinsic to democracy. That does not just mean the right to vote, but the rule of law, free speech, freedom of religion—and free markets, too.

Working within this framework, we should differentiate when dealing with different countries. In the case of Libya, there is no way out being offered to its people. It is the status quo or nothing. When Libya changed its external policy—renouncing terrorism, co-operating against Al Qaeda, giving up its nuclear and chemical weapons program—I believe we were right to alter our relationship with them. At the onset of the popular uprising, the Gadhafi regime could have decided to agree to a proper and credible process of internal change. I urged Col. Gadhafi to take that route out. Instead he decided to crush it by force. No credible path to a better constitution was put forward.

By contrast, around the Gulf, countries are reforming in the right direction. The pace may need to quicken, but here it is right to support such a process and to stand by our allies. Even though there can be no justification for the use of violence against unarmed civilians in Bahrain, there is a strong case for supporting the process of negotiation led by the Crown Prince, which does offer a means of peaceful transition to constitutional monarchy. This is not realpolitik over principle. It is a recognition that it is infinitely preferable to encourage reform that happens with stability than to push societies into a revolution whose motivations will be mixed and whose outcome will be uncertain.

With respect to Tunisia and Egypt, they will now need our help. Protests don't resolve policy questions. Demonstrations aren't the same as governments. It is up to the emerging leaders of those nations to decide their political systems.

But that is only one part of their challenge. They have young populations, often without jobs. Whatever the long-term benefits of political change, the short-term cost, in investment and the economy, will be big. This will require capital. It will also require the right policy framework, public sector reform, and economic change that will sometimes be painful and controversial. The danger is that in two or three years there will be no economic progress. Disillusion would follow, and extreme elements would start to get traction. So today's talk of a Marshall Plan-type initiative for the region is not over-excitable. It is completely to the point.

As for the peace process between Israelis and Palestinians, we ignore it at our peril. It absolutely has to be revitalized and relaunched. It is true that this wasn't the issue behind the uprisings, but we are deluding ourselves if we don't think its outcome matters profoundly to the region and the direction in which it develops.

We also should keep up pressure on the regime in Iran, being open and forthright in supporting change there. If there were such change, it would be possibly the single most important factor in stimulating optimism about change elsewhere. Iran's present influence is damaging and destabilizing. Tehran needs to know our red lines and that we intend to enforce them.

“We are not spectators in what is happening. History, attitude and interests all dictate that we are players. ”

Finally, nothing in the Middle East can be fully explained or understood without reference to the fundamental struggle within Islam. That struggle can only ultimately be resolved by Muslims. But how non-Muslims engage in a dialogue and, if possible, a partnership with Islam can influence crucially the debate between reform and reaction.

This is a large agenda. Some will object that we must "Leave them to solve their own problems." The difficulty is that their problems swiftly become ours, too. That is the nature of the interdependent world we inhabit today.

Others will say: Be careful about forming "our agenda"; it will be "resented"; we will heighten "anti-Western feeling"; remember Iraq and Afghanistan; and so on.

One essential part of handling this well is to liberate ourselves from a posture of apology that is not merely foolish but contrary to the long-term prospects of the region. Of course you can debate whether the decisions to go to war in Iraq or Afghanistan were right in themselves. But the idea that the prolonged nature of both battles invalidates intervention or is the "West's" fault is not only wrong, it is at the root of why we find what is happening today—not just in the Middle East but in Pakistan and elsewhere—so perplexing.

The reason why Iraq was hard, why Afghanistan remains hard and why even a nation like Pakistan with established institutions is in difficulty is not because the people don't want democracy. They do. They have shown it time and again. It is because cultural and social modernization has not taken hold in these countries, and proper religion has been perverted to breed fanatics, not democrats.

This does not mean that we should turn away from encouraging democracy there. Rather, we should do so with our eyes open and our minds fully aware of the need for a comprehensive agenda, thus ensuring that the change that occurs is what the people really want and need.

Some years ago, under the previous U.S. administration, there was a concept called the Greater Middle East Initiative, which focused on how to help bring about change in the region. The circumstances of the time were not propitious. They are today. We should politely but firmly resist those who tell us this is not our business. It is. In dealing with it, we should show respect but also strength, the courage of our convictions, and the self-confident belief that we can achieve our aims.