No, Libya, Let’s Not Take Our Relationship to the Next Level.
The first date was enchanting. Over dinner, she was playing footsie with us and smiling coyly from across the table.
And then we bombed her house for two months.
Now, after violently murdering her ex-boyfriend, we’re trying to decide where we want our relationship to go.
I am, of course, talking about Libya.
Yes, in the post-Gaddafi context, the rhetoric appears suggest the “-But we can still be friends (with benefits.)” approach.
There are some, however, such as the Sun’s ever-entertaining John Robertson, who boldly go down the “4am phone calls and letter bombs” route.
In his column for the Sun, Robertson laments that we only have one army to give to the goal of marauding around the world.
Canada relied heavily on American support while supposedly major European powers like Britain and France stretched their armed forces to the limit providing limited air and naval support to a ragtag band of rebels fighting a crackpot, tin-pot dictator.
The appropriate lesson is not that it would take NATO years rather than months to oust Ahmadinejad and Khameini, Bashar al-Assad, or Kim Jong-il, but that except as an appendage to an American assault it would be unable to do so.
To consider Gadhafi’s end a moral vindication of the West and its supposed Responsibility to Protect (R2P) would be even more fatuous.
Robertson barely conceals his message: every NATO country should have the power to blow away most of the rest of the world. The message seems quite encouraging and humanitarian. I mean, who wouldn’t want to bring democracy and kittens to Libya?
There’s a problem with this, though. We’ve accepted as a law of nature that Western democracy and capitalism are the answer. Putting this in the 1919 context: monarchies and open borders are the answer. Or if it’s 1960, dictators and Western-owned monopolies are the answer.
The entire concept that we have any knowledge of what will work for the Middle East is so arrogantly wrong, it’s laughable.
The problem with this mentality - ranging from the good-natured humanitarianism of ‘Responsibility to Protect’ to the implicit rational self-interest of nation building - is that it takes for granted that everyone wants us.
The West is like the 40-year-old dude in the bar, insisting on hitting every woman that moves; regardless of age, availability or sexual orientation. Of course she wants me, she’s just playing hard to get.
If I can stretch this metaphor a bit, this is also a mentality that creates a rape culture.
Now, given our sexual advances on Libya: does Libya really want us? Is she too drunk to say no?
Let’s take it from John Baird,
“There’s a lot of Canadian firms that want to rebuild,” Baird told CBC News in a television interview. “Also we want to support them in democratic development: how to draft a constitution, how do you conduct an election.”
If I can layer the metaphor stack one higher, it’s like kicking in someone’s door and inviting your contractor friends over to repair their living room.
We have no business exporting our ideas to the rest of the world. The transition itself must be democratic.
Let’s look at it this way - nation building for the West usually ends up as a parliamentary democracy or a republic, often with some degree of federation or confederation (if they really hate each other.)
That makes sense of the West. For Canada, say, we’re a collection of colonies that must have their regional interests balanced in a quasi-rep-by-pop institution. In the UK, the strong national identities of Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland must be taken into consideration. And so on.
Libya, however, is a country of extremely regional government. It, like Afghanistan, is a radically localized state. All other things being equal, tribes will always exert more influence than the national government. Why, then, should Canada be pushing a strong national government cut from our own cloth? Certainly they should have a government that accurate reflects their tribal interests? Some would even argue that this approach would be more democratic than our system.
There’s nothing wrong with providing help that is asked of us. There is something wrong with opening up a formerly oligarchic/socialistic state to free enterprise right out of the gate. There is something wrong with making World Bank/IMF loans contingent on a certain form of government (as is practice.) There is something wrong with creating a precedent where international action is extended without properly defining what the mission is for or what will happen after it ends.
Imperialism is by no means dead. The new colonial powers are perhaps more dangerous and insidious than the past, as they promise something they will never give. The cost, both in dollars and in lost opportunity, is enormous.
Libya should really consider breaking up with us.
