Recent events in the Middle East clearly demonstrate that the international political landscape is changing rapidly, and the United States must decide how it will position itself through these changes. President Obama has already spoken on this topic, approving missile strikes and a no-fly zone over Libya in conjunction with a UN Security council resolution.
Obama made the right choice to intervene in Libya. The decision came down to Qadhafi’s threat of a massacre against his own people, broad international support, and the opportunity to provide humanitarian aid to rebel groups. These reasons are sound. However, it is crucial that Obama articulate concrete goals for how he will deal with future conflicts which will undoubtedly arise in the region.
Many scholars have discussed the merits of maintaining an “Obama Doctrine”, or specific outline of foreign policy goals to be used across the board. This doctrine strategy, however, would fail to address the complexities of specific situations in the Middle East and would be of little use in such a complicated political landscape. Yet, Obama must still maintain a solid position on how he wants to proceed with the unfolding situation.
Libya was described by Obama as a special case for intervention because of the “prospect of violence on a horrific scale.” Yet this cannot be a cornerstone of his foreign policy, because this would justify intervention in Sudan or Rwanda for example, where genocide has killed countless more than Qadhafi’s attacks on Libyans. In response, Obama goes on to say that in Libya “we had a unique ability to stop that violence.”
I am unimpressed by this rationale, as it denotes that action in Libya was permissible because it was convenient. As a prominent world power, America should uphold its policies and principles regardless of whether or not it is convenient to do so. The Middle East is too important, both strategically and in terms of potential human rights abuses, to be inconsistent in policy.
Obama in his foreign policy has stated specifically that “the American people and the United States have an interest … in making sure that where a brutal dictator is threatening his people … to do something about that.” Moreover, Obama has repeatedly made “soaring pronouncements about supporting democracy and fostering international human rights,” and now he has acted on these pronouncements in Libya.
It seems irresponsible, then, to not act in potentially similar situations in the Middle East as they arise. Clashes in Syria, Yemen, Iran and more have left dozens dead, and unrest seems likely to continue for some time. These countries are significantly more important to America’s strategic interests in the region than Libya, so a policy of intervention, once necessary, seems appropriate.
Libya should be used as a precedent to establish a role for America in the current uprisings. Although we will not forcibly topple dictators (which Obama has promised to not do), we can take firm action on the side of freedom-seeking citizens and help usher in a new phase of U.S. foreign policy.
A country like Syria, for example, could provide an important overlap between moral interest in human rights to freedom and pragmatic strategic foreign policy goals. Syria is an important ally to Iran and has actively supported Hezbollah and Hamas, among other terrorist groups. The fall of the country’s single party, which has maintained a state of emergency since 1963, would not only boost human rights in Syria, but benefit U.S. interests in the whole region.
Obama needs to lay out a clear and definitive policy on Middle East intervention before taking further action in the region. While Libya provided a clear case for action, situations in other countries may not be so cut and dry. That being said, a precedent has been set in Libya, and Obama would be wise to take advantage of this opportunity to change the course of U.S. foreign policy and support popular uprisings which would support an American agenda of democracy and human rights.
