On March 19, the world decided to intervene to stop the ruthless violence displayed by Moammar Qaddafi in Libya. The UN resolution mandated that countries should employ "all means necessary" to protect Libyan civilians.
After a bit of thought, I am at a crossroads. Should the West live up to its "responsibility to protect" civilians around the world? Is the intervention a part of a broader strategy to empower Arabs who want democracy? Or is it Western powers meddling in Arab affairs to preserve their strategic interests?
America has an erratic history in the Middle East. During his presidency, George Bush worked to promote the spread of democracy in the Arab world. Yet America has alliances with various oppressive regimes in the Middle East, oil interests, and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which all hark back to decades of colonialism.
During the Tunisian and Egyptian revolutions earlier this year, America was very wary of getting involved. President Obama came under attack for failing to side with Egyptian protestors. Yet, many people think that it is not for the West to decide the political and social future of Arab countries- the citizens must do this themselves.
I'm left with a few unanswered questions...
-What kind of role should America and the West play in the revolutions occurring in the Middle East?
-Should we step back, no matter how violent things get, and leave the Arab people to their own devices?
-Do we have a duty to intervene when the revolutions become violent?
-Does American intervention in these revolution do more harm than good?
-What does the West hope to accomplish by getting involved?
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar