Libya - victim of Arab betrayal
Head of Trend's Middle East Desk Rufiz Hafizoglu
After the revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt, no one had any doubts that similar events will occur in other Arab countries. New revolutions were most awaited in the Middle East countries.
But this time, the expectations were not justified, this time the "revolution" occurred in the fourth largest country in the Arab world - Libya.
Despite that many countries in the world supported "an attempt of revolution" against the brightest 1970-80 Arab leader Muammar Gaddafi, it is obvious that what is happening is totally different from the Tunisian and Egyptian events.
If in Tunisia and Egypt, the people peacefully demanded the resignation of the authorities, in Libya, the opposition faced a lot of pressure from the beginning of the protests, made armed resistance, and the "revolution" turned into armed rebellion.
It is no accidental that the protests started right in the city of Benghazi: after all, according to statistics, about 52 percent of the population of this city consists of 20-25-years old young people. In addition, this region has the lowest economic indicators in Libya, although the country as a whole does not lag behind other Arab States in terms of economy.
Young people of Benghazi also protested against the regime of Gaddafi in the past several times, just this time, the Tunisian and Egyptian events intensified a wave of protest.
Unlike Tunisia and Egypt, the main reason for the transformation of protests in Libya into an armed rebellion was the fact that a system of tribal governance exists there, and that the people of Libya do not trust in their army, not having a meaningful voice.
Another reason is that many Arab countries do not support Gaddafi's regime and are prepared to do everything to overthrow the Libyan leader.
At the first stage of the armed rebellion, Gaddafi had three options: to hold reforms to prevent spread of rebellion over the whole country; to divide country into two parts to maintain his authority; and finally to give up power.
However, the West, especially France, as well as a number of Arab countries are trying to defend their interests and by providing armed support, the inspired rebels by all means try to remove Qaddafi from power.
Paris, knowing that sooner or later, Gaddafi still leave the power and the exploitation of rich oil resources of the country will be made by the new government, could not take all this with indifference.
Exactly for this reason, the first support to Libyan rebels came from France, which closely monitors events in the country, has its oil interests in Libya and is looking to get the final word in the region.
Thus, on March 18, the Government of France decided on military intervention in Libya.
This decision of France was supported by the U.S., Italy, Canada, UK, and later Qatar and the UAE.
However, the decision of the French government was perceived ambiguously by countries worldwide. Moreover, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan said that France simply has an interest in Libyan oil.
March 25, NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen said that the alliance will itself control on no-fly zone in Libya.
It's no secret that Western states actually defend in Libya not human rights, but their own interests. However, there are moments escaped from attention in the issue of participation of the two Persian Gulf countries in these operations.
In fact, it is not accidental that Qatar and the UAE participate in operations against Libya. The likelihood increases that after Tunisia and Egypt, besides the countries of North Africa, the people's revolution will repeat in the Middle East countries - Syria, Jordan and other Arab states.
Naturally, in the region the interests of Arab countries are facing Iran's interests, which tries to use a variety of factors, especially factor of Islam and Shiism for the implementation of the "Islamic revolution".
Islamic revolution based on Iran model impose a greater threat than a democracy for the Arab countries.
For this reason, the Arab world has called the events in Bahrain, where the majority of the population are Shiites, "the Iranian revolution in Bahrain".
The aim is clear - by all means it is necessary to prevent the interference of Iran in the affairs of the Persian Gulf states and weaken the power of the "Shiite crescent" through the neutralization of Iran-friendly regimes.
It is possible to say that the Gulf countries have successfully prevented the "Iranian revolution" in Bahrain, but in the region there is Iran's closest friend - Syria.
Many political experts believe that the actions in Syria against Bashar al-Assad, which killed 126 people, are a "gift" from the Persian Gulf countries.
Even U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in his speech about the events in Syria stated that the activities of the government of this country are not very much an object of criticism and condemnation by the world public.
Despite that the Syrian leader, making compromise to the opposition, accepted the resignation of the government on March 29, it is likely that the opposition will not be satisfied with this, and according to "revolutionary scenario", will demand the resignation of Al-Assad.
If to closely follow the events, it is possible to see that Muammar Gaddafi is sacrificed not only for Western interests, but also for the interests of the Gulf countries.