DRAMA IN LIBYA

The Arab Revolution continues. The mass popular protests that have swept through several countries in North Africa and the Persian Gulf, marked by the fall of long-term authoritarian regimes in Tunisia and Egypt, have turned bloody in Libya. The country run by Muammar Qaddafi for more than 40 years has plunged into fratricidal war. According to unofficial reports, more than two thousand people have been killed since the riots began there.

Judging by the latest reports from Libya, Qaddafi no longer controls much of the country and is supported only by his own al-Qaddafa tribe. A few days ago Libya was divided in two: the eastern part centred on Benghazi, taken over by the opposition, and the western part around the capital Tripoli, where Qaddafi has strengthened his grip. However, the area under Qaddafi's control narrows with each passing hour. Fighting between the opposition and Qaddafi supporters is now taking place on the outskirts of Tripoli.

Supporters of the new government, entrenched in Benghazi, the second largest city in Libya, urged the country's armed forces to join the revolution against Qaddafi's regime. Opposition members are the carrying red, black and green flag of the Libyan kingdom, whose history ended in 1969 following a coup carried out by Qaddafi and his associates. It is in Benghazi that Libya's new interim government has been formed; it is headed by former Justice Minister Mustafa Abdel Galil. The interim government is supported by Libya's ambassador to the UN, Ali Aujali, who had been an ally of Qaddafi for a long time, but defected to the opposition after the protest movement started. Galil insists on "the unity of a free homeland with its capital in Tripoli", thus rejecting gloomy forecasts about a possible split of Libya.

The global community has reacted to the events in Libya. UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has condemned Qaddafi for his refusal to heed calls to stop the violence against civilians. In a telephone conversation with the Libyan leader, he tried to convince him to stop the bloodshed. However, shortly thereafter Qaddafi addressed his compatriots and, on the contrary, threatened a much more powerful crackdown on the demonstrators.

An emergency meeting of the UN Security Council also condemned the Libyan leadership's punitive measures against its own people. In addition, the United Nations Development Programme terminated its contract with Ayesha Qaddafi, the Libyan leader's daughter, who was a goodwill ambassador and had been involved in several UN humanitarian projects. Finally, the UN Security Council adopted a resolution introducing a ban on foreign trips by Qaddafi and his family. The sanctions also include the freezing of foreign assets owned by Libyan leaders and their families. In addition, the resolution calls on the International Criminal Court in The Hague to launch an immediate investigation into crimes against humanity committed by Qaddafi's regime.

The European Union has also significantly toughened its stance on Tripoli. EU governments have agreed to prepare a list of sanctions against Qaddafi's regime, which may include a visa ban for members of the Libyan leadership, the freezing of assets and an imposition of arms embargoes.

Meanwhile, the US has already imposed unilateral sanctions against Tripoli, freezing the bank accounts of Qaddafi and his entourage, imposing a ban on all banking transactions with the government of Libya and embargoing military supplies to the country. US President Barack Obama emphasized in a statement that the sanctions are directed against the Gaddafi regime, not the people of the country. The US president called on the Libyan leader to resign. "When the only way for the leader of a state is to use violence against his own people, he loses his legitimacy. Such a leader must make the right choice and resign", the US president said.

In addition, the United States hinted clearly at possible intervention in Libyan developments. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton expressed Washington's willingness to end the violence in Libyan cities. Fidel Castro's statement was of great interest here. He said the US would soon involve NATO in invading Libya, with a view to taking control of the country's oil wells. "It is totally clear that the US government is absolutely not interested in peace in Libya and will give NATO forces the order to invade the country without a minute's hesitation - it is a matter of hours or at most days", believes the Cuban commander.

Meanwhile, Italy's Minister of Defence, Ignazio La Russa, said that a military operation was being prepared to evacuate Italian citizens from Libya. "We have been told that there are Italians in the south-east of Libya who are running out of food. We will rescue them", he said.

As can be seen, Western powers are ready to intervene in the Libyan situation, which, judging by its intensity, has overtaken the revolutionary experiences of Tunisia and Egypt. The explanation lies primarily in Libya's rich energy reserves, although it should be understood from the Italian defence minister's statement that the reason for mounting a military operation in Libya (of course, if it is necessary for Western interests) may not necessarily be oil or any other strategic factor.

However, it is obvious that it is hard for the West to disguise its confusion against the background of recent developments in Arab countries. The fall of Egyptian dictator Hosni Mubarak, who was for decades one of the US' main allies in the region, forced the White House to adjust its Middle East policy. After all, it is not yet clear who will replace Mubarak at the top of the political pyramid in Egypt. Events in Libya are totally unpredictable. As opposed to Mubarak and Tunisia's deposed dictator Ben Ali, Qaddafi has pursued an anti-American policy for many years. However, the expected collapse of the Libyan dictator does not give Washington clear cause for joy. It is notable that Qaddafi himself has blamed the destabilization of his country not on the United States and the West, as one might have expected, but on those who he said are going to build an Islamic state in Libya. As if to prove the Libyan dictator's statements, the North African branch of al-Qaeda, based in Niger, Mauritania and Mali, supported the rebellion against Qaddafi and accused him of "a cowardly massacre and killings of our unarmed Muslim brothers".

So the upheavals in the Arab world are not just making things hot for local dictatorships, some of which have already sunk into oblivion, while others like Qaddafi's regime, are ready to fight to the bitter end and risk countless casualties and the devastation of their countries.

Protests against repressive regimes have not only affected Arab countries, however. Along with the Maghreb countries and Bahrain and Yemen, they have also made themselves felt in Iran. However, the authorities of the Islamic Republic managed to quell demonstrations in Tehran and several other Iranian cities. Nevertheless, the 'regime of the mullahs' cannot sleep easy in its bed, even though on the face of it, it has little to do with the regimes of Mubarak or Qaddafi. The presence of the main factor - a powerful, repressive apparatus - which has suppressed any dissent in Iran for more than 30 years and which has caused increasing discontent among the masses, causes many to make uncomfortable predictions for the authorities of the Islamic Republic. It is significant that the well-known American billionaire and head of the Open Society Institute, George Soros, has predicted the imminent collapse of the Iranian regime: "When people endanger their own lives, the impossible becomes possible. I'm willing to bet: the regime in Iran will collapse within a year."

However, regardless of the outcome of the Iranian bet by Soros and his associates, the consequences of the collapse of a number of Middle Eastern regimes may not be good news for Western strategists, not least because the Muslim world, whatever further developments there are, will not live by Western standards, not to mention the likelihood of radical Islamist politicians coming to power in Arab countries.

Speaking of the states that may reap significant political dividends from the processes now unfolding in the Middle East, we should note, first of all, Turkey. In recent years, Turkey has significantly strengthened its position in the Islamic world, mainly due to a consistent advocacy of Palestine's interests, even at the cost of a significant deterioration in Turkish-Israeli relations. But the main reason why Turkey could harvest the fruits of its policy is rather its model of political and economic development. Despite the fact that Turkey is a member of NATO and, accordingly, remains an ally of the West, it is still a model of successful reform in the Middle East. Turkey achieved this without the assistance of the energy resources present in many Arab countries, which further increases the efficiency of the Turkish model in the eyes of the public in Middle Eastern states. Ankara's demonstration of independence in relations with the US, Europe and Israel has a special effect as well. It is not surprising that Arabs increasingly look to the experience of Turkey, and this acquires special urgency in the current situation, when states of the Muslim East are throwing off the yoke of authoritarian dictatorships and facing the question of where to go.

It is significant here that the leader of the Tunisian Islamic movement Al-Nahda, Rachid al-Ghannouchi, said while commenting on the revolutionary developments in his country: "If a political movement that meets the true interests of the Muslim community is able to respond to the current need for change, the one-party era in Tunisia will end and, sooner or later, it will be replaced by the model that exists in Turkey now."

It is worth noting that the Muslim Brotherhood, who are set to play a leading role in Egypt's developing political system, have also expressed sympathy with the Turkish model.

The Arab world's attitude to Turkey offers Ankara a chance to lead integration processes in the Muslim world. This would have a significant impact on Iran's similarly ambitious plans, even despite its close relations with the Lebanese Hezbollah and Palestinian Hamas. The latter, incidentally, is positioning itself as a branch of the Muslim Brotherhood, which prefers the Turkish combination of Islam, secularism and democracy over an Iran-type clerical state in the future development of Arab countries.