T

he current political tension in Bahrain and Libya has intensified, especially after similar crises that ousted Zine El Abidine Ben Ali in Tunisia and Hosni Mubarak in Egypt.

There are similarities between Libya and Bahrain, at least in the eyes of the Western mass media and political elites. There are also differences in how nations have responded to each political crisis.

Both regimes are facing strong resistance from the majority of their own people, with Libya falling into civil war. Many Libyan people are fed up and disgusted with the leadership of Col. Muammar Qaddafi, who has ruled the country for 40 years with desert-style authoritarianism. People in Libya demanded a succession and political reforms that would pave the way for freedom of speech and association, which have eluded the nation for four decades.

Unlike Libya, which adopts a “semi-republic” status, the Kingdom of Bahrain fully adopts a system of absolute monarchy. Bahrain is unique. Although about 70 percent of its citizens embrace Shiite Islam, the country is completely controlled by its Sunni Kings. The Khalifah dynasty that remains in power today has reigned since 1783.

However, compared to Libya, Bahrain is actually relatively “more democratic”, as evidenced by the presence of the parliamentary political parties, despite the control of the regime.

Then, why did the West — especially NATO — take a different political attitude towards the pro-democracy movements in the two countries? In the case of Libya, both mass media and political elites drew a line in supporting the resistance movement. The Western forces under NATO even launched military strikes against Libya to support the opposition camp as soon as they managed to convince the United Nations to enforce a no-fly zone in Libyan airspace.

There are two interesting phenomena related to the conflict in Libya. First, the Western leaders and their main nemesis al-Qaeda joined forces for a common purpose, which is to topple Qaddafi. Second, when there were indications that the anti-Qaddafi camp was facing defeat, the UN secretary-general hastily called for enactment of a cease-fire.

The opportunistic attitude of the West in the case of Libya is closely related to economic factors, which is Libyan oil reserves. After successfully controlling Iraq, Libya now seems to be the next easy prey, especially by hawkish groups and neo-conservative that generally control US oil companies.

In the case of the NATO’s political attitudes toward the Libyan crisis, economic considerations (oil) are more advanced than political reality. Politically, Qaddafi is now clearly different from what he was. Before 2003, Qaddafi was known as an anti-West figure.

Together with Khomeini (Iran), Hafiz al-Asad (Syria) and Saddam Hussein (Iraq), they were often referred to as the “leaders of the Middle East”, “adherents of the hardliners” and “anti-West”, and political opponents of the US in the Middle East region. However, beginning in 2003, Qaddafi drastically changed his political direction. Suddenly he became a “good boy” for the West.

He struck political deals with former British prime minister Tony Blair, which included Libyan oil sales to Britain. He made donations to the prestigious London School of Economics and assisted in the apprehension of “actors” behind the Pan-Am bombing over Lockerbie (1988). However, while Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi huddled in Scottish prison, the liberation of al-Megrahi in 2009 infuriated the White House.

Qaddafi not only managed to restore relations with Britain, but also with Italy and France. His son Saiful Islam Qaddafi once said that his father joined the campaign to fund French President Nicolas Sarkozy.

However, political upheaval in the Arab world and NATO’s ambition to control Libyan oil have caused the West-Libyan normalization scenario that began eight years ago to fall apart. At almost 70 years old, Qaddafi once again has raised the banner of resistance against
the West.

The US and its allies seem reluctant to learn from history. Their failures in Iraq and Afghanistan are not enough for them to learn. Will the Libyan crisis involving Western military forces drag on like in Iraq and Afghanistan? Possibly. As a result, civilians will fall victims, not only to pro-Qadaffi troops, but also the foul play of the US and its allies.

Unlike Libya, the West is concerned about protecting the Khalifah dynasty while addressing the political crisis in Bahrain. After losing its important allies in Egypt and Tunisia, the West is now gambling on the King of Bahrain Sheikh Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifah and the Khalifah dynasty.

The reason is, if the dynasty were overthrown by a successful people’s revolution, then a similar revolution would almost certainly spread to other countries in the Gulf region.

Therefore, the West and the UN seem to turn a blind eye to the influx of thousands of troops from Saudi Arabia to Bahrain to help the Bahrain rulers fight the resistance movement.

The fact is that the people of Libya and Bahrain want political freedoms. The West and NATO have adopted a discriminatory approach in dealing with the crisis in the two Middle East countries. That’s the ugly fact of Western hypocrisy.

The writer is a former diplomat.