America Was Caught Off-Guard Facing Middle East Turmoil
Published in Sohu
(China) on 2 March 2011
by Feng Difan (link to original)
(China) on 2 March 2011
by Feng Difan (link to original)
Translated from
by Liangzi He.
Edited by Nathan Ladd.
Exclusive Interview with French and Arabic Issues Expert Lionel Vairon
Lionel Vairon was a French senior diplomat in Southeast Asia and the Middle East, and he has long served as a diplomat in Iraq and worked as an Arabic issues researcher on the Strategy Board for the French Defense Department. Yesterday, Vairon (V) accepted an exclusive interview in First Financial Daily (FFD).
FFD: There is a current view that America was one of the evil hands behind the Middle East turmoil, do you agree or disagree?
V: I don’t agree at all. America itself was very shocked by the turmoil. The present situation isn’t consistent with America’s interests. In fact, they wouldn’t encourage those actions because they won’t produce direct benefits.
FFD: Recently, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton pointed out that it was very clear that the Libyan people wanted Gadhafi to step down. This is the first time Obama officials directly called for an end to Gadhafi’s 42-year reign.
V: This was a two months belated response. In the issue of Tunisia and Egypt, what’s interesting is that Clinton primarily said that the United States didn't want to intervene in other countries’ domestic disputes, which looks like they don’t want to be related to this kind of situation. Several days later, she expressed her hope that leaders in those areas could bring some democracy to their areas, and get back to the public, etc. After they sent a special envoy to Egypt, the United States also hoped that Mubarak could remain until September — making the political situation more clear — which was against the will of the Egyptian people; soon after, they expressed their hope for Mubarak’s fall.
On the whole, this is a series of very confusing statements, clearly indicating that the United States is considering the situation. Of course they are not judging the Egyptian unrest, but their own interests and whether the successor can satisfy those interests or not.
From the aspect of Europe, European people had more discussion about the immigration problem. However, don’t people from the Middle East want better jobs and lives?
FFD: Will NATO and the United Nations take official military action against Libya?
V: Not now. However, the French government decided to withdraw all diplomatic personnel from Libya, which is a sign that shows France has chosen the camp that is fully against Gadhafi; but the current problem is whether he plans to step down or not; and if he does, under what condition. For European countries, one of the challenges is Libya’s oil. If Gadhafi steps down, the questions above are all troublesome. Nevertheless, “military intervention” is always an extremely earnest and serious problem, as is Libya’s internal problem for now.
FFD: In the past, European countries had scandals: They colluded with Middle Eastern countries for huge oil profits; for example, British former Prime Ministers Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, etc. This time, why are European countries so active in facilitating Libya’s sanction? Will this damage their interests in Libya?
V: I don’t agree with this point. European governments had already reached a phase in which they insisted that Gadhafi had to go. Before this they were very careful, but now they know that Gadhafi has to get off the stage. Although they’ll lose some oil profit, at least they hold on to the future.
Interestingly, E.U. Commissioner for Foreign Affairs Ashton actually advocated that every party in Libya should practice restraint. Who wants another party? This clearly showed the cowardice of European countries in ideology and politics. However, this page has been passed.
FFD: How far do you think this dramatic Middle East change will spread? How do we determine it?
V: I believe this turmoil will spread through the Arabic world, but certainly in different forms. I think [other] countries, including Iraq, will be affected. The most depressing one probably will be Iraq. We can see that Egypt achieved success in less than a month with minimal casualties. But several billion dollars have been spent in Iraq, which was also completely destroyed, with hundreds of thousands of casualties; however, it is still riddled with gaping wounds after eight years.
FFD: There’s a current view that this turmoil situation won’t bring “new life” to the Middle East, but may lead to the next identical cycle. What do you think?
V: From the view of the United States and European countries, the deduction that Arabic countries will be trapped in a vicious cycle is interesting to some extent, because this reveals that the United States and European countries think Arabic countries are not ready for development.
This might be a huge mistake. What Arabs want is no different from other people: nice jobs, a certain level of freedom; and there are well-educated people among them, but a majority of them are banished from their countries.
Lionel Vairon was a French senior diplomat in Southeast Asia and the Middle East, and he has long served as a diplomat in Iraq and worked as an Arabic issues researcher on the Strategy Board for the French Defense Department. Yesterday, Vairon (V) accepted an exclusive interview in First Financial Daily (FFD).
FFD: There is a current view that America was one of the evil hands behind the Middle East turmoil, do you agree or disagree?
V: I don’t agree at all. America itself was very shocked by the turmoil. The present situation isn’t consistent with America’s interests. In fact, they wouldn’t encourage those actions because they won’t produce direct benefits.
FFD: Recently, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton pointed out that it was very clear that the Libyan people wanted Gadhafi to step down. This is the first time Obama officials directly called for an end to Gadhafi’s 42-year reign.
V: This was a two months belated response. In the issue of Tunisia and Egypt, what’s interesting is that Clinton primarily said that the United States didn't want to intervene in other countries’ domestic disputes, which looks like they don’t want to be related to this kind of situation. Several days later, she expressed her hope that leaders in those areas could bring some democracy to their areas, and get back to the public, etc. After they sent a special envoy to Egypt, the United States also hoped that Mubarak could remain until September — making the political situation more clear — which was against the will of the Egyptian people; soon after, they expressed their hope for Mubarak’s fall.
On the whole, this is a series of very confusing statements, clearly indicating that the United States is considering the situation. Of course they are not judging the Egyptian unrest, but their own interests and whether the successor can satisfy those interests or not.
From the aspect of Europe, European people had more discussion about the immigration problem. However, don’t people from the Middle East want better jobs and lives?
FFD: Will NATO and the United Nations take official military action against Libya?
V: Not now. However, the French government decided to withdraw all diplomatic personnel from Libya, which is a sign that shows France has chosen the camp that is fully against Gadhafi; but the current problem is whether he plans to step down or not; and if he does, under what condition. For European countries, one of the challenges is Libya’s oil. If Gadhafi steps down, the questions above are all troublesome. Nevertheless, “military intervention” is always an extremely earnest and serious problem, as is Libya’s internal problem for now.
FFD: In the past, European countries had scandals: They colluded with Middle Eastern countries for huge oil profits; for example, British former Prime Ministers Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, etc. This time, why are European countries so active in facilitating Libya’s sanction? Will this damage their interests in Libya?
V: I don’t agree with this point. European governments had already reached a phase in which they insisted that Gadhafi had to go. Before this they were very careful, but now they know that Gadhafi has to get off the stage. Although they’ll lose some oil profit, at least they hold on to the future.
Interestingly, E.U. Commissioner for Foreign Affairs Ashton actually advocated that every party in Libya should practice restraint. Who wants another party? This clearly showed the cowardice of European countries in ideology and politics. However, this page has been passed.
FFD: How far do you think this dramatic Middle East change will spread? How do we determine it?
V: I believe this turmoil will spread through the Arabic world, but certainly in different forms. I think [other] countries, including Iraq, will be affected. The most depressing one probably will be Iraq. We can see that Egypt achieved success in less than a month with minimal casualties. But several billion dollars have been spent in Iraq, which was also completely destroyed, with hundreds of thousands of casualties; however, it is still riddled with gaping wounds after eight years.
FFD: There’s a current view that this turmoil situation won’t bring “new life” to the Middle East, but may lead to the next identical cycle. What do you think?
V: From the view of the United States and European countries, the deduction that Arabic countries will be trapped in a vicious cycle is interesting to some extent, because this reveals that the United States and European countries think Arabic countries are not ready for development.
This might be a huge mistake. What Arabs want is no different from other people: nice jobs, a certain level of freedom; and there are well-educated people among them, but a majority of them are banished from their countries.