Largely inspired by Egypt’s revolution against ex-president Hosni Mubarak in early February, some North African and Arab nations have wrestled with their respective dictators and governments in an effort to bolster democracy – or, if not democracy, simple freedom. Perhaps the most alarming struggle has been between Libyan citizens and their dictator Muammar al-Gadhafi, a man who is intent on maintaining his throne no matter what attempts are made on his life.
On Feb. 21, the Libyan Air Force bombed protestors in Tripoli on Gadhafi’s command, inciting worldwide indignation. After hundreds of civilians were killed in an effort to maintain governmental solidarity, President Barack Obama imposed sanctions on the increasingly dangerous Gadhafi regime. At this point, news organizations such as The New York Times started regurgitating “forgotten” information regarding America’s past relationship with Libya – i.e., when Beyoncé performed for Gadhafi’s family on New Year’s Eve 2010.
During the Egyptian revolution, Americans were reminded of their government’s sordid alliance with Mubarak and informed that his officials would be using weapons essentially donated by the United States in the case of any violent encounter with protestors. This forced the Obama Administration to approach the uprising with caution. In the case of the Libyan conflict, the President’s advisors are equally prudent, perhaps for the better. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said Sunday that the United States would be willing to offer assistance to Libya if its citizens were to call for relief but didn’t offer up any specifics.
Clearly, Clinton’s statement is in response to the media frenzy that has grappled the United States in respect to contention in the Middle East and certainly a public relations tactic more than anything else. It’s probable that she’s attempting to mediate between the country’s expectations and foreign officials in a way that offends a minimal amount of people and requires as little of foreign expenditures as possible. This appears to be the cornerstone of American foreign policy in 2011, if not for the mere reason that making any substantial moves would scream of hypocrisy.
Ultimately, it’s wise for Clinton to continue negotiating with declining international countries in a manner that is both isolationist and truthful if not for the mere reason of renewing America’s image in order to foster more meaningful relationships in the future.
This is an account occasionally used by the Daily Free Press editors to post archived posts from previous iterations of the site or otherwise for special circumstance publications. See authorship info on the byline at the top of the page.
