The main purpose of the paper is to evaluate the arguments in favor and against the international involvement in the Libyan uprising against Muammar Kaddafi and define whether Western involvements in Arab uprisings are inevitable, recommendable or condemnable. The civil war started in February 2011 and the crackdown of the representatives of the security forces against the peaceful demonstrators together with the civilian life loss during the incident strengthened the existing tension. All this caused the escalation of the conflict and the tension led to the Day of Rage on the 17th of February. The conflicts and incidents in Libya became the real full-fledged rebellion that resulted in the international intervention, as the dictator continued to use force against the civil population of the state. The involvement of the international community had a serious effect on the events that took place in Libya and, therefore, the analysis of this involvement represents the high value and interest in the research.
The specific character of the Arab Spring and Libyan uprising, in particular, has had an effect on the series of states that have been involved in the situation. All the states had their own reasons to participate in the conflict and to define their position concerning the uprising. It is interesting to evaluate the role of each state and to define whether the involvement has a positive or negative effect. The first country to be mentioned in the United States, as the involvement in the Libyan conflict has fractured the state. The airstrikes have been met with the strong wave of criticism against the policy of President Barack Obama from the Republicans. Their position has been quite unusual concerning their traditional attitude to such kind of military operations. Republicans have claimed that no concrete target of the mission has been defined and that this decision had the potential risk of the United States troop’s involvement in the new protracted conflict in the Arab state. This position has also been supported by some of the Democrats, mainly from the left-wing of the party. They have been worried by the involvement of the United States army to another conflict in the region, especially in the period of the stuttering economy. The decision to participate in the situation, made by Barack Obama without consulting with the Congress reminded them of the policy of George W. Bush. There were also certain concerns over the arming of the Libyan rebels and the fears over the question who males up to the opposition within the state. The high level of uncertainty about the future development of the situation in Libya was the main fear of the opponents of intervention. The majority of the American population has supported the use of military force that aimed to protect the civilians. This involvement was reasoned by the inhumane policy of Kaddafi and the life losses of the civil demonstrators that had to be protected. Therefore, the United States involvement has been recommended to stop the aggression and to stabilize the situation within the state.
Special interest within the situation represents the role of Russia, as this state has also been involved in the Libyan conflict. Russian ruling elite has faced a split with the series of different positions of its members. The official Kremlin has abstained the vote in the United Nations Security Council, considering the Libyan uprising and the necessity to stop the fire, while Vladimir Putin said that resolution was “flawed and defective” (Shaw). He has also compared it to the medieval Crusades call. This position has not found support from the President of the country, Dmitry Medvedev, who was officially responsible for the state foreign policy. He said it was inadmissible to use such expressions as Crusades that can provoke a clash of the civilizations. The conflicts have been present within the government concerning the economic sector, as the possibility of failure of protection of billions of dollars of Russian business in Libya was considered to be the betrayal of Russian interests. The Minister of Defense of Russia has called for the ceasefire, but such steps had no real impact on the escalation of the conflict. Therefore, Russian involvement can be seen as the condemned one as there was no real positive outcome of their participation in the situation.
The official position of the other powerful state-member of the Security Council, China, was opposing the intervention, as they are traditionally against the involvement of other states to the inner problems of the country. Chinese have also argued that the military operation that aimed to decrease the use of force and to stop deaths has provoked the enlargement of life losses and the tension inside Libya. Position of the Western countries has also found serious criticism in the Chinese mass media, where they have been represented as the side that has a concrete interest in the region and is not going to stop the operation. This position is quite typical for China and it has not found much support from the international community. This position that tried to reveal the losses and disadvantages of international involvement in the Libyan revolution has been unreasoned and failed to take into account important international norms and resolutions. The protection of human rights has been put after the ruling government.
The victory of the rebellion in Libya and its specific character not only in the world practice but specifically in the series of Arab revolutions of the period represents the victory of the world politics and the serious shift that took place in the area. The coordinated work and efforts took by the non-western and international (UN and Western states) governments have been restored in its position as it was evident in the 1990s, but destroyed by the disastrous change of the Iraq regime by George W. Bush policy (Karon). This step is extremely important for the future development of international relations and for the strengthening of international cooperation between the Western countries and the Arab states. The positive change came together with the success of the NATO operation in Libya. The main criticism connected with this statement has two main arguments. The first one is that this campaign aimed not only to protect the civilians but also to overthrow the political regime that existed in Libya at that time. Here it has to be said that in fact, the arising of the national population has begun to achieve this particular target and that was the reason for the threat of the violence against the civilians. The second argument is that “imperial hijacking” that has been present in the uprising of the Libyan population that would have never succeeded without the followed bombing of the Western states. This argument seems to be quite reasonable, although more relevant is that the movement was greatly inspired by the courageous actions of the civilians that have also given their lives in this revolution, which cannot be said about the NATO airmen. Some critics mention that before the beginning of the revolution many Western states, mainly France and Great Britain, were easily selling armor and riot-control gear to the government of Libyan dictator. These arguments are wide-spread and the key ones for the opponents of the international involvement in Libya. However, they ignore the fact the international politics is contradictory, and it is evident that revolutions tend to heighten this fact. Although such Western politics as David Cameron or Nicolas Sarkozy may be unprincipled players on the international political arena that are interested only in their voters and trade, nevertheless they played a progressive role in the Libyan revolution. The concrete steps that have been made after the escalation of the conflict were extremely important for the success of the rebellion and that is the main argument that has to be taken into account in such a situation. The same refers to the role of the United States involvement that had the special meaning for the final stage of the conflict.
The presence of a large number of arguments in favor and against the Western in such Arab uprisings is caused by the specific controversial and complex character of international politics. The presence of the mixed facts considering the process of the conflicts escalation together with the disputable role of the Western countries in the development of the revolution, as well as the role of the other states, is also so complicated because of the specifications of the political processes. The special meaning of the international cooperation and the synergies of non-western and western together with the United Nations government actions had many weak sides and uncertain moments, but in the end, it had the important positive impact on the success of the revolution and the overthrowing of the Libyan dictator. The stop of deaths of the civilians together with the fulfilling of their key demands was the desired outcome of the rebellion and the international assistance played an important role in this process. Therefore, it can be said that the involvement of the Western states was recommended in the situation and the final outcome supports the claim that there was a great change in the whole international politics and that Western and Arab countries have reached the new period of their cooperation. That was extremely important for the future of the Eastern-Western relations and the democratization of the Muslim countries.
In the end, it can be seen that the issue of the Western involvements in the Libyan uprising has a complex nature, as the international politics is an extremely controversial process with the great number of exceptions and specifications. The uniqueness can be seen in the Libyan revolution i