British Middle East policy unfolded: rebirth of European policy in Middle East?

The residents of the UK might have an impression that the Great Britain and Prime Minister Cameron have taken a lead in Western response to clashes in Libya. Indeed the British government dedicated the whole day of March 18 to developments in Middle East. Mr Cameron spoke in Commons about the government decision to enforce UN resolution on Libya to stop brutal attacks on Libyan opposition. Then interviews to British media followed and finally a whole speech by the British PM on the Scottish Conservative party spring conference in Perth was about Middle East policy.

As David Cameron used to do in the course of Libyan turmoil he openly spoke about concerns and reasonability of British lead in Libyan government containment. The venue in Scotland from where Mr. Cameron made his comprehensive policy disclosure today was remarkably rigid warning to Libyan government. The British response has not derived from purely international commitments, but from national interests as well that suffered from brutality and inhuman attacks of Libyan regime.

Thus messages were clear and severe: Colonel Kaddafi should go out of power, but no occupation will be undertaken because that would be against the will of Arab people. Prime Minster articulated and responded to major concerns about British government steps in Middle East affairs.

One of the most persisting interrogations was if the British government would pursue from now on the similar policy towards other countries of unrest – Bahrain and Zimbabwe, or wherever in Middle East the uprising against authoritarian regimes  takes place or might take place: Bahrain, Yemen, Saudi Arabia? Mr Cameron’s answer was clear, although disputable for some champions of Arab revolution enlargement: Bahrain and Libya are different  countries and different cases. Bahrain ruler has already been committed to promote certain reforms and civic dialogue, whereas Libyan authorities did not.

Many observers indicated to another minor, but still important differentiation between the US and the UK stand. British government has been more radical in their view of the future of Libya turmoil: Kaddafi should go and enforcement of UN resolution conceived no-fly zone and other necessary measures to stop brutal offence of Libyan citizens. As the Prime Ministers speech came after Libyan response to UN resolution and declared cease-fire, one can conclude from Mr. Cameron’s disclosure that some other military actions are quite consequent, if attacks on opposition continue.  In the meantime any similarity with Iraq occupation was refuted, and occupation was denounced as contradicting the will of Arab people. 

The US president Obama has been more cautious later in the evening, but clearer: no ground operations will be undertaken. The US administration approach is understandable as the Iraq occupation worked as major factor of concern when contemplating any military undertaking against Libyan government. Thus the anti-Kaddafi campaign might also be marked as the first ever conspicuously European lead undertaking in Middle East since Suez crisis and so called Tripartite Aggression by France and Britain in cooperation with Israel in 1957.

However circumstances are considerably reverse.  Kaddafi might still be associated with anti-Western sentiments in Arab world, but the anti-Kaddafi partnerships is different this time and grounded on support from the League of Arab States and certain spectrum of aspirations in the midst of Arab citizens.  Does the uprising in Arab world denote the rise of European policy in Middle East? The time and again we may see how essential changes in world policy were engendered by the movement of Arab citizens.