Explaining the rationale behind the US getting involved in a war or in a military kinetic action (whatever that means) in Libya, the US Secretary of State has argued that Muammar Qaddafi has “lost the legitimacy to rule” Libya and has “lost the confidence of his own people.” This raises an interesting question, as noted in the magazine Commentary: whenever did Qaddafi have the legitimacy to rule or the confidence of his own people? How and by what means did Qaddafi gain that legitimacy? Or the confidence of the people for that matter? (http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2011/03/31/what-legitimacy/)

That question can of course be aimed at other despots and dictatorial regimes which, unfortunately, form an overwhelming majority among the more than 190 member nations of the UN.

For more than forty years, as long as Qaddafi kept his people under rein, the legitimacy of his rule was not questioned and the “small” matter of whether he enjoyed “the confidence of his people” was deemed irrelevant. Qaddafi’s mistreatment of his people, the very people whose “lack” of confidence in him is now such a concern, was not reason enough to stop the US and other Western governments from doing business with him or supporting him. Neither was the evidence of his involvement with various terrorist organizations a reason not to continue dealing with him. Rather, Qaddafi was treated with respect by one and all. Moreover, his record as a tyrant denying his people the most basic human rights was not a reason to deny Libya a seat at the Human Rights Council of the UN.

Lincoln’s idea of “a government of the people, by the people and for the people” is a far cry from the prevailing reality in most of the regimes in today’s world. Even in the few genuine democracies, more often than not, the rule by elected representatives is not exactly a “government by the people”, while the issue of “for the people” is open to many interpretations, a full discussion of which is beyond the scope of this article.

Qaddafi and the Libyan regime are thus in “good company”. They are the rule rather than the exception, which brings us back to the question - what renders “legitimate” ANY of these regimes? The answer of course is nothing. As a matter of fact regimes of dictators and despots maintain their “legitimacy” as long as the rulers are able to subdue all opposition and how far they are ready to go in doing it. To borrow from Machiavelly, a despot’s legitimacy is not a consequence of his subjects’ love for him, but of their fear from him.

Even if the “loss of the legitimacy to rule” or “losing the confidence of the people” are accepted as genuine concerns, the US military intervention in Libya makes no sense whatsoever. They do not constitute grounds for a military invasion of a country by a super power, in particular since the goal of a “regime change” is ruled out. There’s no doubt that what goes on in Libya is a human tragedy on an enormous scale, bordering maybe on a genocide, but in no way does it pose a threat, real or perceived, to American interests. It is a civil war and the decision made by Obama, albeit reluctantly, to get militarily involved in Lybia, is for all intents and purposes a military interference in the internal affairs of another country.

This brings us back to the Vietnam era, with the difference that the Vietnam war took place during the cold war, and ill advised as it was to send the US military into that conflict, the communist threat was not illusory. That’s not the case today. The claim that the US actions were necessary to prevent a massacre of Libyan civilians by the regime is not very convincing, since in a practically identical situation in Iran in 2009, Obama remained on the fence and even a watered down denunciation of the Iranian regime had to be dragged from him, despite the fact that a nuclear Iran poses a real threat. Thus, the justification of the military kinetic action on “humanitarian” grounds is a bit of a stretch.

As a side note, reports from Libya indicate that the “humanitarian” air strikes of the US/UN/NATO - whichever, frequently failed to distinguish civilians or the rebel forces from the forces loyal to Qaddafi. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110402/ap_on_bi_ge/af_libya) (http://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?id=214560)

In a different Arab country, in Syria, the situation is “under control”, albeit at a high cost in Syrian human lives. The local tyrant, Bashar Al-Assad, has therefore not “lost the legitimacy to rule” Syria. Neither has he “lost the confidence of his own people”. As a proof, it was noted by one of Bashar Al-Assad’s supporters, the Venezuelan ruler, Hugo Chavez, that the number of those opposing Assad is getting smaller after each demonstration . . .

A US military intervention in Syria is therefore not on the agenda. The human suffering of the Syrian civilian population under Bashar Al-Assad is dismissed as an “internal” problem, and the last thing on the UN Secretary General, Ban Ki-Moon, mind is to interfere in a country’s internal affairs by invoking the “new international security and human rights norm” against it. Nothing should distract him from his obsessive preoccupation with condemning Israel for construction activities in Jerusalem.

It is a safe bet that if the unrest in the Arab countries spreads to Saudi Arabia, the US will rush into another military kinetic action, this time though, the goal would be to quell the rebellion and ascertain that the regime maintains its “legitimacy.” A similar scenario can also be envisaged for Bahrein if the events there get out of control.

The worst thing about all these upheavals is the fact that it is a mystery as to who are the “good guys” and who are the “bad guys”, or rather who are the “bad guys” and who are the “very bad guys” - since it is not at all clear that there are “good guys”. This applies both to the situation in Lybia and in the other Arab countries. Backing the wrong horse can turn a bad situation into a real disaster.

No one knows how it will all end and, what’s more important; when it will end and at what cost. As things stand now, Obama has the dubious honor of being the first President to commit the US to a military escapade for no reason whatsoever. Quite a record for someone who was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for the mere achievement of having been elected. It will be interesting to watch the man and his disciples try to wiggle out of this mess during the 2012 campaign (assuming that the hostilities will be over by then).

Last but not least, back to the issue of the legitimacy. It is an open question who has or who should have the authority to decide. Contrary to what many would like to believe, the international arena is not governed by the rule of law. The term “international law” is a misnomer. There is no such thing. There are bilateral and multilateral accords among the world’s nations, and there are conventions which, having been ratified, are supposed to be followed by the world’s nations. However countries meet their commitments only when it fits their national interests and they break them whenever they can do it with impunity. In the international arena it is not the meek who will inherit the Earth. More often than not, the international arena is governed by the rule of the jungle - the violent prevail (in Hebrew - Kol D’Alim G’var), or the strong have it their way.

The “legitimacy to rule” of the regimes in at least 2 of the 5 permanent members of the UN Security Council as well as in two or three among the 10 non permanent members is basically not different from that of Muammar Qaddafi. Moreover, since the non permanent membership in the Security council is rotated on a bi-annual basis, that composition of the council is essentially doomed to perpetuity due to the overwhelming majority of regimes whose legitimacy is as dubious as that of the Libyan dictator among the member nations of the UN.

Leaving the authority to rule about its legitimacy in the hands of an arbitrary assortment of nations whose own legitimacy is questionable, is at best a bitter joke. No country can feel safe under such circumstances.