"Earth - Africa, Middle East and Europe" by Kevin M. Gill is licensed under CC BY 2.0.
I have noticed that there is a concerning viewpoint in my country Sri Lanka to downplay and normalise the evils of dictators. This stems from an over critical view of the West. It’s my understanding these views are a viewpoint prevalent in the Global South which Sri Lanka is part of. The Global South tends to refer to poor countries while the Global North refers to rich countries. I’m writing this article to present my view that the foreign policies of the West don’t make dictators decent leaders worthy of respect. In this article I’m focusing specifically on the Middle Eastern region.
I’ll begin with a terrible action initiated by the US, which was the Iraq War in 2003. This was an unjust war based on a lie that Iraq stored weapons of mass destruction. Saddam Hussein was a dictator who ruled oppressively in Iraq. His sons were dangerous criminals who terrorised people. While this war succeeded in getting rid of Saddam Hussein, it brought misery, deaths and suffering to the people of Iraq and resulted in the barbaric terrorist group ISIS being formed. This war destabilised Iraq and the Middle Eastern region.
In 2011, the US & NATO intervened in Libya. They said they were getting involved to protect civilians. Some people equate this involvement in the same league as that of the Iraq War. While it’s true that the state of Libya after this conflict has serious problems, I disagree with this assessment. Libya’s dictator Muammar Gaddafi really was responsible for the deaths of his own people. This military operation was much smaller in scale than in Iraq. Many in the Global South dismissed the West’s narrative out of hand. I’m not saying this is a just war that the US & NATO were absolutely right to be involved in. It’s true that the West has their own agendas and the real reason for involvement could be different to the official narrative. My point is that in cases like this there can be valid reasons behind it.
Even if you make a compelling case against the West’s involvement in Libya, that does not invalidate the problems Libyans faced under Muammar Gaddafi’s dictatorship. He had been connected to terrorism and is alleged to have been involved in or masterminded the Lockerbie bombing in the 1980s. There are similarities between the Gaddafi family of Libya and the Rajapaksa family of Sri Lanka. Both are despotic political families which caused damage to their countries. While nowhere near the same scale, you can also see some similarities between Saddam Hussein’s sons and Malaka Silva, the son of former politician Mervyn Silva in Mahinda Rajapaksa’s government. While Libya tragically fell into a state of civil war post-Gaddafi, the movement to establish a stable democratic government in Libya was a just one.
I’ll now move onto Syria. Syria has been in a state of civil war since the early 2010s. In December 2024, Syrian president Bashar al-Assad gave up power and went to Russia. The origins of the Syrian Civil War began with him using force on pro-democracy protests in 2011. His dictatorship and oppressive rule resulted in over half a million deaths in Syria’s civil war. It’s tragic how there are so many factions fighting each other. There was distressing sectarian violence occurring earlier this month. This shows that despite Assad’s exit from power, the Syrian Civil War is still ongoing.
There are some in the Global South who will point out that the West had previously engaged diplomatically with Assad, portraying the West as hypocritical and trying to delegitimise Western criticism of Assad. I don’t agree with this view. Irrespective of whether Western foreign policy towards Syria is sensible or not, they were rightly against the catastrophic governance of Assad. In regard to their previous engagement with the Syrian government, governments change their policies with time. In my view, they made the correct decision to stop engaging with Assad.
Western hypocrisy really does exist and there are instances where it’s wise to call it out. The problem I have is when the Western hypocrisy narrative is used to dismiss valid Western criticisms against crimes and misdemeanours committed by certain governments. Sometimes the global political situation is grey in that while a particular government is involved in Western hypocrisy, they are also spot-on in their condemnation of a dictator.
Regarding Syria, I don’t know what the future of that country holds. My knowledge of their current provisional government is minimal and I don’t have a high regard for them. I hope that with Assad gone, they will be able to come out of the mess they are in and democratically elect a decent government.
To conclude, I will point out ways I think all three sides can contribute regarding the Middle Eastern region. The Global South who has experienced bad governance and corruption can look at the similarities of Middle Eastern dictators and their own governance. Support and understanding can be given to the people of the Middle East. The West would be wise not to focus on a military interventionist approach in dealing with these dictators. It’s important to have policies that help people in this region which would result in Middle Easterners having a more positive view of Western governments. This should include win-win policies which are good for both Middle Eastern people and the security of the West. The Middle Eastern people should not abandon movements for democratic governance. This movement should take a stand against violence & extremism and inspire people for a peaceful and stable Middle East.
