Ideals and interests coalesce in Libya

Western strategic interests in Libya is perhaps the only ambiguous aspect to the intervention. The West is already a recipient of Libyan oil, and little is known of Libya's opposition, or what form a Libyan democracy would take. Arab public opinion is highly critical and cynical of Western involvement in the region. As is becoming apparent in neighbouring Egypt, the emergence of popular rule does not necessarily equate to warmer relations.

Legitimacy

Whilst the current debate is centred on whether the West should have intervened, few have questioned the world policeman's role Western nations have proclaimed as their own.

Despite seeking approval from the United Nations for military intervention, one cannot possibly assume the five permanent seat holders at the Security Council – formed in the aftermath of World War II – still reflect the dynamics of international relations today. That Britain and France, long past their eras of colonial glory, still hold considerable weight over newcomers Brazil and India, or even Japan, in world affairs is evident of a Security Council out of touch with global realities.

Even those that accuse the West of hypocrisy in Libya do so on the grounds that the West should be consistent in all cases where human rights abuses and genocide are committed.

Thus, among many in both the supportive and opposing camps of military intervention lies a shared belief that the West still has a duty to police world affairs in the 21^st century, as it has done the past four centuries.

Underlying such a belief is a lingering 19^th century, colonialist view distinguishing the world between the civilised, barbarian and primitive states, although perhaps not in such direct terms. The West still retains a self-perception of being the most civilised, and therefore believes it carries an obligation to civilise those still in need, in this case the 'barbarian' Arab world.

Former Iranian President Mohammad Khatami stated in a speech at the Australian National University in 2009 that the West needed to recognise other civilisations on an equal footing, and not as inferior to its own.

However, current arguments in the West appear to only reinforce a colonial perception of the world, and indeed a self-image of the West as a global policeman. The point of contention appears to be on how to apply that role, as opposed to questioning whether that role is still suitable for the West in a post-colonial world where its power is in decline.

New reality in the Arab world

Nothing is more evident of a decline in Western global power than the current revolutions ongoing in the Arab world.

Under Western domination since the end of World War I, the masses of the Arab world are seeking to reclaim sovereignty over their affairs, and indeed, their destiny. The status quo of the Arab world is a product of a colonial project, where European powers drew artificial boundaries and empowered large families and clans to the thrones of a number of Arab states. The US simply inherited such a policy post-World War II, and has maintained dominance over the region ever since.