The Arab League's recent decision to request the intervention of the UN Security Council to protect the Libyan people from their own government is an important decision that constitutes an historical precedent and a qualitative transformation in this pan-Arab league established in the middle of the forties to serve Arab regimes, rather than Arab people. This decision has transformed the League into a modern institution that monitors the performance of the ruling regimes and their treatment of their people and is concerned with human rights, putting the interests of the people above the interests of the regimes, even if this necessitates calling upon the international community to intervene militarily to correct the situation. This brave decision has encouraged western countries to move to protect Libyan civilians who are bravely saying no to dictatorship, injustice and vanity, yes to freedom, dignity and democracy, and who have been making massive sacrifices to this end. The UN decision regarding Libya is in itself an historic decision that will eventually lead to the toppling of the regime of Muammar Gaddafi, a leader who has surpassed all world leaders in many ways, the most prominent of which being the length of time he has been in power. Most notable in the international position towards Libya is French eagerness and enthusiasm to get rid of the Gaddafi regime. France was a pioneer in receiving the Libyan opposition at the highest levels and in recognising the Libyan Interim National Council as the sole representative of the Libyan people. French planes began sorties over Libyan air space within hours of the passing of UN Resolution 1973. This French position is in contrast to Paris's position to the Tunisian and Egyptian revolutions, as France never showed any enthusiasm for change there. On the contrary, it implicitly supported Bin Ali when in power. As for the regime of Saddam Hussein, French opposition to issuing a UN resolution authorising the use of military force in Iraq in 2003 was instrumental in preventing the US, UK and the countries which supported them, from getting UN authorisation for military intervention. France later tried to improve its relations with Iraq and the French foreign minister, Bernard Kouchner paid several visits. Included in his visits was the village of ‘Abu Hawen', the home village of Vice President Adel Abdul Mahdi, who is a French citizen himself. France also sent an Arabic-speaking ambassador to Iraq who has been very active in promoting his country. However, all this did not stop France from opposing the removal of Iraq from the UN Charter 7 sanctions when the UN voted on Iraq on 15th December 2010. The reason for the French opposition was that UN Oil-for-Food Fund refused to pay some bills presented by French companies because the bills, according to the UN Fund, were not properly issued. It's not known whether Iraqi officials had discussed this French position with French officials during their meetings with them, but what is known is that the French position regarding post-dictatorship Iraq remained negative, despite its attempts to benefit economically, and its position in the UN last December is the best proof of that. Although principles do influence international decisions, interests remain the most important catalyst when some countries decide on important policies. Because France had close economic ties with Saddam Hussein's regime, it tried hard to protect that (client) regime despite its knowledge of the numerous and heinous crimes committed against the Iraqi people, crimes which far exceeded those committed by the Libyan regime against its people. In the seventies of last century, France helped Saddam Hussein build a nuclear reactor (destroyed by Israel on 7th June 1981), and it ‘lent' him fighter jets capable of carrying Exocet missiles during its war with Iran in the eighties; it even handed over Iraqi opponents of the regime who were residing in France, to Iraqi authorities to face their fate, which was well known to all. The United Nations, the Arab League and most countries of the world remained silent on the subject of the indiscriminate and barbaric suppression of Iraqis by Saddam Hussein's regime in 1991. Iraqi opposition never received anything but snubs from many countries and organisations. I remember I gave speeches at fringe meetings at the British Labour Party Conferences in 2002 and 2003 at the invitation of organisations affiliated to the party. I explained in those speeches the suffering of the Iraqi people and how the international community and the Arab countries were totally ignoring this suffering. The representative of the Arab League, Ambassador Ali Muhsin Hamid, among many other Arab and foreign officials, was present in one of those meetings. I seized the opportunity to remind the audience of the ethical responsibility of the international community over the killings, suppression and crackdown on the opposition that were taking place in Iraq at the hands of the Iraqi regime, and the economic sanctions at the hands of the international community. I criticised the position of the Arab League and said it was silent and had not taken any action in all these years against the wars and acts of genocide against the Iraqi people. It neither condemned nor opposed those criminal acts. After I ended my speech, the Arab league ambassador, Ali Muhsin Hamid, stood up and requested that I to sit next to him and I did. He began telling me about the Arab League saying that the Iraqi people were right to ask for help especially when they were exposed to such catastrophes. He said the Arabs did know about the plight of Iraqis and their suffering, but ‘You Iraqis must know what the function of the Arab League is before you blame it. The League represents Arab regimes and therefore it cannot stand against any of them'! Ambassador Hamid was very sympathetic to the Iraqi people but he emphasised that protecting Arab peoples from their governments was not one of the tasks of the Arab League. Now, however, it seems that the function of the Arab League must have changed. The latest qualitative transformation in its position deserves study in order to find out if it is a real transformation or a passing position. However, in either case, it is a unique and courageous position that deserves encouragement and appreciation. The Arab political map has changed dramatically over the last eight years. Three important dictatorial regimes which were influential in Arab decision, Saddam Hussein, Bin Ali and Husni Mubark's' have been toppled. A fourth one is struggling in vein to stay in power, but its end is imminent. The fall of these three regimes, and the imminent fall of a fourth one and perhaps a fifth, has left an impact on existing regimes which have begun to take into account human rights issues and the opinion of the international community. In addition, the technological advances and world-wide spread of media and communication have contributed to enhancing the role of peoples and weakening totalitarian regimes. Alongside the importance and uniqueness of the Arab League's decision to support the Libyan people against their government, the UN resolution 1973 to impose a flight ban over Libya and legalise military action against forces loyal to Colonel Gaddafi, which Arab countries will participate in, is also another qualitative and unique decision which will change the balance of power in the region. It will force Arab regimes to respect their peoples. The world will no longer allow a despot to use military power to suppress his people and deprive them of their basic freedoms. These freedoms have now become sacred and no one can violate them. The world has changed forever and the Arab world needs to move along with it.
