Editorial: West should loudly back Libyan revolt

While natural disaster has demanded this country's attention, political developments of historic proportions have been happening in the Middle East.

Popular uprisings in Tunisia and Egypt started a democratic wave that seemed unstoppable two weeks ago. Now it does not. In Libya, the despot is not giving up without a struggle to "the last man and woman".

Muammar Gaddafi is clearly a different sort of despot from Hosni Mubarak and other military leaders who assume a right to lead their country.

In the end, Mubarak's generals, probably at America's urging, did not fire on mass demonstrations of their own people. Gaddafi has no such qualms.

The Libyan people have no illusions about him. Their courage has been awe inspiring to everyone anywhere that democracy and human rights are taken for granted.

They have seized control of an eastern region of the country, defending it with any arms they can muster against Gaddafi's artillery, aircraft and small corp of loyal troops supplemented by mercenaries from nearby African states.

Late last week, heavily outgunned, the rebels, repulsed the Gaddafi force's first attempt to retake their territory. But the civil war is far from finished.

The rebels have asked for Nato air support. The most assistance they might receive is enforcement of a "no fly" zone over Libya to prevent Gaddafi strafing and bombing them, but even that seems unlikely.

If he resorts to even more monstrous measures - he is thought to have stocks of mustard gas - international powers might have to intervene.

But for the moment brave Libyans are on their own. More than 180,000 of them have fled to Egypt or Tunisia, with 120,000 Egyptians and foreigners who were working in oil-rich Libya.

This is not Egypt, where a student-led protest was able to summon support from mass resentment of poverty, inequity and rising food prices.

Libyans appear to have been materially comfortable and content to keep out of the way of the eccentric character who has controlled the levers of government there for four decades now.

The rest of the world knows him only by comic speeches at the United Nations that suggest he is delusional, an impression reinforced by press conferences he has conducted in Tripoli since the rebellion began.

But the West also knows from the Lockerbie bombing and other incidents over the years that his delusions can be dangerous.

Disgracefully, leading Western countries have repaired relations with his regime in recent years, preferring stability to democracy if elections are likely to produce Islamic rule.

Events are proving the Western powers made the wrong choice. There is no true stability in autocratic rule, only the likelihood that sooner or later oppressed people will force a change.

The more a dictatorship is buttressed by Western arms and aid the more it is capable of suppressing opposition and any sort of rival political organisation.

That makes a transition to democracy much more uncertain. Egypt still appears to have no civilian organisation apart from the Muslim Brotherhood capable of contesting an election, let alone governing the country.

The fate of all democratic hopes may rest on what happens in Libya. If Gaddafi prevails, the regimes in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere will breathe a sign of relief. The generals still governing Egypt might quietly shelve any election plans. But if Libyans succeed, the tide will surely roll on.

Western countries should be doing all they can to encourage popular movements. If that produces governments that are more Islamic in character, so be it.

There is no future in fighting the popular will anywhere; security is to be found in respecting democratic expression and dealing with it diplomatically. Louder support for Libyans would be a good start.