Exactly one year ago, Mahmoud Jibril, chairman of Libyan Transitional National Council's executive board, announced in Benghazi that "Gaddafi is gone," following the death of the country's former leader. Earlier this month, Jibril handed over power to the General National Congress and stated that it was "the sole legitimate representative of the Libyan people." A year on, is Syria set to follow the path of Libya? Has Libya been a success?

Most Western media have spoken highly about Libya's peaceful transition of power, saying it was the first in the country's modern history.
But the opposition seized power from Muammar Gaddafi with the help of NATO through civil war. Transitional Libyan leader Mahmoud Jibril stated that near the end of the eight-month war, 25,000 people had been killed.

It would be far-fetched to say this was a "peaceful transition." I understand that what the Western media mean is the "peaceful transition" from the Transitional National Council to the General National Congress. But the sacrifices that millions of Libyan people have made shouldn't be secluded from the process.

Judging from the current situation of Libya's national security, it still remains in doubt whether the "peaceful transition" will bring stability to the country. Since the fall of Gaddafi, Libya has been separated into three parts: the east, the west and the north.

The weapons lost during the civil war have fallen into the hands of armed forces which represent different tribes and interest groups. These armed forces have taken control of most of Libya.

An article published on the London-based Guardian on August 9 said, "The transitional government failed to unite powerful militias under a national army. Instead, the militias and rival tribes often clash from their power bases in different parts of the country." Meanwhile, the handover ceremony was held in the middle of the night, which to some extent reflected the authorities' anxiety about the security issue.

However, some Westerners still dwell on the "Libyan model" with relish. We could see the current situation in Syria is like that in Libya when NATO was about to intervene. But what's different is that the Western countries don't have a clear political will nor are they prepared for military interference in Syrian affairs.

They need to focus more on their own domestic political and economic problems, and they need time to make clear which force, among the various opposition groups including extremists, could really represent the Syrian people.

From a geopolitical point of view, the situation in Syria is much more complicated than that of Libya, especially as many Al-Qaeda militants who used to be active in Yemen and Iraq have been entering Syria to join opposition groups.

Western countries have warned that once the situation in Syria gets out of control, the whole Middle East is likely to be affected. Therefore, the West has been holding a cautious attitude on using force.

Nonetheless, the West won't wait until the situation takes a favorable turn toward the Bashar al-Assad regime. The West will enhance their support of the Syrian opposition, which means more bloodshed will take place in Syria in the following months. The West probably reckon that this is the price Syria needs to pay for democracy.

US former assistant secretary of state Richard Murphy has blamed the US strategy of promoting democracy for confusing the situation in the Middle East. And the ultimate outcome of the strategy, for both Washington and the Middle East, remains in doubt.

Source of documents：