An article former SAIS student James Mina and I wrote on ‘Circumventing Hormuz’ appears in the February–March 2014 issue of Survival. The International Institute for Strategic Studies today published this related post:
Month: January 2014
L’état c’est le soldat
Georgetown University’s conference on Egypt and the Struggle for Democracy included a final panel discussion on “Restoration of Democracy and the Rule of Law in Egypt: The Roles of Pro-Democracy Groups and the International Community” featuring Abdul Mawgoud Dardery (former Freedom and Justice Party member of Parliament), Nathan Brown (George Washington University), Dalia Mogahed (CEO, Mogahed Consulting), and Emad Shahin (American Univesty in Cairo). Tamara Sonn (College of William & Mary) moderated.
Abdul Mawgoud Dardery: Egyptians have been suffering for decades living under a police state. In order to understand current events, it is crucial to understand the historical context. During the revolution, Egyptians were against Mubarak and also the entire system. On February 11, 2011, Mubarak fell, but the system did not.
The March 19 referendum was the first challenge to the revolution. It moved the country from a revolutionary mode to a reform agenda. The referendum put Egypt on the course of formal democracy, which is long and gradual. Some political actors thought siding with the military was an easier, faster way to move forward.
Morsi ruled with a nationally unified government, but the challenges it faced were tremendous. Forces of the old regime were still in place: the military, police, judiciary, and state bureaucracy. Some say Morsi failed. He was made to fail. In spite of this, Egyptians were pleased because they lived in a democracy where they were able to move and hold meetings freely. Read more
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Tags : Democracy and Rule of Law, Egypt
The Cory Remsburg metaphor
The President’s State of the Union speech last night broke little new ground on foreign policy. He is pleased to be finishing two wars and will resist getting the United States involved in other open-ended conflicts. He may leave a few troops in Afghanistan to train Afghans and attack terrorists. Al Qaeda central is largely defeated but its franchises are spreading in Yemen, Somalia, Iraq and Mali. He will limit the use of drones, reform surveillance policies and get us off a permanent war footing. He wants to close Guantanamo, as always, and fix immigration, as always.
He will use diplomacy, especially in trying to block Iran verifiably from obtaining a nuclear weapons and in resolving the Israel/Palestine conflict, but also in destroying Syria’s chemical weapons capability. He will support the moderate Syrian opposition. He will veto new Iran sanctions in order to give diplomacy a chance to work, maintain the alliance with Europe, support democracy in Ukraine, development in Africa, and trade and investment across the Pacific. America is exceptional both because of what it does and because of its ideals.
The President didn’t mention Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Pakistan, Russia or Japan. He skipped North Korea too. His mother must have taught him that when you don’t have anything nice to say you shouldn’t say anything at all. Those countries might merit mention, but all have in one way or another been doing things that we prefer they not do. He mentioned China, but only as an economic rival, not a military one. He skipped the pivot to Asia as well as Latin America. For my Balkans readers: you are not even on his screen. Read more
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Tags : Afghanistan, Africa, Al Qaeda, Asia, China, Egypt, European Union, Gulf states, Iran, Iraq, Israel/Palestine, Japan, Latin America, Mali, NATO, North Korea, Nuclear weapons, Pakistan, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkey, Ukraine, United States, Yemen
Hammer out danger
What has Pete Seeger, who died yesterday, got to do with Egypt?
Many Egyptians are genuinely enthusiastic about Field Marshall Sisi’s impending run for the presidency. They hope he will bring stability to a country in its third year of revolutionary upheaval. They want the economy to recover and their families to return to a more normal existence.
Rarely are international commenters more unanimous in their opposing views: Sisi, the finest intellects think, has little chance of providing the stability Egyptians crave unless he changes course and enables a far more inclusive polity. The current crackdowns on both the Muslim Brothers, who are many, and Sisi’s secularist opponents, who are few, will serve only to drive Egypt further into autocracy and an eventual return to turmoil.
Who is right? The Egyptians in the street who proudly point to airbrushed pictures of the Field Marshall? Or the international intellectuals, none of whom have ever run a country?
My heart is with the Egyptians. They should get what they want. It is not for me or any non-Egyptian to choose who leads Egypt, or to tell Egyptians what system they should install to gain their aspirations. If they want to restore the military autocracy, or something akin to it with a few more power centers, why should I object? Each to his own. Read more
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Tags : Egypt
Diversifying Hormuz protection
While my career in recent years has focused on politics, especially in the Balkans and Middle East, I have a long history with energy issues. They were already big in 1972, when I was on the secretariat for the first UN Conference on the Human Environment. Even then global warming was on the agenda. I worked in the mid-1970s at the National Center for Analysis of Energy Systems at Brookhaven National Laboratory and in the late 1970s and early 1980s, handled energy issues as Science Counselor of the US Embassies in Rome and Brasilia.
In 1984 I became director of ‘energy consuming country affairs’ at the State Department, a role that included representing the United States at the International Energy Agency’s Standing Committee on Emergency Questions.
It was while oil prices were low in the mid-1980s that we convinced our IEA partners to put in place the ‘coordinated early stock draw’ procedures that are today an important part of the global response to an oil supply disruption.
But proud as I am of that achievement, I’ve come to believe that we missed opportunities to go much further in building up civilian responses to the problem James Mina and I discuss in my Survival article, ‘Circumventing Hormuz’. Over-reliance on military instruments has been costly and counter-productive. We should long ago have pressed non-IEA oil importers (especially China and India) to increase stocks (and coordinate their drawdown) and oil exporters to ensure supply by building pipelines and using them to their maximum capacity.
The current increase in US oil and gas production, while it does not insulate us from the economic harm due to an oil-supply disruption and the resulting price spike, provides an opportunity to beef up these civilian responses, redistribute burdens and lower American military costs. It also provides an opportunity to make protection of oil flow through Hormuz a multinational responsibility, with contributions from major Asian oil importers. This would relieve some of the burden on the US Navy and make it less likely Iran will ever disrupt Gulf oil supplies.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Tags : China, Gulf states, India, United States
We are not there yet
Word from Geneva this morning suggests that the Syria peace talks are deadlocked over the issue of forming a transitional government with full executive powers, which is the key goal set in a June 2012 UN communique’. This is no surprise. Bashar al Asad shows no sign of stepping down, aside or out. His Iranian and Russian supporters, while claiming they are not wedded to him, are still not prepared to compel him, or even provide incentives. They continue to provide ample military and financial support.
The opposition is no readier to make peace. Its negotiators went to Geneva 2, as these talks are known, in parlous shape. The regime has been pressing its military advantages near Damascus and in Homs. The opposition military forces are fragmented and fighting each other. The negotiators representing the opposition in Geneva have precious little control over the armed revolutionaries, who are fragmented and fighting with each other. There was also a significant political minority within the Syrian Opposition Coalition, which leads the delegation in Geneva, that opposed going to the talks.
Given these disadvantages, it is remarkable that things have gone pretty well for the opposition in Geneva. Unforced regime errors are part of the explanation. Its chief negotiator, Foreign Minister Moallem, came out of his corner overly aggressive, not only against the opposition but also against UN Secretary General Ban. Beating on the referee is not a good way to win a boxing match. Moallem essentially rejected the notion that the talks aim at forming a transitional government. The regime prefers to forge ahead with spring elections at which Bashar al Asad is guaranteed victory. Read more
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Tags : Iran, Russia, Syria, United Nations, United States
Peace Picks, January 27-31
1. War Crimes, Youth Activism & Memory in the Balkans
Monday, January 27 | 12pm – 1pm
Woodrow Wilson Center 6th floor, 1300 Pennsylvania Ave. NW
Past post-conflict justice processes in the Balkan region were comprised of a variety of protagonists, such as governments, international institutions, and civil society. Mechanisms to cope with mass atrocities committed during the conflict in the 1990s included international trials in The Hague, domestic trials in many of the former states of Yugoslavia, and several truth commission attempts. In recent years there has also been a rise in youth activism to confront war crimes. However, literature in transitional justice that addresses this phenomenon remains underdeveloped. This research draws on over two-dozen in-depth interviews with youth activist leaders across the former Yugoslavia focusing on their performance-based campaigns. Additional data was collected from online prosopographic analysis—which consists of studying common characteristics of these activists by means of a collective study of their lives and careers. In his findings, the author explains why the emergence of transitional justice youth activism in the Balkans falls short of the significant institutional reforms of earlier youth movement mobilizations in the regions. He also throws light on why their performance activism is distinct from practices of older, established human rights organizations in the region. Notwithstanding, he argues that this performance-based advocacy work has fueled the creation of a new spatiality of deliberation—so called strategic confrontation spaces—to contest the culture of impunity and challenge the politics of memory in the former Yugoslavia.
SPEAKERS
Arnaud Kurze: Visiting Scholar; Center for Global Studies, George Mason University
John R. Lampe: Senior Scholar Professor Emeritus; Department of History, University of Maryland – College Park Read more
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Tags : Arab League, Balkans, Egypt, Iran, Israel/Palestine, Syria
RSS - Posts
