The Qaddafi in their heads
The Carnegie Endowment hosted a discussion this week with Jonathan Winer, former Special Envoy for Libya at the Department of State, on the future of Libya. Frederic Wehrey, Senior Fellow at the Carnegie Endowment, moderated the conversation.
In late 2013, when Winer arrived in Libya, he saw a disconnect between politics and government. The system had been purposely designed to serve Qaddafi exclusively and strip state actors of any decision-making abilities or legitimacy. “The Qaddafi in their heads” meant no one else could make decisions or enforce them effectively. This made it difficult for the US to engage with Libyans and resulted in a deeply divisive political system nearing anarchy.
Winer then discussed his experience trying to cobble together a functional government by bridging the gaps between political actors. Working with the Libyan leadership was frustrating given the low-intensity civil war through 2014. Winer rejected the idea of an international trusteeship, citing this as post-colonial behavior. He favors Libyan ownership in creating a single functional government.
Three precepts have helped the US work with other countries and can be applied to Libya:
- There should be a single negotiating process for everyone, with the United Nations at the core bringing all actors to the table.
- We should work with other countries that are patrons of Libyan clients to influence their actions and support reconciliation of different factions.
- Benefits should be distributed to everyone throughout the country.
The upcoming 2018 elections are an opportunity to agree on a government and move away from the political legacy of Qaddafi. According to Winer, the fundamental problem is that people in leadership positions do not have the expertise required. They lack a roadmap, face constant threats from actors such as ISIS, and need to respond to demands for fast and complete solutions. It is no surprise the government is not functioning.
One major concern is the role of spoilers, including General Haftar, Islamist parties, and violent non-state actors. Winer is hopeful that Haftar has pulled back from his coup intentions and will be willing to work within a government framework. He was also careful to define the Libyan arm of the Muslim Brotherhood party along the same lines as its other regional parties and cautioned against excluding groups before knowing the consequences of that action. Winer noted that Libya’s neighbors suffer greatly from terrorist organizations in Libya and that the US has attacked terrorist training bases with the consent of the Libyan government.
Winer said that every country wants Libya to work, but ultimately Libyans do not like others telling them what to do. It would be “suicidal” to attempt a takeover of Libya: “imperial overstretch.” The result would be polarizing and dangerous, as extremists line up with extremists and Libya devolves into full-scale civil war. Thus, it is paramount to the country’s stability to focus on politics, as security and the economy will follow. Looking into the future for US policy, Winer said that he could not blame the new administration for wanting to change course, but feared change that could risk civil war, polarization, or a humanitarian disaster.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
It’s the oil
On Monday, Georgetown University’s Centers for Contemporary Arab Studies and Latin American Studies hosted an event “Oil, Authoritarianism, and Populism” to compare governance in the Middle East and Latin America after the discovery of oil. The discussion featured Daniel Neep, author of Occupying Syria under the French Mandate: Space, Insurgency and State Formation, Georgetown Associate Professor Joseph Sassoon (author of Saddam Hussein’s Ba‘th Party: Inside an Authoritarian Regime), and Angelo Rivero Santos, adjunct professor and director of Venezuela Programming at the McDonough School of Business.
Neep described the study of the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) as idiographic, isolated in part due to the complexity and variety in the region itself. At the end of the Cold War, the field of international relations started to shift and scholars increasingly focused on democratization. By the 2000s, the conversations switched to ways authoritarianism evolves and roots itself in the context of state and society. Much of this research is concerned with individual nations or bilateral comparisons, with little attention paid to international trends. Neep argued that there is much to learn from international interregional comparison. Comparisons between Latin America and the Middle East are particularly interesting. Populist authoritarianism is more successful in the Arab world, but Neep pointed out that political society’s conception of authoritarianism started in Latin America. He highlighted state-led industrialization, class uprisings, and land reform as key elements in comparisons of pre-2005 Syria, Egypt under Nasser, and South American countries. It is essential that scholars look at similar experiences across the globe to fully understand long term trajectories.
Additionally, Neep highlighted the error in thinking of authoritarian and democratic systems as diametrically opposed, or even as different“species.” He rejected the tendency to consider authoritarian regimes as a stage before the development of a democratic system. A more accurate way of thinking frames authoritarianism as a particular type of state. He went on to cite the current political crisis in the US as an example of crossover, a democratic regime with (potential?) authoritarian characteristics.
Sassoon identified fundamental elements of Middle Eastern regimes congruent with Latin American history such as widespread use of torture, a strong security apparatus, and a strong military. Yet, despite its military dictatorships, Latin America managed to move past authoritarian structures. Sassoon proposed that oil might be the factor retarding democratic progress in the MENA region, especially considering the failure of the 2011 uprisings in the region. Sassoon points out that Iraq and Egypt were more developed than Chile in the 1960’s, but this couldn’t be farther from the truth today. Aspirations for reform suffered from a lack of proper opposition and control of the ruling party.
Latin America possessed requisite structures to establishing a strong opposition entrenched in civil society that are not present in the Middle East. Sassoon warned that whether nations are producers or intermediaries of oil, there is too much reliance on the resource. This is a fundamental issue. No country has figured out how to divert oil wealth into something more productive. Sassoon used Libya as an example of this challenge; when Gadhafi took power Libya was a rich country, with no border disputes and no enemies in the world. Forty years later it is a failed state.
Santos identified Venezuela as the best country in Latin America to compare with the Middle East because of its position as the second biggest oil producer in the Western hemisphere after the US. The history of democracy in Venezuela is complicated, with over 25 constitutions since it’s independence in 1810. Equally complex is its relationship with oil: it is both a curse and a blessing. Oil propelled Venezuela to relevancy in the world stage through membership in OPEC and the Jose Accords, and triggered social and political transformations at home. But the country is a classic example of “Dutch Disease,” where the discovery of oil shifted the formerly diverse agricultural economy to one dependent on a single resource.
Venezuela differs from many countries in the MENA region because the government always believed that the oil belonged to the people, and worked to create social contracts that addressed the role of oil in society and how to distribute resource wealth. However, you cannot distribute wealth that you do not have, and Santos remarked that low oil prices cause problems such as the current unrest.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Hard to keep up
It really is: the novice President has set a blazing pace in destroying alliances, alienating friends, strengthening adversaries, and provoking enemies. To wit:
- Phone calls with the traditionally friendly President of Mexico and Prime Minister of Australia ended in acrimony, with the former over who would pay for the border wall and with the latter over whether the US would keep its commitment to take some refugees.
- Europeans are predictably objecting to the ban on immigration from seven Muslim-majority countries. Chancellor Merkel has scolded the White House. The Brits are going to debate in parliament whether to go through with their Prime Minister’s invitation to Trump for a state visit, which would likely generate record protests.
- The Islamic State (ISIS) is using the immigration ban for recruiting purposes, as it fits perfectly with its narrative that the United States is at war with Islam while doing absolutely nothing to reduce the likelihood of terrorist attacks.
- National Security Advisor Flynn and the President have explicitly put Iran “on notice” about its missile tests and its assistance to the Houthi side of Yemen’s civil war. Watch this space for more sanctions or military action, though it is also possible the Americans are bluffing or just satisfying their domestic constituencies. The Iranians are likely to continue both missile tests, which they say do not involve nuclear-capable vectors, as well as assistance to the Houthis.
- Trump approved a Special Forces operation in Yemen that largely failed (he announced that it succeeded) and killed civilians, including children, as well as one American.
Binyamin Applebaum, who writes for the New York Times, has helpfully prepared a map illustrating those Trump has angered since taking office (click on the legend to read it):
No doubt more is in the offing. And the domestic front has been no less hyperactive: nomination of a Supreme Court Justice whose high school years included leading a club called “Fascism Forever” (you really can’t make up stuff as good as this), preparation of an executive order on “religious freedom” that would create giant loopholes enabling discrimination, and approval in the Senate of an Attorney General with a compelling record of racism and (il)legal efforts to suppress voting by minorities.
This would all be comical but for the likelihood it will lead to tragedy. While offending friends and allies, Trump remains committed to his bromance with President Putin, who shows no sign of giving Washington anything of value in return for its affection. The war in Ukraine is heating up and the Russians have nixed Trump’s proposal for safe zones in Syria, which can’t be created unless Russia as well as its Iranian and Syrian allies sign on.
Iran is the most likely point of serious friction, not only because of Flynn’s warning but also because the new administration appears determined to teach lessons that Tehran doesn’t want to learn. But North Korea is another possible friction point, as Pyongyang has the same attitude. War with either would be a major enterprise rife with risk and gigantic expense that few allies would be willing to share with a president who has no appreciation for the long history of America’s relationships with them. Trump is a unilateralist who will incur the full costs of any intervention against Iran or North Korea. He will find it difficult even to get multilateral sanctions beefed up against the North Koreans, as he has already done a lot to offend China.
America First is America on its own.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Still damaging
President Trump’s Executive Order affects a minor portion of international travelers, and is a first step towards reestablishing control over America’s borders and national security.
This in essence is the administration’s defense of the President’s executive order barring citizens of seven Muslim-majority countries from the US. It completely misses the point.
First: the US already has control over its borders. Vetting of refugees is intense. Vetting of people who get visas and green cards is as well. I suppose there are ways of tightening things up, but it could have been done without presidential executive orders and worldwide publicity inimical to US interests. I know of no evidence that immigrants or refugees pose a serious national security threat.
Just as important: the executive order’s main impact is on people with no intention of traveling to the US, first and foremost the world’s rapidly growing population of 1.6 or more billion Muslims, including 3.3 million who already reside in the US. They will view the order as unjustified and prejudicial, causing at least some to be disillusioned, alienated, hostile, and even radicalized. It will help ISIS and Al Qaeda recruit and inspire retaliation. If I understand correctly, Iran and Iraq have already responded by blocking the entry of Americans.
The ban is in fact part of a long history of barring immigration: by Chinese, Jews, anarchists, Communists, Iranians, and HIV positive people. In almost all these cases, the bans have proven useless, regrettable, unconstitutional, or immoral.
The current ban is likely all of the above. Immigrants from the countries in question (Syria, Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen) have conducted no terrorist attacks in the US since 9/11, though Somalis born in the US have been accused of plotting them. The odds of the ban blocking someone plotting such an attack are essentially zero. They might be higher if people coming from the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Belgium, Turkey, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and other allied countries (not to mention Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Tunisia) were barred, but Trump won’t block them for fear of the reaction.
The administration already appears to be regretting that the ban blocked Iraqis who had supported the US military. The President’s indication that Christians will be given priority in the future is clearly unconstitutional, but of course any court decision on that question might be years in the future. Singling out Christians will, as Michael Hanna suggested this morning in a tweet, put them at heightened risk throughout the Middle East, where some Muslims will regard the favoritism as aligning Christians politically and militarily with the US. “Do no harm” is the moral imperative most of us like to see applied in international relations. Or at least do more good than harm. The administration ignores that dictum at its peril.
The courts last night blocked application of the ban to people who have already arrived at US airports. But it remains in effect for 90 days for those who have not yet reached US shores. Airlines are blocking people with passports from the countries in question from boarding, even if they have valid visas or green cards.
In other words: the demonstrations last night at airports were great, but Trump continues to cause real harm to American interests and ideals throughout the Muslim world. Our European allies recognize this and are protesting, sometimes loudly. But it is up to Americans to get Trump to reverse his foolish and counter-productive decisions.
PS: Fareed Zakaria says it well:
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Trump is encouraging radicalization
Among the first refugees blocked last night from entering the US under the President’s new executive order were an Iraqi who had worked for 10 years for the US government and the spouse of one already in the US who had worked for a US contractor. Both had been extensively screened and presumably had good grounds for fearing persecution, which is a requirement for refugee status. This is the way America treats those who work on its behalf?
The President also let it be known yesterday that he intends to favor Christians once reopening the door to refugees from temporarily blocked Muslim countries. He claims, without any evidence whatsoever, that they were discriminated against previously. Let there be no doubt: Christians may have good reason to fear persecution in some of these countries and would likely be a higher percentage of the refugees than anticipated based on their population. But favoring them across the board is, as my Twitter feed put it yesterday, “rank bigotry.” What better way is there to convince Muslims that America is biased against them?
I have no doubt but that some of these idiocies will in due course be corrected. The Congress and courts, respectively, are not going to go along with them. As in other cases, the President will yield to pressure: people who worked for the US government and Muslims will get into the US, after long and entirely unnecessary delays that put their lives at increased risk.
That is little comfort. The damage will already have been done. Muslims worldwide are watching this administration and learning that it regards them as America’s enemy. Alienation and exclusion are primary factors in radicalization. Some small percentage of those watching will move in that direction. Trump is giving them more reason to do so, not less. This of course includes American Muslims, who have been responsible for the vast majority of terrorist plots inside the US in recent years. None of those plots have involved refugees from the countries Trump has blocked.
The US has been at war with Islamic extremism at least since the invasion of Afghanistan in 2001. Trump has pledged to eradicate it. Instead he is giving people more reason to target Americans, who are at risk both at home and abroad. Let there be no doubt: Trump is encouraging radicalization.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Winning hearts and minds from ISIS
In the first of AEI’s Bradley lecture series this year on Tuesday, Graeme Wood, author of The Way of the Strangers: Encounters with the Islamic State, discussed the mentality of ISIS followers and recruits. Moderator Fred Kagan, Resident Scholar and Director of the Critical Threats Project at AEI, framed the discussion in two ways. First, he noted that ISIS does not represent a problem with Islam as a religion but rather elements related to Islam. Second, he contextualized ISIS within a larger movement of Salafi jihadi threats, explaining that a narrow focus on ISIS alone is problematic.
Wood discussed current US policy towards ISIS, in particular the cycle of recognizing a threat, countering with decisive military action, supporting regional autocrats who will help America, and creating a “fortress America” in which the US limits Muslims’ movements into and around the country. Wood believes this is a less than coherent policy and fails to address the larger hearts and minds campaign that ISIS has successfully waged among its followers and recruits.
Wood met several Islamic State followers in order to better understand the draw of the organization for its many recruits. In the early days, it was possible to watch conversations unfold on social media, which made it easier to discover individuals and reach out to them to discuss their motivations for joining. Islamic State recruiters spanned the globe, establishing digital and physical presences in different countries and acting as the public arm translating the Islamic State to potential recruits. One of Wood’s most influential interviewees was Musa Cerantonio, an Australian convert who acted as the English language voice and translator for ISIS. Conversations with Cerantonio provided insight into the pervasive nature of Islamic State’s messaging campaign.
There were two main takeaways from these interviews. First, the dominance of religion, whether scripturally accurate or not, causes strict adherence to the apocalyptic vision of the Islamic State. Despite setbacks in Syria and Iraq, ISIS followers’ belief continue to strengthen. Secondly, dissemination of knowledge from the Islamic State across the world has become remarkably easy. For example, in tracing Cerantonio’s Islamic education , Wood discovered that Cerantonio’s teacher was an American who had committed his life to serious Islamic learning and study. What this demonstrates is how the Internet has radically democratized the playing field, making it easier for anyone to spread the ISIS message, increasing the group’s global footprint as well as its danger.
American has failed to address the ISIS’ appeal, which has penetrated the minds of Muslims globally. While it is good to have strong military leadership, the plan for winning the hearts and minds is less clear. A key aspect to countering ISIS attacks is to manage fear, contextualize attacks when possible, and provide for populations while further delegitimizing Islamic State terror.
Because Middle Eastern and Islamic states are on the front line of these conflicts, Wood said that it is imperative to address the systemic problems of poor living conditions and violence within the countries. Because these governments are not good at granting liberty to their people, desperation leads many to look for something else, finding ISIS an appealing option. Kagan here also added that the US pours kerosene on the fire by creating a global crusade against Sunnis and not distinguishing between groups.
ISIS has made itself the best option for people who seek powerful actors to help achieve their goals and aims. The most effective way to counter its appeal is to make ISIS a less unattractive proposition, by lowering its social status. If the Islamic State is no longer the coolest kid on the block, it will be far less effective and the US might have a better chance of managing its threat.
RSS - Posts
