Month: June 2012
Mendacious
As regular readers will have noticed, I’ve avoided writing about the Balkans lately. There are a lot more interesting things going on elsewhere in the world. But Greece’s decision to put stickers reading “recognized by Greece as FYROM” over the MK on newly issued Macedonian license plates is too fine an opportunity to pass up.
Greece is doing this allegedly under the 1995 interim agreement with the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM), whose application for NATO membership Athens has blocked, first in Bucharest in 2008. Greece repeated its move more recently in Chicago this year, despite an International Court of Justice (ICJ) decision unequivocal in finding Greece in violation of the agreement in Bucharest.
Where I come from, if you want to apply an agreement you have to fulfill its terms yourself first. Greece understands this perfectly well and accused Macedonia of being in violation of the interim agreement during the ICJ proceedings. Its accusations were found to lack serious merit. Now Athens, having been found in violation, is seeking to apply the agreement it refused to apply in Chicago.
Words fail me. Mendacious maybe. They have apparently failed Skopje as well, which in the initial press report is said to be weighing its response. That’s wise. There is really no point in aggravating the situation further, tempting though it may be to do so.
But I’m not a government. I’m a blogging/tweeting professor and can suggest anything I like. I only risk hate tweets and emails. Maybe a sticker to cover the GR on Greek plates that reads “Southern Macedonia”? Or one that says “I am Greek traveling in a country whose name I don’t accept”? Ethnic Macedonians and Albanians with Greek license plates would have to be exempt from that one. Or one that declares “interim agreement be damned”?
Here in DC, most license plates read “taxation without representation,” because residents of the District of Columbia pay Federal taxes but have a representative in Congress who can’t vote in plenary (and no senators–even states smaller in population than DC are entitled to two).
Slogans of all sorts grace the license plates of most cars in the United States. I’ve always thought it unimaginative of Europeans not to use that bit of valuable real estate on the back of a car for something edifying. My favorite proposal (it isn’t reality) was for Wisconsin, a big dairy producing state: “eat cheese or die” (New Hampshire’s plates really do read “live free or die”).
Greece of course has bigger problems these days than the “MK” on its northern neighbor’s license plates. It would do well to save a few euros by cutting the funding for those “recognized as FYROM” stickers. It would do even better to stop violating an agreement it wants to apply and allow FYROM to enter NATO.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Playing chess with Mike Tyson
I might wish that were the name of William Dobson‘s book about how dictators are adjusting to contemporary pro-democracy rebellions, as the original text of this post said, but really it’s Dictatorship 2.0. I haven’t read it but intend to do so, as there was a lively discussion of it yesterday at the Carnegie Endowment with Karim Sadjadpour chairing, Dobson presenting, Otpor‘s Srdja Popovic and Marc Lynch commenting.
It is hard to be an old style dictator today, Dobson avers. Really only North Korea is left, as Burma has begun to adjust. The plug can’t be pulled on communications, which means dictators need to get savvy and use more subtle forms of repression: targeted tax inspections, contested but unfree and unfair elections (preferably with the opposition fragmented), control over television and the courts, big handouts to the populace. Dictatorships today do not aim for ideological monopolies but rather to prevent and disrupt mobilization.
Oppositions have to adjust as well. Srdja outlined the basics: they need unity, planning and nonviolent discipline. They must be indigenous. Internationals can help, mainly through education and help with communications. Protesters need to avoid confronting dictatorial regimes where they are strong and attack them where they are weak. You don’t challenge Mike Tyson to box; better to play chess with him. This means avoiding military action in Syria, for example, and focusing on the regime’s economic weakness. The contest is between opposition enthusiasm and the fear the regime seeks to impose. Humor and “dispersive” tactics that do not require mass assembly in the streets (work and traffic slowdowns, boycotts, graffiti, cartoons) are increasingly important in reducing fear.
Marc emphasized the sequence of events in the Arab awakening: Ben Ali’s flight from Tunisia made people elsewhere realize what was possible, Mubarak’s overthrow in Egypt made it seem inevitable, Libya and Yemen were far more difficult, a reversal that has continued in Syria, where the regime has substantial support from Alawites and Christians afraid of what will happen to them if the revolution succeeds. The tipping point comes when perception of a regime changes from its being merely bad to being immoral.
So who is next? Saudi Arabia and Jordan are in peril, Marc suggested. Bahrain is living on borrowed time. Srdja suggested Iran, which is moving backwards towards an old style dictatorship after the defeat of its Green Movement, can only be challenged successfully if the protesters learn from their mistakes. They need better leadership and a focus on the state’s inability to deliver services. China, Dobson said, has been good at pre-empting large protests. Burma may not be adjusting quickly enough to avoid an upheaval.
I didn’t hear mention of Russia, Cuba, Algeria, and lots of other places that might be candidates, but no one was trying to be comprehensive. Wherever they may be, dictatorships will adjust to what they see happening elsewhere and try to protect their monopoly on power from those who challenge it. Their opponents will also need to adjust. It is thus in both war and peace.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Pakistani media highs and lows
Ilona Gerbakher wasn’t entirely happy with the earlier draft of her piece, which I posted prematurely. So I am posting a rewrite:
Pakistan’s lively but undisciplined media sector was the focus of a Tuesday panel at the United States Institute of Peace on “Pakistani Media: Getting Beyond the Hype.”
Steve Inskeep, the moderator and a host on NPR’s Morning Edition opened the discussion by asking the panelists how they would describe the Pakistani media today. Asma Shirazi, a protégé of Imran Aslam and a senior anchor/producer of SAMAA TV (a Pakistani satellite news channel), used the word “maturing” to describe the emergence of an independent media corps in Pakistan over the last two decades:
Our media is not very mature, but…our journalists are working day and night. They get threats from the…Taliban, and it’s a very different and difficult society…I think it will take some time, but I think we should be hopeful.
She referenced her experience of death threats and being followed by the ISI as one of the first female anchors to work during the Musharraf era and called for a media lobbying group or press council to help protect journalists.
She also underlined the ability of the independent Pakistani media to speak “truth to power,” particularly where women’s rights are concerned. When Shirazi started working on public Pakistani television, nobody was willing to talk to her, in part because of gender. Now women’s attitudes about their own rights are changing. They want to live like human beings in a society where girls are not being killed just because of something said in the media.
Wendy Chamberlain, President of the Middle East Institute and former US Ambassador to Pakistan, shifted the discussion to a comparison between the American and Pakistani media, describing both as “info-tainment, driven by audience ratings, profit and the bottom line.” This has led to immaturity in the American media, making it more like the media in Pakistan today, as in both countries the emphasis is on giving the audience what they want to hear rather than what they need to hear. Ambassador Chamberlain urged both to take a close look at themselves and to remember that accuracy and educating the public are serious responsibilities. Imran Aslam agreed, noting that “commercialism is as great a censor of free thought in Pakistan” as the army.
Cyril Almeida, assistant editor at DAWN (Pakistan’s oldest English language newspaper), characterized Pakistani media as open. He claimed that there is nothing in Pakistan that you cannot discuss in media or print anymore and asked if that might be too much. Imran Aslam, president and chief content officer of GEO TV (one of Pakistan’s leading independent media outlets) replied with the words “maddening, vibrant, diversified.” He was ambivalent about the current multiplicity of narratives available to media consumers in Pakistan. Official state television once had the important function of creating a uniform public narrative and a (possibly false) sense of nationhood, where dissenting voices were not heard. Now electronic media have fallen into the trap of commercialization, fracturing the unity of the national narrative.
Cyril Almeida and Imran Aslam described the 2009 lawyers’ movement as the apex of electronic media power. Today the Pakistani media is coming to terms with its own limitations after getting a taste of real power for a few years at the end of the last decade. Aslam added, “the 2009 lawyers’ movement really went to the media’s head, like cocaine—the anchors became rock stars…” He suggested that the word “cocaine” be added to the list of words describing the Pakistani media.
Imran Aslam emphasized that the Pakistani media is not anti-America but opposes American policies. He noted that the greatest ambition of the average Pakistani child is an American education. Despite objections to American policies in the region, America’s cultural capital in Pakistan is still strong.
This rather rosy picture was immediately belied by a disagreement between Ambassador Chamberlain and Asma Shirazi, who said that Pakistanis feel abandoned by America. She remarked with some heat, “You had one 9/11. We are having daily 9/11’s just because of the US.” Ambassador Chamberlain quickly denied responsibility. As the argument about 9/11 became more heated, what emerged from the panel was a sense of what Imran Aslam called “mutual incomprehension:” even a panel of experts in Pakistani-American relations could not seem to come to an accord.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Bearly civil
Russia is not America’s “number one geopolitical foe,” as Governor Romney suggested in March, but newly reelected President Putin is definitely a pain.
His meeting with President Obama yesterday produced little or nothing on the two main issues for the United States: Syria and the Iranian nuclear program. Meanwhile, the Brits stopped a shipment of refurbished Russian attack helicopters headed for Syria, while the Iranians thumbed their noses at the U.S.-backed nuclear offer. It’s a good thing the nuclear talks, which are continuing today, are being held in Moscow, since that gives the Russians an incentive to float new ideas and prevent a collapse. The Russians will do what they can to pass the hot potato on to the next meeting, reportedly to be held in Beijing.
The problem isn’t so much that Russia is a geopolitical foe with the capacity to do America serious harm, which is what it was during the Cold War. The problem is that Moscow controls some things Washington needs, like the northern supply route to Afghanistan and the Security Council consensus on blocking Iran’s nuclear program. The U.S. can manage without these things, but it can manage much better with them.
Presidents Obama and Putin looked none too pleased with each other yesterday at their meeting in Mexico, during a G-20 summit. Putin, who is trying to re-establish Russia’s great power status, figures sticking it to Obama will help him demonstrate that Russia is indispensible. Obama has both hands tied behind his back, because–contrary to what one of my Twitter followers suggested yesterday–he needs Putin’s help on Afghanistan and Iran, even if Russia is today a middling power.
This makes for an uncivil relationship, one that could end with tragedy in Syria and catastrophe in Iran. The Russian bear hasn’t got the capacity to project power that the Soviet one had, but it is leveraging its weakened position effectively. I share President Obama’s preference for multilateralism, which has virtues in particular for dealing with Iran and Syria. But it is important to keep open other options, if only to counter a middling power seeking to leverage its assets.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Impotent superpowers
The significance of today’s joint Obama/Putin call for democratic transition in Syria is, as usual, in what is not mentioned. Neither the Russian arms shipments to the regime nor the Saudi and Qatari arms flowing to the opposition are mentioned. Ditto the suspended UN monitoring mission. There is no hint of intervention other than through the Annan plan and the UN Security Council. The Americans are essentially accepting the Russian emphasis on dialogue and peaceful means, while reiterating their hope for eventually democratic ends.
Hope is not a policy. The question is whether something else lurks behind these words. I doubt it. Note the emphasis in the statement on the P5+1 nuclear negotiations with Iran. Note also the emphasis on supplying Afghanistan from the north. Russia is vital to both. Bucking Putin in Syria would not be smart if the higher priority is blocking Iran’s nuclear program from achieving “break out.” So long as Pakistan is blocking the usual land routes into Afghanistan, Russia is vital to NATO supply lines.
The statement is silent on Egypt. It appeals for North Korean implementation of a 2005 (sic) agreement. The Middle East peace process statements it references are more recent, but no more effective.
There is very little else in the statement that would excite my interest. I can’t imagine why Jackson-Vanik, legislation whose premises (non-market economy and restrictions on emigration) became obsolete years ago, is still in effect. Russia in the World Trade Organization is clearly going to be better for the United States than Russia outside. But I’ve got to give Putin and Obama extra credit for this:
This year we together celebrate the 200th anniversary of Fort Ross in California, which was founded by Russian settlers and underscores the historic ties between our countries.
Anodyne is not a policy either, unless you want to convey how impotent the former superpowers have become.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Cemented or demented?
The Egyptian Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF) has conducted an autocoup (that’s a coup conducted by people already in power against another part of the governing establishment) in the past few days. It has taken advantage of the Supreme Constitutional Court’s decision on the parliament to arrogate to itself legislative powers. It had already asserted arbitrary powers to arrest and detain.
After the polls closed yesterday, it even issued a constitutional declaration giving itself broad powers, no matter who is elected president. This is as clear an indication as any that Muslim Brotherhood (Freedom and Justice Party) candidate Mohammed Morsi won the presidential election, as his adherents have claimed.
The American press describes the army as “cementing” power. That’s unquestionably what they are trying to do. But it is unlikely to work. No army would find it easy to run a country as big and as complicated as Egypt on its own. The SCAF will discover quickly that it doesn’t want to deal with food subsidies, marital status laws, female genital mutilation and lots of other things that Egypt’s citizens think important.
It won’t be easy for the SCAF to govern, but it won’t be easy to back out either. New parliamentary elections could bring the Islamists to power, again. The backlash might even strengthen their position, which reached 48% of the parliamentary seats in the last polls. SCAF will find itself in a tug-of-war with Morsi, who will have democratic legitimacy on his side. Unless the army and the Brotherhood can come to terms, Egypt is in for a tumultuous time.
The role of the army in the Egyptian revolution has been problematic from the first. It evicted Hosni Mubarak from power. At every juncture since, the SCAF has sought to preserve its own power and interests, even as the people of Egypt demanded more freedom and control over the country’s destiny. It would be unrealistic to expect the SCAF to change its behavior any time soon.
So the key question now is how the people of Egypt react. Will they again take to the streets in overwhelming numbers to demand that the revolution continue? Or will they prefer the promise of law and order to the risk of chaos? Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood will have an important role in this difficult choice. Will they seek, despite the odds against it, a pact with the army, or will they throw their organizational talents into street demonstrations against it, hoping to improve the terms of the bargain or even chase the SCAF from power?
It is yet to be seen whether the military has cemented power, or has deluded itself so thoroughly that its moves will be seen one day as demented.
PS: I can’t imagine anyone will ever find this here, but just in case you are someone who missed it, here is Jon Stewart’s interview with Egyptian heart surgeon/comedian Bassem Youssef:
RSS - Posts
