Tag: Tunisia
Let your people go!
Tonight is the Jewish festival of Passover, when we celebrate liberation. Last year, I called this season the Passover of Arab liberation, but noted the difficulties Syria was facing.
This year we seem to be somewhere in the middle of the ten plagues, with Bashar al Assad not even beginning to think about letting his people go (and in fact inflicting the plagues, which is not something pharaoh did). The mutual ceasefire deadline is set for April 12, provided Damascus pulls back from populated areas and ceases artillery fire on April 10. In the meanwhile, Bashar seems to have intensified the military attacks in an effort to do as much deadly damage as possible to his opposition. While I hope Kofi Annan’s effort is successful, you’d have to be Moses-like in inspiration to bet on it.
We should nevertheless consider the possibilities. If by some fluke the Syrian army really does withdraw from some places, I hope the revolution will tuck away its guns and somehow demonstrate its overwhelming superiority in numbers. It is particularly important that April 12/13 see a massive demonstration of opposition in Damascus and Aleppo, even if that means everyone just staying home in a general strike. It will also be vital that the UN deploy observers quickly, and in far greater numbers than the couple of hundred currently contemplated.
It seems far more likely that Bashar will not withdraw or cease fire. What then? There is really no sign of international will to intervene. Despite ample documentation of artillery attacks on civilian targets as well as helicopter operations, neither the Turks nor the Arab League are preparing serious military action to enforce a no-fly zone or create humanitarian corridors or safe zones. The Syrian security forces are busy mining the borders so that civilians can’t escape. While it seems unlikely that Bashar can prevail 100%, he is well on his way to reducing the opposition to a low-intensity insurgency, with the bulk of the population sullenly resenting but accepting restoration of the dictatorship. At least for a while, it is likely to be significantly more draconian than before the rebellion started.
This is a bad outcome, but I am afraid not the worst. If the fighting continues to escalate and Bashar still survives, the consequences could be catastrophic for the region. The violence might then overflow Syria’s borders and pose serious problems for Lebanon, Iraq, Jordan and maybe even Turkey. If Bashar manages to stay in place, it is vital that the Friends of Syria, that unwieldy conglomeration of more than 80 countries, maintain and tighten its efforts, in particular the sanctions and diplomatic isolation. We see in Burma how strategic patience can win the day.
Many of my friends and colleagues are appalled that nothing more is being done. I can’t describe myself as comfortable with this state of affairs. But it is important to recognize that there are other priorities on earth. The Administration’s first concern has to be Iran. There is no way to get a negotiated solution to its nuclear challenge, or prevent the Israelis from using military means, unless the United States maintains a credible military threat. Entering a war with an uncertain outcome in Syria would not be a smart prelude to dealing with Iran. American resources, though large, are not infinite–we wouldn’t want to run out of cruise missiles or suffer serious aircraft losses in a second priority fight.
There is also a diplomatic factor. The best way to mount a credible threat against Iran is with UN Security Council backing. What are the odds of the Russians conceding that if we go to war with Syria without their cooperation? The odds may not be good in any event, but we need at least a small chance for success.
So I am afraid our Syrian heroes will need to continue their efforts. I still prefer they be nonviolent ones. Nothing that has happened in the last few weeks of violent attacks convinces me that the Free Syria Army will shorten the reign of Bashar al Assad by as much as a single day. It is far more likely that their attacks will frighten large numbers of people who might otherwise have joined nonviolent protests.
I’ll pray for the Syrians at Seder tonight, as I trust many Jews around the world will do. Not because I think praying will do the Syrians any good, but because the parallel between today’s Syrians and our own liberation narrative should inform our sensibilities. The people of Syria are seeking the freedom that Tunisians, Egyptians, Libyans and Yemenis have all started to enjoy, even if they are still at the beginning of their journeys through the wilderness. I hope the Syrians catch up soon.
The most frequent injunction in the Old Testament is to treat a stranger like ourselves:
…you shall love him as yourself, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt… {Leviticus 19:33-34}
Bashar: let your people go!
PS: I missed this Monday, but you shouldn’t:
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Believe what they do
While Eric Trager over at the Washington Institute continues to warn that Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood seeks a monopoly on power, Carnegie Endowment yesterday hosted Islamist politicians–including an Egyptian adherent of the Muslim Brotherhood–swearing fealty to pluralism. The day-long event–of which I attended only the first session on “Building New Regimes After the Uprising”–started off with Islamists from Tunisia, Morocco, Egypt and Jordan.
Tunisia
Sahbi Atig, a Tunisian National Constituent Assembly member representing Ennahda, said that Tunisians want is a “civil state” and protection of individual rights. The Tunisian revolution has been fortunate to have broken cleanly with the autocratic regime without much violence. The army stepped aside willingly and is now out of politics–soldiers cannot even vote. Tunisia has now conducted free and fair elections to a pluralist constituent assembly operating under a temporary constitution.
The constituent assembly seeks a broad consensus based on Islamic and Arab identity but also guaranteeing individual liberties through institutions like a constitutional court and independent electoral and media commissions. Women’s and minority rights will be respected. Sharia will be a basis for freedom and justice.
The current government is seized with economic issues: unemployment, foreign investment, the need for more development in the interior. Accountability and transitional justice will be important issues, but settled only by dialogue and consensus. Questioned about his 16 years in prison, Atig made it clear they had taught him to oppose torture and advocate for freedom.
Morocco
Mustafa Elkhalfi, now Minister of Communications, claimed that Morocco’s “third path” is working: meeting the demand for reform without instability. The King reacted promptly to the “February 20” movement, promising good governance, transparency, rule of law. There is now a new constitution, real elections have been held, there is an Islamist prime minister and a governing coalition that includes Amazighs (aka Berbers). The monarchy has provided unity, modern religious leadership, and preservation of pluralism. There is a dynamic and active civil society with more than 50,000 private organizations and a culture of integration that includes Amazighs as well as leftists, in addition to Islamists and other political forces.
There are four main challenges: implementation of the new constitution (especially its provisions for freedom press and expression, women’s equality and an independent judiciary); real decentralization of governance (including the Western Sahara); answers to economic and social challenges like poverty, electricity, health and education; and revived regional cooperation with Morocco’s neighbors.
Egypt
Abdul Maegoud Rageh Dardery of Egypt’s Freedom and Justice Party (a Muslim Brotherhood outfit), suggested that Egypt had made mistakes in the past by either slavishly following European practices or trying to depart entirely from them. He would like to see Egypt respect its own traditions but learn from the Europeans.
Egyptians yearn to live free under the rule of law. They want a civil state with reference to Islamic principles (not rulings in the FJP view) as the main source of law. The new constitution will be written by committee chosen half from outside parliament, which includes 20 parties. The FJP refused to claim the chair of all the parliamentary committees, preferring to distribute responsibilities more widely. The Supreme Council of the Armed Forces is trying to hold on to its privileges but the FJP wants to avoid a military-industrial complex.
Dardery was at pains to underline that sharia simply means rule of law and jihad means exerting an effort. The FJP will take a pragmatic approach to alliances, making common cause with whoever supports its program.
Jordan
The tone got darker with Nabil Alkofahi, a member of the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) in Jordan, which has undergone very limited reform. Elections in 2007 were fraudulent, he said, leading the Brotherhood to boycott them in 2010. The King is still stalling on reform, preferring to keep in place a constitution that gives him, his government and the military too much power. He uses the Israel/Palestine conflict, and the division between West Bankers and Jordanians, to distract attention and delay reform.
The King should be part of the solution, not part of the problem. The MB wants a constitutional, pluralist and civil state to conduct free and fair elections. There is no history of religious oppression in Jordan. But there is a need to eliminate military tribunals and the excessive role of the intelligence services. The MB itself is internally democratic, he claimed. Women participate.
Alkofahi was blunter than the others about Israel. While at pains to say that individual Jews and Christians should be treated correctly in Muslim countries, he underlined that Israel is occupying Palestine. Israel, he said, needs to end its aggression and respect Palestinian rights, including the right of return. But he promised a clear MB policy on the issues only when they gain power.
The bottom line: It was good to hear these rising political figures deal forthrightly with the issues Americans have on their minds, well-posed by Carnegie’s Marwan Muasher. But ultimately we’ll need to assess what they do, not just what they say. Trager’s warnings should not be ignored.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
A year on in North Africa
I enjoyed a fine event yesterday at an undisclosed location discussing north Africa from the Mediterranean littoral to northern Nigeria. Arab Spring was the overall theme, but with very explicit recognition that it has manifested itself differently in different national contexts. The event was not for attribution, so I can’t offer you the names of the distinguished folks involved, but here is a quick summary:
Tunisia: Still looking like the best of the lot, with a glass half full and continuing to fill. The mostly conscript army refused to fire on civilians, the old order has been willing to yield its positions and there have been Islamist moderates (Ennahda) on the rebel side. There could still be splits that would endanger moderation and the elections may not be held before October 23, as planned. Big issues include whether to have a presidential or a parliamentary constitutional system and whether Islamists will insist on implementing legislation for sharia. This was a political rather a social revolution, but so far a successful one. The U.S. should encourage trade and investment with Tunisia and leave ownership of the revolution with the Tunisians.
Libya: The National Transitional Council has had the advantages of uniting the opposition under reasonably good leadership and with decent planning, but it now faces serious challenges from people who are feeling excluded:
- Youth, who are particularly resentful of demobilization, disarmament and reintegration (DDR) plans on which they were not consulted;
- Tribes: some of them resent the failure to investigate the assassination of General Younis;
- Women: they get only lip service;
- Those seeking redress for mistreatment by revolutionary forces, especially the population of Tuarga, a town whose population the Misratans have vengefully displaced.
Power post-war is increasingly coming to depend on weapons, capture of high-value regime personalities, and a claimed role in the fighting, rather than on programmatic proposals for the future. Islam could become a source of division in Libya, but so far there is little debate because most Libyans agree it has a central role in their society. Still, there is a risk that Salafist elements, who have attacked Sufi shrines, may ignite tribal and sectarian tensions.
The NTC has been in a hurry, more concerned with speed than the quality of the transition process. The U.S. should focus not on the constitutional framework per se but on broad principles: participation of women, protection of minorities, and a broadly representative system of governance.
Egypt: Islamists of one sort or another have captured about 75% of the parliament. In Egyptian eyes, they stand for rule of law, an end to corruption, cultural authenticity and an end to foreign interference. For virtually all Egyptians, sharia simply means justice.
The economy is in free fall, with tourism hit hard, currency reserves plummeting, government bonds selling only at high interest rates and credit to business drying up.
The Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF) wants immunity from prosecution and continued control over large portions of the economy. It is cracking down hard on protests.
So far as U.S. interests are concerned, the picture is mixed. Egypt does not appear to be breeding violent extremists. Anti-Americanism is more overt, but military to military cooperation is so far not much affected. Egypt will not support U.S. military action as readily as it did at times in the past, but a U.S. aid cutoff seems unlikely.
On Israel, Egyptians are concerned with the below market sale of their natural gas but they are unlikely to support abrogation of the Camp David peace. They will be more vocal and critical of U.S. support for Israeli settlements, attacks on Gaza and a possible attack on Iran.
The U.S. will do well to accept the election results, not ask the Egyptians to like Israelis, and practice strategic patience. The responsibilities of power will moderate Islamist forces in Egypt and restore balance to its relationship with Israel.
Morocco: The King has successfully taken the initiative and coopted the push for a constitutional monarchy, preserving his absolute powers behind the smokescreen of the new constitution he proposed. Social protests are continuing, but there is no serious political challenge to the monarchy. The legislature is weak. Security is a problem, one the relatively weak state may not be able to manage effectively. An uprising is not impossible but unlikely due the regime’s skillful maneuvers and the lack of an effective political opposition.
Algeria: There are lots of reasons why there should be a revolution: mass discontent, especially among the young and more educated, deep and wide corruption, lack of transparency and the state’s contempt for its citizens, widespread disillusion with the political system, social inequities, dependence on oil and gas, the demonstration effect of other north African rebellions, wide availability of social media.
But it isn’t happening. Algeria in many respects already has a democratic political culture, with frequent strikes and relative media freedom. It has used its oil and gas revenue effectively to appease the population, which disdains the state but shows little sign of despising the political leadership, in particular President Bouteflika. The military coup and civil war of the early 1990s have left many Algerians unwilling to risk a challenge to the established order.
Still, something might happen. A presidential succession looms, as do legislative elections (May 10). The political leadership is aging and it is not clear who will inherit.
The Sahel: The presentations focused on particular issues. First was Al Qaeda in the Maghreb, the Algerian terrorist group that has been largely defeated inside Algeria and has now turned to crime: smuggling, human trafficking, drug trade, kidnapping. It is making lots of money. The second was northern Nigeria, where Boko Haram is tying down the Nigerian security forces. That, the situation in the Delta and contestation between Christians and Muslims in central Nigeria are making it difficult for the Nigerians to play a major role in meeting the Sahelian challenge.
I focused on possible approaches to security in the Sahel, based on experience elsewhere. My personal conclusion is that the Sahel today does not today present a serious security challenge to the United States, but some preventive effort there–especially regional cooperation on community-level development, tracking terrorist financing and border controls–would be appropriate.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
A not so luminary 57
Colleagues over at the Foreign Policy Initiative and the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies have lined up 57 luminaries to advocate the following policy prescriptions on Syria:
- Immediately establish safe zones within Syrian territory, as well as no-go zones for the Assad regime’s military and security forces, around Homs, Idlib, and other threatened areas, in order to protect Syrian civilians. To the extent possible, the United States should work with like-minded countries like Turkey and members of the Arab League in these efforts.
- Establish contacts with the Free Syrian Army (FSA) and, in conjunction with allies in the Middle East and Europe, provide a full range of direct assistance, including self-defense aid to the FSA.
- Improve U.S. coordination with political opposition groups and provide them with secure communications technologies and other assistance that will help to improve their ability to prepare for a post-Assad Syria.
- Work with Congress to impose crippling U.S. and multilateral sanctions on the Syrian government, especially on Syria’s energy, banking, and shipping sectors.
Does this approach have merit? Let’s look at the components one by one.
Safe zones would require a major U.S. military operation to take down Syria’s air defenses and a major military ground operation, presumably by Turkey and the Arab League, to push back the Syrian army armor and artillery from the safe areas. This would still leave Damascus and Aleppo in Bashar al Assad’s hands. It would also divide the country in a way likely to exacerbate sectarian tensions: Sunnis would likely flee to the safe areas, if in fact they are safe, and Alawis and Christians away from them to Damascus, Aleppo and other areas. Some of this of course is already happening, but it could get worse.
“Full range of direct assistance” presumably means arms to the Free Syria Army (FSA). This will reinforce the drift toward civil war, but it is unlikely to give the FSA means sufficient to win on the battlefield. A prolonged, increasingly sectarian armed conflict in Syria is among the worst outcomes from the U.S. perspective. It could destabilize Lebanon, Iraq and other countries in the Middle East.
I can only agree with the improving coordination with the political opposition and provision of more secure communications technology. But I’d be surprised if the Administration didn’t claim it was already doing the former and more surprised if it hasn’t begun to do the latter.
Crippling sanctions seem to me a good idea–at least as crippling as what we are already imposing on Syria’s sponsor Iran. The war, as the 57 point out, is already a proxy war–we may as well treat everyone on the other side equally.
So I’m with the luminaries half way: the non-military half. They are correct that more than humanitarian considerations are at stake, but they have failed to show how the military action they recommend would improve the situation.
If they really believe military action is possible and desirable, they should come up with a better proposition: destroy the command, control, communications and intelligence centers of the Syrian state and you will see a quick and decisive end to the killing of civilians by the Syrian army as an organized force. The trouble is you won’t know what will eventually take over, and in the interim you could trigger sectarian bloodletting that would make the current situation look like child’s play.
I remain convinced that
- the U.S. and Europe are not interested in intervening militarily;
- diplomatic and political means have not been exhausted, even if they so far have been ineffectual.
I am every bit as appalled as the 57 luminaries by what Bashar al Assad is doing in Syria. But before we do something big and expensive, best to make reasonably sure that it will improve the situation, not make it worse.
“Friends of Syria” will meet at the ministerial level in Tunisia next Friday. That is a good time and place to consider an amplified diplomatic and political effort. I’m sure the military options will be discussed as well, but I’ll be surprised if anyone is ready and willing.
P.S.: Here is what will bring down Bashar al Assad faster than “safe zones” and arming the FSA. This is one of a claimed 41 mini-protests staged in Damascus today:
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
This is called retrenchment
We all anticipated this State of the Union speech would not focus on international issues, but here is my short list of more important things not mentioned or glossed over:
- West Bank settlements (or Palestinians)
- North Korea
- Euro crisis
- Africa or Latin America (not even Cuba),
- Bahrain or Saudi Arabia, virtually no Egypt, Tunisia or Yemen
- China (except as an unfair competitor)
- Turkey, Mexico, Brazil, India or even Russia (except as an emerging market)
- Pakistan (except as an Al Qaeda haven)
- Strait of Hormuz
That’s a pretty spectacular list, even without noting the absence of NATO, Japan, allies, Europe, the UN…
A few notable items that were mentioned:
- Strong on regime change in Syria (putting Assad in the same sentence with Qaddafi could have implications) and on exporting democracy and free markets in general
- Positive about peaceful resolution of the dispute with Iran over nuclear weapons, while keeping all options on the table
- Trade agreements with South Korea, Panama and Colombia
- Burma as the hope of the Pacific!
Of course the President also mentioned withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan, security cooperation with Israel, blows delivered against Al Qaeda, and the troops (no mention of civilians serving abroad this time around I’m afraid).
If this is a prelude to the campaign, as rightly it should be, it presages an ever more economically focused foreign policy, with security issues narrowed to a few top priorities and little focus on diplomacy except on a few specific issues. This is a vision for restoring American economic strength at home, not increasing–or perhaps even maintaining–its commitments abroad. This is called retrenchment.
PS: I should have mentioned that Richard Haas calls it “restoration.” That’s a more positive word, but the substance is the same.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Arab world: positive balance, still teetering
I need a scorecard to keep track of political change in the Arab world, so here it is:
- Egypt: New Egyptian parliament led by Muslim Brotherhood met for the first time yesterday. It needs to choose a commission to write the new constitution and call elections for president in June. Other powers are uncertain. Supreme Council of the Armed Forces still running things and holding on to perks and power.
- Yemen: President Saleh has left for the U.S. for medical treatment. I still find it incredible he would come here given the risks of a court deciding to hold him accountable for crimes for which he has immunity in Yemen. A single-candidate “election” February 22 is scheduled to elevate his vice president to the presidency. It is unclear to me what good this will do. Protests continue, his relatives cling to power and dissident parts of the armed forces control parts of the capital.
- Libya: Demonstrators in Benghazi Sunday attacked National Transitional Council offices in a protest over lack of transparency in deciding the electoral law to be used in May elections and in disbursing money. That’s the good news. Occasional strife among the armed militias is the bad news.
- Syria: The Arab League, much criticized because its human rights observers have failed to stop the violence, proposed a serious transition plan, which the Syrian National Council accepted and the Assad regime rejected. The Russians are saying that their patience has run out. A strong UN Security Council resolution would be a fine way to show that they mean what they say.
- Saudi Arabia: The Kingdom is cracking down hard on demonstrations in the majority Shia, oil-producing east.
- Bahrain: Despite the Bassiouni report‘s frankness about human rights abuses during last year’s repression of protests, the monarchy shows no sign of letting up and the Americans, anxious to keep the Fifth Fleet there, aren’t complaining too loudly.
- Morocco, Algeria, Jordan: All attempting various degrees of reform to forestall revolution. Largely succeeding so far. In forestalling that is. Reforms are modest.
So what once looked like a wave of Arab spring protest has now broken into rivulets moving in many different directions as they hit harder and softer obstacles. A few regimes are gone, but most are still holding on, in some cases just barely. Tunisia is the great success story, so far.
There are quite a few shoes that haven’t dropped yet, but likely will: Egypt’s economy is devastated, shoulder launched antiaircraft missiles are circulating in and beyond Libya, Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula may well expand further in Yemen, sectarian war threatens in Syria. The new regimes, especially in Egypt, look likely to be tougher-minded towards Israel, even if domestic issues predominate in the short term. 2012 is likely to be even more challenging than 2011.
Still: the overall direction is clear enough. There will likely be more freedom of speech and expression in much of the Arab world once this tide goes out. There will also be more Islamists in power and fewer supposedly secular and pro-Western autocrats. There will likely be more political competition, though how long it will be permitted to last is uncertain. It is also unclear how much governance will improve, in particular whether accountability and transparency will triumph over cronyism and corruption, and whether human rights–especially minority rights–will be respected. The balance for the year is positive, but there are still a lot of things to sort out.
RSS - Posts
