Thursday, December 20, 2012
The push for armed intervention in Syria
In the article Intervention in Syria risks blowback and regional war Seumas Milne gives a good overview of the drive towards armed intervention in Syria with false arguments.
Friday, December 14, 2012
The Arab Spring: powergames versus real change
Today the NY Times has an article (In Cairo Crisis, the Poor Find Dashed Hopes) about disappointment in Egypt about the course of the revolution. A few days ago there was a rather similar piece about Tunisia. I am not astonished.
Before the revolutions there was high economic growth (about 7%). There were many complaints about corruption, but those Arab countries had low inequality - at a level comparable to the more equal European countries. That is quite an accomplishment when you consider that poor countries usually have rather high inequality.
Sure, a lot of young people were unemployed. But anyone could see that a revolution would only make things worse. The inevitable instability was bound to lead to a fall in economic growth. And despite the complaints about corruption it was unlikely - given the low inequality - that there was much to gain with redistribution. Those people advocating their revolution with economic arguments were plainly deceiving their audience.
That Ben Ali in Tunisia gave up after a short time was not an indication that the region was ripe for revolution - as Obama so eagerly assumed. It meant just that as a man in his 80s he didn't have the stomach for a big political fight.
In fact the Arab Spring was harmful. Instead of a discussion about real issues it resulted in endless power fights with a prominent place for the curse of the Arab world - Islamist organisations sponsored by the oil sheikhs.
Those protests could have had real results for the poor people - when they had not resulted in regime change. In that case the discussion could have focused on real issues: corruption and economic liberalization. Now the politicians are too busy fighting each other and gathering power to be concerned with issues like corruption.
Before the revolutions there was high economic growth (about 7%). There were many complaints about corruption, but those Arab countries had low inequality - at a level comparable to the more equal European countries. That is quite an accomplishment when you consider that poor countries usually have rather high inequality.
Sure, a lot of young people were unemployed. But anyone could see that a revolution would only make things worse. The inevitable instability was bound to lead to a fall in economic growth. And despite the complaints about corruption it was unlikely - given the low inequality - that there was much to gain with redistribution. Those people advocating their revolution with economic arguments were plainly deceiving their audience.
That Ben Ali in Tunisia gave up after a short time was not an indication that the region was ripe for revolution - as Obama so eagerly assumed. It meant just that as a man in his 80s he didn't have the stomach for a big political fight.
In fact the Arab Spring was harmful. Instead of a discussion about real issues it resulted in endless power fights with a prominent place for the curse of the Arab world - Islamist organisations sponsored by the oil sheikhs.
Those protests could have had real results for the poor people - when they had not resulted in regime change. In that case the discussion could have focused on real issues: corruption and economic liberalization. Now the politicians are too busy fighting each other and gathering power to be concerned with issues like corruption.
The future of international criminal law
I have always been rather skeptic towards the ICC, the ICTY and other efforts for international criminal justice. I believe in the primacy of politics whose job it is to guarantee peace and to provide the rules for inter-human behavior.
One claim of the international lawyers was that it would help to establish facts and so to prevent future disputes. The Nuremberg Trials didn't completely prevent Holocaust denial but they at least limited the damage - is the reasoning. But those trials also showed the arbitrariness of those rules. For example the bombing of (civilian) Rotterdam and London could not be proclaimed a crime because the Allies later on had done much larger scale bombings of German cities.
We see the same now with former Yugoslavia. In Slovenia - that started the violence and by doing so set the pattern for the rest - no one was even indicted. Croatia drove out some 400,000 Serbs and killed many hundreds of them - but again no one was convicted. In the end the only non-Serbs convicted of war crimes were Croats attacking Muslims.
Regarding politics the ICTY was just as bad. By sticking to the "Great Serbia" myth it evaded any realistic discussion about how politics in Croatia and Bosnia had derailed into war. Sure, Serbia played a role, but so did the EU with its harmful Badinter Commission.
Reports from Africa aren't very encouraging either. Finding a solution for the insurrection of the LRA in Uganda is seriously hampered by an ICC indictment of its leader Kony - that makes it impossible to offer Kony impunity in exchange for an end to the violence. More recently we see similar developments in Eastern Congo around the indictment of Ntaganda that led to the formation of the M23. Another tool of our modern "humanitarian warriors", the boycott of "blood diamonds" and other minerals led to their recent offensive.
And then there is Bangladesh. As the Economist recently reported (The trial of the birth of a nation) it has its own tribunal for crimes during its independence war in 1971. Yet the tribunal was only set up in 2008 and it seems mainly meant to harass the Islamist Jamaat party that during that war was allied with the Pakistani and is now part of the opposition.
Jadaliyya, an Arab magazine, has an article "Imagining Justice Beyond the ICC". It tells in detail how both the ICC and the R2P principle are in practice dependent on the main world powers for the supply of suspects and witnesses and how that undermines its neutrality.
One claim of the international lawyers was that it would help to establish facts and so to prevent future disputes. The Nuremberg Trials didn't completely prevent Holocaust denial but they at least limited the damage - is the reasoning. But those trials also showed the arbitrariness of those rules. For example the bombing of (civilian) Rotterdam and London could not be proclaimed a crime because the Allies later on had done much larger scale bombings of German cities.
We see the same now with former Yugoslavia. In Slovenia - that started the violence and by doing so set the pattern for the rest - no one was even indicted. Croatia drove out some 400,000 Serbs and killed many hundreds of them - but again no one was convicted. In the end the only non-Serbs convicted of war crimes were Croats attacking Muslims.
Regarding politics the ICTY was just as bad. By sticking to the "Great Serbia" myth it evaded any realistic discussion about how politics in Croatia and Bosnia had derailed into war. Sure, Serbia played a role, but so did the EU with its harmful Badinter Commission.
Reports from Africa aren't very encouraging either. Finding a solution for the insurrection of the LRA in Uganda is seriously hampered by an ICC indictment of its leader Kony - that makes it impossible to offer Kony impunity in exchange for an end to the violence. More recently we see similar developments in Eastern Congo around the indictment of Ntaganda that led to the formation of the M23. Another tool of our modern "humanitarian warriors", the boycott of "blood diamonds" and other minerals led to their recent offensive.
And then there is Bangladesh. As the Economist recently reported (The trial of the birth of a nation) it has its own tribunal for crimes during its independence war in 1971. Yet the tribunal was only set up in 2008 and it seems mainly meant to harass the Islamist Jamaat party that during that war was allied with the Pakistani and is now part of the opposition.
Jadaliyya, an Arab magazine, has an article "Imagining Justice Beyond the ICC". It tells in detail how both the ICC and the R2P principle are in practice dependent on the main world powers for the supply of suspects and witnesses and how that undermines its neutrality.
Sunday, December 09, 2012
Why Georgia's transition is no big deal
Georgia just got a new government. Many people see this as an example where a color revolution did work out well. I don't share that conviction.
Most dictators nowadays are "soft dictators". On paper everything looks fine: they have a parliament, elections, multiple parties and a free press. But they always find some way to stay in power: the opposition press faces libel trials or opposition media get bought by government friendly people, opposition leaders are bribed to change sides or see their citizenship challenged, government sponsored thugs disturb meetings, etc.
Color revolutions are a way to challenge these soft dictators. By building a lot of pressure at once they overwhelm the defenses of the dictator. But that they doesn't solve anything. You just get a different set of guys in power who - facing the same challenges - will very likely show similar behavior.
Real change happens on the basis of factual arguments. But color revolutions are based on lies. They claim that the present rulers are corrupt and incompetent and that when the opposition rules everything will become better. But corruption reflects a set of institutional and cultural defects that can only be cured with a sharp diagnosis and consistent effort. By focusing on people and power revolutions tend to divert the attention away from the structural issues. The consequence is that - just as the pigs in Animal Farm - they end up showing very similar behavior.
The problem with the recent power change in Georgia is that is looks a lot like a color revolution. Here it was a prison video that swung public opinion within a very short period and overwhelmed the defenses of the soft dictatorship. International pressure withheld Saakashvili from all too fragrant tricks. But as the underlying problems haven't been addressed it is rather likely that the new rulers will end up showing very similar behavior.
It may be seem better to have at least a regular change of dysfunctional government than consistently the same one. But in fact that depends. In countries where there is little alternative employment for dismissed ministers there is a great temptation to use the period till the next election to make their future safe. And the fact that Georgia's opposition won mainly thanks to the quirk of the prison video is an open invitation to the kind of soft dictatorship that tries to manage that kind of quirks to its advantage.
I do hope that Georgia's new leaders will turn out well. But we should do better to take a more distant perspective on what happens there.
Most dictators nowadays are "soft dictators". On paper everything looks fine: they have a parliament, elections, multiple parties and a free press. But they always find some way to stay in power: the opposition press faces libel trials or opposition media get bought by government friendly people, opposition leaders are bribed to change sides or see their citizenship challenged, government sponsored thugs disturb meetings, etc.
Color revolutions are a way to challenge these soft dictators. By building a lot of pressure at once they overwhelm the defenses of the dictator. But that they doesn't solve anything. You just get a different set of guys in power who - facing the same challenges - will very likely show similar behavior.
Real change happens on the basis of factual arguments. But color revolutions are based on lies. They claim that the present rulers are corrupt and incompetent and that when the opposition rules everything will become better. But corruption reflects a set of institutional and cultural defects that can only be cured with a sharp diagnosis and consistent effort. By focusing on people and power revolutions tend to divert the attention away from the structural issues. The consequence is that - just as the pigs in Animal Farm - they end up showing very similar behavior.
The problem with the recent power change in Georgia is that is looks a lot like a color revolution. Here it was a prison video that swung public opinion within a very short period and overwhelmed the defenses of the soft dictatorship. International pressure withheld Saakashvili from all too fragrant tricks. But as the underlying problems haven't been addressed it is rather likely that the new rulers will end up showing very similar behavior.
It may be seem better to have at least a regular change of dysfunctional government than consistently the same one. But in fact that depends. In countries where there is little alternative employment for dismissed ministers there is a great temptation to use the period till the next election to make their future safe. And the fact that Georgia's opposition won mainly thanks to the quirk of the prison video is an open invitation to the kind of soft dictatorship that tries to manage that kind of quirks to its advantage.
I do hope that Georgia's new leaders will turn out well. But we should do better to take a more distant perspective on what happens there.
Thursday, December 06, 2012
More fallout from Libya
The Jeruzalem Post reports:
Fifty percent of the Muslim Brotherhood-dominated Syrian National Council (SNC) budget came from the Libyan government. Since Libya is very much a US client, it’s reasonable to conclude that the Obama administration encouraged this generosity.
Yet this money was financing a Muslim Brotherhood front. (A lot of arms have been flowing from Libya to Hamas and other terrorist groups in the Gaza Strip and to radical forces in Syria. Some claim that the US government was coordinating that traffic, though this has not yet been proven.) If true, this means the Obama administration was using a barely disguised channel to fund a revolutionary Islamist movement seeking to take over Syria. That this group was also anti-American, anti- Semitic and genocidal toward Jews was apparently not significant. The rest of the SNC budget came from Qatar (38%) and Saudi Arabia (12%).
Fifty percent of the Muslim Brotherhood-dominated Syrian National Council (SNC) budget came from the Libyan government. Since Libya is very much a US client, it’s reasonable to conclude that the Obama administration encouraged this generosity.
Yet this money was financing a Muslim Brotherhood front. (A lot of arms have been flowing from Libya to Hamas and other terrorist groups in the Gaza Strip and to radical forces in Syria. Some claim that the US government was coordinating that traffic, though this has not yet been proven.) If true, this means the Obama administration was using a barely disguised channel to fund a revolutionary Islamist movement seeking to take over Syria. That this group was also anti-American, anti- Semitic and genocidal toward Jews was apparently not significant. The rest of the SNC budget came from Qatar (38%) and Saudi Arabia (12%).
Jihadi's on Israel's Syria border
Another report from Warsclerotic:
We estimate that there are between 3,000 to 4,000 rebel fighters belonging to radical Salafist groups who all belong under the al-Qaida umbrella,” the official said.
“Some of these fighters are fighting against the Assad regime, but there are groups that have begun deploying near our border and are stockpiling weaponry. There are now several hundred jihadis deployed along the border with Israel in the area of Kuneitra, Bir Ajam, Barika, and some other areas. The assessment is that they possess quantities of weapons that are not being used against Assad’s army and that it will be Israeli soldiers who will be faced with this weaponry. We are certain that they have MILAN, Metis-M, and Kornet anti-tank missiles, as well as shoulder-fired SA-18 anti-aircraft missiles, which are particularly problematic,” the intelligence official said.
We estimate that there are between 3,000 to 4,000 rebel fighters belonging to radical Salafist groups who all belong under the al-Qaida umbrella,” the official said.
“Some of these fighters are fighting against the Assad regime, but there are groups that have begun deploying near our border and are stockpiling weaponry. There are now several hundred jihadis deployed along the border with Israel in the area of Kuneitra, Bir Ajam, Barika, and some other areas. The assessment is that they possess quantities of weapons that are not being used against Assad’s army and that it will be Israeli soldiers who will be faced with this weaponry. We are certain that they have MILAN, Metis-M, and Kornet anti-tank missiles, as well as shoulder-fired SA-18 anti-aircraft missiles, which are particularly problematic,” the intelligence official said.
US navy in Mediterranian
Warsclerotic reports
The USS Eisenhower Strike Group transited the Suez Canal from the Persian Gulf Saturday, Dec. 1, sailing up to the Syrian coast Tuesday in a heavy storm, with 8 fighter bomber squadrons of Air Wing Seven on its decks and 8,000 sailors, airmen and Marines.
The USS Eisenhower group joins the USS Iwo Jima Amphibious Ready Group which carries 2,500 Marines.
Facing Syria now are 10,000 US fighting men, 70 fighter-bombers and at least 17 warships, including the three Iwo Jima amphibious craft, a guided missile cruiser and 10 destroyers and frigates.
Four of these vessels are armed with Aegis missile interceptors.
This mighty US armada brings immense pressure to bear on the beleaguered Assad regime after it survied an almost two-year buffeting by an armed uprising. Its presence indicates that the United States now stands ready for direct military intervention in the Syrian conflict when the weather permits.
Left behind in the Persian Gulf is just one US aircraft carrier, the USS Stennis and its strike group.
Postscript (6 December 2012): now 17 US warships off Syrian coast
The USS Eisenhower Strike Group transited the Suez Canal from the Persian Gulf Saturday, Dec. 1, sailing up to the Syrian coast Tuesday in a heavy storm, with 8 fighter bomber squadrons of Air Wing Seven on its decks and 8,000 sailors, airmen and Marines.
The USS Eisenhower group joins the USS Iwo Jima Amphibious Ready Group which carries 2,500 Marines.
Facing Syria now are 10,000 US fighting men, 70 fighter-bombers and at least 17 warships, including the three Iwo Jima amphibious craft, a guided missile cruiser and 10 destroyers and frigates.
Four of these vessels are armed with Aegis missile interceptors.
This mighty US armada brings immense pressure to bear on the beleaguered Assad regime after it survied an almost two-year buffeting by an armed uprising. Its presence indicates that the United States now stands ready for direct military intervention in the Syrian conflict when the weather permits.
Left behind in the Persian Gulf is just one US aircraft carrier, the USS Stennis and its strike group.
Postscript (6 December 2012): now 17 US warships off Syrian coast
US allowed Qatar to supply weapons to Libya rebellion
The NY Times reports (U.S.-Approved Arms for Libya Rebels Fell Into Jihadis’ Hands ) that the US gave Qatar permission to supply the Libyan rebels with weapons. But when the Qatari sent it to radical groups - about which rebel leader Jibril complained - the US had little leverage to influence them.
On Libya:
American officials say that the United Arab Emirates first approached the Obama administration during the early months of the Libyan uprising, asking for permission to ship American-built weapons that the United States had supplied for the emirates’ use. The administration rejected that request, but instead urged the emirates to ship weapons to Libya that could not be traced to the United States. [..] Qatar supplied weapons made outside the United States, including French- and Russian-designed arms, according to people familiar with the shipments.
The article has also a puzzling section about Marc Turi, an American arms trader who supplied Libyan rebels via Qatar: The Qataris, he complained, imposed no controls on who got the weapons. “They just handed them out like candy,” he said.
On Syria:
The Obama administration did not initially raise objections when Qatar began shipping arms to opposition groups in Syria, even if it did not offer encouragement, according to current and former administration official
The Top Ten Myths in the War Against Libya
On Libya:
American officials say that the United Arab Emirates first approached the Obama administration during the early months of the Libyan uprising, asking for permission to ship American-built weapons that the United States had supplied for the emirates’ use. The administration rejected that request, but instead urged the emirates to ship weapons to Libya that could not be traced to the United States. [..] Qatar supplied weapons made outside the United States, including French- and Russian-designed arms, according to people familiar with the shipments.
The article has also a puzzling section about Marc Turi, an American arms trader who supplied Libyan rebels via Qatar: The Qataris, he complained, imposed no controls on who got the weapons. “They just handed them out like candy,” he said.
On Syria:
The Obama administration did not initially raise objections when Qatar began shipping arms to opposition groups in Syria, even if it did not offer encouragement, according to current and former administration official
The Top Ten Myths in the War Against Libya
Sunday, December 02, 2012
Arab Spring target Lebanon
The influence of Shiite Hezbollah in Lebanon has long been a thorn in the eye of the Wahabi Gulf dictatorships. In the past years Turkey and Qatar have tried to counter it by building up the Sunni-led Internal Security Forces in which General Ashraf Rifi and Wissam al-Hassan played a central role. Al-Hassan, who was recently murdered, played also a very important role in arming the Syrian uprising (see Syrian Rebels' Supply Lines and Lebanon: Lessons from Two Assassinations).
It seems clear that after Syria they will also aim for a Sunni takeover in Lebanon.
It seems clear that after Syria they will also aim for a Sunni takeover in Lebanon.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)