Peaceful change in the Arab world

A nice report (The Other Arab Awakening) in the NY Times tells how comments on Twitter and Facebook and the pressure of the Arab Spring are forcing the rulers of the Gulf States - including Saudi Arabia - to pay more attention to the needs of their subjects.

Four stumbling blocks for an Iran interim agreement in Geneva

According to DebkaFile the negotiations in Geneva are facing four stumbling blocks:

1) Iran will not shut down its underground enrichment plant at Fordo.
2) Work on building the Arak heavy water reactor will not be halted.
3) Iran will not allow the export of a single gram of its enriched uranium from the country.
4) Iran will not sign the Additional Protocol of the Non-Proliferation Treaty which expands international supervision of its nuclear program and permits snap inspections.

As I see it Iran is right in this in most of the points:
- this is about an interim agreement that should cover only six months. So asking Iran to do near irreversible things like signing the Additional Protocol shows bad faith.
- the same applies to forcing Iran to export enriched uranium. Iran uses that uranium in an experimental reactor to produce medical isotopes. Given time it would slowly consume its stock. Asking it to export it is a public statement that you don't trust Iran to keep its word. As such the demand is deliberate insult meant to sabotage the talks.
- Iran claims that the Arak reactor is just a replacement for another reactor to produce medical isotopes. Others claim its main purpose is to produce plutonium. That is a discussion that needs further exploration. So while it is fair to ask Iran to stop further construction, it should be done in such a way that if it would be decided later on to resume construction that can be done without much extra costs.
- the agreement is about stabilizing the expansion of Iran's nuclear abilities, not about abolishing them. The latter should be discussed for the definitive agreement. So rather than just shutting down Fordo the agreement should specify that Fordo should not be expanded or upgraded and should specify the amount of enriched uranium Iran is allowed to have. And Fordo should only be allowed to produce more when the stock falls below that limit.

A case of bad social engineering in China

In the 1960s many Western countries built large numbers of high flats. There was need for more housing and this was the cheapest way to provide that. Of course the houses had no gardens, but for the rest they were quite large and quite decently built. Yet soon these areas became problem areas and many still are. People who could afford it left and those remaining found themselves living in a high crime area. And as no one felt connected to them those quarters soon decayed - both the houses and the environment.

It was just one example of bad social engineering - people trying to design an environment for other people to live in.

Now the Chinese government has engaged in a similar experiment: it is building complete new cities and forcing people to live there. Predictably many people don't like this and employment fails to arrive. The result is once again desolate areas where no one likes to live.

It would be a much better policy if the Chinese government seduced some companies with subsidies and facilities to move to those areas. That would allow for a much more organic growth of those cities.

Postscript: The Chinese government has now announced a list of 60 reforms that it wants to introduce. Given how badly the Chinese government is implementing the urbanization I am rather pessimistic that it will do better on those other reforms.

The Saudi-Israeli whack-a-mole policy

Saudi Arabia and Israel are united in their opposition against any reconciliation with Iran. For very similar reasons.

Israel doesn't want strong adversaries in the Middle East. So it always tries to crush the strongest country available. That used to be Iraq and now that that is finished it has turned on Iran. Don't expect Israel to rest when Iran has become just as wrecked as Iraq: it will just start looking for the next strongest country in the region and target that. The alternative is reconciling with the Arabs. But that would mean giving up on stealing Arab land and that isn't popular in Israel. It doesn't help neither that Netanjahu is the kind of politician who thrives on sowing hatred.

Saudi Arabia is a country that was only formed in 1932. Its cohesion is weak. In fact it is just the project of the rapacious Saud family. It is somewhat doubtful whether the country would have survived without oil. Yet nowadays the Saudi has big visions of Saudi Arabia as the most powerful country in the Middle East. As he lacks the forces to project such power himself he depends on his money to seduce other countries to do the dirty work for him. As Iran is the strongest country at the moment it is the natural target.

So we have two countries that are inherently weak yet want to be kings of the hill. Both want crush the strongest country available as a threat to this ambition. But as they themselves are too weak to dominate that just will open the door for another country - that will become the next target of their ire. This is a whack-a-mole game that will never end. Western countries who let themselves be seduced to participate in this game will sooner or later conclude that they are fighting for a bad cause.

The misguided Geneva peace process takes another step

The false "friends of Syria" have produced another document on how they believe the Syrian peace process should be run. This is the communiqué issued by the London 11.

It comes with high aims: "The future Syria must be democratic, pluralistic, and respectful of human rights and of the rule of law.". Given what has happened in the other "Arab Spring" countries this is unlikely to be achieved. Worse, by putting so much stress on the process they avoid talking about what really should change in Syria. If you really want such a Syria you should begin by talking about how it should look. Only after that has been settled should there be elections. If you have a transitional government and elections first you create a Libya-style climate where the strongest dominates and where talking seems meaningless.

The continuing US desire to get a permission to use violence is also very visible. Article 13 claims that "Negotiations to form the TGB must not be open-ended. Delaying tactics should not be tolerated" and article 17 claims that "The agreement, which will be signed by the parties, certified by the participating states, and endorsed in a United Nations Security Council Resolution, shall be enforceable."

It seems to me a recipe for disaster.

Boko Haram is beatable after all

The NY Times has an article (Vigilantes Defeat Boko Haram in Its Nigerian Base) about how in Maiduguri in North East Nigeria Boko Haram has been pushed back by a vigilante militia that calls itself “Civilian J.T.F.” (JTF = Joint Task Force = a common name for the army). As Maiduguri is the capital of Borno province where Boko Haram is strongest this is highly significant.

The article is highly critical of the army and claims that the army does very little to combat Boko Haram and that it rather seems to consider the group as a nice excuse to ask for more money for the army.

How privatization in Serbia went wrong

RFERL has an investigative reporting article (Documents Show How Serbian Companies Were Pillaged By Offshore Firms) that discusses the fate of the company Agrohem that was privatizing in 2003 and then pilfered Russian style by some investment companies based in tax paradises. It was not the only one: According to the article Almost 2,000 of the 3,017 state-owned enterprises that were privatized between 2001 and 2011 have ceased operations or sunk into bankruptcy or are on the verge of closing down, according to the Social and Economic Council of Serbia, a joint governmental and labor-union body.

Reversing Somalia into a failed state - once again

It is well known how the US threw Somalia back into anarchy in 2009 with its support for the Ethiopian invasion against the Islamic Courts Union government. This was actually a quite moderate government but in Washington the name "Islamic" was enough to believe it to be Islamists.

Now we see a similar development with the closure of the Hawala system of money transfer. Several banks have already closed their support for the system and now Barclays is about to follow. The excuse is that some of the money may land with the al-Shabab guerrilla movement in the South of the country. However, for a country that is very dependent on remittances from emigrants, this could be devastating. After Barclays there will be some banks left but very probably they will soon come under similar pressure from America's (anti-)terrorists.

The chemical arms "norm"

Few people have noticed it, but Obama pulled a rather clumsy legalistic trick when he talked about the "norm" that chemical arms should not be used.

The 1925 Geneva Protocol forbids the use of chemical arms in wars between states. However, it does not forbid their use in civil wars. Neither does it forbid their use once the other side has used them.

This became a problem in 1988 when Saddam attacked Halabja with chemical arms. In a reaction a new and much stricter treaty, the Chemical Weapons Convention, was adopted in 1993. But while Assad signed the Geneva Protocol he never signed the convention.

So Obama had a problem with his red line as Assad didn't violate any treaty if he had used chemical arms. One because it doesn't forbid using them in a civil war, the other because he hadn't signed it. Of course Obama could have resorted to more general treaties about human rights and protection of civilians in a war, but that would make his red line statement specifically about chemical arms look a bit weird.

Obama's solution was to claim that so many countries have adopted the Convention that it has become the international "norm".

It is a rather ugly construction. It raises also the question whether it can be applied more broadly. The US has a bit of a habit to be the only country that doesn't sign some treaties. Should we hold them to those treaties anyway because they become the "norm"?