Winning polls and digging holes

I hope everyone had a great Thanksgiving!  As finals week starts moving closer, its crunch time to get all of my research papers done for the semester.  I think there is nothing more exciting than reading a good book about international politics that covers a currently important topic that usually gets little attention.  One of my International Studies professors recently recommended a book to me to get a better understanding about the topic that I chose for my Bachelor thesis: Islamist Organizations in Egypt.  The Struggle for Egypt by Steven A. Cook has been a great read so far and I have to recommend it to anyone seriously interested in what is happening in Egypt right now.  The book gives a great understanding about the frustration that the Egyptian people have had for the past century and why they have come to demand their political and economic freedoms now.

Keeping in line with my little book recommendation I will be talking about the upcoming elections in Egypt, and the decision that the parliament of Iran has just made (yes, they do have a parliament believe it or not).

Was it hijacked or does it just need time?

The revolution that ended in the resignation of Hosni Mubarak on February 11^th, 2011, finally shows some fruit.  The people of Egypt will go to the polls today to vote in the first round of elections for members of the 508-member strong lower house of the Egyptian parliament.  However, continues protests are troubling the piece and quiet that is required to hold ordered elections. Current head of state, Field Marshall Hussein Tantawi, has warned the Egyptian public that if the elections fail due to the violence that has been happening in places like Tahrir Square, there would be dangerous hurdles in the future.  Meanwhile, the Muslim Brotherhood has taken a backseat in the protests taking place in Tahrir, anticipating winning at least 25% of seats in the upcoming elections.  The Brothers’ passiveness in the protests against the current military junta has been viewed negatively by the Egyptian people who fear that the current military regime might cling to power.  Yet, “who will benefit from all the chaos?” The Economist asks.  Unfortunately, it does not seem as if the protesters in the streets will, since old political parties like the Wafd Party, the Freedom and Justice Party, and the Al-Tagmmu Party are likely to win at the polls.  None of those parties really represent the protesters in the street.  For more information on the technicalities of the elections please check out a very informative chart that Al Jazeera Online has released here and for more information on the parties participating in the elections please check out BBCs website here.

Personally, I am hopeful that the elections will go off smoothly.  Even though the protesters might not be represented directly by any of the parties, to have an election at all is a start.  A routine for parliamentary democracy needs to be established as soon as possible so that the military leadership can be replaced by a civilian one.  Once the civilian leadership is established, a party that represents the unemployed youth of Egypt can be voted into place.  The one thing that should be made sure is that no party gets voted into place that has limits to democracy on its agenda.

Digging a deeper hole for itself

After further sanctions to be imposed by the United Kingdom on Iran, the Parliament of Iran has voted to downgrade diplomatic ties from ambassadorial level to the level of charge d’affairs.  The move comes after the announcement of the UK treasury that Britain would cut all financial ties to the Central Bank of Iran.  This comes as a reaction to the IAEA report that directly linked the Iranian Central Bank to the financing of the nuclear program of the Persian state.  87% of the members of parliament voted in favor for the bill and the affirmative vote would have been even stronger if measures against the UK would have included even more severe measures like the closure of the UK embassy in Tehran .

As mentioned in the article by The Guardian above, Iran is only putting itself into deeper isolation in the world of international politics.  It has really come to the point where there is no need for sanctions anymore, because Iran feels so alienated that it will put itself in the corner.  Has the sanctions regime reached its goal?  Iran is still going for the nuke so I guess not, but at least it has reached a stage where Iran is an active supporter of the sanctions levied against it.

Other Links

Iran arrests 12 'CIA spies' for targeting nuclear plans

Yemeni President Saleh signs deal on ceding power

Arab League approves Syria sanctions

Saudi police on high alert

Moderate Islamists eclipse closest rivals in Moroccan elections

A Nod to the Past and Fear for the Future

Happy Thanksgiving!  Well, Happy Thanksgiving three days ahead of time.  I on my part can’t wait to stuff myself and spend the rest of the weekend digesting and complaining about what a bad idea it was to have eaten so much food.  More importantly though I hope that Black Friday will serve as a good indicator for an economy that is still on a recovery track.  Every dollar spent increases demand which helps create jobs.  So get out there and take advantage of those Black Friday Deals, because after all, “the only thing we have to fear is fear itself.”

This week I will discuss the renewed protests that have sprung up in Egypt’s Tahrir Square this past weekend, and I will also give a little recap of how the revolution in Libya has affected neighboring countries.

1952/2011

Protesters are once again crowded into Tahrir Square, Cairo’s main thoroughfare, in a response to a draft document that gives guidelines for the constitution that is soon to be drafted.  Under the guidelines, the military as well as it’s budget would be exempt from civilian oversight.  Similar to the events that took place in New York City’s Zuccotti Park, Tahrir Square was cleared of all protesters and tents and banners were removed.  Yet, the methods by which protesters were evicted differed greatly, as military police used tear gas and rubber bullets (fired at head height) to disperse the crowd.  Concerns are now growing among many Egyptians that the current military council has hijacked the revolution, reminiscent of the coup d’etat of the Free Officer's Movement in 1952.

When Gamal Abdel Nasser and his Free Officers (among them Anwar al-Sadat and Hosni Mubarak) smashed the previous political system almost sixty years ago, they took it upon themselves to set the foundation for an Egyptian political system.  The system they hoped would pay less attention to their quasi-colonizer Britain, and more attention to the needs of the Egyptian people (especially peasants and other members of the lower class).  Their plans were noble and altruistic, but the system that they created paralyzed Egypt socio-economically and led to the circumcision of all political movements to empower the single most powerful party, the National Democratic Party (NDP).  What is different between 1952 and 2011 is that the military council in control now (Free Officers in 1952/Supreme Council of the Armed Forces in 2011) is that the Supreme Council (SCAF) does not have a foreign power that it can blame to gain widespread political support.  With the guidelines for the new constitution proposed by the SCAF it cannot be out ruled that the military is planning on an undemocratic future.  It is crucial to keep in mind that one of the conditions for a truly democratic political system is the control of civilians over the military.  This is something the council clearly opposes.  So once again, the people of Egypt have all the rights in the world to crowd Tahrir Square and protest for a future that allows the people of Egypt to be represented accurately.

Libya’s relations to the Desert

Now that Gaddafi is gone and Libya is on its way towards a new political reality, it has to be careful that it does not fall under the hands of an outside regional power like Saudi Arabia in the case of Lebanon, or Iran in the case of Iraq.  Qatar seems to be a good candidate for becoming a patron trying to influence domestic politics in Libya according to The Economist.  Meanwhile, Saif al-Islam Gaddafi, son of Colonel Muammar Gaddafi, was captured dressed up as a camel herder outside of Zintan where he will receive his trial.  The danger of high-tech weaponry escaping the country into Mali, Niger, and Chad is now present as Tuareg rebels, formerly supported by Gaddafi, take the guns they acquired during the revolution back to their countries of origin.  Guest workers from Niger are now also left without a source of income which will greatly reduce the amount of remittances sent back to this poor African state.

The phenomenon of having a patron state seems to become more and more common.  Not only does Libya seem to slowly fall into Qatar’s “sphere of influence,” but Turkey has also shown interests in establishing a no-fly zone over a Syria in turmoil (see the link in the “Other Link” section below).  Foreign influences in the region need to be contained as countries like Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey become more and more dominant.  According to some international critics, Saif al-Islam Gaddafi should get a trial in The Hague.  As mentioned in an earlier article of mine, I do support that Saif should be tried in Libya.  Maybe he will get the death penalty, but if it helps forge a tighter knit Libyan society, then Saif might have to be the sacrifice to achieve that state of relative peacefulness.  It is sad how the African continent is often brushed aside in importance.  The impact of the Libyan revolution is indeed very grave and could lead to instability in Mali, Niger, and Chad since Tuareg rebels gained new arms in the Libyan conflict earlier this year.  Hopefully, Libya will play an equally as important role in employing guest workers as it did before the revolution and hopefully, it will do a better job than the previous regime in appeasing the Tuaregs and making them fit into their respective societies.

Other Links

Arab League rejects Syrian demand to change peace plan

Protesters storm Kuwaiti parliament

Iran 'influenced' Iraq over US troops' exit

Palestinian president to seek unity government with Hamas

Syrian rebels attack Ba'ath party offices in Damascus

Why Iran Is going for Nukes and Why Regional Exclusion matters

 “A citizen of America will cross the ocean to fight for democracy, but won’t cross the street to vote in a national election.” – American saying.

This week was national Election Day, and unfortunately as usual the voter turnout was most likely less than 50% of the voting-eligible population.  Judging from the above saying you can probably see how I feel about the low voter turnout.  As a citizen of Germany, the right to vote was apparently brought back to my fellow countrymen and me by the American forces that defeated the fascist Third Reich.  Imagine how it must feel to see that democracy lacks the active support of the majority of American people.  To vote on the future of the most powerful nation of the world is a privilege that I would love to have.  So do your nation (and me) a favor and use the privilege that was given to you by our troops.  On that note, I hope you thanked a veteran on Veterans Day!

This week I will discuss how a nuclear Iran would impact the United States and Iran’s neighbors, and the fact that Syrian was suspended from the Arab League and what this might mean for the future of Bashar Al-Assad’s regime.

What a Nuclear Iran means to US

With the release of the recent IAEA report about Iran’s nuclear program it now seems clear and obvious that Iran is trying to acquire a nuclear warhead.  Understandably, Israel and other countries in the region now fear that a Shiite Iran, already standing out as stranger to its mostly Sunni neighbors, will show no remorse using a nuclear warhead. 

I think it is time for Israel and the United States to face the fact that Iran will inevitably possess nukes.  Does that make it right?  Of course not.  Yet, Iran would not be the first country to acquire nuclear warheads if one is to believe the rumors about the Israeli arsenal of weapons.  A nuclear Iran would ensure that Israel will be more considerate before striking targets outside of its borders (especially Hezbollah in southern Lebanon), since a nuclear Iran could threaten to respond disproportionally with a nuclear warhead.  The most important thing to consider now is not how to keep Iran from going nuclear, but how to make Iran fit into regional politics as a nuclear power while making sure that no one else tries to go down the nuclear road.  Other measures besides the relatively weak sanctions program of the UN will have to be considered to ensure that no one else gains the potential to annihilate human life so effectively.

Can intervention by a regional body lead to the end of a regime? (I’m sure Gaddafi would think so.)

Syria is set to be suspended from the Arab League on Wednesday after a deal that was struck between the League and Syria did not show the desired effects of ending the bloodshed perpetrated by the Syrian regime against its own people.  Syria promptly called for an emergency meeting before the suspension takes effect so that the case can be reviewed.

If the Syrian regime did not know that full membership in the Arab League mattered to its continued survival, it would not try to petition the Arab League’s decision to suspend it from the organization.  Besides another victory for the international system for being so influential on states, this shows us that Syria has just entered the murky waters that Libya was in about half a year ago.  Even though the League does not support a no-fly zone like the one that contributed to Gaddafi’s downfall, the suspension adds more pressure to Syria and makes it an even bigger outcast than it already is.  The suspension was followed by raids from Syrian civilians on the embassies of the countries that voted in favor of the suspension.  If that does not show what kind of actions the Syrian state supports than I do not know what does.

Other Links
Bahrain breaks up terror cell - state media
Iran explosion at Revolutionary Guards military base
US defense chief Panetta warns against Iran strike
Egypt closes Pyramid amid 11/11/11 rumours
In Pictures: The world in 24 hours

Revolution from within and averting violence from without

“Remember, remember the 5^th of November the gunpowder treason and plot.  I know of no reason why the gunpowder treason should ever be forgot.”  Those are the lines that start one of my favorite movies: V for Vendetta.  The movie depicts the steps that lead to an all out revolution against a fascist government in a fictional Great Britain of the future.  The movie certainly seems to be inspired by the book 1984 written by George Orwell.  A book that I would strongly recommend everyone reads in order to get a better idea of what it might be like to live under a government that controls absolutely everything about you.  I am sure that there are those in Egypt who can very well connect to the live of Winston Smith, the protagonist of 1984.  Constantly afraid of discovery by the secret police, he ultimately shares the fate that many of the enemies of the Egyptian state suffered under Nasser, Sadat, and Mubarak.

To chime in with my piece from two weeks ago entitled “Negotiating with the Bad Guys,” I will briefly discuss an article written for The Guardian which discusses why it is not bad to talk to people like Gaddafi, and then I will move on to give my two cents on how states should engage diplomatically with Syria.  As always check the end of the post for interesting links.

Why negotiating with rogue states is important

In his article “There’s no shame in talking to people like Gaddafi,” John Deverell makes the argument that direct negotiations and relationship building between government officials is a useful way in which to guarantee world peace.  His title specifically refers to the success of convincing the Libyan government to abandon its nuclear arms program.  Yet, he also gives some great examples like the Good Friday Agreement reached between the IRA and the British Government under the guidance of Senator George Mitchell in 1998, or the recent exchange of prisoners between Israel and Hamas for the Israel soldier Gilad Shalit.  All three of these examples could not have happened without serious involvement of government officials.

I seriously support John Deverell in his argument.  Negotiations should be the first and hopefully last resort in avoiding potential conflict.  Let’s go ahead and apply his thinking to another potential conflict.  Instead of taunting each other, there should be closer negotiations between Israel and Iran led by an easily deniable third party.  This could be done by an NGO that is willing and able to go back and forth between the two states.  This way, basic terms for a peaceful resolve could be laid out to each other and talks could move to the infamous stage of “talks about talks.”  Possibly a conflict could be averted and Israel would not have to hold drills for missile attacks like the ones that are shown in the link at the bottom of the post.

Why recognize an illegitimate regime

Robert Ford, the Ambassador of the United States to the Syrian Republic, was pulled out of Syria after he was accused by local media (widely controlled by the Syrian state) of aiding Syrian rebels.  These accusations were followed with threats to his life online and on the walls of his very home. 

The posting of a diplomat to a state implies that there is at least some kind of recognition by the sending state for the receiving state.  After what the Syrian government has done to its people during the past months in the uprisings that have been taking place, the State of Syria does not deserve any recognition by any other state.  Therefore, I believe that the United States should not only pull out its ambassador to Syria, but it also pull out all remaining personnel stationed in the country.  By taking away recognition to the regime of Al-Assad, his position as the legitimate leader will be challenged and those remaining under the impression that he should remain in power will be weakened in resolve.  The United States should herald in a movement that could set a beginning to the end of recognition of the illegitimate regime of Bashar Al-Assad.

Other

In Pictures: Eid al-Adha

Graves of the deposed, exiled and reviled

Activists on Gaza-bound vessels detained

Israelis hold drills for missile attack

New Iran nuclear report set to increase Middle East tensions