A week full of halves

And here we go.  The last semester of my college career has finally started and I couldn’t ask for better conditions!  Relatively easy classes and an outstanding line-up in terms of jobs really leaves me optimistic for the months to come.  Here is to the Spring 2012 semester.  Let’s finish of strong with a 4.0!

This week: the difficulty of finishing of a revolution and what to expect from an Egyptian parliament under Brotherhood rule.

A job halfway done

As Libya moves on into a future without Gaddafi, it has to face what too many other countries after a revolution already have: the difficulties of making the succeeding regime seem legitimate in the eyes of the revolutionaries.  The attacks on the offices of the transitional government earlier this week give testimony to that.  While Libya is fighting with itself to restore order (and put all those loose weapons back into their lockers) it has difficulty upholding international treaties that the previous regime had signed.  The due date for complete eradication of chemical weapons in Libya by April 29^th, 2012, as part of global initiative to eliminate chemical weapons will not be kept by Libya due to the political turmoil in the country.

The problem is not starting the revolution, but ending it.  Yes, everyone might agree that it is time to pick up arms and change the status quo, but the ideal state that is envisioned by each individual that takes part in a revolution is very different.  How to appease the people, especially those that filled the ranks of the militias that drove Gaddafi’s regime to ruin?  The attacks on the transitional government’s offices took place because of the continued presence of Gaddafi’s cronies in the current regime.  Take them out and only the most radical will be left to fend for their fringe political ideals.  Then maybe Libya can face more urgent problems, like the eradication of chemical weapons in a country that has seen a surge in violence due to the lax culture surrounding weapons and violence that follows a revolution.

Into a brighter future?

The final results of the parliamentary elections in Egypt are finally in and the Muslim Brotherhood (to the dismay of many Israelis and Islamophobists) will provide 47% of the 508 member strong lower house of parliament.  Surprisingly, only 54% of all those eligible to vote showed at the polls.  The Brotherhood was quick to assure that the new parliament would be “reconciliatory.”

 I hope that the Muslim Brotherhood will hold its promise of forming a coalition with a secular party to gain the majority in parliament to nominate a prime minister.  What I find most surprising from all of this is the low voter turnout.  Only 54% showed up at the polls.  While this number is still far higher than the average voter turn out in the United States, it should come as a surprise that a country that had been abused for decades by an authoritarian regime does not chose to literally storm the polls at the first opportunity to vote in a free and fair election.  I guess some of the critics must be right.  Maybe the people of Egypt are not ready for a democracy after all.

Other Links

Yemen’s President Saleh ‘leaves country’ for treatment

Hamas political chief to step down

The week in pictures

Murder in Tehran

Beleaguered but still unbowed

A game of hangman and how the Soviets are screwing Syria

I finally got a chance to visit the 9/11 memorial (after my fraternity held a fundraiser for them earlier last year).  In my opinion, the place fails to really evoke the kind of sadness and memory that any memorial about such a disastrous event should.  Somewhere between the long wait to get in, the freezing cold, and the construction that is still going on around the memorial the compassion for all those that lost a family member that day is lost.  Hopefully, once the construction for the new World Trade Center is over, the memorial will finally fulfill its purpose, even though it will still be hard to find a moment of silence to commemorate the victims of 9/11 in the middle of the financial district.  For pictures check out this blog (it is in German, but hey pictures are pictures).

This week: Tightening the noose around each others neck, and why the Soviet Union matters in 2012.

Iran and the West: A game of hangman

Iran has warned its regional partners in the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries that it would have severe consequences if any of them were to fill the shortfall of oil supply on the world market that is sure to follow the sanctions to be imposed by the United States and the EU on the country. The threat to other exporters (particularly Saudi Arabia) comes during a time where Western countries have once again reiterated their will to keep “all options on the table” (i.e. military action/invasion) when it comes to addressing the Iranian nuclear threat.  It is easy to forget that the real losers are the people of Iran that can do little to depose of the illegitimate regime that has chosen to exclude the majority of its own population from politics to eliminate the risk of being voted out of office.

To turn the sanctions put in place against Iran on its head and make the US and the EU suffer for their attempts to hinder the progress of their nuclear program seems to be one of the smartest moves coming out of Tehran so far.  The decrease in oil supply (and the rise in prices for oil), will only serve as encouragement for Saudi Arabia to churn out more oil.  Not only does it make more petrodollars on the barrel, but it also hurts its biggest opponent in the region, Shia Iran, by showing that the world market for oil could easily survive without it.  No threat will help to stop Saudi Arabia from picking up the slack that Iran will leave in terms of oil output.  The “invisible hand” as Adam Smith would say, will take care that there will be ample supply despite Iran’s loss. 

Let me say this again, it is time for the West to act!  You want to make sure Iran will be a responsible player once it gains nuclear capabilities then either do what you do best (or rather worst) and change the regime in Tehran or deliver on your promises and take military action.  Even better, solve two problems at once and support the people of Iran in their quest to get their voice heard in the Iranian political arena.  The West and Iran might be tightening the noose around each others neck, but the only ones that will hang by the end of the day are the people of Iran.

A Soviet remnant

As the last remnant of the global influence that the Soviet Union once had past its borders, the naval base at Tartus in Syria stands as controversial as ever in the uprising that still dominates Syria in the tenth month of violence.  President Assad of Syria is slowly losing the reigns in his own country (similar to Muammar Gaddafi last year) between continuous revolts and the force of the Free Syrian Army operating out of Turkey.  It seems so bad that he even moved to pardon those imprisoned during the uprisings (among them violent protesters and key leaders of the opposition).  Meanwhile, a military intervention sanctioned by Arab countries seems unlikely even tough Qatar’s leader, Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani, has voiced his believes that military intervention is the only option to stop the continuing bloodshed of the Syrian government against its own people.

How to keep your last naval base outside of the former Soviet Union? That’s the question that Russia is asking itself right now.  Where to get someone who can predict the future?  If Russia supports Assad’s regime like it has and the revolutionaries finally pull through and establish a new political order in Syria, the future for the base at Tartus seems short-lived.  When has the time come to support the opponents of the current regime?  Russia could play a crucial role in ending the bloodshed that has already cost 5000 lives and it could keep its naval base at Tartus.  All it has to do is to herald the cause of the Syrian people in the Security Council, where it could act to encourage other Arab leaders like the Qatari Sheikh to intervene in this conflict that is on the verge of civil war.

Other Links

Mohamed El-Baradei will end Egypt presidency bid

Iraq city of Ramidi hit by attacks on police station

Hezbollah chief rejects call by UN to disarm

Hamas to return to Abbas’ seized Gaza house

Saudi forces clash with protesters in Qatif

Viva la revolucion and almost nine years for what?

Finally done with all the work for this semester.  Phew.  With the twenty page first half of my research paper about the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, I finished off my last assignment and can now relax a little before the last semester starts.  Too bad that the cold is going around and I am so congested that my head feels like it is about to explode.  Anyways, I wish you all happy holidays as we move towards the end of the year.

Today I am talking about the continued violence in Cairo, and the (final) withdrawal of US troops from Iraq. Keeping it sweet and short for the sake of my head.

Oh yeah and Kim Jong-Il just died.. Hopefully that'll change some things in North Korea.

Revolutionaries that act like counter-revolutionaries

For a third day in a row violence continues at Tahrir Square and its surrounding streets in Cairo.  Ten people have been reported dead and many more injured as police moved into the square to evacuate protesters and to burn down tents (sounds a little like Occupy Wall Street in NYC to me). The government claims that the protesters in Tahrir are counter-revolutionaries and do not belong to the same group that brought about Mubarak’s fall. The protesters claim to demonstrate against the military council that still has much of Egyptian politics under its control.

How can you define a revolutionary versus a counter-revolutionary in a country in which there is no status quo to revolt against?  To move in violently, and even shoot at protesters (see the Al-Jazeera link above) is certainly not a proportional response to non-violent protesters. However, to burn down the Institute of Egypt like the protesters did is not right either. The current government should allow the right for peaceful protest and should address the concern voiced by the population about the power that the military still has in the current power structure.  If the government and the military council do not do so soon, there will be protests well into next year until a parliament is finally elected and the drafting of a new constitution can begin.

"Aaaaaand they’re gone (finally)"

After more than eight years the last US troops finally crossed the border into Kuwait where they closed a metaphorical gate behind them and shook hands with the Kuwaitis for some pictures.  The mission in Iraq cost the US 1 trillion dollars.  According Gary Younge, a columnist for The Guardian, it is a shame that the United States probably won’t learn much from their time in Iraq.  The deed is done, the mission is over, it was a failure, and therefore most will try to forget the sacrifices that were made for eight years to achieve close to nothing.  Meanwhile, Iraq is still stuck in its sectarian quagmire that shows no sign of resolution.  Even in the highest echelons of power there are bomb threats against the Shia minority that forms part of the coalition that rules the country. 

The Iraqi government has been busy collecting data on Iraqis that worked with the Americans while they were still in the country.  Now that the American soldiers are gone there is little protection offered to those who “betrayed” their country.  Many have waited for their visa to the US for months, but most of them are still pending.  Most of the Iraqis that are affected fear that the information gathered by the government will leak to armed groups that will then assassinate all those that collaborated with the foreigners.

Personally, I hope that the money that is saved by leaving Iraq will ultimately help the United States to recuperate from its own economic problems.  Now that we have left the country it is important to convince the PM of Iraq to view Iran as an intruding power that wishes to heavily influence Iraqi politics to solidify its position as a regional power against Saudi Arabia.  The sectarian violence seems to be a constant problem that cannot be solved.  A national campaign to engage in cross sectarian dialogue would help to alleviate some of the strains that threaten to rip the young democracy apart.  To put a bit of a positive spin on Iraq, I would say that at least they have a head start on their democratic project.  They have had years to set up their parliament and constitution whereas Tunisia, Libya, and Egypt are just starting to create their first “real” democracies.

Other Links

Tunisia unveils Bouazizi cart statue in Sidi Bouzid

Hamas moves away from violence in deal with Palestinian Authority

Eyewitness: tear gas at West Bank protest

Syria 'set to' sign Arab League plan

In Pictures: Tahrir Square burns

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

Deal and No Deal

This week a bunch of my friends went to the Occupy Wall Street demonstrations in downtown Manhattan.  I don’t think I have ever seen people at my school so divided over an issue that does not even fall within their usual area of interest.  And that is exactly where the Occupy Wall Street demonstrations become dangerous.  If people who have little to no idea about how the world economy works decide to take part in a demonstration that targets one of the main drivers of the world economy, why are they there?  I think many young people attend the demonstration because it is ‘cool’ to go to something that challenges the current system, even when this system is so well established that abandoning or altering it would be very difficult and probably detrimental.  Another thought that crosses my mind is whether the time at which these protests are occurring is related to the public uprisings in the MENA.  Given the recent success in Tunisia, Libya, and Egypt of political revolutions in disposing their infamous leaders, why not stage a revolution that challenges the economic system at a time where Western capitalism is struggling?

This week, I will focus on the prisoner swap that is taking place between Hamas and the Israeli government, and recent developments between Iran and the USA. As always make sure to check the end of the post for additional links (this week particularly about Occupy Wall Street).

A Game of Numbers

Israel agreed to release 1,027 Palestinians for the return of one of their soldiers, Gilad Shalit, who was captured five years ago, on June 25^th, 2006, at the age of 19 by the Islamist organization Hamas in the Gaza Strip.  The Economist’s headline “An extraordinary exchange rate” probably summarizes best what can be described as a pretty lopsided deal.  Both parties are likely to gain fame among their own populations and abroad at a time where it is needed to secure a solid base of support in a region in transition.  Hamas was able to secure many of its most infamous members who have been serving decades of prison terms for committing acts of terrorism during both intifadas.  The return of over a thousand Palestinians, many of which were expected to remain locked in Israeli prisons for the remainder of their lives, is sure to give Hamas renewed legitimacy from Palestinians not just in the Gaza Strip, but also in the West Bank and abroad.  Israel, working closely with Egypt to ensure the smooth transfer of prisoners, is sure to gain support domestically from a population that has been waiting for Sergeant Shalit to be freed and internationally from countries that see this prisoner transfer as a step towards mutual recognition between Hamas and the Israeli state.  Without a doubt many of those released will pick up arms to fight Israel again.  So in the long-run is it going to be worth it for Israel to release so many of its public enemies?  Cooperation over the release with Egypt will help to fix the strained ties between the two countries and when looking at it that way, the release of some one thousand prisoners is worth a peace treaty that took thirty years and four wars to come about.

“Me? Nahhhhhh.”

This past week, Iran proved once again that it is the number one state in the world when it comes to denial.  After a plot to assassinate the Saudi Arabian Ambassador was unveiled by a US undercover agent acting as a member Mexican drug gangster, President Obama was quick to accuse the Iranian regime of planning the attack on the Saudi envoy’s life.  Ayatollah Khamenei and President Ahmadinejad both denied the claim that this assassination was ordered by their regime, even though one of the two planners was identified as belonging to the Quds Force, a special unit under direct control of the Ayatollah tasked with exporting the Islamist Revolution beyond the borders of Iran.  Both of them also advised the United States from refraining from any kind of retaliation.  (If that in itself is not a sign of guilt I don’t know what is!)  Iranian experts chimed into the condemnation of the United States by stating that Iran would have no benefit from assassinating the Saudi ambassador in Washington.  While some might claim that a state-sponsored act of terrorism could lead to a war between the United States and Iran, I have to agree with the remarks made at the end of this Deutsche Welle article.  It is unlikely that the United States will be willing to enter another prolonged war in a region that is already in great turmoil.  The chance to attract more negative attention is simply too great.  I support President Obama for wanting to prosecute Iran internationally and I hope that he will be able to use the international system to weaken the legitimacy of Iran’s leadership.  Oh and one last note: Do you really think that Iran has no reason to assassinate the Saudi ambassador to the United States?  Wouldn’t that just show how ‘high and mighty’ Iran is if it is able to murder the envoys of its greatest regional enemy, Saudi Arabia, even in the most secure state of the world?  I don’t think we need to look any further than Iraq and Bahrain to see that those two states are so pitted against each other that I would not put the assassination of diplomats in other states beyond them.

Other Links

Report: Arab Spring upheaval cost $55bn

In pictures: Occupy the World

What is money?

Arab League foreign ministers discuss Syria

Libya: Bulldozers raze Gaddafi Bab al-Aziziya compound