Showing posts with label Nasser. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Nasser. Show all posts

Sunday, November 20, 2011

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


Monday, November 7, 2011

Revolution from within and averting violence from without


“Remember, remember the 5th 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