INTRODUCTION
Just a day before the "coalition" met in London together with Libyan opposition members, President Obama addressed the American nation, (and of course the world), to "explain" his rationale and foreign policy, particularly as it relates to the New World Order. It is obvious that in this New World Order, ( See blogs - Egypt and the New Future and the Middle East Domino Effect), this unstable situation can repeat itself again and again. The most important fact to remember is that neither the USA nor anyone else has started these revolts against the established order - these are all home grown.
Up till Obama's address, there had been only two, apparently contradictory, messages from his administration - "Gahdafi must go" and support of maintaining a no - fly zone that would not involve putting any American military boots on Libyan soil. This uncertain state of affairs led to a Pew survey result, prior to his speech, finding that only 47% agreed with the President's no fly decision and 36% disagreed. This is a very rare outcome for an American intervention when the whole country traditionally rallies around the President. Other than the above two policy decisions, Obama had been strangely quiet on the Libyan issue. In the last month, he had held a major policy address on the gas situation and spent a week in Brazil in the heat of decision - making time.
BROAD SPREAD CRITICISM.
This lead all and sundry having a field day attacking him from every possible direction. In fact this has proved beneficial to Obama as the opposition was all over the show and demonstrated about as much coherence as his own policies ostensibly did.
The Republicans were in the biggest quandary as they traditionally support American dominance and intervention. (Those that went to Iraq, boots and all, could hardly shun this exercise). However, Ron Paul, presumably speaking on behalf of the Tea Party, joined other Republicans and a few Democrats, who wanted nothing to do with Libya in any shape or form. John Boehner wrote that Congress "just wanted to be informed" and made a very big play about it. McCain believed we should go "all the way". John Sessons made it quite clear that the USA did not need to accept direction from the United Nations or anyone else and also focussed on the bypassing of Congress. Dick Luger, inter alia, wanted to know the cost of it all. John Bolton said that we should go in and assassinate Gadhafi. Newt Gingrich echoed what many Republicans did - advise the opposite of what Obama was doing - On March 3rd he said that Obama should support a no - fly zone and on March 22 he criticized him for doing so.
The Democrats were also at sixes and sevens. Mostly they remained silent. Jay Rockefeller expressed his reservations prominently. Dennis Kucinich believed Obama should be impeached for not getting Congress's permission for going to war.
The pundits as well, as politicians from both sides of the aisle, questioned the decision for the no - fly zone commitment, and the "extras" that came with it. They questioned the consequences if it failed to remove Gadhafi or if the Rebels turned out to be worse than Gadhafi? Or even worse, supported El Quaeda. How did we know that we wouldn't have to go in to salvage our honor and or the cause we claimed to support? Also looming large was the question as to the precedent this decision sets - do we intervene in all situations where humanitarian aid is the issue? And if we did what about the Ivory Coast or Rwanda for example? Not to mention all that was about to happen or is happening in Syria, Bahrain, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and the rest.
OBAMA'S RESPONSES.
On Intervention
Obama made an unassailable case for his interventional decision. All the ducks were in a row. Gadhafi had threatened a house by house extermination of all in Bengazi. Further more, the Arab league, UN and NATO were all idem on the no fly zone.
"We knew that if we waited one more day, Benghazi – a city nearly the size of Charlotte – could suffer a massacre that would have reverberated across the region and stained the conscience of the world. It was not in our national interest to let that happen. I refused to let that happen."
On Consistency and Principle
However, this did not answer the criticisms of the precedent he was creating and the double standard that was patently obvious of when and when not the US should intervene. Obama's response was unashamedly frank.
"It is true that America cannot use our military wherever repression occurs. And given the costs and risks of intervention, we must always measure our interests against the need for action. But that cannot be an argument for never acting on behalf of what’s right. …."
So there it is. It is political realism. (Come back Kissinger all is forgiven). "Our interests" is a code word, for example for oil or whether allies are involved - no way are we likely to make Bahrain, Jordan or Saudi Arabia "no fly zones" as simply as we did the odious Gadhafi regime.
It is also very difficult to argue against the dictum that every situation is different and not withstanding our desire to save the world we can only really act on behalf of "what is right" when our interests so dictate. We have officially compromised on the moral imperative. The USA de facto foreign policy has become de jure. For practical purposes that nixes any need to defend any future decision solely on the basis of morality. This may well upset some of Obama's base but c'est la vie.
On what happens if things go wrong.
No guarantee was given by Obama that Gadhafi would be gone as a result of these actions. The only guarantee was that no American soldiers would be involved. Implicit in Obama's statement is "so what if things go wrong"! We can only do what we can do. (That incidentally includes bombing the bejesus out of Gadhafi's ground forces). And of course there is a precedent for such a policy. The Cosovo intervention had exactly the same rationale. Not only did this policy stop the genocide it did so in spite of the fact that Milosovic remained in power for another two years. Also included "in only doing what we can do" is arming the rebels. Although the precedent for that is not so persuasive!
So you cannot frighten Obama with the failure to produce an outcome that he did not promise. All he promised was to keep American boots off the ground and to look at every situation "measuring our interests against the need for action."So while Obama's opponents think that there is ample room to keep their options open before going ballistic about what he did or didn't do right in Libya, the criticism may not fly because Obama needn't take the bait. He has little policy capital invested in the outcome.
In fact the whole hulabaloo has died down to such an extent that Obama could move onto a major policy speech on energy just two days later.
THE NEW WORLD ORDER.
All this is taking place in a New World Order. The Arab world is topsy turvy. (See earlier blogs). The citizenry have had enough. The rebellions are far spread and spontaneous and it is obvious that Obama is going to manage each situation on it's merits. Tunisia did it all on their own. With Egypt, Obama hung around till it was obvious that his "ally" Mubarak was history. The Egyptian scene required a very, very delicate balance because Obama had made a widely acclaimed speech there on freedom. All the other Middle East dominos are about to fall and Obama's campaign rhetoric and altruism will have to give way to "our interests".
The other component of the New Order is consensus. The world is getting flatter and although Obama has stated he will act unilaterally in American interests, it is obvious that he is consensus builder. He is only too happy not to be the principal and only arbiter of international order. He is foregoing the arena where America is still number one by far - military power. This has far reaching consequences - at the very least he is officially serving notice that America is not going to be the policeman of the world. This is also something that the American right will not feel comfortable about but it sets the stage for defense expenditure reductions in an economy that is in deep trouble.
There is no doubt that challenges lie ahead as the variables are many. One fact is for certain that Obama or no Obama the Arab citizenry are taking matters into their own hands. The motivation is not theocracy but basic human and civil rights, which the West have espoused. All the West can do is react to these uprisings. The waters are muddied in so far that Russia and China, at least, have other "interests" in the outcome. All this in a world where there is financial stress and unemployment everywhere..... .
To be continued.
Wednesday, March 30, 2011
Tuesday, March 8, 2011
THE MIDDLE EAST DOMINO EFFECT
INTRODUCTION
It is barely a month since the last blog - "Egypt And The New Future" - and the Arab world has changed even more dramatically. First and foremost is the ongoing Libyan revolution which is currently center stage in the world psyche. But while the Libyan chaos is occupying all the attention the rest of the Middle East is in various states of turmoil. In short order there has been a change of government in Tunisia; Oman started paying off it's out of work citizens and the Sultan hired an additional 50,000; Saleh of Yemen clung to power firing 5 Governors and blamed Israel and America for the unrest; Even al - Malaki of Iraq gave his ministers a 100 days to deliver results or be fired; Algeria lifted it's 19 year - old State of Emergency and restrictions on free speech and assembly; Assad of Syria planned reforms that included local elections, a new media law and more power to private organizations; The Sudanese President, Omar al - Bashir, decided not to run for another term; and there also have been protests of varying degrees in Bahrain, Mauritania, Djibouti, Kuwait and Morocco. Even Israel and Palestine have made responses.
In addition the Iranian protests have continued despite the record of repressive responses meted out by the government. There have been executions, arrests and brutality yet protests continue. One cannot imagine the present regime lasting another election. One would guess that Ahmadinejad will be more soundly defeated than he was last time. What is going to be the response of the young and the women, who are the impetus of this wave of change? How will the massive army and security structure respond? Time will tell. Meantime back to the current focus of attention - Libya.
LIBYA
If one would have had to have predicted which one of the dictators would hang onto the bitter end it would have been Gadhafi. (If one would have been asked to predict three months ago that this question was even relevant the question would have invoked incredulity). Gadhafi is at best a delusional megalomaniac. It appears that a prolonged civil war is on the horizon.
That is not the dilemna that is occupying the Western and World leaders. Central to policy making at the moment is whether a continuing Gadhafi regime could be tolerated. What, also, would the political impact worldwide, if those good faith revolutionaries, who have once again spurred on from the sidelines with Western rhetoric,were to be mowed down by Gadhafi's firepower and mercenaries? This while the rest of the world stood by.
The ramifications of any decision are immense. The USA and NATO powers must have very little stomach for yet another military adventure. Even if they did how will this play back home with the current economic situation? Also the indigenous revolutionaries they might rescue may well tell the "imperialists" to go home. What makes this situation more urgent than Dafur, let us say, is oil. After all the West got rid of that tyrant Sadam really just for oil. Oil makes some type of decision imperative.
At the same time even the execution of a no fly zone over Libya is an expensive complicated exercise that will involve bombing of anti - aircraft batteries and radar at the very least. Ideally any coalition solution should include the Muslim world - the new and the old. The new - Egypt and Tunisia - are already delivering in the form of humanitarian aid. The old are insecure enough as it is but to regain any credibility in this new shakedown they should be there boots and all with humanitarian aid and be part of any coalition that will do anything vaguely military.
The no fly option must become more and more a reality with the continuing bombing by Gadhafi's unopposed air force. However for whatever reasons China and Russia are sure to be opposed thus adding to the diplomatic nightmare.
ISRAEL AND PALESTINE
How this all impacts the Palestinian territories of the West bank and Gaza is really an enigma. Both Hamas and Fatah suppressed pro Egyptian revolutionary demonstrations. This obviously out of fear that such expressions of solidarity of revolution may make the protestors look even harder at their own ineffectual governments. The central issue among the protestors is not, for the moment, Israel but rather the Hamas and Fatah leadership. A rally is organized for March 15, 2010 to demand that the political leadership of the two groups no longer stay divided. This seems a pretty tall order. Neither of the two are likely to risk weakening their positions. Reports say that Hamas are not interested in elections for the present as polls indicate that their position is weak. Fatah are not going to risk expanding the PLO unless it can be sure that it will remain dominant and so it goes..
Also Hamas is a "terrorist" organization with not much bona fides anywhere. This even in the eyes of the new Egyptian regime who have not opened their borders to Gaza. Abbas, according to Wikileaks was in the process of selling out to Israel so his stocks cannot be to high. So this does not look too good for anyone other than Israel. While the central issue among protestors is the incompetence of their own regimes Israel must remain on the back burner and that is why it is in Israeli interests to negotiate and compromise from strength. Rather work out solutions while not under pressure, and, this Netanyahu has decided to do. On March 2, 2011 he suggested the immediate recognition of a Palestinian state with temporary borders for the moment, as part of an interim peace agreement. There is also a commitment that the eventual borders would be aligned with those that preceded the 1966/1967 war. Netanyahu has his own problems too with the right.
So there is yet another smoldering melting pot behind the scenes.
OBSERVATIONS
The major fear, that we were bracing for a holy war by a united radical Muslim world led by el Quada, has been put to rest. These revolutions are for democracy and not totalitarian theocracy. They, for the most part involve the youth and women. El Quada, have for practical purposes, been sidelined. There is nought for their comfort in this turn of events. Iran's hope of leading the Muslim world must be coming more and more of a dream. Who would like to import their totalitarianism? However the chickens are coming home to roost with regard to the West's oily support of the Arab world dictators. It is obvious, that whatever new regimes come into place they will not have the same cozy relationship that the dictatorships had with the West. The West had and still has an enabling relationship with the oil states. Gadhafi was redeemed in the name of oil and got his Lockabee bomber back to boot.
The immediate key to this is Saudi Arabia the world's greatest provider of oil. The million and a half barrels that Libya produces can easily be made up by them. They too have a repressive regime. Of all the Arab States the toppling of the current leadership would be regressive as the theocrats, there. believe the king and his son are too liberal.
So each day brings a new wrinkle and a new scenario.
To be continued.
It is barely a month since the last blog - "Egypt And The New Future" - and the Arab world has changed even more dramatically. First and foremost is the ongoing Libyan revolution which is currently center stage in the world psyche. But while the Libyan chaos is occupying all the attention the rest of the Middle East is in various states of turmoil. In short order there has been a change of government in Tunisia; Oman started paying off it's out of work citizens and the Sultan hired an additional 50,000; Saleh of Yemen clung to power firing 5 Governors and blamed Israel and America for the unrest; Even al - Malaki of Iraq gave his ministers a 100 days to deliver results or be fired; Algeria lifted it's 19 year - old State of Emergency and restrictions on free speech and assembly; Assad of Syria planned reforms that included local elections, a new media law and more power to private organizations; The Sudanese President, Omar al - Bashir, decided not to run for another term; and there also have been protests of varying degrees in Bahrain, Mauritania, Djibouti, Kuwait and Morocco. Even Israel and Palestine have made responses.
In addition the Iranian protests have continued despite the record of repressive responses meted out by the government. There have been executions, arrests and brutality yet protests continue. One cannot imagine the present regime lasting another election. One would guess that Ahmadinejad will be more soundly defeated than he was last time. What is going to be the response of the young and the women, who are the impetus of this wave of change? How will the massive army and security structure respond? Time will tell. Meantime back to the current focus of attention - Libya.
LIBYA
If one would have had to have predicted which one of the dictators would hang onto the bitter end it would have been Gadhafi. (If one would have been asked to predict three months ago that this question was even relevant the question would have invoked incredulity). Gadhafi is at best a delusional megalomaniac. It appears that a prolonged civil war is on the horizon.
That is not the dilemna that is occupying the Western and World leaders. Central to policy making at the moment is whether a continuing Gadhafi regime could be tolerated. What, also, would the political impact worldwide, if those good faith revolutionaries, who have once again spurred on from the sidelines with Western rhetoric,were to be mowed down by Gadhafi's firepower and mercenaries? This while the rest of the world stood by.
The ramifications of any decision are immense. The USA and NATO powers must have very little stomach for yet another military adventure. Even if they did how will this play back home with the current economic situation? Also the indigenous revolutionaries they might rescue may well tell the "imperialists" to go home. What makes this situation more urgent than Dafur, let us say, is oil. After all the West got rid of that tyrant Sadam really just for oil. Oil makes some type of decision imperative.
At the same time even the execution of a no fly zone over Libya is an expensive complicated exercise that will involve bombing of anti - aircraft batteries and radar at the very least. Ideally any coalition solution should include the Muslim world - the new and the old. The new - Egypt and Tunisia - are already delivering in the form of humanitarian aid. The old are insecure enough as it is but to regain any credibility in this new shakedown they should be there boots and all with humanitarian aid and be part of any coalition that will do anything vaguely military.
The no fly option must become more and more a reality with the continuing bombing by Gadhafi's unopposed air force. However for whatever reasons China and Russia are sure to be opposed thus adding to the diplomatic nightmare.
ISRAEL AND PALESTINE
How this all impacts the Palestinian territories of the West bank and Gaza is really an enigma. Both Hamas and Fatah suppressed pro Egyptian revolutionary demonstrations. This obviously out of fear that such expressions of solidarity of revolution may make the protestors look even harder at their own ineffectual governments. The central issue among the protestors is not, for the moment, Israel but rather the Hamas and Fatah leadership. A rally is organized for March 15, 2010 to demand that the political leadership of the two groups no longer stay divided. This seems a pretty tall order. Neither of the two are likely to risk weakening their positions. Reports say that Hamas are not interested in elections for the present as polls indicate that their position is weak. Fatah are not going to risk expanding the PLO unless it can be sure that it will remain dominant and so it goes..
Also Hamas is a "terrorist" organization with not much bona fides anywhere. This even in the eyes of the new Egyptian regime who have not opened their borders to Gaza. Abbas, according to Wikileaks was in the process of selling out to Israel so his stocks cannot be to high. So this does not look too good for anyone other than Israel. While the central issue among protestors is the incompetence of their own regimes Israel must remain on the back burner and that is why it is in Israeli interests to negotiate and compromise from strength. Rather work out solutions while not under pressure, and, this Netanyahu has decided to do. On March 2, 2011 he suggested the immediate recognition of a Palestinian state with temporary borders for the moment, as part of an interim peace agreement. There is also a commitment that the eventual borders would be aligned with those that preceded the 1966/1967 war. Netanyahu has his own problems too with the right.
So there is yet another smoldering melting pot behind the scenes.
OBSERVATIONS
The major fear, that we were bracing for a holy war by a united radical Muslim world led by el Quada, has been put to rest. These revolutions are for democracy and not totalitarian theocracy. They, for the most part involve the youth and women. El Quada, have for practical purposes, been sidelined. There is nought for their comfort in this turn of events. Iran's hope of leading the Muslim world must be coming more and more of a dream. Who would like to import their totalitarianism? However the chickens are coming home to roost with regard to the West's oily support of the Arab world dictators. It is obvious, that whatever new regimes come into place they will not have the same cozy relationship that the dictatorships had with the West. The West had and still has an enabling relationship with the oil states. Gadhafi was redeemed in the name of oil and got his Lockabee bomber back to boot.
The immediate key to this is Saudi Arabia the world's greatest provider of oil. The million and a half barrels that Libya produces can easily be made up by them. They too have a repressive regime. Of all the Arab States the toppling of the current leadership would be regressive as the theocrats, there. believe the king and his son are too liberal.
So each day brings a new wrinkle and a new scenario.
To be continued.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)