The Arab Spring and "the War on Terror"

[coda]

The US embassy security chief shot dead in Yemen. They won't be blaming that one on the video.

[snowychap]

Egypt's President Mursi assumes sweeping powers

Egypt's President Mohammed Mursi has issued a declaration banning challenges to his decrees, laws and decisions.

The declaration also says no court can dissolve the constituent assembly, which is drawing up a new constitution.

President Mursi also sacked the chief prosecutor and ordered the re-trial of people accused of attacking protesters when ex-President Mubarak held office.

Egyptian opposition leader Mohammed ElBaradei accused Mr Mursi of acting like a "new pharaoh".

Mr ElBaradei said the new declaration effectively placed the president above the law.

"Morsi today usurped all state powers and appointed himself Egypt's new pharaoh. A major blow to the revolution that could have dire consequences," the Nobel Peace Prize winner wrote on his Twitter account.

Earlier this year, Mr ElBaradei had called Egypt's political process "the stupidest transition in history".

22 November declaration

• All investigations into the killing of protesters or the use of violence against them will be re-conducted. Trials of those accused will be re-held.
  
• All constitutional declarations, laws and decrees made since Mursi assumed power cannot be appealed or cancelled by any individual, or political or governmental body.
  
• The public prosecutor will be appointed by the president for a fixed term of four years, and must be aged at least 40.
  
• The constituent assembly's timeline for drafting the new constitution has been extended by two months.
  
• No judicial authority can dissolve the Constituent Assembly or the Shura Council.
  
• The president is authorised to take any measures he sees fit in order to preserve the revolution, to preserve national unity or to safeguard national security.
  

...more on link

[Awol]

So we have a new Egyptian dictatorship.

I'm shocked..

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

No one could've predicted this.

[snowychap]

Grauniad reporting that Syrian ISPs are all down and that there are obvious worries about the situation in Damascus as a result.

[legov]

Arab Spring

Looking like same old, same old to me really.

[AVFCforever1991]

Just going to be more Revolution and Violence.

[Chindie]

The sight of a huge crowd of people cheering a man appointing himself sweeping powers is quite sobering. Very 1930s Germany.

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

French getting stuck into Mali.

Best not get involved.

[BOF]

Well Egypt - or rather Cairo - has turned into a dystopian shithole since their own revolution. Be careful what you wish for? Better the devil you know?

[peterms]

Syria.  Allegations of chemical weapons being used, crossing the "red line" of the country (the US) that uses, er, chemical weapons.  And torture.  And extrajudicial (illegal) killings of political opponents.

 

Millions fleeing to refugee camps.  The West donating money in the hope of heading off those refugees from their own lands.  Best keep them in Lebanon, Turkey, Jordan...

 

The Guardian has a revealing headline for a recent story:

Putin may allow removal of Assad

 

Newspapers don't usually indicate so clearly that it's just a board game between plutocrats.

 

Because it's not now, and never has been, about what the people of that country or any other country want.  It's all, and only, about the positioning of a corrupt and murderous elite who move seamlessly between Moscow, New York, London, and various tax havens where their proceeds of theft and murder are stored.

 

We appear, as a country, to have no appetite even to recognise this, never mind tackle it.

[Awol]

 

Millions fleeing to refugee camps.  The West donating money in the hope of heading off those refugees from their own lands.  Best keep them in Lebanon, Turkey, Jordan...

[tonyh29]

OT but what is Yemen like Jon ?

[Awol]

OT but what is Yemen like Jon ?

 

Beautiful.

 

Nishtun Port

 

 

Empty Quarter

 

 

South East Coast

 

 

The cities are a bit hairy at the moment though so bang it on the 'to-do later' list.

[peterms]

Are you seriously suggesting that financial aid (which has been flowing for ages anyway) to countries hosting Syrian refugees is to prevent them claiming asylum in the West?? I'm as cynical as the next man but that isn't a credible argument imo. Perhaps, just maybe, the evil west is simply trying to keep a few 100K innocent people alive?

Yes, of course. In large part, at least. The immediate thing is the receiving countries saying they can't take the strain any longer. If the option exists of letting refugees moulder in camps for 40 years like the Palestinians have, out of sight and out of mind, that will be accepted. If the likelihood is borders being closed and people starving in no-man's land on prime time tv, then some humanitarian aid will be provided. But the motive is to do the minimum to prevent worse things, as in worse for the West. And a further influx of refugees to western countries would not be welcomed. It's really not driven by beneficent concern for the welfare of people living there. If it was, we'd get the **** out and never come back. 

  

Of course outside players have a stake in what happens in the region. Some are neighbours concerned for their own security, others are involved in alliances in the region, have their own military bases locally or simply wish to shape the outcome due to the strategic implications for the wider world. Is it all about money? No, it's about national interests, a situation that has existed for as long as nation states themselves.

The national interests of western countries in this situation are only about money, or rather resources in a broader sense - mineral wealth, strategic command of areas which will give better access to controlling the extraction of wealth.

 

However having spent half of the last month in post-revolution Yemen talking to local people about these very issues, I know they would dispute your claim that "It's all, and only" about those outside interests. Other players have a stake in the outcome and are certainly trying to influence it, but they won't decide the result. In the end that will come down to the people through the ballot, the bullet, or both.

I'm including the murderous elites of the countries involved. They're not as numerous or as wealthy (mostly) as the global elite, but they're aiming to get there. I don't at all mean to absolve local players of responsibility.

As for the ballot or the bullet, well the ballot is often rigged and the bullet is a little violent. Couldn't we have a third way, like, oh I don't know, the ballet?

[Awol]

 

Are you seriously suggesting that financial aid (which has been flowing for ages anyway) to countries hosting Syrian refugees is to prevent them claiming asylum in the West?? I'm as cynical as the next man but that isn't a credible argument imo. Perhaps, just maybe, the evil west is simply trying to keep a few 100K innocent people alive?

Yes, of course. In large part, at least. The immediate thing is the receiving countries saying they can't take the strain any longer. If the option exists of letting refugees moulder in camps for 40 years like the Palestinians have, out of sight and out of mind, that will be accepted. If the likelihood is borders being closed and people starving in no-man's land on prime time tv, then some humanitarian aid will be provided. But the motive is to do the minimum to prevent worse things, as in worse for the West. And a further influx of refugees to western countries would not be welcomed. It's really not driven by beneficent concern for the welfare of people living there. If it was, we'd get the **** out and never come back.

Fact is we are not obliged by any law to do anything for refugees from a civil war in which Uk has no historical or moral stake. That we are nevertheless providing aid is a sign of our humanity, not our cynicism. I'd also be interested to know how on earth penniless refugees in Lebanon and Jordan are physically going to get themselves to Europe across the territory they have just fled in order to claim asylum? Swim from Lebanon? Hop on a magic carpet from Jordan?  Think it through, it isn't possible. More to the point the people currently in refugee camps fled to save their lives, not move to Belgium. Why then would you assume that post conflict they wouldn't simply want to go home? Syria and Palestine are completely different situations, it's not a case of ethnic cleansing by a conquering army (yet), it's a civil war and the two are not comparable at all. 

 

As for getting out and never coming back, perhaps you could tell me where in the region we have troops? Or if you meant 'get out' as in stop interfering then of course we (the west) could do that. Leave Assad, Hezbollah, the Iranian Revolutionary Guards and the Russians to simply mop up the opposition,  execute a few 10's or 100's of thousands of people afterwards and halas, no more problem. Refugees go home again (through the filter of the Shu'bat al-Mukhabarat who can weed out and murder any undesirables with suspect loyalties), HZ can go back to Lebanon and purge any anti Assad elements and we have a nice stable dictatorship that hopefully heads off the region being engulfed by a broader a sectarian conflict. By "getting out" that is effectively what we are talking about, although it won't be quick because the petro-monarchies (acting out of their own sectarian interests and not on western instructions) will increase their efforts to supply advanced weapons to the opposition, or at least the nasty jihadi elements that they are backing. If the west has washed its hands of the situation then they will feel no obligation to show any restraint in supplying thoroughly modern weapons to people we really wouldn't want to have them in case they are ever used against us..  

 

In Cameron's shoes I'd be tempted to do just that because it is definitely the easiest option for the UK, whether it's the "right" thing to do is a matter of opinion. Given your stance would you approve?

 

 

Of course outside players have a stake in what happens in the region. Some are neighbours concerned for their own security, others are involved in alliances in the region, have their own military bases locally or simply wish to shape the outcome due to the strategic implications for the wider world. Is it all about money? No, it's about national interests, a situation that has existed for as long as nation states themselves.

The national interests of western countries in this situation are only about money, or rather resources in a broader sense - mineral wealth, strategic command of areas which will give better access to controlling the extraction of wealth.

 

That's not correct. the west is no more trying to take control of Syria than it is trying to build a base on Mars.  The west is however rightly terrified about Assad's massive stock of chemical weapons and what happens to them - even if you reject the point of view that 100,000's of innocent people being killed is actually a matter of conscience that can't be ignored.

 

However having spent half of the last month in post-revolution Yemen talking to local people about these very issues, I know they would dispute your claim that "It's all, and only" about those outside interests. Other players have a stake in the outcome and are certainly trying to influence it, but they won't decide the result. In the end that will come down to the people through the ballot, the bullet, or both.

I'm including the murderous elites of the countries involved. They're not as numerous or as wealthy (mostly) as the global elite, but they're aiming to get there. I don't at all mean to absolve local players of responsibility.

As for the ballot or the bullet, well the ballot is often rigged and the bullet is a little violent. Couldn't we have a third way, like, oh I don't know, the ballet?

 

 

Not really following your line of thought now. It is quite obvious that the revolutions taking place in the Arab world are not simply about some shadowy global or local elite, for the people involved it is about freedom and dignity. Although powerful interests may be trying to steer the outcomes my point is that it will not be their choice to make and they'd have more luck herding cats.

 

The ballet is a nice idea though, sounds like the happy clappy twunts from DfID who went into Afghan villages and tried to "educate" the elders about women's rights - through the medium of dance.

 

I think part of the problem with your analysis is the belief that the west is inherently evil and behind everything and anything that is wrong with the world. When you are starting from that viewpoint it makes objective analysis impossible.

[peterms]

I think part of the problem with your analysis is the belief that the west is inherently evil and behind everything and anything that is wrong with the world. When you are starting from that viewpoint it makes objective analysis impossible.

 

No.  I'm starting by recognising, as a matter of simple fact, that the west has for many decades been interfering in middle eastern affairs, playing ethnic groups and religious sects and nations off against each other, redrawing the boundaries of other countries, supporting regional warlords, imposing rulers (often dictators) and maintaining them in power with plentiful supplies of arms, all in order to extract from the region a vast amount of mineral wealth.  Playing off Iraq, Iran and the Kurds against each other.  Installing puppet leaders like the Shah of Iran.  Supporting the rulers of Saudi, Bahrein and other places.   I suppose you do recognise that this is not a matter of opinion, but one of historical fact?

 

The Syrian conflict is important for the west more in respect of Iran than in terms of Syria itself.  However, Syria will nevertheless be stripped of its wealth in the process.  Israel has already granted oil exploration rights in part of Syria to Genie Oil and Gas, a company whose major shareholders include Rupert Murdoch and the Rothschilds.  The very idea is of course illegal in international law, but is just one more small example of the kind of theft which has been happening for many, many years.  But you don't think the west and its allies are trying to control things?  And that the beneficiaries from this will be exactly western companies and their owners, and whichever compliant local leaders will be bought off as part of the deal, and the losers the Syrian people?  Like Halliburton and others profited from Iraq, while countless thousands die (including from chemical weapons, by the way, but these ones unleashed by the USA; children are still being born deformed from the effects of the US-created chemical weapon wasteland that is Falluja).

 

And this is dressed up, this week, as a humanitarian intervention, as though the last hundred years of history never happened, and we have suddenly arrived in a place where conflict and slaughter is happening for reasons which are wholly unknown and don't need to be considered - like Cap'n Kirk beaming down from the Starship Enterprise, breaking up a fight, applying a few sticking plasters out of the goodness of his heart, and making it all better.

 

 

[Awol]

 

I think part of the problem with your analysis is the belief that the west is inherently evil and behind everything and anything that is wrong with the world. When you are starting from that viewpoint it makes objective analysis impossible.

 

No.  I'm starting by recognising, as a matter of simple fact, that the west has for many decades been interfering in middle eastern affairs, playing ethnic groups and religious sects and nations off against each other, redrawing the boundaries of other countries, supporting regional warlords, imposing rulers (often dictators) and maintaining them in power with plentiful supplies of arms, all in order to extract from the region a vast amount of mineral wealth.  Playing off Iraq, Iran and the Kurds against each other.  Installing puppet leaders like the Shah of Iran.  Supporting the rulers of Saudi, Bahrein and other places.   I suppose you do recognise that this is not a matter of opinion, but one of historical fact?

My bold: Indeed what you've written above is indisputable, although clearly the "west" haven't been the only meddlers.

 

However by tagging that last line on I gave you an out to avoid confronting the points raised in rest of my post, and outlining whether you think the people of Syria are best left to the tender mercies of Assad/HZ/Iran and Russia, or whether the west should "do" something?   I'm interested as to your view on that issue, i.e. the point at hand, rather than what the west may or may not have done in the region over the last 100 years - which viewed from a cellar in Aleppo probably isn't of much practical concern at the moment.

[Awol]

I 'liked' that post because it was (imo) eloquently argued, but fails to take account of some key realities, namely:

 

Assad thinks he can win this militarily and is not going to stop fighting as long as that is the case. His Russian and Iranian backers would in any case forbid it.  The idea of a genuine peace conference is fantasy.

 

There are zero non-western countries with either the will or military capability to intervene against Assad, and as above he will not attempt to make peace until military defeat is a possibility.

 

The UN... Having served on a UN peace keeping operation and both seen and heard about their activities in Africa, my opinion of that organisation is lower than a snake's belly - and has nothing to do with the Americans. A more corrupt, amoral and frequently criminal mob it would be harder to find... But again, unless the forces involved were western under blue berets any kind of intervention is utterly impossible and would in any case be vetoed at the UNSC by Russia and China.

 

Whether the west decides to arm the rebels or not (and it is clear the US have already begun moving real weapons to them already) most of the region is involved anyway. Qatar and Saudi are buying arms for the rebels, Morsi in Egypt is calling for a western implemented no fly zone, Iran are sending troops and weapons to Assad overland facilitated by the the Shia Maliki Gov in Baghdad, and the Lebanese contribution of 8-10,000 Hezbollah fighters in Syria is widely publicised. They are all fighting the broader sectarian Sunni/Shi'ite war and will stay involved regardless of what the west, EU, UN or Russians do. Forget de-escalation, one side will win and the other will lose because both are playing for keeps.

 

Syria does not have "many years" for a peace process to develop and is mired in full scale war (comparisons to SA or NI are very wide of the mark), so in reality there are only three genuine choices: Back Assad; back the rebels; sit it out. I don't know which one of those is the right answer, but faced with the bizarre situation of Hezbollah on one side slugging it out with AQ affiliates on the other (grossly over simplified but you get the point) perhaps you are right and it really is in the best interests of the west in general to sit back and let the slaughter continue?

 

EDIT: There is a actually a fourth scenario if Assad can be fought to a halt and that is the partion / balkanisation of Syria, splitting broadly into Shia, Sunni and Kurdish regions - much like the eventual outcome is likely to be in Iraq.  

Edited June 20, 2013 by Awol

[peterms]

I 'liked' that post because it was (imo) eloquently argued, but fails to take account of some key realities, namely:

 

Assad thinks he can win this militarily and is not going to stop fighting as long as that is the case. His Russian and Iranian backers would in any case forbid it.  The idea of a genuine peace conference is fantasy.

 

There are zero non-western countries with either the will or military capability to intervene against Assad, and as above he will not attempt to make peace until military defeat is a possibility.

Well on the level of reality not principle or ideas, what choice does Assad have but to fight? It's his only bargaining counter, that he controls in practice large areas of the country and won't give them up.

But your aside about Russia and Iran goes to the heart of the matter. This war is being fought by the west (quietly, secretly, by proxy) precisely to attack Iran and weaken Russia. If the aim really were to end the war and stop the bloodshed, then the first reality to recognise would be that the conflict must be ended in a way which does not weaken these other strategic interests. But since that's the whole reason why we have stirred this up, and the prize we and our American masters hope to gain is so huge, they won't let that stand in the way of a fight to the death. Just like Iraq and Libya.

 

The UN... Having served on a UN peace keeping operation and both seen and heard about their activities in Africa, my opinion of that organisation is lower than a snake's belly - and has nothing to do with the Americans. A more corrupt, amoral and frequently criminal mob it would be harder to find... But again, unless the forces involved were western under blue berets any kind of intervention is utterly impossible and would in any case be vetoed at the UNSC by Russia and China.

It's not the main point, but I think it would be hard or impossible for any organisation like the UN to retain credibility when it has been so comprehensively undermined and humiliated by what should be its major backer for so long. As a leap of the imagination, if you were to join a regiment which the government and royal family had spent years humiliating and marginalising, would you expect morale to be good and the unit to be effective? I don't think you would. It would be a basket case, don't you think? The rot did not start with the UN. It started with the US. But that's history, and the point is it's not part of any viable solution, except in presentational terms.

 

Whether the west decides to arm the rebels or not (and it is clear the US have already begun moving real weapons to them already) most of the region is involved anyway. Qatar and Saudi are buying arms for the rebels, Morsi in Egypt is calling for a western implemented no fly zone, Iran are sending troops and weapons to Assad overland facilitated by the the Shia Maliki Gov in Baghdad, and the Lebanese contribution of 8-10,000 Hezbollah fighters in Syria is widely publicised. They are all fighting the broader sectarian Sunni/Shi'ite war and will stay involved regardless of what the west, EU, UN or Russians do. Forget de-escalation, one side will win and the other will lose because both are playing for keeps.

You're seriously saying the cause of this war is Sunni-Shia tensions?  Not opportunistic warmongering by the US, aided and abetted by local client states and the lapdog UK government?  Remember Iraq, when local countries were coerced into sending forces, which they clearly didn't want to do?  The efforts to construct a coalition with enough locals to give cover to the US?  The time-honoured technique, from Libya back through the Raj, the Elizabethans, to the Romans and beyond, of co-opting local thugs and leaders to front up a war of occupation?  It's transparent, but they don't care.  Most people will not have had first-hand experience of it or read about it, so hey, it'll work yet again!

 

Syria does not have "many years" for a peace process to develop and is mired in full scale war (comparisons to SA or NI are very wide of the mark), so in reality there are only three genuine choices: Back Assad; back the rebels; sit it out. I don't know which one of those is the right answer, but faced with the bizarre situation of Hezbollah on one side slugging it out with AQ affiliates on the other (grossly over simplified but you get the point) perhaps you are right and it really is in the best interests of the west in general to sit back and let the slaughter continue?

 

EDIT: There is a actually a fourth scenario if Assad can be fought to a halt and that is the partion / balkanisation of Syria, splitting broadly into Shia, Sunni and Kurdish regions - much like the eventual outcome is likely to be in Iraq.

 

Who are "the rebels"?  If you know, you should present yourself to the world's media quick sharp, because no other **** seems to know.  An inchoate and shadowy loose coalition of groups opposed to Assad or who think they can advance their own cause by joining in, it seems.  Remember the "opposition forces" against Vietnam, after it had chased the US out of its country?  Turned out to include Pol Pot, who we and the US were arming, feeding, training and funding.  Nice.

 

Assad seems like a nasty piece of work, as are most over-powerful people in any walk of life, and especially the area where politics and control of the military combine.  Probably by some considerable distance less nasty, and dangerous, than Blair and Bush, Obama and Cameron.  But not a great guy.

 

Your question poses an immediate choice, because of an imminent danger.  Actually the immediacy comes from our actions, like setting a fire and then insisting that we must choose NOW which of two routes to take.  Again, it's an old, old tactic, thousands of years old, and it doesn't wash.  The task and the challenge is to reduce the tension, end the violence, stabilise the region.  That will not happen by responding to the dog-whistle summons of malevolent western arms salesmen and military advisers (for whom a Venn diagram would be instructive).  You should not fall into bed with such amoral scum.

 

 

ps  thank you for the "like".  Have "liked" yours on a similar principle.  What are you doing on Saturday?