Senate Revolution in the Muslim World

interesting angle here about how Gaddafi's forces had people working to bring it down from the inside: http://news.yahoo.com/a-double-agent-in-gadhafi-camp-.html

The most interesting part is what this may mean going forward

Also caught an interesting related bit from Al Jazeera's live blog for Syria

 

Does it really matter? As long as Libya is stable and democratic, it's a happy ending. Our goal is to help advance democracy, not narrow economic or strategic interests. America wasn't obligated to be a proxy for France after they helped us win our independence either.

 

Does it really matter? As long as Libya is stable and democratic, it's a happy ending. Our goal is to help advance democracy, not narrow economic or strategic interests. America wasn't obligated to be a proxy for France after they helped us win our independence either.

This is essentially correct. Not that Mr44 advocates this in any way, shape, or form, but the article's title strikes me as the question of a psychologically abusive parent: "We did something for you so now you OWE us".

The only thing Libyans should be politely asked to do by means of repayment is... please stop hating the West. That's all. If they want to go ahead and sell oil to the Chinese despite the fact they did nothing to help, Libya should not only be allowed to do that, but we should not whine if they do. The decision to sell oil to a given market is a recognized right of any sovereign nation, which was the goal here.

The NATO airstrikes helped Libya in a very real and dramatic way, beginning just when Ghadaffi was on the doorstep to Benghazi. It was very clear what was going on, and who did what. Maybe the Libyans will be ungrateful; that is not important. What is important is that the entire conflict will give more people there and in the Arab world less incentive to hate the West.

I would not go so far as to say that this heals the wounds over the past decade. Muslims are hardly equal in their views and any pro-US spirit in Libya is hardly felt in Pakistan. But you have to start somewhere, and the Arab Spring appears to have assured that, at the very least, three Arab countries will get another post-colonial roll of the dice in the attempt to create Democracies with freedoms on par with any Western nation.

That may not happen in any of them. Each one may falter and fall back into old ways. But at least they'll get the do-over they've needed for many decades. There is always hope that this revolution will closer resemble a proper transition to responsible government. And by every indication Libya's leadership shows signs that Democracy may actually flourish there easier than it will in Egypt, which still has systemic authoritarian issues.

 

Well, Al-Jazeera now reporting that they've found communications that appear to indicate that Gaddafi was getting advice/coordinating with David Welch, a former diplomat, and Dennis Kucinich. The former gave advice on how to handle the situation and maintain power, and the latter contacted and intermediary for Gaddafi's son to try to gather information to get the US to drop recognition of the NTC.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_bgscOtHDrI

 

Is any of that prosecutable under the ICC?

Kucinich should, at a bare minimum, be censured. They should also consider what legal recourse they have against him.

 

Wow.

I think that talk about getting rid of his Congressional district is a lot more likely now. Haven't heard anything about it in American news, though?

Why would Kucinich want the US to drop recognition of the Libyan rebels?

 

Politico has the story now.

 

As someone on another forum said, Kucinich should just legally change his name to Don Quixote.

 

I think it's that if you do that, you remove the logic in supporting them by bombing Gaddafi.

 

This is essentially correct. Not that Mr44 advocates this in any way, shape, or form, but the article's title strikes me as the question of a psychologically abusive parent: "We did something for you so now you OWE us". The only thing Libyans should be politely asked to do by means of repayment is... please stop hating the West. That's all. If they want to go ahead and sell oil to the Chinese despite the fact they did nothing to help, Libya should not only be allowed to do that, but we should not whine if they do. The decision to sell oil to a given market is a recognized right of any sovereign nation, which was the goal here.

Returning to this for a brief second, Gonk, you're not that far off. I do advocate this. I don't know if "psychologically abusive parent" is the correct imagery- it's more like someone accepting a full scholarship from the tobacco companies to get a law degree, and then being amazaed that those companies want that person to defend smoking issues. By all acounts and results, a good number of NATO nations bankrupt themselves to interceed in Libya. I posted the link a while back, so I might be off on the specific countries, but was it the Dutch who literally ran out of missiles for their jets? France had to recall its aircraft carrier because it exceeded its maintainence budget. Italy will never be able to lift itself out of its economic troubles without Libyan oil.

So cyncially, everyone knows that all of the above are the goals of any foreign policy. Don't think for a second that any of the NATO nations who engineered this are just going to sit back and allow China or other non-participant to swoop in, or did so for completely altruistic reasons. Not that NATO would confront China directly if this happened, but its a reason why a mini-cold war would develop behind the scenes in the region and end up adding to the complexity.

And regarding the ICC, since the US removed itself from the authority of the ICC, Kucinich wouldn't have to worry about this.

 

Syrians are calling for international protection now, not intervention, just monitoring.
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2011/09/201199113127432919.html

Looks like they've seen what got done in Libya, and may be seeing that they can't dislodge Assad.

 

Saudi king gives women right to vote

This is good news. Hopefully it leads to more pro-democracy changes.

 

Whatever happens, it's likely to come in waves.

We're sort of at an ebb for the Arab Spring right now: the momentum has died, but with real accomplishments to show for it. The latest calls for demonstrations in Algeria might have produced no-shows, but that doesn't negate what's happened in Tunisia, Egypt and Libya, nor some of the more regimented changes that have taken place elsewhere in the Arab world.

Syria will probably not come to a good end, and Assad will likely remain in power. But the notion of Arab authoritarians has still come out of this quite diminished.

I highly doubt we'll see something so broad and encompassing again, but I think after a little while, this will probably lead to changes. The Dam's been broken, and it's going to spread bit by bit. I can't see this having taken place and no other Arab country going through pro-Democracy movements 10 years from now. No Algerian is going to head over to Tunisia, see how things are going, then come back and say "well obviously none of that would EVER work here".

 

It comes in waves, but I don't think it's over yet. As you mention, Syria is still in crisis. The president of Yemen has returned to his country, which is still in chaos. Bahrain is still unsettled, even if there's nothing out in the open just yet.

The story hasn't ended yet in Tunisia or Egypt, and Libya still has to capture Gadhafi and his remaining strongholds.

Iran's Green Revolution is still boiling under the surface, and its establishment is divided.

There's the push to recognize a State of Palestine.

And the Arab Spring has been successful in countries even where there has been no overthrow of government, or significant unrest. Morocco, Jordan, and other countries are planning serious reform. Even Saudi Arabia is making some gestures.

 

I don't see this as the momentum having died. Not with two countries still highly destabilized. I think it's more that people are just simply bored of all this and so it's not covered.

 

It comes in waves, but I don't think it's over yet. As you mention, Syria is still in crisis.

The Arab Spring is not over, but it seems as if this phase is coming to an end. The Syrian situation, for instance, does not look hopeful. There doesn't seem to be the same will to remove Assad by other foreign governments. He's not as loathed as Quadaffi was.

The president of Yemen has returned to his country, which is still in chaos.

Yemen though, was unstable well before the Arab Spring took hold.

Bahrain is still unsettled, even if there's nothing out in the open just yet.

That would be an indication that this phase is over, IMO. Certainly this is going to happen again, but I think it'll sit for a few years.

The story hasn't ended yet in Tunisia or Egypt, and Libya still has to capture Gadhafi and his remaining strongholds.

The degree to which the story has not ended seems a bit over-cautious. Tunisia has had a few extremist elements pop up, but it doesn't seem as if they'll get traction. Egypt's been having a time with Mubarak's trail, but the fact that he is on trial is of note. Will the military introduce larger reforms? Given a timeline of years and its ongoing ties to the United States military, the chances of gradual softening are probably quite good as younger officers take over from older ones.

True, the new Egyptian government has less love for Israel, but then that's understandable: it doesn't mean they're about to go to war with them again.

As for Ghadaffi's remaining strongholds, these seem a foregone conclusion. Sabha was taken a few days ago. The rebels have entered Sirtre proper and Bani Walid is under seige. It's unlikely that any strongholds will remain come Oct. 31st (meaning the civil war will possibly end about two months short of my max prediction of Dec. 31st -- so I cut it a bit closer there than I thought).


Iran's Green Revolution is still boiling under the surface, and its establishment is divided.

The Green Revolution is sort of a separate thing and has been going on a lot longer. Certainly the Arab Spring has had an effect, but I wouldn't include this as initiated by what happened in Tunisia back in December.


There's the push to recognize a State of Palestine.

If there's any carryover, it's that. But the push looks likely to fail under an American veto unless some sort of compromise can be worked out.


And the Arab Spring has been successful in countries even where there has been no overthrow of government, or significant unrest. Morocco, Jordan, and other countries are planning serious reform. Even Saudi Arabia is making some gestures.

I'm not saying that attempts to reform will not continue in some areas. The US has been telling these nations of this danger for years, but the rulers were either unwilling to listen or incapable of taking proper action. BUT, I think the will of the populace has ebbed in terms of organizing new protests.

It's sort of a natural thing, really. Despite the success that's occurred -- and really given its starting point my hat is off as to what it's achieved for itself -- the will to change has naturally come down from its fever pitch. I'm not saying there won't be more protests in the future: in fact I'm saying the opposite, that there most definitely WILL. It's that I think life has to return to normal for a little bit for the rage for a second wave to build up again. And when that hits, it will probably be more specific to the country in question. So you might see something happen in Morrocco in 2012, then something move again in a major way in Syria in 2014, that sort of thing.

I'm just saying that it seems that things are going to settle for a little while now. It doesn't mean that the people don't want more freedoms for themselves. Just that... geez man, they're tired.

 

Assuming the reports are true, Q delivered on his promise to drag the conflict out until they dragged his bullet-ridden corpse out. Lol at the news of Surt being "liberated." I don't think they wanted to be liberated.

 

At this point it's my guess that there will be a degree of lawlessness in the near future, but that this will not be to the same degree as what happened in Iraq.

It largely depends on what the authority figures do now and how they conduct themselves in relation to the general population and one another. If there's any figure in the new military/militia that has designs on power, that would spell trouble. But if no such figure really exists, things will slowly settle down.

There's going to be some hard feelings from former Quadaffi supporters, no question. But with him dead and gone, there's not going to be any more acting out of revenge by his supporters than there was with Saddam Hussein: in fact, probably less -- a lot of the "supporters" were mercenaries. With the paycheque gone, there goes that loyalty.

There's a lot of converging interests here. Europe is nearby, and wants Libya to become a stable example of an Arab Democracy. The US wants this just as much. Tunisia and Egypt want Libya back on its feet so that in helping it they can improve their own image. The people of Libya, generally, seem to want this. Many NTC government figures seem to want this. So then... why wouldn't it happen?

Barring an embedded, very savvy strongman who has yet to make his move, it would seem to me this situation has a fairer than average chance of success. Yes, there will probably be questionable deaths in months to come: extremists, revenge, looting, etc. But without a major rallying point like a Shia/Sunni divide and with Quadaffi gone, these are probably going to be localized problems that will eventually work themselves out.

It'll never be perfect in Libya. But maybe they're poised to make life a heck of a lot easier for themselves than it was before.

 

Update: Ghaddafi was alive when captured by revolutionaries.

 

Gonk, I respect and admire your optimism without sharing it. I'm wary about what's going on in Egypt now and I see Libya with the potential to devolve into regional warlord fiefdoms a la Afghanistan, with the difference being that some warlords have access to oil and gas production.

But you're right it could go the other way depending on domestic and external pressure. With Egypt, ultimately the U.S. and Israel are very comfortable working with a military regime. You can do business with generals, and we have done a lot of business with Egyptian generals. In Libya, Europe will make itself comfortable with whoever controls the flow of oil and natural gas. And of course they will try to influence who controls it, hopefully for the better.

I enjoyed Luna's comment in the JCC thread: "Power vacuums are dangerous little petri dishes."

 

Moderate Islamists claim win in Tunisia's Arab Spring vote

Sunday's vote was for an assembly which will sit for one year to draft a new constitution. It will also appoint a new interim president and government to run the country until fresh elections late next year or early in 2013.

Perhaps my first non cynical post in a month. But this makes me weep mostly sincere tears of nearly unreserved joy. Tunisia at least is off and running with something resembling government of and by the people.

 

There was more on Tunisia from FP.com; apparently the election featured 90% voter turnout, with something like 11,000 people running for office to boot. Utterly amazing.

 

Tunisia has successfully held elections, a moderate party is coming to power (that models itself on Turkey and Indonesia), there was some violence in one town but that was over a party that was disqualified because it violated campaign finance laws. New government will form in 10 days, and then write a new constitution. Looks like a success!

The UN has officially ended their mission in Libya, and Gadhafi's son is trying to surrender to the ICC.

Haven't heard anything out of Egypt, Yemen, Bahrain, or Iran lately.


But there is also news in Syria.

The Arab League has sent an "urgent warning" to Assad, more of the Syrian military are defecting, and Syrian protestors are starting to demand action. Events are lining up for an intervention. I had hoped Assad would be a reformer, but clearly isn't going to happen, he's made his choice, and I think he has now killed more of his own people than Gadhafi (since the Arab Spring started, anyways).

 

NPR reported that something like 3,000 people have been killed already, and that the Syrian government has started using fighter planes and tanks on the 'protestors'. Offhand I'd say that if the Syrian government has escalated THAT much the 'protestors' are much better described as 'insurgents' (the good kind ).

The revolutionaries (as CSM is describing them) have asked for foreign intervention already:

Christian Science Monitor

I'd say give these people whatever they want.

 

Since Turkey has been taking a lead on the diplomatic front in Egypt & Libya, wouldn't it be more plausible if they also took the lead in any official NATO action against Syria? Incirlik Air Base is well within striking distance.

Anybody else agree that this could be workable? (I'm not naive enough to think that the Turks could do it alone; the US might have to "lead from behind" again.)