No Islamists Allowed. The Underground is This Way...

Libya's National Transitional Council issued a law today banning political parties based on "religious, regional, or tribal platforms, and outlaws foreign funding."

Rightfully, Islamist groups think that this measure was specifically targeted against them.

My feelings are that these types of measures are counter-productive and harmful in the long term.  It might be satisfying, from a Western perspective, to know that in the upcoming elections there will be no Islamist or Salafist parties running for office (as happened in Egypt).  But, that doesn't mean that Islamists don't exist.  In fact, by denying Islamist parties a voice in parliament, they are forced instead to go underground and search for alternative means to get their message across.  And there you have it: conflict.  The short term satisfaction of no Islamists in government leads to the long term consequences of an underground, suppressed, and probably anti-government Islamist movement-- because if they weren't anti-government before, they surely are now.

Egypt's next elections will prove my point.  If the Muslim Brotherhood and the Salafists do not satisfy the Egyptians expectations by the time of the next election, they will be voted out of office.  It was no surprise when they were recently elected: they were well organized (thanks to their semi-underground status) and presented an alternative vision for Egypt.  Logistically and organizationally, nobody else was in a position to be voted into power.  That won't, however, be the case in the next round of elections: other parties will have had the chance to organize, form a strategy, and present a case to the Egyptian people.  This upcoming presidential election is another story.  Stay tuned for developments to come-- as dictated by the ruling military council.

The ban in Libya is not only on Islamist parties, though.  It also bans parties based on region or tribe.  Basically, this is to prevent the decentralized, federalist structure that some Benghazis want.  Again, by suppressing that voice, the NTC is sowing the seeds of future conflict.

One cannot have a functioning democracy with an un-democratic structure.  An oligarchy in democratic clothing might be in fashion, but I'm hoping that, much like bell-bottoms, we'll look back on this as just a silly fad.

Assad vs Annan

Can a man who has been ruler of a police state for the past 13 years, and whose father ruled before that for nearly 30 years, draw logical conclusions as to the current state of his rule?  No, and Bashar al-Assad's conception of his regime's stability will ultimately lead to his downfall.

News sources report that the killings are continuing in Syria, despite the presence of UN observers.  In fact, it appears that the Assad regime is targeting those who are cooperating with the UN observers, something UN peace envoy Kofi Annan calls "unacceptable and reprehensible".

Given the violations of the Annan peace plan, one has to wonder what al-Assad is thinking.  What is he ultimately planning for?  What are his goals at this stage?

The most obvious answer would be that he wants to stay in power.  In order to achieve that end, he will battle the opposition factions in whatever way he can.  However, given the international attention that the conflict in Syria is receiving, could he honestly hope to remain in power if the wanton violence finally came to an end?  Does he hope to move on from this?

I am leaning towards a "yes".  It would take a feat of unimaginable hubris to believe that Assad could emerge from this conflict with his rule intact, but a man who has been sheltered from reality for his entire life might fall prey to such delusions of grandeur.  Alternative plans are limited:

1. Comfortable exile?  Saudi Arabia certainly wouldn't offer haven to Assad (as it offered to Ben Ali of Tunisia).  Iran is a possibility, but I don't think the Iranians need to instigate further international scorn.
2. Chosen successor?  Handing power over to a chosen successor seems unlikely as well, especially if the successor was an Alawite, and one can't imagine Assad handing power over to anything but an Alawite.
3. Adherence to the Annan peace plan?  Nope.  Not gonna happen.  Even if we ignored the current violence and watch as somehow the additional UN observers due to arrive in the region somehow put a stop to the killings, what next?  Amicably go along with a "political transition" in Syria?  In essence, agree to be ousted from power, politically rather than militarily?  I doubt it.  Amnesty would not be a likely scenario in a post-Assad Syria -- arrest (and probable execution) are much more likely.

Given the lack of effective alternatives, I believe that Assad will stick it out and continue to fight for the survival of his regime.  He will continue to use the Annan peace plan to stall for time, target active opposition members, and bait the international community into thinking that it has actually achieved progress.  The only way that the international community can break that cycle is with overt military action -- something that seems unlikely at this time, but increasingly necessary.

Meeting a Syrian

A few days ago I met a Syrian guy. Like, a real Syrian. For all my talk and thoughts, I've never met a Syrian person before. You can imagine, dear reader, how interested I became when he told me that he still has family there -- and that a cousin of his had been killed by a government sniper.

What is there to say in a situation like this? As he told his story and expressed his opinions, I found myself continuously repeating "I understand, I understand", trying to show some degree of sympathy and compassion, while simultaneously not trying to sound like a fake. I do understand, to a certain degree, but how can I ever begin to imagine what his family is going through?

Awkwardly, I asked whether he is Sunni, Shite, or Alawite. He's a Sunni.

That led into an uncomfortable part of the conversation. My friend mentioned what is happening in Bahrain, and how it is incomparable to what is happening in Syria. Quantitatively, yes, that is true. Far fewer people were killed (and are being killed) in Bahrain. But, I tell him, comparing the two makes me feel uncomfortable. It is tacitly implying that what is happening in Bahrain isn't as important, which I think is an unnecessary and harmful distinction to draw. Mercifully, we move on to the next topic.

What would he like the international community to do? Give the opposition guns. Taking the role of "common Western opinion", I say that it would be difficult because there are so many factions out there and little structure to the opposition. In effect, we'd just be handing out guns to anybody who asked. He understood, but countered that organization is impossible because of the lack of effective communication between groups. They are in a war, after all.

Good point. My friend also is in favor of buffer-zones. Again, I put on my State Department hat and give a brief rundown about what happened in Srebrenica. "But that was in the middle of the Balkans. We have Turkey." Another good point. A buffer zone with Turkey as the backstop would allow opposition forces to gather, organize, and present a united front. (Senator John McCain has called for much the same thing)

But recent developments might make this all moot. The UN is sending "peace observers", "military observers", "truce observers" or whatever you want to call it to Syria today in order to monitor the Annan peace plan. Didn't the Arab League do that a few months ago? Didn't they leave in disgust at the indiscriminate continued killings of civilians by the Assad regime? Alas, if the UN mission can halt the killings, then I guess we have to call that "progress".

Having Fun With the News!

I enjoy "reading between the lines" in news stories and consequently turning passive reading into active reading.

Take this article from Al Jazeera about Anonymous hacking Chinese government websites.

Anonymous hacks Chinese websites

Examine the language used by the hacker. Quoting from the article:

"Dear Chinese government, you are not infallible, today websites are hacked, tomorrow it will be your vile regime that will fall," the message read. "So expect us because we do not forgive, never. What you are doing today to your Great People, tomorrow will be inflicted to you,"

That's where we can start. Then, take into account the context: "smaller sites for government bureaus and minor cities." Also, the posting was in English.

The motivation for the attacks was to show Chinese citizens how to circumvent government internet controls.

And finally, the perpetrator was Anonymous, a group of hacktivists, lacking (as far as we know) a unified structure. In essence, anybody can claim to be in Anonymous. That's the point. It's more of an idea than an organization. By lacking a hierarchical structure, the group can avoid collapse from the arrest of high-ranking members because there are no "high-ranking" members. (Note: Al Qaeda uses the same strategy. Hey, it works.). At least, that's my understanding of it.

Now the fun part. Let's put it all together. The first clue in our treasure hunt is the language used. To put it bluntly, the writing is awful. "So expect us because we do not forgive, never."?? That sentence alone tells me that the writer -- and by logical extension, the hacker -- is not a native English speaker. Most native English speakers would not use "never" to put the punch at the end of that sentence. They would use "ever" instead. Otherwise, the sentence would have been written, poorly, as: "So expect us because we will never forgive, never." Or something like that. However, using a word like "infallible" correctly means that this is no dummy.

Let's ignore the use of punctuation, because that's a problem with most non-writers. The use of "Great People" is interesting. Capitalizing "Great People" makes me think that this isn't a child or 16 year old kid pulling off this hack. Going out of the way to capitalize that phrase means that this person probably has some idea of the richness of Chinese history and civilization, and has a corresponding appreciation for it. Sophisticated thoughts, indeed.

Lastly, we must consider that only minor government websites were targeted, and one might assume that these are "easier" targets than the Chinese National Bank, for example.

Conclusions, thus far: non-native, but quite competent, English speaker, probably 18-25 years old, non-veteran hacker.

Why post in English on a Chinese government site for a Chinese audience? Remember that the purpose of the hack was to show ways to circumvent Chinese government censorship, so the argument that this was a publicity stunt for a non-Chinese audience is rather weak, but still possible.

My feeling is that the hackers are probably non-Chinese, or at least they don't speak Mandarin (the possibility that the hacker/s are non-Mandarin speaking Chinese expats striking back at the government is very probable). The Al Jazeera article spoke about an Anonymous China twitter account, making me think that these attacks were conducted from outside the country, as Twitter is blocked in China. (Check out a list of blocked websites in China).

Further Conclusion: Not a Chinese resident, non-Mandarin speaker.

Progress, dear friends! Unfortunately, I think that's about all the detective work we can accomplish on this case. We have a non-Mandarin and non-native English speaking, non-Chinese resident, 18-25 year old, non-veteran hacker on the loose! Check under your sofas in Western Europe and the United States!

Hoping for an Adlai Stevenson Moment

It looks like Mr. Annan's effort to halt the killings in Syria has failed. Assad has not recognized a ceasefire and continues with the relentless and brutal murder of fellow Syrians.

What now?

At Summit, Nations Move to Increase Aid to Syrian Rebels

The Syrian National Council (a new entity, for me. I don't remember hearing that phrase before. I wouldn't be surprised if it was just created, but cited in passing, giving the group an air of legitimacy) is asking for money, guns, and material. Secretary Clinton has confirmed that the US is sending communications equipment to the rebels, including night vision goggles. For the moment, guns are not being supplied by the international community.

But what next?

My feeling is that tomorrow, when Kofi Annan briefs the Security Council on the next steps for Syria, he should summon the spirit of Adlai Stevenson (a personal hero) and really stick it to Assad. Mr. Annan has to call it like it is and expose the Assad regime for what they really are -- murderers. Only then will China and Russia have the incentive to support a resolution aimed at stopping the violence and ousting Assad. If Mr. Annan, a well respected and decidedly docile diplomat, shows some vigor in his assessment of the situation, it could very well be the turning point in this sad story. Without his strong support for international action, China and Russia will continue to veto any resolution that the Security Council puts forth.

Mr. Annan, the Syrians cannot wait until hell freezes over. The world needs to act. Now.

Spain and Syria: Interventions Not Allowed

In brief: During the Spanish Civil War (1936-39), the Republicans were fighting the Nationalists. The "Republicans" were the ones being overthrown, and were made up of mostly socialists, communists, republicans, anarchists, and left-wing militias (you can already understand how the factions turned against each other later). They received some arms from the Soviet Union. The "Nationalists" were the rebels, in that they were trying to overthrow the Republican government. Led by Francisco Franco, they were comprised mostly of Army officers, fascists, monarchists, and followers of the Church. They received many arms from both Mussolini's Italy and Hitler's Germany.

In 1936, at the outbreak of actual fighting, the Western Europeans stopped supplying the Republic and instead formed the "Non-Intervention Committee". The NIC was supposed to ensure that there was no outside intervention in the civil war. Needless to say, the NIC was a complete failure, as Italy and Germany continued to pour men and material into Nationalist Spain, eventually helping them to overthrow the government and win the war.

Syria, anybody? Kofi Annan's diplomatic efforts?

I see a few important similarities and differences.

First, there is no nation that is overtly pouring resources into the Assad regime's war effort like Italy/Germany was into Spain. Iran is a possible contender though it's not to the same degree and the reports concerning the extent of Iranian intervention are mixed. However, the similarity is disconcerting.

Second, while much of democratic Europe was staunchly against intervention in Spain, there is the feeling that a search for acceptable and productive intervention in Syria is ongoing. A note of caution: that desire for "progress", and the willingness to cheer any move -- however small -- towards an eventual end to the killings, can hide the actual lack of anything being accomplished, outside of a continuation of mass murder.

Lastly, the NIC was never successful in establishing a blockade around Spain to prevent the influx of guns and material. Actually, it never really tried. It was merely a diplomatic association. In fact, the Soviet Union, Germany, and Italy were members of the NIC! In Syria, it's basically the same thing. Has the Syrian-Iranian border been secured? What about the Turkish-Syrian border? Nope. Then again, there is no call for a blockade of Syria, though that seems to be implied. What I mean is that if there has been no agreed-upon way for multilateral intervention in Syria, one would expect that there is no intervention happening in Syria -- which is probably not true. Saying "we will not arm the rebels" doesn't mean that there isn't somebody else arming the rebels (or the regime). Also, "we will not arm the rebels" doesn't mean "we will prevent any effort to arm the rebels."

My hope is that in Syria, those who have died will not be forgotten, Assad will not be let off the hook, and the international community will facilitate/impose a political transition. The Non Intervention Committee never had similar goals in Spain, which gives me hope.

In closing, consider this quote, which was issued by the XXXII Peace Congress after the civil war ended (Wikipedia article):

"Congress considers that a policy of non-intervention, or of abstention, is shown to be insufficient in principle and in practice dangerous, for it paralyses those states which obey it and becomes advantageous to those which violate it."

Questions Are Qool

With respect to foreign policy, all too often we are searching for concrete answers when we should be searching instead for the right questions. Asking the right questions, and many of them, will lead to a more balanced, sober, and measured answer.

Recently I stumbled on the Daily Star, a Lebanese English newspaper, and in an article written a few days ago columnist Rami G. Khouri asks some important questions about US foreign policy:

Refreshing Common Sense in War Making

It is worth quoting his opening paragraphs in full:

I am impressed by the continuing trend toward common sense and rationality among a growing number of public figures in the U.S. who look at Syria and Iran and remember the lessons and legacy of the American-led wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

In spite of the warriors among the Republican presidential candidates who are roaring for war, more frequently these days we are hearing words of caution and restraint from Americans who actually take the time to study realities in the Middle East and ask some hard questions. This did not happen to any serious extent when in 2003 the U.S. led the Iraq invasion, the consequences of which continue to plague the region, the U.S. itself and the world.

Khouri goes on to ask some important questions that aren't getting enough attention.

• Does the U.S. have the moral authority or credible political mandate to initiate wars such as the ones in Afghanistan and Iraq, and and still may do in Syria and Iran?
• By what authority does the U.S. decide to go to war in the Middle East?

My last post concerned the legitimacy of the actions of the United States in the Middle East. In response to Khouri's questions, I would say that the United States has no legal authority whatsoever in the region. There is nothing written down that says that the U.S. can impose its will or intervene unilaterally in any country of its choosing.

However, and here is where Dr. Shadi Hamdi comes into play again, I do believe that the U.S. has the leverage (read: power) to positively influence events in the region -- and the world. That is based on the assumption that the U.S. will pursue goals that are in alignment with its ideals; something that often isn't the case.

Why and how that leverage is used and debating whether its usage is justified, however, is never raised in the "public debate". Apparently, using the enigmatic phrase "national security interests" is all the justification necessary to launch a war. What is unspoken is that raw "power" is accepted as enough of a justification for action as well.

***

If the United States were to fundamentally restructure how it interacts with other nations, I think that the US could win back its global respect and standing as the center of the free world. That restructuring would include: dealing with countries as equals (not as major/minor powers), respect for cultural differences, and placing diplomacy at the top of our foreign policy agenda. Let's fact it: diplomacy isn't sexy. It should be. And we should be proud of it. (If Kofi Annan pulls off a peace deal in Syria, he should be put on the cover of GQ.)

In order for the United States to rid itself of the "imperialist" label, and in order for the US to regain the "moral highground", it has to ask some important questions. Luckily, the Arabs are asking the questions for us. Washington, for the first time, has to listen.