Middle East Turmoil? Will True Democracy or More Irans Emerge?

[Guest fountainhall]

The turmoil in the Middle East seems to have taken everyone by surprise. First, it was one of the most educated and advanced countries in the region, Tunisia. Then Lebanon and the Yemen. Now Mubarak's regime in Egypt seems close to collapse, and there are rumblings in the relatively stable Kingdom of Jordan. Even more important for the future of the region is the possibility that the hard-line repressive rule of the Saudi Arabian Kingdom may become affected.

 

The initial effects in the west are obvious - extreme nervousness, stock markets on the way down, and the price of oil shooting up. But what will emerge once all this pent up discontent has played out? Will hard line reactionaries like the Iranian Ayatollahs take the stage? What happened in Iran, after all, was a reaction to a brutal dictatorship which pushed western ways onto a conservative Islamic people. The same is definitely true - in part - in Egypt.

 

The truly interesting difference this time around is the role of the internet and the social networking sites which have galvanised the youth in these countries. This makes it a whole new ball game this time around.

 

Equally interesting has been the timid reaction of the United States, from the President, Vice-President and Secretary of State down. It seems the turmoil caught them all flat-footed forcing them to sit on the fence, presumably in the desperate hope they could protect regimes which have hitherto been their allies.

 

As I watched the news this morning, I couldn’t help thinking back to the words of George W, Bush who in 2003 portrayed the war in Iraq as the latest front in the “global democratic revolution” led by the United States.

 

The revolution under former president Ronald Reagan freed the people of Soviet-dominated Europe, he declared, and is destined now to liberate the Middle East as well . . .

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A7991-2003Nov6.html

 

That arrogance has, thankfully, yet again been shot down in an article in The Huffington Post -

 

The revolts in the Middle East, however they ultimately turn out, are a stunning repudiation of the Bush Doctrine.

 

President Bush, if you recall, told us that our ultimate aim in invading places like Iraq and Afghanistan was to transition these and similar nations to democracy. Because making the world democratic was, supposedly, the only ultimately reliable way to make them friendly to us and thus keep us secure.

 

The problem, of course, is that even if democracy is a good thing, shoving it down somebody's throat at gunpoint is extremely likely to make them gag--simply because someone is shoving it down their throat . . .

 

And now, Tunisia and Egypt. Countries which we did not invade are experiencing genuinely indigenous uprisings. Obviously, the fact that these uprisings were not imposed or orchestrated by the USA is the only reason they are credible to the people there.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ian-fletcher/revolts-in-middle-east-st_b_815536.html

 

Whatever happens over the next days and weeks, concern in The White House must surely also be focussed on Israel. Will it be back to Square One before the Camp David Accords? Or will the new regimes which emerge be more prepared to accept Israel’s existence and start to work on solutions to its security and the Palestinians aspirations.

 

A repeat of 1979 or true democracy? Who knows!

[Guest fountainhall]

Following on from my earlier post, it has always seemed strange to me that western governments spend vast sums on their intelligence (espionage?) activities, when history has proved that on a huge number of vitally important occasions, they haven’t had any real clue as to what is going on. Roosevelt’s “day of infamy” speech after Pearl Harbour would not have been necessary had his intelligence services been more on the ball. 9/11 might not have taken place if even just some of the errors made by the terrorists and picked up by different branches of the relevant agencies had been pieced together, as the official 9/11 Report makes clear.

 

This failure to predict events is equally clear when dictators propped up by the west are suddenly deposed, leaving the western powers led by the USA first fumbling in their public utterances, then backtracking, and finally calling for free and fair democratic elections – the very process they have tried so hard for years to prevent. Which is all quite laughable when they have pumped vast amounts of taxpayer dollars into keeping such tyrants in power.

 

I can recall the Marcos years of martial law in the Philippines. I visited quite regularly in those days when the poverty of his people was crippling and heartbreaking. Yet, he and his wife gladly spent vast sums on glamorous prestige projects to the glory of their regime – much of the cash almost certainly siphoned off from official grants from overseas governments. I remember the Shah of Iran’s monstrous celebration of 2,500 years of the Person Empire when a gazillion dollars were spent creating a tent city for the international rich and famous set who mingled with fawning presidents and royals from around the world. When those repressive regimes fell as a result of popular movements, the west was caught completely unawares.

 

Was the west really ahead of the curve when the Berlin Wall fell? I doubt it. It was certainly way behind it in the matter of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Now, it has been caught flat-footed once again as its allies in the Middle East are starting to fall like flies. I very much doubt if the fall of the tyrants in Tunisia and Egypt will be the end of the present round. Have the planners in the State Department or the Foreign Office or the Quay d'Orsay even worked that one out yet?

 

All of which rather begs a question. Despite their huge manpower, despite their enormous budgets, despite all the secrecy and manipulation, since their ability to predict events has proved so pathetic, why on earth do taxpayers not call for radical overhauls of these lack-of-intelligence agencies?

 

And all this is before anyone mentions wikileaks

[Guest fountainhall]

With Libya and Bahrain now seeing major protests (and reportedly a smaller one in Iran), I wonder how what is happening will eventually play out? Bahrain seems at its root to be a Sunni/Shi'a conflict. Is there really any likelihood of these Middle East fiefdoms becoming even semi-stable democracies? Or is the world about to witness increasing strife between branches of Islam, with oil prices once again skyrocketing upwards?

[Guest]

I fear we will get more countries behaving like Iran.

Sadly after the Iraq fiasco, it seems regimes in Iran & North Korea are free to develop nuclear weapons.

Ideally the UN should be taking sufficient military action to prevent such countries from becoming a hazard to the rest of us.

The one thing we should remember is the security of our own nations is the number one priority.

[Guest voldemar]

I am very reluctant to participate in these discussions because sooner or later anti-semites will jump in and ruin everything. In any case, let me first give my explanation why intelligence services were not able to predict it. Keep in mind that I know as much as everybody else and this is just a conjecture. Because it is a totally spontaneous movement: nobody behind it. No Al Qaeda, no Iran, no Muslim brothers.

What triggered it? I am inclined to believe that it is to significant extent "a Bernanke revolution". He introduced so-called QE2 (another round of money printing) with the idea of fighting deflation. In some sense, he succeeded:he created commodity inflation ,including steep rise on major food items like wheat. It hit places like Tunisia and Egypt where many people live on 2 dollars per day. Of course, Bernanke did not cause the revolutions, he rather triggered it... My advice to CIA: closely watch next Bernanke moves... I will comment in another post what, in my view can be possible outcome.

Hint: I am more optimistic on Shia rather than Sunni (I edited it: in original version it was Sunee. I am not that optimistic on Sunee but still more than Shia)..

[Guest voldemar]

I noticed that disturbances had spread to Djibouti, enclave bordered by Somali , Eritrea and Ephiopia. As I mentioned in my previous post, the disturbances most probably started spontaneously in Tunisia. If they would spread to other Mahgreb countries (Algeria, Libiya)

first, it would not have been surprising. However, the events gained momentum in places

like Egypt, Jordan, Yemen, Bahrein and now Djibouty. It looks more and more like concerted attack on US interests (Bahrein is headquaters of US fifth fleet and Djibouti hosts big US military base from which all anti-pirate and anti-terrorist operations in Somali are coordinated).

Stay tuned for my comprehensive analysis of the crisis.

[Bob]

The truly interesting difference this time around is the role of the internet and the social networking sites which have galvanised the youth in these countries. This makes it a whole new ball game this time around.

 

While it's always fun to listen to what the pundits of various political and economic stripes tell us why certain things are happening (the notion that Bernanke's monetary/fiscal moves triggering world commodity prices triggering Tunisia's events and so on is rather unbelieveable to me), I suspect that you've hit upon the very reason that things are beginning to happen all over the place, each seemingly triggering the other.

 

Everybody everywhere, it seems, longs for some aspects of freedom and most people, I think, resent long-entrenched powers who are corrupt and simply steal from their own people. The more educated people become and the more they are able to communicate with each other, the more they are enabled to bring the power of numbers into the game to actually effect a change. It must be incredibly difficult for any regime these days to control the information that gets to its citizens. Countries try to control the access (so as to control what their citizens will think about something - which, of course, controls any reaction) and North Korea is probably the worst example of that anywhere in the world. China tries to do it but, ultimately, it all may ultimately blow up in its face. Sometimes one looks at worldwide events (for example, the fall of various empires such as the events in Russia 20 or so years ago) and it seems that what ultimately triggers the big changes is a populace that's better informed (the old saying "it's hard to keep them down on the farm once they've seen Paris" comes to mind) and able to rapidly communicate and organize calls to action while the emotions remain heated.

 

I tend to think that what's behind any of this is simple human aspirations which aren't all that different than those that have existed for eons. Poverty of the masses and corruption by their leaders - which has existed for centuries - tend to trigger reactions but only when people can communicate and mobilize about it. Modern technology seems to allow that sharing of information (and emotion) and the resultant incitement to action like never before. If, for example, there was any form of free-flow of information in North Korea, that regime wouldn't last for another year. But, as long as the people don't know (hell, some assert that the average North Korean has been indoctrinated to actually believe that he's better off socially and economically than his South Korean counterpart!) and can't talk with each other about it, nothing is going to happen to change the status quo for them.

 

And, of course, there's danger to all of this, most often the danger of one distinct and dangerous group taking control and imposing their own brand of dictatorship, corruption, and control of the masses. Iran and Cuba are only two examples of what happens when extremists hijack justifiable revolutions. Hopefully we're not going down that path but, if I was required to bet on the outcome, that's where my money would sadly go right now.

[Guest fountainhall]

Countries try to control the access . . . China tries to do it but, ultimately, it all may ultimately blow up in its face.

I agree with a lot of what you say. And your comment about China’s actions to control access to some internet sites is unquestionably true (how many has Thailand banned now – 100,000 up?). But as a relatively frequent visitor to that country and one who has often expressed admiration for its quite extraordinary developments in the last 30 or so years, I do suggest that it is the type of generalisation usually made by people who do not know a country well. (If that is inaccurate in your case, Bob, then I apologise in advance - and you will not doubt correct me).

 

I suppose everything is relative, but if you look at the degree of openness, of frank discussion, of criticism of the government and government agencies that now goes on amongst ordinary Chinese citizens, the advances made in 30 years are nothing less than staggering. My friends there may be city dwellers, but some come from humble beginnings deep in the countryside. I believe they have at least some idea of what most people think and feel about the pace of development, the vastly increasing standards of living and so on, and how these are balanced against less freedoms than westerners enjoy.

 

The historical background was explored in another thread. The fact is that, for the time being, the vast majority of Chinese are happy to trade this relative lack of certain freedoms for the order which the country now enjoys – and which it lacked for well over a century – and its constantly increasing prosperity. That may change if the government is unable to continue delivering economic miracles. Presently, though, despite there being many millions of Chinese in the country who have graduated from western Universities, despite China having some of the most talented schoolkids in the world, despite the ability to get round many blocked sites through proxy servers, despite the hundreds of millions who are related to overseas Chinese in Hong Kong, Taiwan, Singapore, the US, Canada, Australia etc. etc. and have access to news through these relatives, I believe we will see no groundswell of popular anti-government support as we are seeing in the Middle East.

 

Iran and Cuba are only two examples of what happens when extremists hijack justifiable revolutions.

I believe you are American, Bob. What is it about Cuba that gets Americans so uptight about that little island? You have to admit it was one of the most corrupt places on the planet prior to Castro’s popular uprising, thanks in large measure to Americans. Asia knows all about that with America’s backing of the monstrously corrupt Marcos regime in The Philippines - also swept aside by a popular revolution and successive governments which have largely been unable to deliver on their promises!

 

Cynicism aside, I accept that, like the Chinese, many of Castro’s original policies were wacky and enhanced the hardships of the people. But had the US embraced Castro or at least opened some sort of dialogue with him, and had it not forced him into the Soviet camp by putting into effect a devastating economic, commercial and financial blockade (let’s put the Russian nukes to one side for now) which I think mostly continues to this day, the hardships of the ordinary Cubans would have been dramatically reduced. I do not know enough about the history to know which extremists highjacked that revolution (do you mean Castro himself? Guevara?). But from my distant vantage point, US policy probably encouraged the rise of such extremists.

 

Finally, since this thread is about turmoil and democracy, am I wrong in thinking there has recently been no such groundswell amongst ordinary Cubans?

[Guest voldemar]

 

Sometimes one looks at worldwide events (for example, the fall of various empires such as the events in Russia 20 or so years ago) and it seems that what ultimately triggers the big changes is a populace that's better informed (the old saying "it's hard to keep them down on the farm once they've seen Paris" comes to mind) and able to rapidly communicate and organize calls to action while the emotions remain heated.

 

That is not correct and the example with Russia (or more precisely with former Soviet Union) is not good one. There was a concrete reason for the disintegration of "Soviet

Empire" stemmed from short-sighted policicies of Gorbachev who was essentially the demagogue lacking the understanding the system and insatiable desire of Eltsin to gain power which led to essentially the coup culminated in treaty of Belavezhskaya Puscha.

Many people believe that disintegration of former Soviet Union was not imminent and it suffices to look at what is going on in "post Soviet space" to realize that very few benefited from desintegration ( I would say Estonia and Litvania only).

Bob analysis is quite shallow and does not take into consideration a basic fact: all major changes are caused by deep economic reasons rather than anything else.

The failure of Marxist experiment in USSR, Cuba , North Korea and all other places was not exception from this rule.

[Guest fountainhall]

There was a concrete reason for the disintegration of "Soviet Empire" stemmed from short-sighted policicies of Gorbachev

Whether or not Gorbachev's policies were short-sighted, I do agree that without Gorbachev's policy of glasnost coupled with Yeltsin's ambition, the Soviet Union would likely have continued for a lot longer.

[Bob]

Addressing Fountainhill's comments only, you're correct that I'm no China expert or claim to be and, yes, not only am I amazed at the staggering changes that have occurred relatively peacefully, I'm hopeful that China can ultimately emerge into some type of modern democracy (not necessarily an exact duplicate of any western model but at least one where the people elect their leaders versus the small group that controls the situation now)in a peaceful fashion where there's a little more even distribution of the wealth in that country. If they can pull that off (and I hope that's the case for both the Chinese people and even the world at large), they'll really make some amazing history.

 

My comments about Cuba are in no fashion intended to support the corrupt regime of Batista or even the right of the Cuban people to overthrow that thug. But, frankly, while one might argue what caused Castro and his cronies to turn around and essentially act much like his predecessor, that's what he did (lately, it's actually been nice to hear Castro himself express regret over the excesses). In a sense, I suppose, there were some mild similarities with Mao and his so-called cultural revolution (read: a dark period ala middle ages of persecution and extremist behavior aimed mainly at the intelligentia).

 

I haven't agreed with the US policy toward Cuba but to suggest that this guy was a thug because of what the US did is untrue and rather simplistic. His behavior throughout the sixties was appalling especially against gays - who he sent to essentially concentration camps to "re-educate" them (again, just last year he came very close to apologizing for those types of "injustices"). His stiffling of a free press (the forced closing of all opposition newspapers) and purging of teachers and professors, let alone the jailing and torture of thousands of dissidents, can hardly be laid to rest at the feet of the US. But that type of behavior surely made nobody in US politics want to support any reconciliation with Cuba. The Bay of Pigs fiasco, people sometimes forget, occurred after Castro began the parading of soviet tanks through the town squares and after Castro began the terrible oppression of some of his people. I would have supported a more open policy and perhaps that would have ultimately helped enable the Cuban people to determine their own destiny. Maybe they'll have that chance some day as they sure deserve it based on what they've been through the last 60 years.

 

I also am not aware of any news about any significant protests or groundswells in Cuba. I'm hopeful that day will come but it's perhaps not likely until Fidel has passed away (or, if before he dies, he regretfully acknowledges that the woes of the Cuban people were caused as much or more by the socialist policies he championed than by the activities of the big bad neighbor to the north).

 

[Over the years, the vast bulk of the US policy involving Cuba has been essentially controlled and influenced by the substantial population of Cuban refugees in the US (many of whom reside in south Florida). They've been a powerful lobby and regretfully have always lobbied for even more aggressive reaction to the Cuban leadership than what the US has actually shown.]

[Guest voldemar]

Whether or not Gorbachev's policies were short-sighted, I do agree that without Gorbachev's policy of glasnost coupled with Yeltsin's ambition, the Soviet Union would likely have continued for a lot longer.

You seem to imply that the former Soviet Union was evil. Do not forget that USSR was as integrated economically and politically as USA. This benefited pretty well all parts of the country.

Many argue that current problems of European Union stem from not sufficient integration

(lack of common fiscal policy). The real evil in former USSR was a political and economic system not the fact that the country had a vast territory and many nations in it. That was Bush idea that such a big country could be US rival no matter how it is politically and economically organized but Bush policies failed also in the former Soviet Union: it suffices to look at "post orange" Ukraine, "post revolutionary" Kirgizia or splitted small

Georgia which totally depends on Western economic aide.

[Guest fountainhall]

You seem to imply that the former Soviet Union was evil.

That was certainly not the intent of my comments. I was actually agreeing with you about the main reasons for the collapse. But my knowledge of the Soviet Union is almost as weak as that of Cuba. The economics of the Cold War certainly meant the Soviet Union spent far too much on the arms race and not enough at home. On my first visits to Moscow and then-Leningrad in 1987 and 1989, I saw for myself the lines outside foodstores, the lack of almost anything on the shelves and lines of people selling personal possessions. But that did not start a popular revolution. And whatever problems existed within the system, I do not mean to imply that the system itself was 'evil'.

 

On the other hand, I believe Stalin was inherently evil, and the quashing of popular uprisings in the East European satellite states was brutal (I was in Vienna when the tanks rolled into nearby Prague). But many so-called democracies and their leaders are far from whiter than white. And that's before we start looking at Mao, Pol Pot and other revolutionaries.

[Guest]

You seem to imply that the former Soviet Union was evil.

I'm fairly sure it was at times. Certainly Stalin had a few policies that could be compared with those of Hitler or Pol Pot.

 

Obviously under Gorbachov, things were considerably better.

[pong]

there must be just 1 country left that spends such huge amounts on ''espionage/info gathering'' from most other countries. In the past there also were the red hammer and sickle adapts, who also had long legged blond Natasha's to get people in blackmail-worthy situtaions, but they were mostly after economic secrets and bisnis-gains.

My bet for explanation are the simple things:

1.think that new-time technology can solve anything and forget about the basics of how human beings live on, i.e. psychology. They only know a bit of pychology in manipulating consumer behavior.

Think Thai style: corruption drives anything. So that means the bisnis boys (directors,-I despise that newtime word of CEO) pay under the table to the govmt boys for new and much better, yet unproven technology. Sell padlocks from walmart @69 cents for 69 $$ to the govmt with some special claim. etc. That particular country may be very rich, but that richness also very uneven distributed and it does not score pretty good on corruption statistics.

2.but even then I think that the wikileaks (that they were so crazy-mad about-lost honour?) even revealed in the case of Tunisia that their workers there did had sent out warnings, gathered from TV and general local news. But in a country were the press is heavily censured-how do you find out, reliably, about ''grassroots'' movements? Embassy workers are not tipically those that engage much in contact with ''normal people'' as they even get their own cars=no knowledgeable taxidriver and their workmaids etc. are specially screened-possibly also by the local govmt, on loyalty to the present govmt.

3.or do that mentioned easy psychology: you must know that when big bisnisses fail, it is often when the utmost director goes mad, often led by an excessive greedy wife. In my country we had quite a few cases of that the last 20 years. it will not happen overnight-but there seems to be a leeway of maybe 10-12 years. Same-same seems to be the case with about any fallen dictator of the last 20 years or so, and a great many of those in the Mid-east.

My bet would be much more on Cambodia/Kampuchea as a next candidate. And do not forget China: when their property bubble goes burst, and profit is the main driving force in the Chinese way of thinking, millions and millions of the masses loose out on millions and billions of yuan. Makes a nice recipe for a big revolt. Certainly when the green boys (army) also loose out, as they are hip-deep in all kinds of real estate. But they are very great in passing the bill on to someone else-so there may be some buffertime when they still can do that.

4. and ''real'' democracy does not come fallen from the sky. if there is suddenly no iron-fisted ruler, in a country with rivalling groups or tribes, then there are sure to come a wave of criminality (and calls for a new strong leader) or forms of tribal warfare. Those iron firsted leaders often favoured one of those groups, or were part of it. so there are bills to setlle in revenge. Iraq is sadly a much more fitting example as iran for that. For most people democracy simply means: we are nw free to do what ever we like to.

[Guest fountainhall]

My bet would be much more on Cambodia/Kampuchea as a next candidate. And do not forget China: when their property bubble goes burst, and profit is the main driving force in the Chinese way of thinking, millions and millions of the masses loose out on millions and billions of yuan. Makes a nice recipe for a big revolt. Certainly when the green boys (army) also loose out, as they are hip-deep in all kinds of real estate

I have only been to Cambodia a few times, but with their experience of the Khmer Rouge still at the forefront of many people's minds, I really cannot see a mass uprising at this stage. When all economic and business life in your country has been virtually destroyed so recently, my guess is that most people accept it will take time to move forward to greater prosperity.

 

As to China, I believe the government is shrewd enough to prevent the bubble from bursting. It certainly has massive financial reserves to help it do so. A year or so ago, almost every economist and pundit was predicting a hard landing for China's economy which had stormed ahead in the aftermath of the world economic crisis. It hasn't happened. The government has been able to slow it down, yet growth rates this year will still be the envy of most countries. It also knows it cannot afford mass unrest as almost broke out when factories started closing in alarming numbers 3 years ago. The central imperative in the last few decades has been stability and the avoidance of chaos.

 

The People's Liberation Army is not only involved in property. It has tentacles in many business enterprises. In any case, though, the government will never deny the armed forces funding.

 

''real'' democracy does not come fallen from the sky . . . For most people democracy simply means: we are nw free to do what ever we like to.

Your first comment is right on the mark, pong. Western politicians – and many individuals – seem to think that democracy can be created with the wave of some magic wand. Democracy in the west took hundreds of years to evolve. Even then, women everywhere - and African Americans in the US - were still denied the vote until relatively recently. To expect a nation like China with 1.3 billion plus people, a nation which has never known democracy in its 5,000 year history, suddenly to adapt to one-man-one-vote is ludicrous. Look what has happened in Iraq where, following the last election, it took how many months to form a government – 8? Look at some other countries and see the number of parties involved in elections. So many, it is impossible for the average voter to know what each party’s policies stands for.

 

I believe the individuals who make up China’s central government are actually quite a savvy bunch. They know they will have to move towards some sort of democracy sooner rather than later. But, they saw what happened as the Soviet Union disintegrated, and they will strive to avoid that at all cost. So, as Bob suggested earlier, it will be a different form of democracy to that practised in the west. They have already begun at village level with elections for village councils.

 

Most non-Chinese would be surprised to learn that the country already holds more elections than any other in the world. Under the Organic Law of the Village Committees, all of China's approximately 1 million villages — home to roughly 600 million voters — hold local elections every three years.

 

Critics scoff that local Communist Party officials manipulate these elections. But according to research by Robert Benewick, a professor at the University of Sussex in England, village elections have been growing more competitive, with a greater number of independent candidates and increasing use of the secret ballot. For those elections that have been genuinely competitive, researchers claim to have found evidence of positive effects.

 

For example, in a study that looked at 40 villages over 16 years, the economist Yao Yang found that the introduction of elections had led to increased spending on public services by 20 percent, while reducing spending on "administrative costs" — bureaucratese for corruption — by 18 percent.

http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/eo20110131a1.html

 

That same article provides quotes from President Hu and Prime Minister Wen in which they state that "political reform, including opportunities for citizens to criticize and monitor the government, is necessary to sustain China's breakneck economic growth. Otherwise the country's economic gains would be lost." Hopefully this will spread outwards in an organised way, so that the chaotic, troubled introduction to democracy experienced in some other countries can be avoided. Hopefully, also, voters will realise that democracy does not deliver instant results. It’s a long, hard road with many pitfalls. It brings with it responsibilities as well as benefits.

[Guest fountainhall]

Today The Guardian is reporting that Libya is "on the brink" as protests have now spread to Tripoli.

 

In fast-moving developments after midnight, demonstrators were reported to be in Tripoli's Green Square and preparing to march on Gaddafi's compound as rumours spread that the leader had fled to Venezuela. Other reports described protesters in the streets of Tripoli throwing stones at billboards of Muammar Gaddafi while police used teargas to try to disperse them.

 

"People are in the street chanting 'Allahu Akbar' (God is great) and throwing stones at photos of Gaddafi,"an expatriate worker told Reuters by telephone from Tripoli. "The police are firing teargas everywhere, it's even getting into the houses" . . .

 

The Libya al-Yawm news website quoted one local doctor as saying that 285 people had died in Benghazi alone. "Now people are dying we've got nothing else to live for," a student blogger told the Guardian. "It's like a pressure cooker. People are boiling up inside. I'm not even afraid any more. Once I wouldn't have spoken at all by phone. Now I don't care."

 

In other signs of mounting domestic anger at Gaddafi, Libya's representative to the Arab League, Abdel Monein al-Honi, announced that he was resigning in protest at the suppression of the unrest. Libya's ambassador to China, Hussein Sadiq al-Musrati, resigned on air while on al-Jazeera Arabic, calling on the army to intervene, and urged all diplomatic staff to resign. In another striking development, the leader of a powerful tribe in eastern Libya warned that oil exports to the west – vital for the country's economy – would be halted within 24 hours unless the authorities stopped the "oppression of protesters".

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/feb/20/libya-defiant-protesters-feared-dead

[Guest voldemar]

The fact is that, for the time being, the vast majority of Chinese are happy to trade this relative lack of certain freedoms for the order which the country now enjoys

[Guest fountainhall]

Democracy make sense (and can function properly) only if the country reaches certain degree of economic prosperity . . . Democratic Egypt is simply impossible . . . On the other hand, the Shia wave seem to be instigated by Iran and has a goal to undermine US positions and make inroads on Sunni territory.

Regarding the first comment, I agree - but would suggest that a leadership committed in both words and deeds to the development of democracy is also necessary. Given the relative poverty in much of the country, would democracy have worked in South Africa without individuals like Nelson Mandela and Desmond Tutu as its political and moral leaders?

 

I also agree about Egypt, and I fear what will happen given the country's strategic importance in that part of the world.

 

As to Sunni/Shia rivalry and ambitions, I will have to read much more to grasp the differences between the two branches of Islam. Both accept the Koran and the core fundamental principles - the Five Pillars of the faith. Thereafter, there seem to be very complex issues at stake, much more so than the differences between, say, the Catholic and Protestant branches of the Christian faith. Can anyone give a quick summary?

[Guest]

Even Western democracies can be quite undemocratic in many respects.

e.g.

 

1 Unelected EU Commission imposing legislation. We need to watch that one!

2 Unequal constituency sizes, which mean the party with the most votes gets far fewer MPs (as happened in England in 2005).

3 Political parties making substantial changes from their manifesto after election and not putting these changes to a referendum.

I gather there was a degree of confusion over the election of George Bush also.

 

As for the likes of Libya & Iran, our number 1 priority is to maintain military superiority over these dangerous countries.

Whatever principles we may have, the Iranian government does not!

Number 2 should be safeguarding our energy supplies.

[Bob]

As for the likes of Libya & Iran, our number 1 priority is to maintain military superiority over these dangerous countries.

Whatever principles we may have, the Iranian government does not!

Number 2 should be safeguarding our energy supplies.

 

I'm going to have to disagree with those priorities entirely. Sure, military strength is needed and an intelligent energy policy [which none of the western nations (other than maybe Brazil) has even approached in a comprehensive and intelligent manner] are important national concerns. But your #2 option, in my view, is a euphemism for what has caused us and the citizens of the middle east trouble for decades.

 

We ought to stand up for basic human principles (perhaps those outlined by the UN charter versus the particular brands any one of the western countries adopt at home) and that ought to be our number one priority and we ought to help those that abide by those rules (and, necessarily, not help at all those that don't). We (mainly the US and the UK) have spent way too much time cozying up to dictators and wackos just to make oil deals and that policy has defined us to the people of the mideast. It's been immoral in my view and has led us to support and prop up oppressive regimes and it's about time that the west stood up for its alleged priniciples versus using foreign policy to grab economic benefit. The oil is theirs, not ours, and it's absolutely horrendous that we ever went down the avenue of looking the other way just to keep our automobiles and economies plugging along.

 

Some may argue that the national/economic interest of our western countries trumps the concept of standing firm for the human rights principles that we claim to support and that it's naive to think that "doing the right thing" is better (security-wise) for the west. Sorry, I don't buy that concept as what we've done in the past has only made our security concerns more severe and likely assisted the general populace view that we are untrustworthy, hypocritical, and detestable. For example only, our support for the Shah of Iran has directly assisted in having a very dangerous regime in place there not to mention the suffering of millions of Iranians for the last 40 years.

 

So, as far as I'm concerned, it's time for a new policy, one that's grounded on who we are versus what we want.

[KhorTose]

So, as far as I'm concerned, it's time for a new policy, one that's grounded on who we are versus what we want.

 

Right on Bob.

[Guest voldemar]

 

We ought to stand up for basic human principles

This is just words. US pursue its national interests in Middle East and its interests is oil. There is no doubt that one can redefine national interests and historically various US leaders did it. It is typically known as doctrines which usually have names attached to it. But redifinition is a question of deeds not words. The irony of the situation is that US has a plenty of energo resources in the form of coal and shale gas. The latter one became significant due to recent technological breakthroughs which made it possible to extract this gas much more efficiently than in the past. I had opportunity

to write about it in the past on this board. Those who are currently in US probably noticed

that though the winter is quite severe, the heating gas bill went down quite substantially

(in my case I pay twice less to keep my house warm). That the tangible consequence of the new technology.

The problem is that Obama has completely different priorities and instead of trying to formulate the comprehensive energy policy based on available resources, he is busy with various BS like carbon trade (which has in his own words the goal to destroy electric companies using coal power plants), promoting electric cars (try to use them in Midwest during the winter storm), shitty shevy volt produced by Government motors

with total 312 cars sold, wind turbines which nobody wants in their neighbourhoods due to incredible noise and nonconnectivity with power grid and other demagogical nonsense.

Yes, US can be self-sufficient energy-wise, US can pull out of Middle East and let local

sheiks to sort out their religious problems (which they tend to resolve by blowing up innocent people) but that requires a substantial effort and new President to start with.

[KhorTose]

This is just words. US pursue its national interests in Middle East and its interests is oil. There is no doubt that one can redefine national interests and historically various US leaders did it. It is typically known as doctrines which usually have names attached to it. But redifinition is a question of deeds not words.

 

I am not sure what the above means. What I think you are trying to say is that what we really need is a whole new energy policy and we should learn to rely more on coal and shale. If I am correct, this seems like a good idea but I have not read where the environmentalist have signed on to this. Until they do, I am skeptical of these resources. Me I see the need for more Nuclear plants and greater use of electicity. However, regardless of what energy policy we adopt we need to emphasis our core values with our friends and others. I, for one, am tired of supported every two bit dictator in the world. If they won't give freedom to their people I don't want anything to do with them.

 

Furthermore, the real problem in the world, that tops energy policy is the population problem. Until we tackle this problem there is no long term solution to many of the world's problem. Basically what is occurring in the Middle East is too many trained and skilled people and no jobs or any future job prospects. I am afraid that most of these revolutionaries are in for a shock once the dust settles, and things do not change.

[Bob]

This is just words. US pursue its national interests in Middle East and its interests is oil.

 

And what you're spouting is just more of where we've been for the last 60 years. And just what has it achieved? More pollution, less security, and more debt. One would have thought we learned something from the oil embargo 40 years ago (but we didn't.....other than to build bigger storage tanks for the national reserves).

 

Any energy policy has environmental hazards and the so-called new deep gas extraction method (I do believe you are referring to fracting, aren't you?) has had it's issues too (polluting local underground water supplies being the biggest) and that will have to be carefully controlled. And, as Khor Tose notes, the extraction of oil from the shale involves several environmental issues (not including the negatives we get from burning that oil once we've extracted it).

 

If I was in charge (I'm not), I'd require 75%+ of US automobiles to be converted to use natural gas (last I looked, the cost to convert is about $2,400.00 per vehicle) within the next 5 years and require the gas stations to provide natural gas outlets. I'd also require all homes in the US heated by heating oil to convert to propane or natural gas. The result is we cut our oil imports and trade deficit drastically and produce homes and vehicles that pollute less (and, in the process, create a few million jobs to get all this done). The key is the money stays home and we get a cleaner environment, a win-win deal to me. Old oil barron Boone Pickens has been championing this method for more than a decade and I think he's right.

 

As concerns the feasibility of using natural gas to fuel cars, it does work rather well and produces far less pollutants. Even a so-called third-world country such as Thailand has partially adopted that method and one would think that the US can maybe figure out how to get it done if the Thais can do so.

 

Long-term, I'd hope there would be a breakthrough with affordable electric cars that travel far enough on a single charge. But that possibility (and it's only a possibility) is so far down the pike that we simply can't afford to wait. The much better alternative of natural gas is already available and we have huge supplies in the states (and, if we need more, I have no issue in paying our reasonable Canadian neighbors for it). Then we don't need Chavez or any sheik in the middle east and we would have no need to breech our ethical standards by avoiding pointing out they are simply a bunch of dictatorial thugs.