Well this wasn’t exactly the news I was expecting to wake up to this morning. Various news outlets have been reporting over the last several hours that Libyan strongman Muammar Qaddafi has been killed. If confirmed, this would bring an end to forty + years of head games with the international community.
Qaddafi was one of the most colorful world leaders on the global stage from his cadre of Eastern European female bodyguards to his bizarre rambling commentaries like claiming that Obama was his son during one of his last appearances before the United Nations. For all his theatrics and rhetorical grenades, there was another very dark side to Qaddafi.
He was a state sponsor of terrorism, most notably the Pan Am Flight 103 attack over Lockerbie Scotland in 1988. Various sources also linked him to a deal with the AQ Khan Nuclear Network based in Pakistan that would’ve given Libya nuclear materials. These actions suggest that Qaddafi understood a basic axiom of international politics: A small state can be made big through force of action.
Domestically, Qaddafi terrorized his people, killing untold numbers of individuals who dared stand against him, in the most brutal ways known to mankind. To say, I won’t mourn his death is an understatement, but one certainly can’t deny there won’t be another like Muammar Qaddafi .
Thursday, October 20, 2011
Small Freedoms
The government of Myanmar (Burma) has been doing something odd lately. They’ve released a number of prisoners of conscience over the last few weeks, whose existence was previously denied by the regime. It has been suggested that political prisoners may be released in batches to gauge Western responses to the move. The fact that some political prisoners are being released is a huge eye opener given that Myanmar once had the most repressive government this side of North Korea.
The new government has sought to forge a degree of trust among the government and Suu Kyi- the most influential opposition figure in Burmese politics. They’ve also agreed to stop censorship and may agree to look at the electoral system reform that could clear Suu Kyis’ National League for Democracy to run for office. Source: http://www.economist.com/node/21532305.
The West has been faked out by the Myanmar government before, so the West would be wise to not wet themselves over this recent turn of seeming goodwill. Lets wait till all the prisoners are released, censorship is repealed for a meaningful period of time, and these little things called democratic elections occur and the results are respected, before we go removing sanctions and opening the doors to the new tastes great less filling Myanmar government. Lots of things sound good here, but we’ve been burned by the tantalizing flame of Myanmar democracy before.
The new government has sought to forge a degree of trust among the government and Suu Kyi- the most influential opposition figure in Burmese politics. They’ve also agreed to stop censorship and may agree to look at the electoral system reform that could clear Suu Kyis’ National League for Democracy to run for office. Source: http://www.economist.com/node/21532305.
The West has been faked out by the Myanmar government before, so the West would be wise to not wet themselves over this recent turn of seeming goodwill. Lets wait till all the prisoners are released, censorship is repealed for a meaningful period of time, and these little things called democratic elections occur and the results are respected, before we go removing sanctions and opening the doors to the new tastes great less filling Myanmar government. Lots of things sound good here, but we’ve been burned by the tantalizing flame of Myanmar democracy before.
Turkey-Free Europe
Turkey’s ascension to the European Union appears if not dead, in a coma over Turkish actions against Cyprus and some EU member countries resistance to Turkish membership. As an open question: Who needs who here? Turkey has been held up to the Arab world as the ideal model for democracy and freedom, while Europe appears weakened thanks to a debt crisis that threatens to humble even the strongest European economy.
Why would Turkey agree to be dubious part of one community when they could serve as a modernizing model for another community?
Indeed it appears they don’t. Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan accused Brittan and France of having neo-colonialist designs in Libya, while accusing a German foundation of funding Kurdish separatist group PKK, per an Economist report available here: http://www.economist.com/node/21532303. Not exactly behavior of a perspective EU member. Of course, their face of modern Arab democracy isn’t exactly sound either.
Although the army is losing government clout, pretrial detention periods for terrorists could be reduced, and the opposition is being consulted on a new constitution to replace the 1980 military coup constitution. More journalists are in jail in Turkey than any other country, violence against women is among the world’s worst, and a renewed Kurdish crackdown has arrested 3000+ including 12 mayors and 6 parliamentarians.
Why would Turkey agree to be dubious part of one community when they could serve as a modernizing model for another community?
Indeed it appears they don’t. Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan accused Brittan and France of having neo-colonialist designs in Libya, while accusing a German foundation of funding Kurdish separatist group PKK, per an Economist report available here: http://www.economist.com/node/21532303. Not exactly behavior of a perspective EU member. Of course, their face of modern Arab democracy isn’t exactly sound either.
Although the army is losing government clout, pretrial detention periods for terrorists could be reduced, and the opposition is being consulted on a new constitution to replace the 1980 military coup constitution. More journalists are in jail in Turkey than any other country, violence against women is among the world’s worst, and a renewed Kurdish crackdown has arrested 3000+ including 12 mayors and 6 parliamentarians.
South Sudan: Terror Haven
Another one from the where were you last week file. South Sudan Minister of the Interior Alison Manani Magaya has accused North Sudan of providing support and training camps for the Lords’ Resistance Army (LRA) to launch attacks into South Sudan in an effort to destabilize the recently minted country.
He also mentioned some 27 entry points that will be reinforced and cited as poor infrastructure as a reason why so many people have found their way into South Sudan. For the international community, these actions could represent their worst fears as the North appears determined to weaken its’ southern neighbor.
This would be far from unprecedented. All kinds of nefarious things happen in newly democratic countries. Take the collapse of the Soviet Union for example, were still trying to account and secure the vast supplies of nuclear weapons with somewhat mixed results. In order countries, black markets in goods and services have proliferated seemingly overnight.
That terrorists could set up shop in South Sudan is indeed likely because the lack of infrastructure makes movement from place to place easier. Furthermore, the government is new and fragile, if your aim is take down a government…you’d most likely go someplace where institutions are weaker.
For South Sudan, did you really expect the North to give you freedom?
He also mentioned some 27 entry points that will be reinforced and cited as poor infrastructure as a reason why so many people have found their way into South Sudan. For the international community, these actions could represent their worst fears as the North appears determined to weaken its’ southern neighbor.
This would be far from unprecedented. All kinds of nefarious things happen in newly democratic countries. Take the collapse of the Soviet Union for example, were still trying to account and secure the vast supplies of nuclear weapons with somewhat mixed results. In order countries, black markets in goods and services have proliferated seemingly overnight.
That terrorists could set up shop in South Sudan is indeed likely because the lack of infrastructure makes movement from place to place easier. Furthermore, the government is new and fragile, if your aim is take down a government…you’d most likely go someplace where institutions are weaker.
For South Sudan, did you really expect the North to give you freedom?
American Troops to Mexico?
I’ve been sitting on this one for several weeks. Texas Governor Rick Perry created waves at a recent town hall in New Hampshire by saying he would consider deploying U.S. troops to Mexico to help fight the gangs---assuming, of course, that Mexico was interested.
This suggestion has not been greeted warmly on either side of the border with the Mexican ambassador calling it a “non starter” while the American public perhaps war weary argues in recent PEW Research polls that the United States should pay less attention to problems overseas.
Although, I’m inclined to agree with many Americans polled by PEW, Mexico isn’t an Iraq or Afghanistan, it shares a highly porous border with many of our Southwestern states and some members of various drug cartels have become increasingly brazen in recent months both in their actions and their complex tunnels that extend into the US in some cases.
Whether we like it or not, the U.S. government is probably going to have to make a stand eventually because the drug cartels represent a meaningful national security threat against the United States.
The military may be the only ones capable of handling things…if Mexico can’t.
This suggestion has not been greeted warmly on either side of the border with the Mexican ambassador calling it a “non starter” while the American public perhaps war weary argues in recent PEW Research polls that the United States should pay less attention to problems overseas.
Although, I’m inclined to agree with many Americans polled by PEW, Mexico isn’t an Iraq or Afghanistan, it shares a highly porous border with many of our Southwestern states and some members of various drug cartels have become increasingly brazen in recent months both in their actions and their complex tunnels that extend into the US in some cases.
Whether we like it or not, the U.S. government is probably going to have to make a stand eventually because the drug cartels represent a meaningful national security threat against the United States.
The military may be the only ones capable of handling things…if Mexico can’t.
Wednesday, October 19, 2011
What we’ve Lost
I think it sucks that we’ve lost so many young men and women in the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq because it feels like they had so much more of everything to give us.
Their love, their friendship, their laughter, their smiles, all of that has now been silenced save for pictures and the cinemas of our mind.
If I had my wish, war would be a banished tool of barbarians and we’d all live in peace…but alas, this world exists beyond our reach.
No one ever dies though, as long as we never forget them, not just as soldiers, but as human beings who shared with us their hopes, dreams, joys, and ambitions, and made us better in the process.
Wish you were here.
Their love, their friendship, their laughter, their smiles, all of that has now been silenced save for pictures and the cinemas of our mind.
If I had my wish, war would be a banished tool of barbarians and we’d all live in peace…but alas, this world exists beyond our reach.
No one ever dies though, as long as we never forget them, not just as soldiers, but as human beings who shared with us their hopes, dreams, joys, and ambitions, and made us better in the process.
Wish you were here.
Getting Real on Afghanistan
I’ve been avoiding a question ever since I started Book Diplomacy that I get quite often “What do I think about Afghanistan”?
I think the Bush administration made the right move in invading Afghanistan following the September 11th attacks. The error which given the circumstances is inexcusable is in failing to understand the history and culture of Afghanistan. If they had studied either they would’ve understood how illogical imposing the Western conception of heavily centralized government on Afghanistan was.
Afghanistan is a heavy fractionalized, tribal, society that in my view needs something approximating mixed sovereignty-where the centralized authority has authority over things like international affairs, defense, and global trade, while allowing local leaders control over local and regional matters.
We are not going to blast Afghanistan into a modern democratic state, no matter how many guns or bombs we have. Our best hope for victory may be for Afghanistan may be for the average Afghan to say that America left it better than they found it. Right now, I don’t know if anyone can say that given the ramped corruption of the Karzai government and anger over NATO’s night-raids. Opium is the most profitable economic item within the country and there’s a remarkably stubborn insurgency movement there.
Is Afghanistan better with Karzai and American troops or the Taliban…that question should be fairly easy to answer…but I’m very much afraid what will happen to the good Afghan people when we do leave. Do they form a country or descend into warlordism? The thought keeps world leaders up at night, I’m sure.
I think the Bush administration made the right move in invading Afghanistan following the September 11th attacks. The error which given the circumstances is inexcusable is in failing to understand the history and culture of Afghanistan. If they had studied either they would’ve understood how illogical imposing the Western conception of heavily centralized government on Afghanistan was.
Afghanistan is a heavy fractionalized, tribal, society that in my view needs something approximating mixed sovereignty-where the centralized authority has authority over things like international affairs, defense, and global trade, while allowing local leaders control over local and regional matters.
We are not going to blast Afghanistan into a modern democratic state, no matter how many guns or bombs we have. Our best hope for victory may be for Afghanistan may be for the average Afghan to say that America left it better than they found it. Right now, I don’t know if anyone can say that given the ramped corruption of the Karzai government and anger over NATO’s night-raids. Opium is the most profitable economic item within the country and there’s a remarkably stubborn insurgency movement there.
Is Afghanistan better with Karzai and American troops or the Taliban…that question should be fairly easy to answer…but I’m very much afraid what will happen to the good Afghan people when we do leave. Do they form a country or descend into warlordism? The thought keeps world leaders up at night, I’m sure.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)