Libya: Damned if you do and damned if you don't

There are many voices being raised in the U.S. that the U.S. should enforce a no-fly zone over Libya to reduce Gaddafi's advantage over the opposition.

One of these is Nicholas Kristof, "The Case for a No-Fly Zone Over Libya", New York Times, 2011-03-09.

On the other hand, they are those who give many arguments for the long-term consequences of  unilateral action, "Kicking the Intervention Habit", Richard Falk, Al-Jazeera, 2010-03-10.

Count me as one of the sympathizers of a no-fly zone, yet I really hesitate because of the long-term damage to U.S. prestige and influence.  What right does a country thousands of miles away have to determine military action that is not threatening its own shores?  What arrogance to think that the U.S. military is the only one capable of acting?

Wouldn't the European Union be a more appropriate actor than the U.S.?  Don't France, Germany, and the U.K. have sufficient capability to enforce a no-fly zone over Libya?  Even then, it will be interpreted by many in the Arab world as another example of colonialism.

If any no-fly zone were to be enforced, it would have to come from an Arab country.  Is it in the interest of the current governments of Tunisia and Egypt to do so?  They are the ones who had to deal with the thousands of refugees fleeing Libya.  Is not Egypt getting over $50 billion per year in military aid?  Is that going into paper airplanes?

I think the only course of action for the U.S. is to have very private talks with the Egyptians as to what the latter can and should do.

Maybe there is one other thing the U.S. can do.  If the embargo on Libya is rewritten to exempt the opposition government, then by all means ship arms, food, and other supplies into Benghazi and other safe ports.  If the U.S. could supply Stinger missiles to the Mujahideen in Afghanistan with disastrous effects on Soviet forces, could and should it supply them to the opposition in Libya, either directly or through a surrogate?

A butterfly flapped its wings in Tunisia

A student, Mohamed Bouazizi, is selling vegetables in Tunis to support his family.  A policewoman complains that he doesn't have the proper permit.  In the argument, she slaps him.  He is humiliated and sets himself on fire.  This in turn sets many Arab countries on fire.

Many have complained that the U.S. with its vast intelligence network didn't foresee this.  Consider that many didn't foresee the fall of the Czar of Russia.  Consider that Winston Churchill said in the 1920s that he thought war with Japan was impossible.

Other than knowing that kowtowing to dictators is itself playing with fire, I won't pretend to judge the intelligence community.  I'll let you read some short analyses by other commentators.  See "Why Didn't the U.S. Foresee the Arab Revolts?", Room for Debate, New York Times, 2011-02-24.

Solidarity - an overused word?

When I lived in Sweden in the early 70s, I saw many a poster proclaiming "solidarity" with this group or that group.  Somehow it seemed to me that claiming "solidarity" without doing much more than making a poster or holding a meeting was an empty gesture.

With all the protests, rebellions, and revolutions going on now, especially in North Africa, many people are claiming "solidarity" with the people in North Africa.

I've thought that solidarity as a concept gained currency with the labor movement.  If the union voted for a strike, all members went on strike in solidarity, whichever way they voted.  If one union at a factory went on strike, other unions might go on strike in solidarity with the first.  It was a one for all and all for one attitude.

Now people in many countries go out on peaceful streets and hold up signs of "solidarity" with the people of North Africa.  Where was their "solidarity" when Western countries were kowtowing to these dictators for oil or for "national security"?

Well, better late than never.  These demonstrations do give some hope to those struggling against dictators.  Their struggles are not going unnoticed.

If you really want to show "solidarity", hop on a plane and help get supplies into Libya.  If you can only show "sympathy", attending a demonstration is helpful.  But even more help is to send a check to one of the many organizations that are actually doing something on the ground.  Choices include the International Committee for the Red Cross, Médecins sans Frontières (Doctors without Borders) , and the United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR).

Keeping up with events in Egypt

If you are a news freak who couldn't get enough news about Iran in 2009, your best source on Egypt is Al-Jazeera.  The English version on the web is at

http://english.aljazeera.net/

For the latest, check out the blogs.  There is also plenty of commentary from many sources and perspectives.  One I found particular interesting is "The triviality of US Mideast policy" by Robert Grenier, a former director of the CIA's Counter-Terrorism Center.  He relates how the headmaster of his school was unknowingly made irrelevant by an anti-Vietnam War protest.    Similarly, events have made most of U.S. Mideast policy irrelevant and outdated.

P.S. Cairo time is 8 hours ahead of Central Standard Time.

Will North Africa and the Middle East join the democracies of Europe?

People in their 50s and older may remember not only the dictatorships of Eastern Europe, but the dictatorships of Portugal, Spain and Greece. Many of these are now gone.  About the only authoritarian European regimes left are Russia and some of its former "republics".

Many of us had hopes for Iran a couple of years ago, but some of the Ayatollahs, the Republican Guard, and the Basiji put the damper on that.  Now the government of Tunisia has toppled and the situation is in flux.  The Egyptian government has been seriously challenged to a greater extent than Iran was.  In fact, as of today, the people practically rule the streets and have destroyed many government building while protecting popular buildings like museums.

What will the next ten years bring?  The European model or more of the same old self-perpetuation of self-appointed elites?

Compared to North Africans, Tea Partiers are quibblers

Many people in Tunisia, Egypt, and Yemen are staging wide-spread protests against autocratic governments that were elected, if you can call it that, by sham processes.  Their governments have been corrupt, the top raking in all kinds of benefits with no accountability, the bottom requiring bribes to do the simplest things, like even apply for a government job.

The protesters are fighting the police and army with their large presence, stones, and returned tear-gas canisters (made in the U.S.A.)  In Alexandria, the protest was so overwhelming that the police gave up and shared water bottles with the protesters.

Meanwhile, back in the U.S.A., underwriter of these corrupt regimes in the name of defense, some Tea Party supporters are appearing in public with weapons to protect themselves against "the overreaching government".

How is the government "overreaching"?  It is taxing them more than they would like to provide services they claim they don't like.  They complain that their freedoms are being taken away, but it seems that they have plenty of freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and freedom of assembly to express their views.  Have you heard any reports of blocking of the internet, shutting down newspapers, or canceling the licences of broadcasters in order to silence supporters of the Tea Party?

How were these "overreaching" government activities achieved?  By elected officials and their appointees.  Sure, we see flawed elections.  But the Floridas and Ohios are the exceptions rather than the rule.  Do we have corruption and bribery?  Sure!  But how often are those who complain about or who expose corruption put in jail or otherwise silenced?  If such silencing was going on, would we even have a Tea Party?

If America is supposedly "exceptional", would we even have a Tea Party to complain about all the things that "are wrong"?

Give Democracy a Chance

After reading of the popular uprising in Tunisia, I can't help but give this entry a parallel title to my previous entry.

The chance I hope for any democracies that arise in the Arab world by popular demand is that the U. S. stays out of the way.  Almost anything the U.S. does, be it some support for the existing rulers or some support to the people is bound to backfire in one way or another.

The only thing the U. S. should do is to listen to whoever is in power, but promise nothing.

But, I'm pessimistic.  Somewhere in the vast U.S. military-intelligence complex will be those who call for intervention in our national interest.  Our only national interest is to help any U. S. citizens who want to leave countries in turmoil.