Editor's Note: Below is the second sample I promised you from our coverage of the big events happening right now. Both of these articles are just from the last week of commentary in TIA Daily, so they give you an idea of the kind of guide to the news that you could be getting every day. The previous sample was about the big story in domestic news. The sample below is our latest update on the big story in international news: the Arab Revolution of 2011.
The uprising in Libya is an important new phase in that revolution: the first anti-American regime to be brought down by "people power." The revolution in Egypt had its inspiring moments and offers significant promise for an improvement in the political culture of the Arab world. But we are also right to be nervous about how it will all end up. Hosni Mubarak was no prize—not even from the perspective of the most callous realpolitik—but things could definitely get a lot worse in Egypt. By contrast, when Moammar Gaddafi finally goes down, things could probably get worse, but not by much. And they are far more likely to get much better.
As I point out below, Libya is also a better analogy to Iran, and Gaddafi's downfall will help fuel the revival of that nation's anti-theocratic opposition. If we're lucky, the Persians will get to complete their rebellion against tyranny, too.
As I said yesterday, this is no ordinary time. In the Middle East, it is a great age of revolutions. You cannot afford to be without a rational guide to help you understand what is going on and what America can and should do about it. I hope you will consider subscribing at www.TIADaily.com/subscribe.—RWT
TIA Daily • February 27, 2011
COMMENTARY
First, an update on the latest developments.
Moammar Gaddafi and his sons are holed up in Tripoli with a ragtag, dregs-of-the-earth mercenary army recruited from neighboring African countries, thanks to Gaddafi's years as a "pan-African" rabble-rouser.
Up to now, Gaddafi has mostly been an international punch line, with a reputation as the most eccentric dictator outside of North Korea. Now he is trading in that reputation for a special kind of infamy, the infamy of a leader who would rather set his country on fire, and burn everyone in it, than give up power, vowing that "Libya will become a hell."
The New York Times reports that a Libyan army colonel has cobbled together "an armed volunteer force of about 2,000 men—including army defectors" that is supposed to be converging on Tripoli to take back the capital. Peaceful demonstrations won't do it. It will require armed force.
Meanwhile, a New York Times reporter invited into Libya for what was supposed to be a carefully stage-managed whitewash by the regime, was allowed to wander away from his handlers long enough to send back a report on the chaos and carnage in Tripoli.
The editorial board of the New York Times may be corrupt, but the paper still has the best international reporting, and for keeping up with fast-breaking events like this on an hour-by-hour basis, I recommend their breaking news blog.
At the very beginning of this story, when the possibility of an uprising in Libya was still speculative, I mentioned TIA's small connection to this big story. One of the Facebook pages calling for protests against the regime featured a caricature of Gaddafi drawn by John Cox, the illustrator who also produces the covers for our print edition. John speculates that his drawing must have served an important function for the revolutionaries: they need to have an image that makes the once-feared dictator seem ridiculous.
That caricature keeps popping up in the Libyan uprising. John's blog has a screen capture of CNN's home page, which features a close-up of his caricature being held up at an anti-government rally. A similar scene from another rally is shown here.
The uprising in Libya is another opportunity to spread political freedom in a region that has never enjoyed it. Talking to a New York Times reporter, a supporter of the rebels sums up their motive: "We have no freedom here. We want our freedom, too."
The biggest implication of the battle in Libya may be for Iran. The Middle East Media Research Institute quotes one Arab media baron—a guy who has previously admitted to funding insurgents in Iraq—declaring that the new era of Arab revolutions should be limited to toppling pro-American leaders. Well, Moammar Gaddafi is the first anti-American leader to be targeted, and also the first who is willing to use brutal and bloody force to suppress the opposition—both of which also hold true for Iran. If he can fall, the Iranian regime can be taken down, too.
One of the most striking features of the revolt in Libya has been the defection of that nation's ambassadors abroad, who have run up the pre-Gaddafi Libyan flag over their embassies and asked the world to issue stronger condemnations of their nation's leader. Well, we're also seeing that pattern with Iran. The latest report:
Ahmad Maleki, head of Iran's consular office in Milan, resigned his post on Sunday to protest Tehran's "barbaric actions against the Iranian nation," Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty reports, adding that he now plans to join Iran's pro- democracy Green Movement.Egypt's and Tunisia's uprisings have breathed new life into the Iranian resistance.... After a year of lying low, tens of thousands of Green Movement protesters marched through Iran's streets on Sunday and last Monday. Whereas in 2009 they called for fresh elections, they are now calling to overthrow their government and to end the country's "religious dictatorship."...
Mr. Maleki, who previously served Tehran in Portugal and Kenya, tells RFE/RL that there are "many others in the [Iranian Foreign Ministry] who are unhappy with the government." Mr. Maleki is the fourth Iranian diplomat to resign in the past year, after Iranian envoys stepped down in Norway, Finland, and Brussels
This is the big opportunity we have right now in the Middle East, and as much as we need to worry about the negative consequences of the death of the devil we know, we should keep our eyes on this prize.
The Guardian is a leftist British newspaper that still manages to remember, from time to time, that "liberals" are supposed to stand for freedom. Their coverage of the uprising in Iran two years ago was very good, and they have done a generally good job on this year's uprisings as well. A few days ago, the paper carried an op-ed by a Moroccan political activist who borrowed a phrase from George W. Bush, asking the West to go beyond the "soft bigotry of low expectations" in dealing with the politics of the Arab and Muslim worlds. In effect, he is asking us to consider that the Arabs may be capable of something better than rule by a "stable" strongman.
The prevalent thinking about this region of over 300 million souls is that it offered no fertile ground for democracy, either because democracy risked bringing political forces hostile to western interests or because democracy is not a value that has much currency in the region. Many regimes understood this, and played a double game of decrying their societies' "immaturity" while encouraging anti-democratic tendencies such as populism and, at times, a reactionary social conservatism. After the revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt, no one will buy this any more—and nor should they about two more North African countries: Libya and Morocco....More and more Moroccans want something akin to what they see in Britain or Spain: a constitutional monarchy where the king is head of state but does not interfere in government. Like the protests elsewhere in the region, the peaceful demonstrations that have taken place in eight cities are about dignity. Moroccans, like other Arabs, are tired of being subjects: they want to be citizens....
Libyans are not condemned to be ruled by Gaddafis for eternity; Moroccans do not have to settle for an absolute monarchy, no matter how enlightened. Encouraged by their neighbors' example, they have higher expectations for their future, and so should you.
To put it in my terminology, young Arabs seem to be discovering the freedom that is part of a "normal life" for the rest of the world. But we, too, have to adjust our outlook and regard freedom as "normal." We have to recognize the evidence of history and look on a free society, not as an unusual system enjoyed only by a few especially enlightened Western societies, but as something that can take root in Latin America, in Eastern Europe, in Southeast Asia—and, next, among the Arabs and Persians.
This, in my view, is what constituted the visionary genius of George W. Bush. He grasped that the global impact of liberty could and would hit the Middle East, and he tried to prepare for it. Faced with the current wave of political change, he might still make many mistakes—he certainly did so in Iraq and elsewhere—but he would not be caught utterly flatfooted and disoriented.
Flat-footed and disoriented is the only way to describe the Obama administration's response. They have no idea what is happening and no sense of urgency that they need to know and to take action. Their response to Libya has been, if anything, even worse than Obama's slow and passive response to Egypt.
First, the White House announced, unbelievably, that Obama had not yet said anything about Libya because, gosh, they just couldn't work it into his schedule. Then they assured us that they were going to monitor the situation and "evaluate as we go." Then they chose the bizarre medium of a press release summarizing President Obama's phone conversation with German Chancellor Angela Merkel to make public his strongest statement yet.
The president stated that when a leader's only means of staying in power is to use mass violence against his own people, he has lost the legitimacy to rule and needs to do what is right for his country by leaving now.
But note that this is all still passive. It is about what someone else is going to do, either Gaddafi, or the European Union, or (try not to laugh) the UN. Thus, the press release goes on to say that Obama and Merkel
discussed appropriate and effective ways for the international community to respond. The president welcomed ongoing efforts by our allies and partners, including at the United Nations and by the European Union, to develop and implement strong measures.
Even more jarring is the very next sentence: "The president and the chancellor also discussed the global economic recovery and the need for effective tools to promote economic stability in the Eurozone."
Has there ever been a president more disengaged from crucial world events?
The Washington Post's Dana Milbank notes that new White House Press Secretary Jay Carney—who, I must say, looks like someone grabbed a high-school debate team captain and suddenly promoted him to spokesman for the most powerful man in the world—has consistently had nothing to say in response to the barrage of questions he is getting from the White House press corps. Milbank concludes that Carney has nothing to say because there is no policy for him to announce or explain.
Or as John Bolton puts it, President Obama has no foreign policy.
But remember that Obama warned us of this in his speech in Cairo two years ago, when he announced that he regarded America as an unexceptional nation that should not take any special, leading role in the world. Remember the old saying that if you fail to plan, you plan to fail? Well, it goes the other way, too. If you plan to fail, you will fail to plan. Why craft a distinct foreign policy agenda, if your intention is for America to be irrelevant to world events?
But this is a bad time to drift through foreign affairs.
There are many ways in which the conflagration in the Middle East could spell trouble for us. Iraq has begun to see tumultuous street protests against official corruption and the government's failure to deliver basic services. On the one hand, Iraq is more likely to weather these protests because it does have an elected government. On the other hand, Iraq's elected government is very new, and the country is still something of a battleground in which many malevolent forces—not least, the Iranians—are attempting to exert influence. Things could spin out of control very quickly.
Things are spinning out of control in Yemen, where prominent tribal leaders have now come out against the local strongman—who has been somewhat helpful in cooperating with American covert action against al-Qaeda's significant outposts there.
And now for the news that should really make you uptight: DEBKAfile reports a rumor of the first anti-government demonstrations in Saudi Arabia.
The Middle East is entering a period of rapid and radical change. It could all go well for us, or it could lead to chaos. Our leaders need to be actively engaged in influencing the outcome to protect and advance our interests. Instead, our president is planning to fail.—RWT
One-Year Subscription — $74
Six-Month Subscription — $38
Copyright © 2011 by Tracinski Publishing Company
PO Box 8086, Charlottesville, VA 22906
No comments:
Post a Comment