Day: December 6, 2012
Hanging tough
Egyptian President Morsi’s speech this afternoon was profoundly uncompromising. He denounced what he sees as opposition-inspired violence, suggested it was bought and paid for (possibly by foreign sources) and underlined the need for law and order, sine qua non.
This is an appeal a lot of Egyptians will like, even if it will infuriate the demonstrators at the presidential palace. His only concession was a call for a “national dialogue” meeting on Saturday. But he did not, as some hoped, postpone the constitutional referendum scheduled for December 15. Nor did he offer any changes to its profoundly ambiguous contents, which protect the military’s prerogatives better than the citizens’ rights.
His television address sounded to me more like Bashar al Assad than like Hosni Mubarak. Morsi claims he expresses the will of the Egyptian people, something Mubarak did not care much about. What’s more, Morsi may be right. There are lots of Egyptians fed up with disorder. His opposition will be hard put to mount a successful “no” vote at the polls.
But even if they do, Morsi made it clear he intends to proceed by appointing another constituent assembly. He is in no mood to compromise with those who want to limit his power or his stay in office. Those who thought he might be pushed aside or resign–or even allow reconsideration of the draft constitution–were badly mistaken. Morsi is holding on to power with both hands.
The secular opposition now has a difficult choice: go to the polls, despite the likelihood that the new constitution will be approved, or boycott, which will ensure that it is approved. My bet is some will do the former and others the latter, ensuring not only passage of the referendum but also a small measure of democratic legitimacy.
It is unlikely much will come of Saturday’s national dialogue meeting. It is too close to the date of the referendum to initiate any changes in the current draft. And the opposition is too fragmented to come into the meeting united behind a small but significant set of requested changes. Only if they do so will they have any significant impact.
Morsi is trying to impose his own order on what has been a chaotic revolution governed by Calvinball (a game never played with the same rules twice, as Marc Lynch has taught us). My guess is that he has the support of the “party of couch,” the Egyptians who want law and order and don’t want to join the demonstrations. He will likely also get the judiciary back on side, as he has promised that the extraordinary powers to block judicial decisions he arrogated to himself will expire once the referendum is held.
The net result is unlikely to look like a democracy two years from now, even if it allows more freedom of speech and association than Mubarak permitted. The opaque, forced-march process that Morsi imposed to get the new constitution completed is not the kind of transparent, participatory process that makes for stable democracy, even if it is approved in a referendum. The most important of the Arab uprisings looks as if it will end considerably short of the ideals that inspired it. Many revolutions do.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Consequences
The NBC report that Bashar al Asad is preparing chemical weapons for use has generated a contradictory response: President Obama, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon and NATO Secretary General Rasmussen have all warned there will be consequences. My Twitterfeed concurs that use of chemical weapons would be “suicidal” for Bashar.
But there is little that can be done once these weapons are out of their storage sites and loaded on airplanes or missiles, as the report ambiguously suggests might be the case. The numbers of troops required to secure the Syrian chemical weapons stocks is on the order of 75,000. It is clear enough that U.S. troops have not yet been deployed in these numbers anywhere near Syria in preparation for their seizure.
That wouldn’t be a sufficient or appropriate response in any event. It would put a substantial number of American troops in harm’s way without any guarantee of success. So what might we be thinking of doing?
My guess–but it is only that–is regime decapitation. Any order to use chemical weapons will have to come from the top. If the Americans have done nothing else in the almost two years of killing, they should at least have discovered Bashar’s hiding places. Using cruise missiles, the U.S. can destroy dozens of sites with extraordinary precision. Whether or not Bashar himself is hit (remember how many times we missed Qaddafi?), his ability to continue in command is likely to be severely degraded, as they say.
Another thought is to pour arms into the revolutionary forces in the hope that they will be able to seize the remaining chemical weapons. But without specialized training and equipment, that really would be a suicidal course of action. It is far more likely that chemical weapons will scare a large part of the population out of Syria, creating enormous problems for its neighbors, Turkey, Lebanon, Iraq and Jordan.
The problem with either proposition is that we have no idea what would come next. Decapitation would precipitate a rush both within the regime and from the outside to try to seize control of the state apparatus. The most likely winners are guys with lots of guns. That includes the Syrian security forces as well as the more heavily armed and capable revolutionaries, who come from the Sunni Islamist end of the political spectrum. If neither wins a definitive victory, the civil war would intensify, with terrible consequences both inside Syria and in the region. There is a real risk that punishing Asad will generate an outcome even more inimical to U.S. interests.
There is still a real possibility that reports of imminent chemical weapons use are false or exaggerated. But if they are true, someone had better be thinking of a better idea than I’ve had about what “consequences” are appropriate, feasible and productive. Bashar al Asad and lots of other autocrats will notice if he uses chemical weapons and there is no reaction. That would further undermine U.S. and NATO credibility, which is already at a perigee.
There is a report today that the Russians and Americans are meeting hastily to discuss Syrian chemical weapons. If the possibility of their use pushes Washington and Moscow together to a political solution, that would be a really good outcome for all concerned, except Bashar al Asad and his regime.
PS: Ambassador Ford says it is above his paygrade to decide what is to be done in the event Syrian uses chemical weapons. Certainly the implication of American military action is strong.
RSS - Posts
