Sure non-violent resistance can work in Iran
Problem is, there is no telling when.
The question “Can Non-Violent Resistance Work in Iran?” was posed Friday by Karim Sadjadpour to a panel at the Carnegie Endowment featuring former Italian ambassador in Tehran Roberto Toscano and Iranian political philosopher (and former political prisoner) Ramin Jahanbegloo.
No surprise the panel thought non-violent resistance might work and is not naive. Jahanbegloo emphasized that it is a strategic (not a moral) imperative, in particular if civil society is to win the day. Regime oppression of the Green Movement is a sign that it is a real threat.
Toscano agreed, saying that violence and politics are alternatives. Violence may achieve quick results, but at the cost of longer-term problems, because it undermines the legitimacy of the revolutionary movement. Violence divides people, and the resulting revolution has to defend itself from those who did not support it. Nonviolence enhances legitimacy by widening support. Iran, Toscano underlined, is autocratic, not totalitarian, rather like Italian Fascism.
Jahanbegloo thinks the Green Movement still has a good deal of capability, as it is a civic movement with real, indigenous, grass roots support. It needs to focus on undermining media and military support for the regime. Because of its dispersed leadership, the Movement is hard to decapitate. Women have been particularly important among the Greens, and more of them are in prison than men.
Agreeing that the lack of a clearly defined leadership structure strengthens the movement, Toscano noted that the regime also lacks a single target–it is an oligarchy that relies increasingly on the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and its recycled alumni, and far less than in the past on the clerical establishment, who are not united in supporting the theocracy. The Greens need to build a more democratic political culture–to some degree they already have–by emphasizing human rights.
Jahanbegloo noted that the Greens have lost the enormous mass support that they had in the past. They need to rebuild, maintaining nonviolent discipline and establishing a better rapport with the security forces. They are also lacking support from “the bazaar,” business interests. But they are correct to define themselves as a broad civic movement and need to learn from their failures, as the Czechs did.
What can outsiders do to help the Greens? They need to maintain a consistent, principled approach and target human rights violators. At the same time, they have to realize that on the nuclear issue and on Iran’s regional role as a great power, the Greens do not disagree fundamentally with the regime.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Endgames: local legitimacy is key
It is easy to get caught up in the drama and thrill of events as people throughout the Middle East lay claim to inalienable rights, but we shouldn’t forget that revolutions don’t often end well. What can and should we be doing to try to ensure that the hopes and aspirations of so many don’t end up serving the interests of a few? And what vital U.S. interests need attention?
Libya. Hillary Clinton will be attending a meeting Monday in London to talk about the future of Libya, which is a particularly difficult case because the country largely lacks a state. What it has though is a strong tradition of local councils, most evident in Benghazi but also apparent in other places that have been liberated. If these local councils can gain a degree of legitimacy by being inclusive, they could become the foundation for a decentralized post-Gaddafi regime. My guess is that this would be far better than building the new Libya from Tripoli outwards, which won’t be possible in any event until Gaddafi departs.
As for U.S. influence, the most obvious way to guarantee it is to provide arms to the rebels, as Blake Hounshell suggests. There are many downsides, not the least of which is eventual misuse of the weapons to commit atrocities. Revenge killings are more than likely in the aftermath of Gaddafi’s fall, which is one of the reasons he and his minions hold on so tenaciously. That said, I would opt at least for the rocket-propelled grenades the rebels need to defend themselves against Gaddafi’s armor. The bigger question is whether supplying them is done
- without changing the existing UN Security Council resolution (1973) on grounds that they are part of the “all necessary means” required to protect civilians (either overtly or clandestinely), or
- by adopting a new UNSC resolution that recognizes Gaddafi’s failure to comply with 1973 and adopts additional measures required to unseat him.
If arms supplies are to get there in a timely way, the former is obviously preferable to the latter. But the latter is far better from the perspective of maintaining legitimacy of coalition operations against Gaddafi.
Yemen. President Saleh’s days are numbered, but he is insisting on an orderly transition of power. That is not a bad idea. It would certainly be preferable to the kind of mess we are seeing in Libya, and it really does not matter much whether it occurs this month or next.
To whom should Saleh hand over? The parliament is little more than a rubber stamp, some of the army leaders who have gone over to the protesters are arguably worse than Saleh when it comes to cozying up to terrorists, the political opposition is undistinguished and the protesters are still an amorphous mass. Here is both challenge and opportunity for the Americans, in whose interest it is to guarantee an orderly transition to someone who will be at least as good as Saleh in pursuing Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, which is not saying much. Here, too, they might look to grassroots tribal, religious, political, civil society and other leaders outside Sanaa for at least a validation of legitimacy. Part of the Yemen problem is that the current regime really has little or no support beyond the capital. Building a new regime that has serious representation from both north and south would be preferable to just finding another headman like Saleh.
Syria. It has indeed gotten serious, as I’ve already suggested, with widespread demonstrations yesterday met with regime live fire, killing how many dozens no one knows:
This time it will be hard for President Bashar al Assad’s spokesperson to claim that he ordered no firing on demonstrators, though that won’t stop them from trying, but the protests have so far stopped short of asking for his ouster. Bashar is still regarded by many Syrians as above the wrongdoing they associate with the regime, though it is hard to believe that his personal immunity will last much longer.
Bashar has been no friend to the Americans, even if Senator John Kerry thinks we owe him rather than the other way around (at least that is what he said in an appearance at Carnegie Endowment last week). But again orderliness is next to godliness, now that we’ve got the U.S. military preoccupied with two and a half wars. Bashar can still survive, but he needs to get serious about the reforms he promised this week, and stop the live fire on demonstrators. I can’t for the life of me think what it is about the events of the last couple of months that would convince an autocrat that firing on protesters would help him survive. It seems to me the evidence is all on the other side of the proposition: let them demonstrate and adopt reforms to meet their legitimate demands, then you might survive.
The others. The Moroccans seem to have understood that proposition, and until yesterday the Jordanians as well. The Bahrainis, with Saudi support, seem ready still to test the effectiveness of regime violence and in the process turn popular protests into sectarian strife between a Shia majority population and a Sunni regime. Their success is unlikely to be long lasting. It is hard to think of anything worse for Saudi Arabia than linking its fate to the survival of the Al Khalifa monarchy in Bahrain, but that appears to be what the Saudis are determined to do.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Statebuilding in Libya is not optional
While top officials scramble to straighten out how NATO will handle Libya, the situation on the ground there is getting much less attention than it merits. Our new-found rebel friends are not doing well, either in their military efforts or in their attempts to create a proto-governing structure. Heather Hurlburt writes at The New Republic:
I am less frantic about the endgame than many observers, not because I am more sanguine but because very often planners who have a clear endgame in mind are deluding themselves anyway. (The architects of the Iraq War believed they had thought through how everything would play out).
She certainly has a point about the architects of the Iraq war, but that is no reason for not planning now for the end of the Libya war, which will pose difficult problems, whenever it happens.
Libya is a country with less than a complete state, a condition that is readily exploited for nefarious purposes (in the past colonial ones, in this century usually extremist ones). No one should imagine that the state is going to emerge magically from the ashes, ready to accept whatever new leadership we decide it deserves. That in fact was the thoroughly flawed plan for “decapitation” at the end of the Iraq war that she refers to so disparagingly.
Nor should we be imagining that building a Libyan state is somehow a U.S. responsibility, though it is not unreasonable to expect the Americans to contribute in some way to the effort. Arab League? Doubtful. UN? Lots of experience, limited means. EU? Decent experience, lots of means, geographic proximity. It seems to me there are ample options–the important thing is to decide who will lead (I’d obviously opt for the Europeans) and then try to ensure that whoever does brings to bear the necessary resources.
Leaving state-building after this war to chance is dangerous. It could mean a partitioned Libya, or one that collapses like Somalia, or one that becomes a haven for extremism. To be fair, Heather also says,
We should be skeptical, frantically collecting information, hedging our bets and figuring out what the various forces are in Libya and how we can promote better outcomes and hedge against worse ones…
That does not go far enough: we need to ensure that Libya after this war is stabilized and develops the kind of state that will not allow it to go off the rails again. Less than that would be irresponsible. The effort can, indeed should, be led by the Libyans, but they will need help. If someone forgot to tell the President that state-building was part of the package, that was a big mistake. Focusing on the end-state may not seem urgent, but it is more important than the NATO scholasticism that has preoccupied the Secretary of State for days.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Mil ops are clear, what about civ ops?
The U.S. military is clear enough about what it is doing in Libya (sorry the slides are not all shown in the video):
It is good Coalition partners are picking up about half the burden. I’m not a mil guy, but I am particularly interested in hearing that they are hitting communications. Experience in Bosnia and Kosovo suggests that is important in shifting the strategic balance. Once Gaddafi’s forces are cut off from his command and control, it is doubtful whether they will continue the fight.
That said, this effort has a civilian dimension as well. Relief supplies are starting to move into rebel-held areas. Hillary Clinton says Gaddafi loyalists are in touch with the State Department:
The most important civilian pieces are the ones we are not likely to see any time soon:
- What is being done to ensure that the Transitional National Council is fully representative of the whole country and ready to take over governance if the opportunity presents itself;
- Intelligence cooperation with the rebels;
- Discussions with Gaddafi-friendly places about offering him refuge;
- Diplomatic efforts to keep the Arab League on side, or at least not too loudly opposed to the intervention;
- Planning for the difficult post-war stabilization and reconstruction phase.
The only diplomatic piece that has been visible the last couple of days is the quarrel over who will command and control the Coalition operation, a role the U.S. wants to pass off. It seems now that will go to NATO. You don’t want to delve into the intricacies of that debate, which involves French, Turkish and NATO scholasticism that would please only medieval monks.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Syria is getting serious
The protests and violent crackdown in Dara’a, in the southwest corner of Syria near the Jordanian border, appear to have left dozens dead. This is not remarkable in Al-Assad family history. The President’s father, Hafez al Assad, killed tens of thousands in Hama in February 1982 to quell an uprising led by the Muslim Brotherhood.
But the current president, Bashar al Assad, claims to be made of more modern stuff. He told the Wall Street Journal in January,
Internally, it is about the administration and the people’s feeling and dignity, about the people participating in the decisions of their country. It is about another important issue. I am not talking here on behalf of the Tunisians or the Egyptians. I am talking on behalf of the Syrians. It is something we always adopt. We have more difficult circumstances than most of the Arab countries but in spite of that Syria is stable. Why? Because you have to be very closely linked to the beliefs of the people. This is the core issue. When there is divergence between your policy and the people’s beliefs and interests, you will have this vacuum that creates disturbance.
Bashar has hit the nail on the head, and it looks as if there might be a gap opening between policy and the people’s beliefs and interests.
How pervasive is this gap? In my month studying Arabic at the University of Damascus a couple of years ago, I found it widespread. Syrians focus their hostility not so much on Bashar himself as on the regime, which they recognize as one in which friends and family get rich while the rest of the country remains poor. They want what Bashar says they should have (also in his Wall Street Journal interview):
Actually, societies during the last three decades, especially since the eighties have become more closed due to an increase in close-mindedness that led to extremism. This current will lead to repercussions of less creativity, less development, and less openness. You cannot reform your society or institution without opening your mind. So the core issue is how to open the mind, the whole society, and this means everybody in society including everyone. I am not talking about the state or average or common people. I am talking about everybody; because when you close your mind as an official you cannot upgrade and vice versa.
Bashar al Assad has talked the talk, but he has not walked the walk. Dara’a is the testing ground, and he is failing the test. Will it spread? Only events can tell, but I won’t be surprised if it does.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Jon Stewart’s freedom packages
If you didn’t see it on TV, and you are not among the 156,073 people who have viewed it on line since Monday night, this is well worth all 6 minutes and 49 seconds.
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon – Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| America’s Freedom Packages | ||||
|
||||
RSS - Posts
