Tag: Democracy and Rule of Law
People to be thankful for
My friends get in trouble a lot. At the moment, I’m concerned in particular about Ahmed Maher, an Egyptian activist in the April 6 Movement for whom an arrest warrant has been issued because he defied the government’s latest law on demonstrations, which went into effect this week. He already faces other charges related to previous demonstrations. And I’m concerned about Sonja Biserko, who is being criticized for agreeing to testify on behalf of Croatia to support its charge of genocide against Serbia at the International Court of Justice. In Belgrade, where Sonja has lived most of her life, she is accused of being a traitor.
Ahmed was in DC just two weeks ago, when he spoke at the Middle East Institute conference and chatted with some of us privately. He is determined to create space in Egypt for a “third force,” which would occupy the political space between the current military-backed government and the Muslim Brotherhood, now the object of repression but itself intolerant and anti-democratic when it held power for a year, ending last summer. Ahmed’s third force would be committed to human rights, a civil state based on citizenship, and democratic ideals. It has been precisely the lack of support for these ideals that has made the Egyptian revolution such a roller coaster ride.
Ahmed doesn’t expect real success for another ten years or so, which makes his willingness to keep democratic hopes alive now particularly striking. He is trying to maintain a space for political dissent in Egypt, despite the restoration of military authority. This will not be easy. Egypt’s army quickly accuses dissenters of being terrorists, or supporters of the Muslim Brotherhood, against which Ahmed also took to the streets. Now he defends their political rights. Egypt’s restored military regime does not take that kindly.
Sonja is in a different, but no less problematic, situation. Serbia today is a democracy, more or less. So far as I can tell, its government is refusing to comment on her willingness to testify against it at The Hague, but Serbia’s press is condemning her (this is from Novosti last Saturday):
This is one of rare, if not the unique, examples in modern history of a person taking the stand against his or her own state by proclaiming it genocidal. Should the trial take place – meaning should the two sides refuse to withdraw charges – Sonja Biserko would be responsible for war damages citizens of Serbia would have to compensate Croatia that had expelled and plundered 450,000 Serbs in 1990s. What’s even worse, the title of the genocidal state would be forced on Serbs who had sided with the Allies in WWI and WWII. And all that in favor of the country that allied itself with fascists and left a legacy of Jasenovac and other concentration camps in which Serbs in the first place have been systematically eradicated; Serbs against whom a proved genocide was committed, the genocide that for the sake of brotherhood, unity and peace has always been swept under the carpet in SFR of Yugoslavia.
Serbia’s own homicidal record in Croatia, Bosnia and Kosovo in the 1990s of course goes unmentioned. That too is one of Sonja’s sins: she mentions it all the time.
Sonja too was in Washington recently, as a member of a UN-commissioned group looking into human rights violations in North Korea. The long-time chair of the Helsinki Committee for Human Rights in Serbia, like Ahmed she is a well-known figure abroad. Both of them will enjoy some measure of international attention, as well as whatever limited protection that may bring. And if they decide to flee, even temporarily, they will find haven in any number of Western countries where they are known.
People committed to nonviolence like Ahmed and Sonja are trying to assert their rights, not incite violence. Many can’t flee, and most don’t want to. What they want is to be able to speak their minds freely, no matter how unpopular–or distasteful to those in power–their views may be. I am grateful for all of them this Thanksgiving, including those with whom I don’t agree. May you be safe, and may those of us who enjoy freedom be prepared to protect your rights as best we can!
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
The gulf with the Gulf
Yesterday was Gulf day. I spent part of the morning reading Christopher Davidson, who thinks the Gulf monarchies are headed for collapse due to internal challenges, their need for Western support, Iran’s growing power and their own disunity. Then I turned to Greg Gause, who attributes their resilience to the oil-greased coalitions and external networks they have created to support their rule. He predicts their survival.
At lunch I ambled across the way to CSIS’s new mansion to hear Abdullah al Shayji, chair of political science at Kuwait University and unofficial Gulf spokeperson, who was much exorcised over America’s response to Iran’s “charm offensive,” which he said could not have come at a worse time. The Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) was already at odds with the US. The Gulf was not warned or consulted about the phone call between Iranian President Rouhani and President Obama. Saudi Arabia’s refusal to occupy the UN Security Council seat it fought hard to get was a signal of displeasure. The divergences between the GCC and the US range across the Middle East: Syria, Egypt, Bahrain, Yemen, Iraq and Palestine, in addition to Iran.
On top of this, US oil and gas production is increasing. China is now a bigger oil importer than the US and gets a lot more of its supplies from the Gulf. Washington is increasingly seen as dysfunctional because of its partisan bickering. Its budget problems seem insoluble. American credibility is declining. The Gulf views the US as unreliable. Read more
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Wise words from an elder statesman
For 48 years, UN Deputy Secretary General Jan Eliasson has been a key player in global diplomacy, with previous stints as Swedish ambassador to the United States and Swedish Minister of Foreign Affairs. On Wednesday, Eliasson spoke about the current state of global diplomacy and the UN’s post-2015 development strategy, to a large crowd at Brookings.
Eliasson described this year’s meeting of the UN General Assembly (UNGA) as unusually productive. In the current age of “a la carte multilateralism,” there is always a new pressing issue that confronts the international community. Today, such issues as the Syrian refugee crisis, Iran’s nuclear program, and the immigration disaster off the coast of Italy are all part of a day’s work for the UN.
The major discussion at the UNGA this year revolved around Syria. The Assad regime has taken a positive step towards dismantling its chemical weapons arsenal, but “action against chemical weapons is just one step on the road to peace in Syria.” The next step to resolving the conflict lies in increased aid to the millions of people displaced inside and outside the country. In order to tackle this issue, the regime must give the United Nations and other humanitarian organizations access to the people inside Syria’s borders. With 1 million children displaced by the crisis and the cold winter months fast approaching, the time to act is now. Without a ceasefire, the international community can only do so much to help the Syrian people.
The UNGA also saw positive developments with the newly elected Iranian leadership and its nuclear program. Iranian President Rouhani has opened up to the international community since his election, making clear his willingness to negotiate with the P5+1 on the future of the nuclear program. But Eliasson hopes Rouhani’s opening to the West is tested and verified. The sanctions placed on Iran have been successful at crippling the country’s economy, and it will be vital to the negotiations to lift those sanctions only when a significant deal is reached.
Eliasson also discussed the UN Millennium Development goals, which were established in 2000 with the objective of achieving objectives in global health, poverty eradication, education, gender equality, sustainability, and development funding by 2015. With the deadline approaching, the United Nations has made significant progress—global poverty has been cut in half, education for girls in Africa has become more available, and malaria deaths have decreased substantially. But there are also areas that require more attention, such as maternal health, sanitation, and clean drinking water.
As the UN continues to make progress toward the Millennium Development goals, a new set of objectives will look to address sustainability, human rights and rule of law, climate change, and the eradication of extreme poverty. Looking ahead, prevention is going to be key to the success of the UN development agenda. Eliasson said that human rights violations are a major sign that a crisis is imminent. The UN needs to have a way to react quickly to prevent major conflicts.
Reaching into his back pocket to pull out his mini version of the UN Charter, Eliasson said he is convinced that there is unharnessed potential in chapter six of the document, “The Pacific Settlement of Disputes.” It highlights the use of diplomacy, in contrast to chapter seven’s possible use of military force. The military actions of the last decade have caused people to become numb to the effects of the use of force. We have forgotten about the benefits of diplomatic negotiations. Eliasson ended by sharing his four reasons why diplomacy succeeds or fails:
- The careful use of words can make or break diplomatic talks. Words are the diplomat’s most important tool.
- Timing is key. We most often do things too late.
- Everyone involved in negotiations must be culturally sensitive, by respecting the culture, history, and traditions of the groups involved.
- Personal relations are the most important aspect to diplomacy.
Trust is vital. It is crucial to create and build upon personal relationships in order to succeed. Eliasson has practiced what he preaches.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Sweet reason
Former Serbian Foreign Minister Goran Svilanovic stopped by SAIS yesterday afternoon to talk about the Regional Cooperation Council (RCC), the Balkans organization that took over the legacy of the Stability Pact. That was the organization launched in 1999 to give the Balkans “a European perspective.” A solid anti-nationlist who began his distinguished career in Belgrade’s Center for Antiwar Action (we are talking Milosevic’s time), Goran was a member of the Civic Alliance, foreign minister 2000-2004, an official of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), and a consistent voice of reason in a part of the world that has known its share of madness.
Sweet reason was what he dispensed here. Read more
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Ever thus
Last Thursday afternoon’s star-studded academic panel at the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) convened to “reconsider” democratic transitions focused mainly on the Arab uprisings since early 2011. The only solid conclusion–offered with a smile and a nod to NED President Carl Gershman in the front row–was that NED should get more money, which wasn’t surprising given the its strong links to the panelists and moderator Marc Plattner. But the discussion raised lots of issues, as academics like to do.
Donald Horowitz, now at NED as a fellow, views “transition” not as a paradigm or a model but rather as a category. Quick to say “pactology,” the dependence of transitions on political pacts, had been carried too far, he underlined two propositions:
- The “tyranny of starting conditions”: the course of transitions depends a great deal on the context in which they occur;
- The “fortuity of early institutional choices”: this is in a way a corollary of the first proposition that underlines the importance of first elections, like the Egyptian presidential runoff won by Morsi, or the underrepresentation of Cyrenaica in Libya’s Grand National Congress.
Predictions, Horowitz suggested, are bound to be lousy because of the difficulty of understanding all the many variables involved in determining the course of a transition, including the starting conditions. Standard “best practices” like transparency and public participation in constitution-making (in favor of which there is not a scintilla of evidence), are also a mistake, because context matters.
Stanford’s Larry Diamond was keener on the importance of political pacts and less keen on the importance of starting conditions. As Burma suggests, the only real precondition for a democratic transition is a set of elites who want it for the state they control. Yemen is moving in the right direction with a lot of UN support. Egypt might benefit from a neutral mediator who is able to convince the conflicting elites there to abandon their “winner take all” approach. The focus in transition should be on the capacity to deliver services to the population, whose commitment to democracy is an important factor in driving a transition in that direction. Consolidation is an important idea, but it does not rule out decay. There are democracies that deteriorate, so continued assistance is necessary, beyond what is normally done. American leadership is important, but it should be more often embedded in a multilateral context like the Community of Democracies.
Frank Fukuyama, also Stanford, thought consolidation not a useful concept. Decay is always possible. What counts is institutionalization. In the early stages, formal constraints on power are not as important as those imposed by social mobilization. Democracy assistance like that provided by NED should focus less on civil society and more on building up political parties and the public administration, which do not emerge magically out of the kind of mass movements that have produced recent transitions. US influence is decreasing because our own democracy is in trouble and not producing the kind of demonstration effect that it once did.
Striking to observers was the wide gap between this academic discussion and a morning session with greater practitioner involvement. The prominent professors focused on ideas. Practitioners have more questions about how to make things work and produce desirable outcomes. I suppose it will ever be thus. Much as I enjoyed the professorial discussion (I count as one of them these days) I like to think that the gap could be narrowed a bit more than it was.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
To whom it may concern
The Egyptian April 6 Movement yesterday sent around this note, which merits reading:
To whom it may concern, April 6 movement is one of the first movements that fought against Mubarak regime and fought against political corruption and despotism since its inception in 2008 . It’s main purpose was to establish a state based on the principles of freedom, dignity, democracy, justice, equality and citizenship .
April 6 movement had a major role in the spark of January 25, 2011 and the revolution against injustice and corruption. April 6 Movement faced a great challenges and severe attack from the SCAF (Supreme Council of Armed Force) who took power after the resign of Mubarak. The conflict with us started when the movement criticized the ruling military council at that time, which led the military council to start a huge media campaigns and distortion against April 6 movement at that time. Read more
RSS - Posts
