Tag: Egypt
Reform, not revolution
On Friday, the Middle East Institute and Johns Hopkins’ School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS) hosted Tarek Masoud, the Sultan of Oman Associate Professor of International Relations at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government, to discuss a new book he co-authored, The Arab Spring: Pathways of Repression and Reform. I. William Zartman, SAIS Professor Emeritus, moderated the discussion. Masoud concentrated on deriving policy implications for the US from his structural analysis of why some Arabic-speaking Muslim-majority countries experienced revolts in 2011, why some regimes were able to rebuff protests, and why the results of revolts have been dismal, with the tentative exception of Tunisia.
The talk comes at a fortuitous moment, as the Nobel Peace Prize winner was just announced on Friday as the Tunisian Quartet, which contributed vitally to achieving democratic progress and stability since the mass mobilization that sparked the so-called Arab Spring and led to the departure of Tunisia’s autocrat, President Ben Ali. But personality is the least of it. Masoud and his co-authors take the position in their book that the Arab Spring was “a drama whose script was written long before its dramatis personae took the stage.” That is, there are deeply entrenched structural causes that determined the success or failure of Arab Spring movements.
Masoud suggested five policy implications.
First is that the absence of democracy in the Arab world is overdetermined; there are several decisive reasons why there hasn’t been a wave of democratic transitions. Many people have made a (questionable) cultural argument The most persuasive in Masoud‘s view is economic underdevelopment. Development generates competing political and social forces that are vital to preventing a single hegemonic power. This is one reason for Tunisia’s relative success, evidenced by the civil society-generated Quartet.
Second, Masoud views policies directed at establishing democracy as wrongheaded. What the Arab world needs are states that are durable, no matter what the regime. The effectiveness of many Arab states, which govern by fear and patronage, is rated low by the World Bank. Masoud highlighted the recent provenance of many of them, especially Yemen, as well as Muammar Qaddafi’s strikingly libertarian attitude towards governance, which led him to dismantle many Libyan state structures and atomize society. Tunisia in 2010 had a relatively effective government in 2010.
The third implilcation was simply stated: US military intervention often collapses the state, which is not useful.
Fourth: there is no pragmatic way forward without incorporating elements from the former regimes into future governments. Otherwise, there is the risk of alienating a significant cohort, which will seek to cause the new order from which it is excluded to collapse. Tunisia was advantaged in this respect as well. Its current president was associated with the previous regime.
In Syria, Masoud thought it will be necessary to reach some sort of compromise with Bashar al-Assad if a political solution is going to be achieved. Like other hereditary regimes, his is one in which the coercive and executive apparatus is tightly intermeshed. This has caused many of the monarchies to be more stable than Egypt or Libya, where there was a separation. But once armed conflict begins, this intermeshing may ensure that Assad will not stop fighting until there is no one left to fight.
The fifth and final implication is that the US should seriously consider working with Russia and Iran in Syria. Arguably, the three have more in common in this conflict than the US does with Saudi Arabia or Qatar. Saudi Arabia has made it its project to undermine many different states, through the funding and arming of radical Islamists – and it is exactly this type of radical Islamism that the US is seeking to combat on a global scale. Syria needs a strong state and a stable society, not increased weaponization and battlefields drawn on ideological lines.
Though Masoud expressed hope for the region, and a desire for justice for Syria, the study he has conducted in this book with his co-authors has been one focused on the structural constraints set in place decades ago that governed political action during the Arab Spring and continue to do so now. Exploring these constraints has led him to call for a conservative policy towards the Arab world, where the state is more likely to collapse towards a state of nature than transition to democracy. We need to build states and promote economic development in the hope of producing more lasting stability.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Egyptian entrepreneurs
Last Wednesday, the Middle East Institute held its 3rd annual Egypt conference, entitled “Reducing Risks, Unlocking Potential,” with three expert panels. Here I focus on the final panel, ‘Economic Development and Entrepreneurial Innovation’, which explored the promise of the Egyptian economy and its human resources, as well as the significant challenges facing it before it can achieve real, wide-reaching development. Moderator Mona Mowafi (co-founder and president of RISE Egypt) anchored the discussion with an introductory question: ‘What kind of society does Egypt want to become?’ Starting from the understanding that Egypt has an underdeveloped economy, with low job creation and miles of bureaucratic red tape, the panelists described a dynamic country with great economic potential, and emphasized that social and political advances are necessarily tied to a more developed, innovative, and democratized economy.
Egypt does not lack either natural or human resources. It has a dynamic ecosystem for economic innovation, a view that perhaps reflects the panelists’ backgrounds. Seif Abou Zaid, CEO of Tahrir Academy, is an entrepreneur focused on education and governance, as well as how to connect the two. Mohamed Zaazoue, a neurosurgeon, founded Healthy Egyptians, with which he hopes to raise basic health education levels for all Egyptians. Their co-panelists are economists: Amr Adly is a consultant at the Carnegie Middle East Center, and Heba Elgazzar is a senior economist in Social Protection and Labor Global Practice at the World Bank. They used their practical experiences of navigating Egypt’s entrepreneurial environment to analyze the country’s potential.
Both Adly and Elgazzar highlighted the informal or personalized nature of several industries in Egypt, where jobs and professional relationships are based on personal ties and social networks. This can be both an asset and a drawback. It encourages practices such as ‘wasta’ – or cronyism (though this has political causes as well). Many people are left doing part-time or casual jobs, rather than full-time employment. But there are many locally-based small industries that thrive in their communities and are ‘entrepreneurial’ in their own sense – low-tech, but creative, as Adly pointed out.
Zaazoue insisted that Egypt’s youthful population and its human resources generally are the country’s biggest resource, which needs to be cultivated and invested in for the future. Elgazzar agreed that the resources are there, and that Egypt’s particularly urban character provides a clustering of skills, knowledge, and information, creating an excellent environment for economic innovation.
Abou Zaid why there hasn’t there been a transformative moment yet. Why aren’t these skills and knowledge being exploited? There are governmental and non-governmental barriers. One of the latter is access to finance. Adly also highlighted that though Egypt’s private sector is quite large, it does not operate within a framework that can transform annual growth into structural development of the economy as a whole.
Both Abou Zaid and Zaazoue are interested in policy-making and want to have an effect on Egyptian society at large, rather than just running successful businesses. But there is a bureaucratic ‘bottleneck’ which makes it difficult to get projects implemented through government ministries. There is also heightened hostility to non-profit organizations under Sisi’s government. So starting new businesses and trying to tie change to the market has been a way for both to pursue their goals.
Zaazoue first tried to speak with ministers about adding health education to school curricula, but when he got nowhere, decided to create games and cartoons about health which could be marketed for kids. Abou Zaid’s school was originally non-profit, but it was shut down under new laws governing funding for such organizations. He has had to explore setting up fee-paying accommodation in order to become a profit-making institution.
Elgazzar thought the government needs to pick one or two priorities and focus on them for the next several years. In her view, these should be education and job creation. Zaazoue would like to see foreign capital directed into education and health systems, instead of military and security budgets. High-quality education, better schools, and more democratized education, will have an effect on growth potential, bring more women into the work force, and serve to change people’s attitudes about seeking out new work.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Let Ahmed go!
I am a fan of Ahmed Maher, who led the April 6 movement that catalyzed the Egyptian uprising in January 2011 and contributed to the Tamarod protests of June 2013 that brought General Sisi to power. Ahmed has remained an advocate of nonviolence, human rights and democracy despite a harsh prison sentence and even harsher prison conditions.
I have Egyptian friends who tell me what Ahmed did–demonstrate without a permit–would be a crime in Washington DC, not only in Cairo. That is true. But the permit would be easy to get, the fine would be small and the sentence a few days in jail, not three years, including large stretches of it in solitary confinement.
Egypt has pardoned and released hundreds of prisoners in recent days, apparently in the runup to now President Sisi’s speech at the UN today. Why not Ahmed and his April 6 comrades? I imagine it is because the government knows they are incorrigible. If released, they can be relied upon to continue protesting for human rights and democracy.
This puts President Obama, who spoke at the UN this morning about the importance of inclusive democracy and human rights as well as the futility of repression, in an awkward situation. Washington wants Egypt to remain at least as stable as it has been under President Sisi. But his use of repression rather than inclusion and respect for human rights is inconsistent with American values, policy and expectations.
A number of us have joined together in a letter to the President and UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon appealing to them to ask President Sisi for the release of the April 6 protesters. Nothing good can come of their continued incarceration. It is time to let Ahmed (and Ahmed and Mohamed) go.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Peace picks, September 28-October 2
- Ukraine: From Evolutionary to Revolutionary Reforms | Monday, September 28th | 12:00-1:30 | Atlantic Council | REGISTER TO ATTEND | Please join us for an in-depth discussion of Ukraine’s reform agenda since the Maidan revolution, and the public release of a new, comprehensive assessment of what has been achieved so far and the challenges ahead. Since Ukraine’s Maidan revolution, Ukrainian leaders pledged to push through a long list of urgent reforms, including fighting corruption, securing stable energy supplies at market prices, simplifying the tax code, overhauling civil service, and ensuring macroeconomic stability. VoxUkraine, a network of experts, led by a group of leading global economists, lawyers, and members of the Ukrainian policy community has monitored the reform process in detail. Olena Bilan, Chief Economist at Dragon Capital and Editor of VoxUkraine, and Mike Duane, Contributor and Editor of VoxUkraine, will discuss their assessment of the reform process and what still needs to be done. The most prominent reform achievements are the establishment of the National Anti-Corruption Bureau to fight high-level corruption, the introduction of a new police force in the cities of Kyiv, Odesa, and Lviv, the reform of the banking system, and the restructuring of the natural gas sector. However, these reforms are still insufficient given the vast reform agenda Ukraine’s authorities face. The key question is not whether the country must implement reforms but rather where the government should start the process. After years of mismanagement, nearly every aspect of economic and political life in Ukraine needs reform. There is no time for slow evolutionary changes. Radical and revolutionary reforms are the only way to success.
- Israel in a Dynamic and Changing Region: A Conversation with Ambassador Michael Oren | Monday, September 28th | 4:00-5:00 PM | Wilson Center | REGISTER TO ATTEND | Rarely has the situation in the Middle East seemed more dangerous and complex. Please join us as veteran historian, diplomat and now Knesset member Michael Oren shares his analysis of Israel and the region. Dr. Henri J. Barkey, Director of the Middle East Program at the Wilson Center, will introduce Ambassador Oren, and Aaron David Miller, Vice President for New Initiatives, will moderate. This talk is presented by The Joseph and Alma Gildenhorn Middle East Forum of the Middle East Program.
- The Syrian Refugee Crisis: Challenges for Syria’s Neighbors and the International Community | Tuesday, September 29th | 10:30-12:00 | Brookings Institution | REGISTER TO ATTEND | In the last five years, more than four million Syrian refugees have crossed into neighboring countries seeking safety from the unending civil war. Providing protection and public services for the refugees has taxed the capacities of host countries, with hospitality wearing thin and many refugees despairing about their futures. In recent months, the European dimension of the Syrian refugee crisis has finally drawn global public attention to the catastrophe and the need to increase burden-sharing with neighboring host countries. Does the international community have the political will and the resources to respond, and if so, how will it address the challenge? How is the crisis affecting Syria’s neighboring countries that still bear the brunt of the refugees? Why is burden-sharing so important? Brookings will host a panel discussion to explore the international response to the Syrian refugee crisis. Brookings Senior Fellow Elizabeth Ferris and Brookings, TÜSİAD Senior Fellow and CUSE Turkey Project Director Kemal Kirişci will present their new study, “Not Likely to Go Home”, an examination of the challenges that Jordan, Lebanon, and Turkey face in providing protection and humanitarian assistance to Syrian refugees. They will also reflect on what these conclusions mean for the wider international community. Following their presentations, Simon Henshaw of the U.S. State Department, Gregory Maniatis of the Migration Policy Institute, and Alar Olljum of Brookings and the European External Action Service will provide remarks. Elizabeth Ferris will moderate the event and offer opening remarks. Following the presentations, the panelists will take questions from the audience. Join the conversation on Twitter with the hashtag #RefugeeCrisis.
- Egypt: Reducing Risks, Unlocking Potential: Middle East Institute 3rd Annual Conference on Egypt | Wednesday, September 30th | 9:00-4:00 | The Ritz-Carlton | REGISTER TO ATTEND |The Middle East Institute is pleased to announce its third annual conference on Egypt, which will convene a diverse group of Egyptian and American officials, activists, scholars, and entrepreneurs to look beneath the surface of Egypt’s most pressing issues. Three expert panels will examine Egypt’s political situation, domestic and regional security challenges, and economic and human development priorities. MEI’s annual Egypt conference seeks to increase understanding of the risks and opportunities facing Egypt today. The conference is free and open to the public. Updated agenda for the conference, as well as speaker bios, may be found here. Don’t forget to join the conversation on Twitter with the hashtag #EgyptConf2015.
- Women Leading Peace: Women’s Political Participation in Peace Processes | Wednesday, September 30th | 10:00-11:30 | Gaston Hall, Georgetown University | REGISTER TO ATTEND | In Commemoration of the 15th Anniversary of UN Security Council Resolution 1325 on Women, Peace and Security, Georgetown’s Institute for Women, Peace and Security is hosting a high-level symposium on women’s political participation in peace processes. The symposium features remarks from the President of the Republic Kosovo, H.E. Atifete Jahjaga, and the Hon. Secretary Madeleine Albright, former Secretary of State, as well as the launch of the institute’s new report, Women’s Political Participation in Peace Processes in Northern Ireland, Kenya, Guatemala and the Philippines. There will be an expert panel featuring the following speakers: Monica McWilliams, Professor, Transitional Justice Institute, Ulster University; Njeri Kabeberi, Executive Director, Center for Multi-Party Democracy Kenya; Claudia Paz y Paz, Former Attorney General of Guatemala; and Miriam Coronel Ferrer, Chair, Government of the Philippines Peace Panel.
- Colombia’s Peace Progress and Transitional Justice | Wednesday, September 30th | 8:30-5:00 | US Institute of Peace | REGISTER TO ATTEND | Colombia’s government and the FARC movement achieved their September 23 breakthrough in peace negotiations by setting down basic principles on the rights of victims to truth, justice, reparations and guarantees of non-repetition. USIP’s next Colombia Peace Forum, on September 30, will analyze the role of historical memory in these transitional justice issues. As policymakers and analysts consider how the new breakthrough might be consolidated, Colombian researchers will present a report, central to these issues, to a U.S. audience for the first time. The report—Basta Ya! Colombia: Memories of War and Dignity—was produced by Colombia’s National Center for Historical Memory. Its authors will join other scholars and practitioners to examine lessons that might contribute to the creation of the national truth commission and other architectures as part of the peace process.The event will be co-sponsored by the U.S. Institute of Peace, the Washington Office on Latin America, the International Center for Transitional Justice and the U.S. Agency for International Development. The discussions will take place in English and Spanish with simultaneous interpretation in both languages. The event will be streamed live without interpretation; webcasts will be posted later in both languages. To participate via Twitter, use the hashtag #ColombiaPeaceForum. The full agenda is available in English and Spanish.http://https://youtu.be/e6qEvgYN6dE
- Indonesia’s Foreign Policy Shifts | Thursday, October 1st | 12:00-1:00 | East-West Center | REGISTER TO ATTEND | The last fifteen months have seen robust domestic and international debates on the changing fundamentals of Indonesia’s foreign policy. These debates have highlighted different shades of Indonesian foreign policy, exhibiting the complex nature of Indonesian strategic thinking and the multiple challenges it seeks to address. Experts have variously labeled Indonesia’s current strategic thinking as assertive, inward-looking, internationalist and auto-piloted. Some have also wondered whether Jokowi’s Indonesia has any foreign policy direction at all.Emerging powers, such as Indonesia, often encounter growing dissonance between their existing international status and aspirations. Jokowi’s Indonesia is exhibiting a similar dilemma, prompting Indonesia watchers to revisit Indonesia’s long-standing debate about whether Indonesia is punching below, above or at par with its weight. Jokowi’s Indonesia seems to have moved away from ASEAN, altered some of its normative and ideological approaches, and changed its long-standing position on the South China Sea. Experts debate whether Indonesia is “going it alone”.Dr. Vibhanshu Shekhar, an Asia Studies Visiting Fellow at the East West Center, will discuss these issues in order to highlight strategic underpinnings of the foreign policy of Jokowi’s Indonesia.
- Averting a Deepening U.S.-China Rift Over the South China Sea | Thursday, October 1st | 4:30-6:00 | Bernstein-Offit Building, SAIS | RSVP via email to: Reischauer@jhu.edu | Dr. Michael D. Swaine will address how ongoing disputes threaten to drive U.S.-China relations in a far more adversarial, zero-sum direction and destabilize the region. He will emphasize how Washington and Beijing face a growing need to clarify their claims and grievances, provide a clear indication of consequences to unacceptable behavior, provide mutual near-term assurances to avoid entanglement, and work to stabilize the long-term relationship.
- Striving for Northeast Asian Peace | Friday, October 2nd | 9:00-12:00 | CSIS | REGISTER TO ATTEND | Please join us for an international conference with senior opinion makers, policy makers, and officials to look in-depth at the prospects for regional cooperation among the major powers of East Asia, in advance of the White House summit between the United States and the Republic of Korea.
This event is by RSVP only and all remarks are on-the-record. Speakers include: Dr. Evan Medeiros, Former Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for Asian Affairs, National Security Council; Dr. Kurt Campbell, Chairman and CEO, The Asia Group; Former Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs, U.S. Department of State; Ambassador Ahn Ho-Young, Ambassador to the United States; Dr. Victor Cha, Senior Adviser and Korea Chair, CSIS; Professor and Director, Asian Studies Program, Georgetown University; Dr. Shin Beomchul, Director General for Policy Planning, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Republic of Korea; Dr. Jin Canrong, Professor and Associate Dean, School of International Studies, Renmin University of China; Dr. Choi Kang, Vice President for Research, Asan Institute for Policy Studies; Former National Security Council Staff, The Blue House; Dr. Narushige Michishita, Director of Security and International Studies Program, National Graduate Institute for Policy Studies, Japan
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
A nervous region wary of the nuclear deal
On Wednesday, the Conflict Management Program at SAIS and MEI hosted a talk entitled After the Deal: A Veteran Journalist’s View from Tehran. Speakers included Roy Gutman, McClatchy Middle East bureau chief, and Joyce Karam, Washington bureau chief for Al-Hayat. Daniel Serwer of both SAIS and MEI moderated. Both speakers emphasized the dynamics that caused regional players to be wary of Iran.
Early last Spring, Gutman traveled to Israel, Jordan, Egypt and Turkey.
In Israel, he observed that the major national security concern wasn’t the Iranian nuclear program, but rather Iran’s conventional threat through the buildup of Hezbollah forces. Israelis were disappointed that the US was leaving a security vacuum in Syria for Iran to fill. The Israeli position on the Iran deal is difficult to understand; Israeli politicians oppose it, but Israel’s foreign policy elite considers Iranian conventional forces a larger threat.
Jordanian officials also worried about regional chaos and Iranian influence. They were baffled by the half-hearted US response to Assad, as well as its airstrike-only response to ISIS.
Egypt is preoccupied by terrorism and the upheaval in Libya, but Egyptian officials are also concerned about Iran’s growing influence and US inaction.
Officials in every government (aside from Turkey’s) spoke of collusion between Turkey and extremists. The Turks think the Iranians know that the US is not a determined counterpart. They believe the US is appeasing Iran.
Gutman then traveled to Tehran to gauge the mood there. Iran has come in from the cold after 36 years, but Tehran resents the last 36 years of US policy. Change in Iran won’t happen fast. Khamenei has said that Iran’s policy towards the “arrogant” US government won’t change and that Iran will keep supporting its regional allies.
Israel views Hezbollah’s buildup as a direct threat, but Iranian officials told Gutman that the Tehran holds the trigger on Hezbollah’s weapons and won’t pull it unless Israel threatens Lebanon or Iran. However, a former Iranian diplomat admitted that Iran has no vital interest in Lebanon or the Palestinians. Iran also appears to have no vital interest in Yemen, but likes seeing Saudi Arabia embroiled in an unwinnable war. Iran is unalterably opposed to the breakup of Iraq into three states.
Iranian officials don’t think the deal is perfect, but still see it as a win-win for both sides. They view themselves as MENA’s most powerful and stable state. They are glad that US has accepted them as a regional player and negotiating partner.
After the withdrawal of US troops from Iraq, Iran filled the vacuum. The Iraqi Army collapsed on Iran’s watch. Iran does not acknowledge its responsibility for this and ascribes the rise of ISIS to others. They also believe that foreign forces fought in Deraa and refused to acknowledge Assad’s role in fomenting terrorism by releasing terrorists from prison. Iranian officials also stated that all sectors of Lebanese society back Hezbollah’s deployment in Syria. Iran needs a reality check.
Iran opposes the creation of a safe zone/no-fly zone in Iraq and has threatened to send basijis into Syria if this happens. Iranians don’t understand the scope of Syria’s humanitarian catastrophe or Iran’s role in it. There are too many disagreements between the US and Iran to form a regional security agreement now. The US needs a policy for Syria; if we don’t have a policy, others will fill the vacuum. The US also needs an official version of what happened in Syria to counter the Iranian invented view of history.
Karam noted that the Arab response to the deal is less monolithic than Israel’s, but the GCC and Israel view Iran’s regional behavior similarly. The UAE, Oman, and Turkey quickly welcomed the deal because they have good trade relations with Iran. Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Qatar were more cautious. The Saudis don’t view the deal as US abandonment, but they fear increased Iranian regional meddling. Arab public opinion has shifted drastically since 2008, when 80% of Arabs viewed Iran positively. Now only 12% do. The Arab street is suspicious of the deal. The US explained the deal to Arab governments, but not to their people. The Arab street wonders whether the money Iran will gain from sanctions relief will go to funding Iranian students, or to Qassem Suleimani and more chlorine gas, barrel bombs, and Hezbollah fighters for Assad. Assad is a costly budget item for Iran. When will Iran realize that Assad can’t win? Nevertheless, Hezbollah keeps getting more involved in Syria.
Karam stated that the Gulf countries obtain commitments from the US at talks like Camp David, but then nothing gets done. The US is four years behind on Syria and needs an official policy.
Serwer noted in conclusion that the regional issues would be far worse if Iran had, or were about to get, nuclear weapons.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
The path of civil resistance
Thursday the United States Institute of Peace held a talk on “Civil Resistance and Peacebuilding: How They Connect.” The panelists included Maria Stephan, USIP Senior Policy Fellow, Manal Omar, Acting Vice President for USIP’s Center for Middle East and Africa and Kerri Kennedy, Associate General Secretary for International Programs at American Friends Service Committee. The event was moderated by Nancy Lindborg, President of USIP.
Stephan introduced the concept of non-violent civil resistance by comparing it to traditional peacebuilding. The former intensifies conflict in an attempt to shift power so as to get to a point of meaningful negotiation. Civil resistance ripens conflicts for conflict resolution. The latter mitigates and deescalates conflicts using techniques such as dialogue, mediation and problem-solving. Both approaches are different but fall under means of conflict transformation.
Stephan also produced empirical data on the efficacy of non-violent resistance compared to armed struggles. She looked at 323 campaigns in 1900-2006 in which at least 1000 people were involved in fighting against dictatorships and for territorial self-determination. She held constant any thing that would determine the conflict’s outcome, such as GDP, military might of the opponent or regime and socioeconomic divisions in society. The results showed that non-violent resistance campaigns outperformed their armed competitors by 2:1.
Additionally Stephan’s empirical research showed society is better off after the struggle if non-violent methods are employed. Non-violent campaigns are strongly correlated with democratic consolidation. The probability a country will be a democracy five years after a campaigns ends is 57% among non-violent movements against less than 6% among successful violence campaigns. Also, the likelihood of recurrence to civil war for violent campaigns is almost double that for non-violent campaigns.
Kennedy spoke about the relationship between civil resistance, peacemaking and peacebuilding. Although there may be tension among the three elements, Kennedy believes a strategy works best when all the elements are incorporated. She added that often peacebuilding and civil resistance are happening at the same time, as opposed to sequentially. For example, in Egypt it wasn’t just a quick social movement that lead to the fall of Mubarak’s regime—decades of effort led to the large social movement. Kennedy also advocated dialogue first to bring about a solution, but warned that it’s rare for dialogue to work on its own without the pressure of mobilization.
Omar elaborated on the challenges of civil resistance as a form of conflict transformation. One issue is redirecting people’s anger towards productive efforts. A person who uses his or her anger to call for social justice is a good thing, but it’s difficult to prevent that anger from morphing into violence. Similarly, defectors from the security apparatus don’t want to put their arms down when they join non-violent resistance movement, which leads to the lines blurring between violence and non-violence. Omar called for the international community to provide people more alternatives, so they don’t turn to violence. Too many people have been disillusioned with the failure of the “ballot box over bullet,” but lack peaceful, constructive options for conflict transformation.
Omar also commented on the importance of transitional justice in post-conflict situations. Many countries in transition begin state building without ensuring accountability, which prompts these countries to slide back into civil wars. Sometimes the international community pushes transitional states towards creating a constitution, holding elections and essentially meeting indicators of success without addressing transitional justice. The consequence is the loss of support from people who were dedicated to the non-violent cause from the beginning because they don’t see justice served.
All three panelists emphasized that the civil resistance path is long and obscure at times. Kennedy claimed the importance of small community steps should not be dismissed. It is necessary to debunk the myth that violent intervention is fast and effective, when it’s actually very messy. Omar added that the regime changes in Egypt and Tunisia were the result of years of mobilizing, organizing groups, training, making mistakes and learning from them. They weren’t merely 25-day struggles. Stephan said that civil resistance encompasses more than protests, demonstrations and boycotts, it also involves social audits, community monitoring and creating parallel structures and institutions, which can empower the nation-building process.
RSS - Posts
