Tag: Libya
The trick is to stay on course
Loyal readers will not be surprised by Libya’s smooth handover of power yesterday from its revolutionary Transitional National Council (NTC) to its General National Conference, the parliament elected in July. The July election went far better than many expected.
The Libyan revolution had many ways of going wrong. I wrote about them for the Council on Foreign Relations during the spring of 2010. My visit last September convinced me they had come down to just two: militias and Islamic extremism. Both have proved problematic, but they have not derailed a process that the NTC scoped out a year ago.
Why has Libya gone more right than wrong? There are many reasons. It is a geographically large but demographically small (6.4 million, more or less) country. It is rich. Even before the oil and gas started flowing, repatriated frozen assets provided ample resources. Libya is relatively homogeneous from an ethnic and sectarian perspective (compared to Iraq or Syria), though there are distinct groups, especially in the south, that have not yet fully accepted the revolution. The regional tensions are real, especially in the eastern province of Cyrenaica, but the revolution against Qaddafi gave Libyans a common cause, at least until now.
The role of the international community in Libya has been one of support, not direction. The United States and Europe, which were vital to the NATO operation that dislodged Qaddafi, had more important things on their minds once he was gone: Syria, Iran and the euro crisis. The United Nations and closely allied agencies (UNDP, IFES, etc.) provided assistance in organizing the July elections, but the Libyans were unequivocally in the lead. They have owned their revolution and its aftermath.
Now Libya faces its biggest challenges: deciding on how power is to be distributed and who will have it to start. A prime minister and new government is to be chosen within 30 days. When I left Libya last month, the clear intention of the biggest winner in the election, Mahmoud Jibril, was to form a broad, national unity government. If it can be done, this is smart. Bringing the Muslim Brotherhood and others with significant popular support in is a lot better than keeping them out.
The first and most important job of that new government is to decide how the committee to write the constitution is to be chosen. The original plan was for the GNC to somehow empower a committee. The TNC decided, in a last-minute move of dubious validity intended to encourage electoral participation in the east, that the committee should instead be elected on a regional basis.
However selected, the committee is to prepare a draft within 60 days that has to be submitted for approval by a 2/3 majority in a popular referendum. This is important: it guarantees that, however and by whomever written, the new constitution will have to have broad geographical and popular legitimacy. The time for preparation of the new constitution is far too short to allow serious public participation in the process. It would be wise for the GNC to give the process more time.
Once the constitution is approved, the GNC promulgates a new election law within 30 days and new elections are held with 180 days.
Many people are still worried about Libya’s once-revolutionary militias, which have not been fully demobilized or reintegrated, and about its Islamic extremists, who have been attacking the Red Cross (symbol of the crusaders of course) and trying to sow havoc. These are real and present dangers. Libya is still a long way from establishing law and order, even if the environment is already reasonably safe and secure most places most of the time.
Libya is on a good course. That is what counts. I am reminded of Zeno’s “dichotomy” paradox in its collegiate version: if you halve the distance between yourself and an attractive other at a constant rate, mathematicians say you’ll never arrive. But for all practical purposes, you do.
On its current course, Libya will arrive at something resembling a democracy, sooner or later. The trick is to stay on course.
PS: for another, well-informed, view see Christopher Blanchard’s Libya Transition and US Policy.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Is Libya really headed for democracy?
Al-Monitor yesterday published this piece, which they titled “Libya Hurtles Toward Democracy.” That’s not quite my message, but have a read for yourself:
Returning from observing the July 7 Libyan elections last week, it was hard for me to believe that Libya — a pariah state for most of my adult life — might be on the path to democracy. Why, I wondered, did the elections go so well? Why were the results so “good” from a US as well as Libyan perspective? What are the implications of the results for the US and the region?
Based on my experience in Benghazi, the answers so far are encouraging, although significant challenges remain.
The elections went well because that is what the Libyans wanted. Without exception, the politicians I spoke with rejected last-minute appeals to vote for Islamists, as well as even more extreme Islamist and “Federalist” views opposed to voting at all. At least some of the Federalists, who want a commitment to a Libya formed from its three historic regions, have acknowledged defeat and proclaimed that the Libyan people have spoken in an election that drew 62% participation. Most Libyans wanted to vote and felt invested in the electoral process, which was organized and paid for by the Libyans themselves.
The assistance the Libyans got from the United Nations and US-backed organizations such as the National Democratic Institute and the International Foundation for Electoral Systems was wide-ranging, but did not deprive Libyans of ownership. Relatively quick sanctions relief ensured that the National Transitional Council’s coffers were full. When I asked the manager of the tallying center in Tripoli how he managed to get the ballots and tally sheets to the capital so fast from far-away Tobruk, near the border with Egypt, he responded, “I sent the plane.” Elections conducted in many municipalities during the spring were in some ways a practice run and whetted the electoral appetite.
Libyans won’t be happy to hear me say it, but I suspect that there were elements of Muammar Gadhafi’s legacy involved in the success of the elections. Hatred for Gadhafi gave Libyans a stronger sense of collective identity than many experts had anticipated. One Libyan election observer, asked at the end of her 12-hour vigil at the polling place whether she had ever imagined a free election in Libya, said, with vehemence, “never!” Her determination was a reaction to decades of oppression.
The Gadhafi regime also gave Libyans a lot of discipline. Entrusted with setting up the polling places, the nation’s school teachers posted instructions on classroom walls and arranged furniture and cardboard voting booths as shown in the posters provided by the Libyan High National Election Commission.
Last but not least, the Gadhafi regime had always promised Libyans self-government even if they were never allowed to exercise that right. No one in Libya has anything good to say about the Green Book or the Jamahiriya (Gadhafi’s “republic of the masses”), but Libyans have a clearer concept of self-governance than many people I know who have also lived under autocracy for decades.
As an election observer, my role was to watch and report. Mostly I found myself checking the “yes” boxes: the polling centers were accessible and free from adverse influence; the polling center staff was present; polling procedures were implemented correctly; voting was secret and free of apparent fraud or disruption. More often than not, Libyan observers were also present at the polling stations I visited. They also thought the process was conducted properly. There were separate polling stations for men and women, with relatively few women observing in the male polling stations. The polling stations in a camp for displaced people and in a disability center were set up and operating in the same way.
Not only the process, but also the election results were good. The leader of the winning coalition is Mahmoud Jibril, whose doctoral thesis and portrayal in a Wikileaks cable, show him to be a certifiable wonk and technocrat. He also proved to be a good politician. Eschewing secularism, he managed to get dozens of smallish, liberal parties to unite, then campaigned vigorously all over Libya. His Islamist opposition was more divided and less rooted than Jibril’s coalition.
It would be unwise to suggest that the results necessarily have broad implications for Libya’s western neighbor Tunisia, where the transition is already going reasonably well, or Egypt, where the transition is confused and messy. Nor will Libya echo strongly in Yemen, already embarked on a Gulf Cooperation Council-designed transition, or in benighted Syria. But Syrians and Libya’s western Maghreb neighbors, Morocco and Algeria, would do well to study carefully the way Libya is managing its transition. If the pro-revolution Syrian National Council could muster even a fraction of the cohesion the Libyans have shown, there might be some hope for a peaceful transition once Syrian President Bashar al-Assad falls.
The age of Algeria’s leaders will compel some sort of transition there as well, likely beginning with presidential elections in 2014. If the Moroccan king wants to avoid cataclysm, his tentative steps in the direction of constitutional monarchy should be bolder than they have been so far.
Perhaps the most important lesson of Libya is that the polarization of Islamists and secularists can be avoided. When everyone is Islamic, it hardly matters who is an Islamist. Islam, like Christianity in most of the West, should be a religion, not a source of political division. Europe and America will find it far easier to improve relations with a moderate, Islamic Libya than a sharply divided Egypt.
Libya still runs serious risks. Everyone points towards the militias, which provided good security for the voting in many areas but also clashed in a few, disrupting the polls in Kufra and Ajdabiya (south of Benghazi). While still vital to security in some places, the militias gradually have to be reined in and absorbed into state security forces and civilian society. These young militants have enjoyed a heady time. It will not be easy for them to accept a less exciting life. There are also tribal conflicts, often over smuggling routes, that continue to threaten the transition, especially in the south. And there are regional tensions between east and west that will have to find solutions in the constitution to be written and approved in a referendum next year.
The biggest challenge will be handling oil and gas revenue. If that is not done equitably, accountably and transparently, all bets are off. Only two countries on earth with hydrocarbon-dominated economies have managed their wealth reasonably well: Norway and East Timor. If Libya becomes a third, it might really be on the path to democracy.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Milestone on a bumpy road
Ilona Gerbakher reports:
Wednesday’s Atlantic Council discussion on the results of the Libyan election veered between exuberance and caution.
Gregory Kehalia, from the International Foundation for Electoral Systems (IFES) opened on a hopeful note. Libyans are full of pride, motivation and joy. The media has called July 7 “exceptional.” Not every Libyan has turned into a democrat, as attacks on polling places in Ajdabiya demonstrate, but the elections did not turn into the kind of bloodbath that some were expecting. Security was good. By Tuesday 100% of polling places had opened. A 63% turnout is excellent for a first election and a relatively uneducated population. From the point of view of an electoral technician, the elections themselves are–against all odds–an unquestionable success. It is still too early to know the official election results, and we cannot yet know if Libya will be an exception to the recent string of Islamist victories in the region. But the election is a major new milestone for Arab democracies in the Middle East, even if the road is “still littered with problems.”
Fadel Laman of the American Libyan Council illuminated some of these problems. He was critical of the pre-election campaign. Despite very high turnout, particularly for women, most Libyans were not well educated about their candidates. Until the day before the election, Libyans were unsure of whom to vote for, or did not understand that receiving a registration card was not the same as casting a vote. A thirteen-day campaigning period was too brief for people to understand much about the political parties or their agendas. Most Libyans voted for people they knew, or felt they knew, or felt they trusted, such as Mahmoud Jibril.
The big bump in the road is governance. Regardless of who wins the popular vote, it is unlikely that any one person or party will have an absolute majority. Assuming a Jibril victory, which early polls seem to indicate, will he be able to create and maintain a ruling coalition? What will be done about the militias? How will the place of Shari’a law be decided? The “morning after,” when the election winners come to power, Libya will still be facing the same problems and challenges. Whether 200 newly minted representatives can unite to overcome these is uncertain.
Dr. Esam Omeigh, director of the Libyan Emergency Taskforce, was also more concerned with the aftermath of the elections than with the elections themselves. Yes, they were historic, but now the question is whether the new National Assembly can tackle Libya’s to-do list? Can the new representatives remain coherent and create a coalition around which bigger alliances can be constructed? It’s a difficult question, which leaves room for worry. Neither the Justice and Development Party nor the National Forces Alliance will have a real majority. It is the large block of independents who will be the real movers and shakers in the parliament. Regional power brokers, tribal alliances and some holdovers from the Gaddafi regime will plague the government with problems and divisions. How this will all play out, and how this will affect US interests in the region is impossible to control.
Libya represents a good vantage point for looking forward to what will become of the region. Observers of the Middle East (and US policy makers) should take a step back and give the fledgling democracy space to develop–it might allow us to project what a post-Arab Spring world will look like.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Benghazi needs a hug
Foreignpolicy.com has published this piece, based on my personal experience observing the July 7 Libyan elections in Benghazi:
Shouts of “Allahu akbar” rang out Friday night in Benghazi, as Libya lost to Morocco on penalty kicks. Saturday brought a loud night of celebratory honking and gunfire as the polls for the first national election in 60 years closed.
I was in Benghazi observing the election for the Carter Center, which mounted a limited mission due to security concerns. It has issued its preliminary assessment. These are my own views, and not those of the Carter Center.
The Libyans are electing what they call a General National Congress (GNC), which will form the country’s first elected government and — according to a last-minute decision — preside over regional elections for members of a constitution-drafting committee. Eighty seats in the GNC will be assigned proportionally from closed party lists, with men and women alternating on the ballot. One hundred twenty seats will go to individual candidates. This election will end Libya’s self-appointed revolutionary regime, the National Transitional Council (NTC), which led the political side of the February 2011 revolt against Muammar al-Qaddafi.
The July 7 election wasn’t perfect. Several people were killed in the eastern part of Libya, which saw tension and violence. But the elections came off smoothly in the west and much of the south, and better than feared in the east. This was good reason to celebrate. We will not know complete final results for several days, perhaps even a week, but the tallying is proceeding rapidly in an effort I visited at an army base on the way to Tripoli airport.
Who would resist elections in a country so hungry for self-governance and freedom of expression? Extremist Islamist groups with limited resonance in the broader population opposed this spring’s municipal elections in several communities, including Benghazi. In the weeks since, what Libyans call the “Federalist” opposition has grown both more vocal and more violent. They want to see Cyrenaica (or Barqa, as the Federalists prefer to call it) become autonomous, along with Fezzan in the south and Tripolitania in the west. They sought more seats in the GNC for Cyrenaica, as well as a constitution-drafting committee chosen regionally. Tribal and ethnic divisions are also at work. While proof is scarce, it is widely believed Qaddafi remnants in Cairo and elsewhere funded youthful protests and violence against the GNC elections, in an effort to undermine a democratic revolution.
Voting stations in Benghazi were generally well organized, well staffed, and orderly. Voters’ names were usually posted outside polling stations, queuing was well-managed, the check-in process comparing voter cards with registration lists was meticulous, the ballots were stamped and distributed properly, provision was made for secret voting, fingers were inked, and the ballot boxes were clearly visible. There were observers present more often than not, many serving for individual candidates as well as political parties but most (more than 2,000 in Benghazi) from nongovernmental organizations, including the Libyan Women’s Association, the Association for International Law, the Libyan Association for Election Observers and others. There was little sign of campaigning, intimidation or other attempts to influence voters inside (or immediately outside) polling centers. Staff was well acquainted with their responsibilities and properly identified with badges as well as white plastic smocks. Many polling stations posted their instructions on how they were to be set up and choreographed.
The second polling center I visited was in Gimeenis, on the periphery of Benghazi. Battles were fought nearby during the seesaw war with Qaddafi’s forces. An attack on one of the polling centers there the previous day prompted the High National Election Commission to consolidate three polling centers into one. This had been accomplished by 10:30 a.m.. Voting was proceeding without a hitch. Sufficient materials had somehow been made available. A grenade attack on the new, consolidated polling center caused no hesitation. The polling center courtyard was crowded with men milling about, proudly defiant of the violence. Women were ululating upstairs.
Voters in Benghazi were well aware of the anti-election Federalist demonstrations and violence in the city and areas surrounding. They voted with determination and commitment in significant numbers. At the end of the day, the men’s polling stations I visited were recording 75 to 85 percent of registered voters voting, before the police came in to vote after the centers closed. Revolutionary brigades who fought Qaddafi’s forces, now at least in part organized under the “Supreme Security Council,” participated in providing security in Benghazi, but they were part of the security problem in Ajdabiya, where some tribally-based militias opposed the voting.
We visited one polling center in a Tuarga displaced persons’ camp and one in a facility for disabled people. The Tuarga, black people whom the revolutionaries of neighboring Misrata blame for alleged human rights violations, are unable to return to their homes hundreds of miles to the west, but they had the option of voting on ballots for their home constituency. Turnout was light. The facilities and staffing were on a par with elsewhere, even if the atmosphere was more somber. The facility for disabled people was uplifting: Qaddafi built it as a showcase, but more important than the relatively good physical facility was the spirit of those voting and managing the polling. Many (but not all) had physical limitations of one sort or another. Quiet but unmistakable pride was on display.
The political atmosphere in which the voting took place in Benghazi was one of anticipation and determination. While some Libyans did not vote because they were afraid, feel the NTC betrayed the revolution or support the Federalists, most relished the opportunity. Political leaders of all the major coalitions and parties — my colleagues and I were able to talk with all the major ones in Benghazi — were looking forward to the electoral contest, which included 3,700 candidates.
Early indications are that a coalition led by former NTC prime minister Mahmoud Jibril will do well in the closed-list contest, with over 50 percent of the party list seats in the General Public Conference. Justice and Construction, a creature of the Muslim Brotherhood even if it would prefer to deny the association, is hoping for at least 15 percent but no more than 35 percent, well aware of the unhappiness a bigger share would cause in some quarters. This would be significantly less than in Egypt and Tunisia. Many Libyans regard the Brotherhood as a foreign import that is trying to divide people who generally regard themselves as conservative Muslims. A “patriotic” party, the National Salvation Front, looks like a possible second or third. The experts may say Libya is an invented country — its three pieces were cobbled together for independence in 1951 — but if nothing else the Qaddafi regime has left everyone here literally waving the flag: not his green one, but the red, green, and black monarchical one the revolution prefers and demonstrators drape over your windshield as you pass through the chanting crowd in downtown Benghazi.
Benghazis may be patriotic, but they also feel they have gotten the short end of the stick for far too long. They are looking for respect and constitutional guarantees that it won’t continue. The raw material for an insurgency — charismatic leadership, youthful discontent, and funding — is not lacking in Libya’s east. Benghazi needs a hug. And maybe a few oil service companies, which in recent decades Qaddafi required to locate in Tripoli.
This was not only an inspiring but also a technically impressive election day, despite the scattered violence. Only a handful of communities were unable to vote. The results will be interesting, but the process was the main message. Libya wants democracy.
PS: Here I am, in a photo by Sidney Kwiram, who says I was asking lots of questions on election day:
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
This week’s peace picks
1. Front Burner: Al Qaeda’s Attack on the USS Cole, Heritage Foundation, 12-1 pm July 10
Event Details
- DATE Tuesday, Jul 10, 2012
- VENUE Lehrman Auditorium
More About the Speakers
Author
Hosted By
On October 12, 2000, eleven months before the 9/11 attacks, the USS Cole – with Commander Kirk Lippold at the helm – docked in the port of Aden in Yemen for a routine fueling stop. At 1118, the 8,400-ton destroyer was rocked by an enormous explosion. This bombing marked al Qaeda’s first direct assault against the United States and expanded their brazen and deadly string of terrorist attacks throughout the Middle East. In this first-person narrative, Lippold reveals the details of this harrowing experience in which seventeen sailors died and thirty-seven were wounded. Thanks to the valor of the crew in the perilous days that followed, the ship was saved.
Yet, even with al Qaeda’s intentions made clear in an unmistakable act of war, the United States government delayed retaliating. Bureaucrats and politicians sought to shift and pin blame as they ignored the danger signaled by the attack, shirking responsibility until the event was ultimately overshadowed by 9/11. In Front Burner, Lippold captures this critical moment in America’s battle against al Qaeda, telling a vital story that – until now – has been lost in the fog of the war on terror.
Commander Lippold retired from the Navy in 2007 and remains active in current events and national security affairs. His personal awards include the Defense Superior Service Medal, Legion of Merit, Meritorious Service Medal, and Combat Action Ribbon, among others.
2. Chronic Kleptocracy: Corruption within the Palestinian Political Establishment, 2172 Rayburn HOB, 2 pm July 10
House Committee on Foreign Affairs Oversight Hearing
|
Date
Tuesday, July 10, 2012
|
Time
2:00 PM
|
|
Location
Washington, DC
|
Room
2172 Rayburn HOB
|
|
Subcommittee
Subcommittee on the Middle East and South Asia
Chaired by Steve Chabot (R-OH) |
|
|
Witnesses
|
|
3. Reform, Revolt and Revolution in Egypt and the Arab World, Embassy of Slovenia, 2410 California Street NW, 6-8 pm July 10
Egypt and the Arab World
Lisa Anderson
President, The American University in Cairo
H.E. Roman Kirn
Ambassador of Slovenia to the US
Reception and Program
Embassy of Slovenia
2410 California Street, NW
Washington, DC
Space is limited. Advance registration is required.
4. Libya’s First Elections: A Preliminary Look at Results and Outlook, Atlantic Council, 12-2 pm, July 11
| Date / Time | Wednesday, July 11 / 12:00pm – 2:00pm |
|---|---|
| Location |
Atlantic Council of the United States 1101 15th Street, NW, 11th Floor, Washington, D.C. 20005
|
| Speakers | Gregory Kehailia, Fadel Lamen, Esam Omeish, Karim Mezran |
| Description | After four decades of dictatorship under the rule of Moammar Qaddafi, Libyans will go to the polls on July 7 to elect the nation’s first constituent assembly. With more than 4,000 candidates for the assembly’s 200 seats and nearly 2.7 million voters, all eyes are on the National Transitional Council to fulfill this final step in handing power over to the elected body. After delays due to security and technical reasons, how did the first election proceed? What do the results say about the desires of Libyans to move forward in their transition to democracy? Who are the major players that emerged through this election and how will government formation proceed? |
5. After the Summit: Assessing Iraq’s Relations with its Arab Neighbors, Middle East Institute, 12-1:30 pm July 12
Location:
The Middle East Institute is proud to host John Desrocher, Gregory Gause, Ken Pollack and Amb. Samir Sumaida’ie for a discussion about Baghdad’s complex relations with its Arab neighbors during a time of regional transition. As Iraq seeks to reclaim its role as a powerful player in the Arab world, what obstacles does it face as it attempts to project power and influence in a region still largely suspicious of Iraq’s motivations and alliances? What’s the view of Baghdad from the Arab Gulf and what influence does Iraq have on the unfolding crisis in Syria?
Bios:
John Desrocher took up his position as the director of the Office of Iraq Affairs in September 2010. He spent the preceding year at the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad as minister counselor for Economic Coordination, responsible for U.S.-Iraq economic policy issues. He has extensive experience in international trade and in Middle East issues and has served as counselor for Economic and Political Affairs at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo. He participated in Palestinian-Israeli economic negotiations while serving at the U.S. Consulate General in Jerusalem in the late 1990s and served as State Department desk officer for Iraq in the mid-1990s.
Gregory Gause is professor of political science at the University of Vermont, and was director of the University’s Middle East Studies Program from 1998 to 2008. In 2009-2010, he was the Kuwait Foundation Visiting Professor of International Affairs at the Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University. He was previously on the faculty of Columbia University (1987-1995) and was a Fellow for Arab and Islamic Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations in New York (1993-1994). He has published three books, among them The International Relations of the Persian Gulf (Cambridge University Press, 2010).
Kenneth Pollack is a senior fellow at the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution. He is an expert on national security, military affairs, and the Persian Gulf. He was drector for Persian Gulf affairs at the National Security Council. He also spent seven years in the CIA as a Persian Gulf military analyst. He is the author of A Path Out of the Desert: A Grand Strategy for America in the Middle East (Random House, 2008)
Amb. Samir Sumaida’ie was appointed Iraq’s ambassador to the United States in April 2006. Following the U.S. invasion of Iraq, Sumaida’ie served as a member of Governing Council (GC) in Iraq. In the GC, he was chairman of the media committee, helped found the Iraqi Telecoms and Media Commission and the Public Broadcasting Institution, and held positions on the security, finance, and foreign relations committees. He then served as the minister of interior in Baghdad. In this capacity he managed a domestic security force of over 120,000. Prior to his appointment as ambassador to the U.S., Sumaida’ie served as permanent representative to the United Nations from July 2004 to April 2006.
Moderator: Phebe Marr is a prominent historian of modern Iraq. She was research professor at the National Defense University and a professor of history at the University of Tennessee and at Stanislaus State University in California. She is the author of The Modern History of Iraq (Third Edition, Westview Press, 2011). She is a member of the Board of Advisory Editors of The Middle East Journal.
6. Democratic Transition in the Middle East: Between Authoritarianism and Islamism, National Endowment for Democracy, 12-2 pm July 12
featuring
Mokhtar Benabdallaoui, Reagan-Fascell Democracy Fellow
with comments by
Samer Shehata, Georgetown University
Thursday, July 12, 2012
12 noon–2:00 p.m.
(Lunch served 12:00–12:30 p.m.)
1025 F. Street, N.W., Suite 800, Washington, D.C. 20004
Telephone: 202-378-9675
RSVP (acceptances only) with name and affiliation by Tuesday, July 10
About the Event
The outcomes of the recent Arab uprisings have confirmed the organizational superiority and widespread appeal of Islamist political parties in a number of countries in the Middle East. The new form of Islamism appears to be compatible with democracy, a free society, and a modern economy, and its ascendancy may foreshadow the political future of the region and the roles of domestic, regional, and international actors.
In his presentation, Mokhtar Benabdallaoui will explain why Islamists have embraced democracy instead of fundamentalism and why the appeal of Islamists exceeds that of leftists and liberals in the Arab world. He will assess the challenges of shaping Islamist political thought in a democratic direction, the prospects of Islamist governments accepting diversity and differences of opinion, and the ways in which Islamists may reconcile conflicting religious and political ideas from across the Arab world. Drawing upon the example of Islamist political parties in four countries—Morocco, Tunisia, Egypt, and Lebanon—Mr. Benabdallaoui will consider how ascendant Islamists have influenced societies across the Middle East and conclude with an assessment of the main stakeholders in the Arab Spring, their propensity for reform, and the prospects for further change in the region. Samer Shehata will provide comments.
About the Speakers
Mokhtar Benabdallaoui is a professor of Islamic studies and director of the Doctoral Center for Studies in Politics and Religion at Hassan II University in Casablanca, Morocco. He is also founding director of the Center for Humanities Studies and Research, a Casablanca-based nongovernmental organization that carries out a broad range of activities under the auspices of the Civic Forum, including civic education workshops, publication of the quarterly journal Rihanat, and conferences on democratic reform. During his fellowship, Dr. Benabdallaoui is studying the evolution, activities, and impact of Islamist parties in the Arab world and intends to publish his findings in the form of a book. Samer Shehata is an assistant professor of Arab politics at the Center for Contemporary Arab Studies at Georgetown University.
7. The Role of Central Asia in Afghanistan, Carnegie, 12:15-1:45 pm July 12
Ambassador Robert O. Blake, Martha Brill Olcott Thursday, July 12, 2012 – Washington, D.C.
12:15 PM – 1:45 PM EST
As Central Asia plays a fundamental role in efforts to develop a peaceful and stable Afghanistan as well as a secure and prosperous region, the United States must continue to actively engage with Central Asian countries.
Assistant Secretary of State Robert O. Blake will discuss the prospects for developing Central Asia into a region of economic opportunity, which could help lead to regional integration.
Please note that the event will take place in the Saul/Zikha Room of the Brookings Institution.
8. View from the Ground in Syria, CSIS, 10:30-11:30 am, July 13
-
Friday, Jul 13, 2012 | 10:30 am – 11:30 am
The Center for Strategic and International Studies invites you to a discussion on
View From the Ground in Syria
With Donatella Rovera Senior Crisis Response Adviser, Syria Amnesty International
With commentary by Aram Nerguizian
Visiting Fellow, Arleigh A. Burke Chair in Strategy Center for Strategic and International Studies
Moderated by Dr. Anthony H. Cordesman
Arleigh A. Burke Chair in Strategy Center for Strategic and International Studies
Friday, July 13, 2012 10:30 a.m. – 11:30 a.m.
B1 Conference Room
1800 K Street, NW, Washington DC 20006
Seating is limited.
RSVP is required. Please RSVP (acceptances only) with your name and affiliation to externalrelations@csis.org
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Hang together
There is something special about celebrating July 4 in Tripoli. This is a country that made a revolution only after 42 years of dictatorship. Watching it prepare for elections July 7 is thrilling, even to an old salt. I’ll miss the reading of the Declaration of Independence on NPR this morning, especially this portion of the stirring preamble:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
These are the founding principles of the American republic. I am not by nature a proselytizer. I think everyone should find their own form of government. But if you start from these principles, it is hard–pretty much impossible–to come to other than democratic conclusions.
All the revolutions of the Arab spring have to some extent been inspired by similar thinking, but the Libyan and Tunisian ones more than others have been able to fulfill the hope of throwing off absolute despotism. Egypt experienced something more like a creeping military coup than a revolution. Yemen is enjoying, if that is the right word, a negotiated transition. Syria is lost in a civil war. Sudan (Khartoum) is seeing only the first stirrings of discontent. Bahrain has put the genie back in the bottle, for the moment. Other Gulf states have bought off and repressed their protest movements.
It is hard to fault those who decide the weight of oppression is too great to claim the dignity inherent in the idea that all men (and women) are created equal and endowed with inalienable rights. But if you believe that the premise is true, it is difficult not to want to support those who do decide to take the risk.
In the Libyan case, support came in military form, in response to a threat the dictator posed to Benghazi. But it is a mistake to believe that this is the only form of support, or even the most effective one. It is hard for me to imagine how military support to the Syrian rebellion, short of full-scale intervention well beyond the level in Libya, will do much more than widen and worsen the violence. Someone may get lucky and kill Bashar al Asad, but even then his Alawite sect and its allies will likely continue to fight a war they believe is “existential.” Thinking that way likely makes it so. It is easy to understand, and impossible to justify, their self-protective abuse of power.
Syrians and others engaged in the fight against tyranny would do well to remember Benjamin Franklin’s injunction at the signing in 1776:
We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately.
May we all hang together.
RSS - Posts
