Across the world, the economic policy of austerity is dead.
The IMF has pronounced job creation more important than debt reduction.
Abenomics has fundamentally changed the course of Japanese policy
The UK has started throwing money at the housing market.
China is heading towards stimulation of consumption, even Germany has endorsed the IMF view.
In the US, Austerity was preached, but never really practised.
So the economic policy of austerity has been abandoned as a failure. But no one really admits that. In fact, politicians keep on talking austerity.
They do so to avoid looking like they are navigating a U turn.
But also, leaders of the political right are keen to kill off a lot of schemes which they have an ideological objection to.
In an age of austerity, we just can't afford x, y and z.
So austerity, always a failure economically, dead as an intellectual idea, lives on; zombie like, as a political stick with which to beat the poor.
After all, in Britain, we can afford nuclear weapons, but not universal child benefit.
So much for tough decisions.
Friday, 26 July 2013
Tuesday, 23 July 2013
Marx in 21st Century Wall Street, and the Pentagon
I am hardly unique in thinking that Marxist analysis of capitalism provided us with some very worthwhile insights.
That it was the watering down of the more extreme results of capitalism by Roosevelt and the Western European Social Democrats which led to the great prosperity of the late 20th century.
And that the untrammelled capitalism of the 19th century and 1920s resulted in disaster not just for the poorest, but for society as a whole.
And the idiot anti Keynsian Neo Conservatives who sought to elevate the market to some sort of religion are ultimately responsible for the mess we find ourselves in today.
So, Marx I thought, was absolutely right about what was wrong with Capitalism, but his vision of the future was just plain wrong.
To recap Marxist theory of history predicted that capitalism would implode when the politically conscious proletariat rose up to take control of the state. The state would be the mechanism for the common ownership of the means of production (everything) until perfect communism took hold, when the state would wither away.
Unfortunately we never got to the 'withering away of the state' part. Never mind.
My point here is, that I never thought we would reach a stage of the all encompassing state. Where society is run by a bureaucratic apparatchik class rather than by a capitalist class.
But look at where we have arrived. The public sector has taken over large chunks of our productive capacity. Generally close to 40% in Western Democracies.
For generations food production has been directed and subsidised by central governments, along with generous tax credits for industrial investment.
Now the whole financial system looks like a state dependency. In the US the private mortgage market was underwritten by the federal government, and the UK looks to follow suit.
Post 2001 the state has advanced not just in the economic, but also the security sphere. To the point where hardly a human interaction can be held in guaranteed privacy from intrusion of the state.
Even where government does not intervene, production is organised not in the small entrepreneurial units described in Adam Smith's theory, rather in large bureaucratic institutions. Called corporations. The owners of these corporations are ordinary people. Ownership via pension schemes and investment funds. But it is the.managers of these corporations who control them. These managers come from the same class as the politicians. They form a bureaucratic elite. A revolving door takes these people from one side of the public/private divide and back again. The rest of us are generally excluded.
Indeed we are, as Marx envisaged now ruled by bureaucratic apparatchiks rather than by the owners of capital.
It just doesn't smell like socialism to me.
The only challenge to this bureaucratic elite comes from the tiny numbers of super wealthy. But that is another story.
That it was the watering down of the more extreme results of capitalism by Roosevelt and the Western European Social Democrats which led to the great prosperity of the late 20th century.
And that the untrammelled capitalism of the 19th century and 1920s resulted in disaster not just for the poorest, but for society as a whole.
And the idiot anti Keynsian Neo Conservatives who sought to elevate the market to some sort of religion are ultimately responsible for the mess we find ourselves in today.
So, Marx I thought, was absolutely right about what was wrong with Capitalism, but his vision of the future was just plain wrong.
To recap Marxist theory of history predicted that capitalism would implode when the politically conscious proletariat rose up to take control of the state. The state would be the mechanism for the common ownership of the means of production (everything) until perfect communism took hold, when the state would wither away.
Unfortunately we never got to the 'withering away of the state' part. Never mind.
My point here is, that I never thought we would reach a stage of the all encompassing state. Where society is run by a bureaucratic apparatchik class rather than by a capitalist class.
But look at where we have arrived. The public sector has taken over large chunks of our productive capacity. Generally close to 40% in Western Democracies.
For generations food production has been directed and subsidised by central governments, along with generous tax credits for industrial investment.
Now the whole financial system looks like a state dependency. In the US the private mortgage market was underwritten by the federal government, and the UK looks to follow suit.
Post 2001 the state has advanced not just in the economic, but also the security sphere. To the point where hardly a human interaction can be held in guaranteed privacy from intrusion of the state.
Even where government does not intervene, production is organised not in the small entrepreneurial units described in Adam Smith's theory, rather in large bureaucratic institutions. Called corporations. The owners of these corporations are ordinary people. Ownership via pension schemes and investment funds. But it is the.managers of these corporations who control them. These managers come from the same class as the politicians. They form a bureaucratic elite. A revolving door takes these people from one side of the public/private divide and back again. The rest of us are generally excluded.
Indeed we are, as Marx envisaged now ruled by bureaucratic apparatchiks rather than by the owners of capital.
It just doesn't smell like socialism to me.
The only challenge to this bureaucratic elite comes from the tiny numbers of super wealthy. But that is another story.
Tuesday, 16 July 2013
So was Trayvon Martin guilty?
Mr Zimmerman has been acquitted of the second degree murder of teenager Trayvon Martin.
The undisputed facts of the case appear to be thus
Mr Martin was on his way back from a shop
Mr Zimmerman saw Mr Martin
Mr Zimmerman chased Mr Martin
Mr Zimmerman killed Mr Martin
Mr Zimmerman claims he felt threatened by Mr Martin. That Mr Martin attacked him.
With Mr Martin lying dead, there is no witness to counter this story.
It seems that US law does not allow Mr Martin to use his fists to defend against an arms bearing, pursuing Mr Zimmerman, but does allow Mr Zimmerman to shoot and kill an otherwise innocent individual with whom a confrontation began only after Mr Zimmerman chased him.
Mr Zimmerman confirms he chased Mr Martin.
This does not seem like justice to me.
If Mr Zimmerman can reasonably shoot and kill Mr Martin because he felt threatened, could not any black teenager reasonably feel threatened in the presence of Mr Zimmerman?
Will the law protect their 'right' to shoot and kill in preemptive self defence?
The undisputed facts of the case appear to be thus
Mr Martin was on his way back from a shop
Mr Zimmerman saw Mr Martin
Mr Zimmerman chased Mr Martin
Mr Zimmerman killed Mr Martin
Mr Zimmerman claims he felt threatened by Mr Martin. That Mr Martin attacked him.
With Mr Martin lying dead, there is no witness to counter this story.
It seems that US law does not allow Mr Martin to use his fists to defend against an arms bearing, pursuing Mr Zimmerman, but does allow Mr Zimmerman to shoot and kill an otherwise innocent individual with whom a confrontation began only after Mr Zimmerman chased him.
Mr Zimmerman confirms he chased Mr Martin.
This does not seem like justice to me.
If Mr Zimmerman can reasonably shoot and kill Mr Martin because he felt threatened, could not any black teenager reasonably feel threatened in the presence of Mr Zimmerman?
Will the law protect their 'right' to shoot and kill in preemptive self defence?
Wednesday, 10 July 2013
Mr Morsi, working class hero
Mr Morsi won an election. He was Egypt's first truly legitimate ruler.
He held power for about a year, then the army deposed him. In favour (so they claim) of another election.
The point is the people of Egypt got it wrong last time, they voted for the wrong guy. This time they might vote for someone more acceptable to the army.
So, some six decades and more after the army seized power under General Nasser, it stood aside for just one year to give the Muslim brotherhood a chance.
What is it I wonder, that makes us all so blasé about the democratic choice of the people of Egypt. I know that Mr Morsi made some choices which many find unpleasant. I myself did not like his policies. I would have found it difficult to vote for him. But it is a fundamental rule of democracy that you have to accept it when you lose, those who now rise up against Mr Morsi because they find his policies 'undemocratic' seem to have lost all sense of what democracy means.
One thing it means is you have to accept policies you don't like at least until the next election.
It seems the middle class liberals have forgotten another important point about democracy. It is rule by the masses.
They really shouldn't be surprised that a democratic president makes use of a bit of populism. That is the nature of democracy.
They should be mature enough to accept that an elected president may well say one thing before the election and do another afterward. Which democracy has not experienced that?
It seems that Egypt's middle class demands freedom for themselves. To throw off the shackles of military rule. But they are not ready to trust the choice of working class Egyptians for president.
That I fear is the real reason Mr Morsi could be removed. The Muslim Brotherhood should understand, its struggle is not really religious, it is a typical class struggle.
There is only one legitimate reason for deposing an elected president by unlawful means. That is when that president seeks to avoid re-submitting themselves to the electorate in the required timetable. For all his faults, Mr Morsi had not tried to extend his term or postpones or cancel elections. The ballot box remained the only legitimate way to remove him.
I would caution them. Until the supporters of the Muslim Brotherhood took to the streets Mubarak looked secure. Mr Morsi won a fair election. They and the army may sit in terribly polite company disapproving of the way uneducated people vote, but that is the nature of democracy.
The people of Egypt have tasted revolution. Sooner or later the mass of people will secure power for themselves.
Will they then be more merciful than the army was when it shot 50 supporters of the Muslim Brotherhood dead? How can the Coptic pope be so short-sighted as to support a military takeover? His own people will answer for that should the Muslim Brotherhood be in power again.
After the revolution comes the terror. The shooting dead of 50 people will be as nothing when that terror comes.
He held power for about a year, then the army deposed him. In favour (so they claim) of another election.
The point is the people of Egypt got it wrong last time, they voted for the wrong guy. This time they might vote for someone more acceptable to the army.
So, some six decades and more after the army seized power under General Nasser, it stood aside for just one year to give the Muslim brotherhood a chance.
What is it I wonder, that makes us all so blasé about the democratic choice of the people of Egypt. I know that Mr Morsi made some choices which many find unpleasant. I myself did not like his policies. I would have found it difficult to vote for him. But it is a fundamental rule of democracy that you have to accept it when you lose, those who now rise up against Mr Morsi because they find his policies 'undemocratic' seem to have lost all sense of what democracy means.
One thing it means is you have to accept policies you don't like at least until the next election.
It seems the middle class liberals have forgotten another important point about democracy. It is rule by the masses.
They really shouldn't be surprised that a democratic president makes use of a bit of populism. That is the nature of democracy.
They should be mature enough to accept that an elected president may well say one thing before the election and do another afterward. Which democracy has not experienced that?
It seems that Egypt's middle class demands freedom for themselves. To throw off the shackles of military rule. But they are not ready to trust the choice of working class Egyptians for president.
That I fear is the real reason Mr Morsi could be removed. The Muslim Brotherhood should understand, its struggle is not really religious, it is a typical class struggle.
There is only one legitimate reason for deposing an elected president by unlawful means. That is when that president seeks to avoid re-submitting themselves to the electorate in the required timetable. For all his faults, Mr Morsi had not tried to extend his term or postpones or cancel elections. The ballot box remained the only legitimate way to remove him.
I would caution them. Until the supporters of the Muslim Brotherhood took to the streets Mubarak looked secure. Mr Morsi won a fair election. They and the army may sit in terribly polite company disapproving of the way uneducated people vote, but that is the nature of democracy.
The people of Egypt have tasted revolution. Sooner or later the mass of people will secure power for themselves.
Will they then be more merciful than the army was when it shot 50 supporters of the Muslim Brotherhood dead? How can the Coptic pope be so short-sighted as to support a military takeover? His own people will answer for that should the Muslim Brotherhood be in power again.
After the revolution comes the terror. The shooting dead of 50 people will be as nothing when that terror comes.
Tuesday, 2 July 2013
Pity Egypt. For after the revolution comes the terror.
It is something akin to a universal truth that after the revolution comes the terror.
Revolutions whenever or wherever they are seem to follow a similar path.
Oppression from an incumbent elite becomes sufficiently extreme to deprive civil society of fundamental rights. It is a necessary but insufficient condition that thinking people scarcely dare speak their mind.
Once this situation takes hold it must be combined with economic hardship for the masses, such that feeding and clothing the children is a struggle. The tinder is ready. All that is needed is the spark.
That can be the self immolation of a street vendor, as in Tunisia, or revolution in a neighbour as in Egypt's case.
Once the ball is rolling, the path is clear. Downhill. Revolutions are begun by brave, honourable people willing to die for high ideals like freedom of expression and association. These are the thinking people that scarcely dared to speak their mind.
A revolution is made successful if joined by the ordinary people scarcely able to feed their children.
After a certain amount of struggle, the old regime is toppled, a new regime installed. This requires compromise between those that sought freedom for their minds and those that sought food for their children. That compromise is difficult. People from both groups have given their lives for the revolution, these groups both think that 'their' people are now in power. The new incumbents promise the earth to their own constituencies, they can never deliver. Inevitably, those that fought bravely feel betrayed by the new regime.
For one thing, people taking up the reins of office believe they will have far more power than they do. The old incumbent dictator will have fostered a myth of omnipotent invincibility. It is a myth the people to a certain extent bought in to. Even in a democracy we believe the sate has far more power than it really does.
For another, revolutions are begun by idealists. they put people into power who are not best suited to the grubby deal making, realpolitik and expedience of governance.
Often called a provisional government, the first government after a revolution falls. The coalition of free thinkers and child feeders fractures.
After a further struggle new, narrower group takes power. This group will be highly ideological, though not what most thinking people call idealists. They are prepared to sacrifice basic humanity for the power of their own group. They will tolerate no opposition. Free though will be a thing of the corrupt past.
This group may be less human, but it is more competent in the wielding of power.
It will realise that the free thinkers need the child feeders for a revolution, so it will appease the child feeders as it oppresses the free thinkers. This oppression is much more severe than anything the old regime ever thought of.
Racial and religious minorities are caught up in it. With much law from the previous regime swept away, the petty prejudices of any small time policeman promoted to sergeant are the difference between life and death. He has enormous power over anyone and everyone he comes into contact with.
Another revolution will, eventually result. Only when a country becomes so unstable that those taking power after a revolution are already fearful for the consequences of he next (in particular the consequences for themselves and their families) will democracy have a chance.
For power corrupts. Our leaders are never restricted by their respect for us. Only ever their fear. Fear of the people, fear of the law, fear of the next regime. Fear of losing power. That is all that limits the excesses of our leaders.
Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood took power thinking it was their inalienable right, and have behaved accordingly. Another revolution must come, if not now the certainly before true democracy can take hold.
After the revolution comes the terror. Pity Egypt's liberals. Pray for Egypt's Copts. There may be few of either left before Egypt tastes democracy.
Revolutions whenever or wherever they are seem to follow a similar path.
Oppression from an incumbent elite becomes sufficiently extreme to deprive civil society of fundamental rights. It is a necessary but insufficient condition that thinking people scarcely dare speak their mind.
Once this situation takes hold it must be combined with economic hardship for the masses, such that feeding and clothing the children is a struggle. The tinder is ready. All that is needed is the spark.
That can be the self immolation of a street vendor, as in Tunisia, or revolution in a neighbour as in Egypt's case.
Once the ball is rolling, the path is clear. Downhill. Revolutions are begun by brave, honourable people willing to die for high ideals like freedom of expression and association. These are the thinking people that scarcely dared to speak their mind.
A revolution is made successful if joined by the ordinary people scarcely able to feed their children.
After a certain amount of struggle, the old regime is toppled, a new regime installed. This requires compromise between those that sought freedom for their minds and those that sought food for their children. That compromise is difficult. People from both groups have given their lives for the revolution, these groups both think that 'their' people are now in power. The new incumbents promise the earth to their own constituencies, they can never deliver. Inevitably, those that fought bravely feel betrayed by the new regime.
For one thing, people taking up the reins of office believe they will have far more power than they do. The old incumbent dictator will have fostered a myth of omnipotent invincibility. It is a myth the people to a certain extent bought in to. Even in a democracy we believe the sate has far more power than it really does.
For another, revolutions are begun by idealists. they put people into power who are not best suited to the grubby deal making, realpolitik and expedience of governance.
Often called a provisional government, the first government after a revolution falls. The coalition of free thinkers and child feeders fractures.
After a further struggle new, narrower group takes power. This group will be highly ideological, though not what most thinking people call idealists. They are prepared to sacrifice basic humanity for the power of their own group. They will tolerate no opposition. Free though will be a thing of the corrupt past.
This group may be less human, but it is more competent in the wielding of power.
It will realise that the free thinkers need the child feeders for a revolution, so it will appease the child feeders as it oppresses the free thinkers. This oppression is much more severe than anything the old regime ever thought of.
Racial and religious minorities are caught up in it. With much law from the previous regime swept away, the petty prejudices of any small time policeman promoted to sergeant are the difference between life and death. He has enormous power over anyone and everyone he comes into contact with.
Another revolution will, eventually result. Only when a country becomes so unstable that those taking power after a revolution are already fearful for the consequences of he next (in particular the consequences for themselves and their families) will democracy have a chance.
For power corrupts. Our leaders are never restricted by their respect for us. Only ever their fear. Fear of the people, fear of the law, fear of the next regime. Fear of losing power. That is all that limits the excesses of our leaders.
Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood took power thinking it was their inalienable right, and have behaved accordingly. Another revolution must come, if not now the certainly before true democracy can take hold.
After the revolution comes the terror. Pity Egypt's liberals. Pray for Egypt's Copts. There may be few of either left before Egypt tastes democracy.
Monday, 24 June 2013
In Memory of Nelson Mandela. Terrorist and freedom fighter.
In another age the word terrorist was not synonymous with Muslim extremism. It was ore likely to be applied to figures of the left.
In today's world, where the name Mandela is almost universally revered, it is difficult, painful even, to remember that not only the South African apartheid government, but also the UK and US governments viewed Nelson Mandela as a terrorist.
Mandela has been a figure of inspiration. But an examination of his quotes gives us an understanding as to just how radical the youthful Mandela appeared in the eyes of the establishment. Mandela justified an armed struggle as "a purely defensive action against the violence of apartheid". He also said that "
At a certain point, one can only fight fire with fire It is worth remembering that the ANC armed struggle was one of sabotage, rather than killing people. In today's world that such people, demanding nothing more than the vote, could be called terrorists seems more extreme than Mandela ever was. But his interest in and association with Communism during the cold war made Mandela dangerous to the West.
As ever one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter.
For his part in the campaign of sabotage Mandela was sentenced to life in prison. He served 27 years. Subsequent quotes give us an insight into a transition of sorts. For example
"If you want to make peace with your enemy, you have to work with your enemy. Then he becomes your partner." But such sentiments presuppose a enemy willing to make an equivalent transition to partnership. This was, eventually, true for South Africa. And also for Northern Ireland. In the case of South Africa the manifest justice of the cause, allied with the magnanimity of the ANC allowed reconciliation to happen. It is, of course, easier to be generous when time is on your side. The inbuilt majority and the isolation of the regime made it clear the struggle would end in victory.
If we look to the rehabilitation of the ANC and Mandela for some hope for today's intractable conflicts, I feel somewhat disheartened.
Where is the leadership in Israel which will allow some settlement with the Palestinians? They have had their leaders, Barak could not bring the people with him. Rabin and Sharon could not live long enough to see it through. As for the Palestinians, since the loss of Arafat, there is no single leader recognised widely enough. Although Hamas as an organisation seems to have the potential.
As for America's wider war on terror, Obama could not even close Guantanamo. Bin Laden was a single leader, but the nature of al Qaeda is one of weak central command.
Without a settlement in Israel/Palestine a steady stream of recruits seems inevitable. How could any American president sit down to talk with Islamic insurgents? America's dominance of the battlefield being so absolute and the likelihood of some splinter group carrying on the struggle meaning the risk to Americans remains basically unchanged implies America has next to nothing to gain.
It is a truism of Great Power diplomacy that no military action should be undertaken without a clear view on how it might be brought to an end. George W Bush has been roundly criticised for many things. Most of it justified. The fact he began his 'War on Terror' and I still can see no way for America to end it is something for which he has not faced nearly enough condemnation.
In today's world, where the name Mandela is almost universally revered, it is difficult, painful even, to remember that not only the South African apartheid government, but also the UK and US governments viewed Nelson Mandela as a terrorist.
Mandela has been a figure of inspiration. But an examination of his quotes gives us an understanding as to just how radical the youthful Mandela appeared in the eyes of the establishment. Mandela justified an armed struggle as "a purely defensive action against the violence of apartheid". He also said that "
A freedom fighter learns the hard way that it is the oppressor who
defines the nature of the struggle, and the oppressed is often left no
resource but to use the methods that mirror those of the oppressor.
At a certain point, one can only fight fire with fire It is worth remembering that the ANC armed struggle was one of sabotage, rather than killing people. In today's world that such people, demanding nothing more than the vote, could be called terrorists seems more extreme than Mandela ever was. But his interest in and association with Communism during the cold war made Mandela dangerous to the West.
As ever one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter.
For his part in the campaign of sabotage Mandela was sentenced to life in prison. He served 27 years. Subsequent quotes give us an insight into a transition of sorts. For example
"If you want to make peace with your enemy, you have to work with your enemy. Then he becomes your partner." But such sentiments presuppose a enemy willing to make an equivalent transition to partnership. This was, eventually, true for South Africa. And also for Northern Ireland. In the case of South Africa the manifest justice of the cause, allied with the magnanimity of the ANC allowed reconciliation to happen. It is, of course, easier to be generous when time is on your side. The inbuilt majority and the isolation of the regime made it clear the struggle would end in victory.
If we look to the rehabilitation of the ANC and Mandela for some hope for today's intractable conflicts, I feel somewhat disheartened.
Where is the leadership in Israel which will allow some settlement with the Palestinians? They have had their leaders, Barak could not bring the people with him. Rabin and Sharon could not live long enough to see it through. As for the Palestinians, since the loss of Arafat, there is no single leader recognised widely enough. Although Hamas as an organisation seems to have the potential.
As for America's wider war on terror, Obama could not even close Guantanamo. Bin Laden was a single leader, but the nature of al Qaeda is one of weak central command.
Without a settlement in Israel/Palestine a steady stream of recruits seems inevitable. How could any American president sit down to talk with Islamic insurgents? America's dominance of the battlefield being so absolute and the likelihood of some splinter group carrying on the struggle meaning the risk to Americans remains basically unchanged implies America has next to nothing to gain.
It is a truism of Great Power diplomacy that no military action should be undertaken without a clear view on how it might be brought to an end. George W Bush has been roundly criticised for many things. Most of it justified. The fact he began his 'War on Terror' and I still can see no way for America to end it is something for which he has not faced nearly enough condemnation.
Friday, 14 June 2013
Assad bailed by Friends
Not so long ago everyone who knew anything was numbering Bashar al Assad's days in power.
This was not simply a case of the West misunderstanding the Arabs (although Western analysts got it wrong). Nor was it a just case of the West seeing it all through Israeli eyes (although the Israelis got it wrong).
Because the Arabs and the Turks got it wrong too.
After the wave of the Arab Spring swamped dictator after dictator, we had all become used to regime's falling rather than standing. When Syria's turn came, why should that regime prove any different? Was Assad really so much stronger than Mubarak?
Apparently so. But why? Why has the unstoppable wave of the Arab Spring come to a halt in Syria?
I suppose we should begin with a note of caution. Assad is not yet ultimately victorious. Just this morning the US has decided to start (overtly) arming the rebels, that may have an effect. Assad has, however, already proven himself more resilient than Mubarak and Gaddafi.
Had the Shia of Bahrain received the sort of assistance sent by Qatar and Saudi Arabia to Syria's rebels, the monarchy there would probably have fallen.
So, after having watched it all, here is my advice for dictators to follow to keep themselves safe.
Firstly, you need powerful friends. Gaddafi had no real friends outside of southern Africa. While these people could send him militia, they couldn't veto action at the UN, or send him arms.
Secondly, democratic friends are only so much use. There was no way America would arm Mubarak in the same way that Russia arms Assad once the shooting began.
Thirdly you need friends in the neighbourhood. The role of Hezbollah in the battle for Qusayr may have been exaggerated. The Syrian army provided the artillery, air power and many troops, but Hezbollah guerrillas may have tipped the balance. Syria also has a highly significant border with Shia run Iraq, providing a bridge to a friendly Iran.
Fourthly it helps to be part of an ethnic minority. I don't mean a tiny minority of two or three percent, but 15% to 20% helps. It provides you with a ready core of people willing to fight. This is true for Assad, and also the al Khalifa monarchy in Bahrain, as it was for Saddam in Iraq.
Fifthly, foreign support for those rising up against you is a double edged sword. If you can retain the edge (having tanks and an air force really helps here) foreign support can discredit your opponents and galvanise your own people. Spending too much time worrying about outsiders won't help. Concentrate on your own friends abroad. Tell the Russians that you are a great advert for their weaponry. Does American support for the rebels really help them recruit? Does al Qaeda support for the rebels unite America behind them?
Sixth, while trying to stop foreigners supporting your opponents might not help, stirring up trouble in their backyards almost certainly will. Erdogan took a big risk in getting involved in Syria. It looks like it might be all downhill for him from thereon in. Note that trouble in Yemen has flared up again. I expect Bahrain to witness further stirrings over the summer. If Turkey and the Arabian peninsular are in turmoil, the rebel backers there will have bigger fish to fry. America will be much more cautious about intervening in the middle east.
Seventh, don't panic. Bashar may not have looked like a hardman dictator to start with. There was talk that it was his father's cronies rather than him that ran the show. But he has held on. Long enough to get sufficient Iranian and Hezbollah to decisively shift the momentum at Qusayr. It really isn't over yet, but if his forces can push on to Aleppo, it will be all but done. He has shown enough caution in the early stages, and now looks ruthless enough to finish the job. Had he shown that level of ruthlessness in the beginning, he would have killed unarmed demonstrators. Now he is fighting a civil war.
Eighth, be useful. This may look easier said than done, but how useful was Mubarak, really? Israel is the indispensable US ally. Whereas Syria really is indispensable to both Russia and Iran. You may get more for being indispensable to Russia than 'nice to have' to America.
Bashar al Assad may not have looked strong in the beginning, but whereas Mubarak had only the backing of democracies, Assad had Russia, Hezbollah and Iran, prepared to publicly veto resolutions and break any amount of sanctions to help him survive. Totally unconcerned about the human rights of his opponents,
While Gaddafi had battle hardened Africa militia, the equivalent of Hezbollah at is disposal, he had no help from major powers. Ben Ali was no strategic use to anyone.
Looking down my list you may see that nearly all of it is about how you manage relationships with allies. Assad has done that perfectly. Showing enough determination to win without making it too difficult for his friends to support him (like the Kims of North Korea).
So the two real biggies are look after your alliances, and a relationship with Russia or China will probably help more in a really tight spot than any amount of closeness with a democracy.
The Arabs are reputed to say "better be America's enemy than friend, America betrays its friends and appeases its enemies". For Arab nations, that may be true.
I think Assad will survive. As soon as I saw Hassan Nasrallah publicly commit to the fight I was sure he would survive. Not because I think Hezbollah are invincible (highly effective though they are), but because I think they are smart. Unlike the trigger happy arm chair generals of pundit land, I do not think they would be backing a loser.
The US seems to agree, that is why they have announced they will now overtly arm the rebels.
Assad needs to get to Aleppo before those arms get to the battlefield, then he will have won.
This was not simply a case of the West misunderstanding the Arabs (although Western analysts got it wrong). Nor was it a just case of the West seeing it all through Israeli eyes (although the Israelis got it wrong).
Because the Arabs and the Turks got it wrong too.
After the wave of the Arab Spring swamped dictator after dictator, we had all become used to regime's falling rather than standing. When Syria's turn came, why should that regime prove any different? Was Assad really so much stronger than Mubarak?
Apparently so. But why? Why has the unstoppable wave of the Arab Spring come to a halt in Syria?
I suppose we should begin with a note of caution. Assad is not yet ultimately victorious. Just this morning the US has decided to start (overtly) arming the rebels, that may have an effect. Assad has, however, already proven himself more resilient than Mubarak and Gaddafi.
Had the Shia of Bahrain received the sort of assistance sent by Qatar and Saudi Arabia to Syria's rebels, the monarchy there would probably have fallen.
So, after having watched it all, here is my advice for dictators to follow to keep themselves safe.
Firstly, you need powerful friends. Gaddafi had no real friends outside of southern Africa. While these people could send him militia, they couldn't veto action at the UN, or send him arms.
Secondly, democratic friends are only so much use. There was no way America would arm Mubarak in the same way that Russia arms Assad once the shooting began.
Thirdly you need friends in the neighbourhood. The role of Hezbollah in the battle for Qusayr may have been exaggerated. The Syrian army provided the artillery, air power and many troops, but Hezbollah guerrillas may have tipped the balance. Syria also has a highly significant border with Shia run Iraq, providing a bridge to a friendly Iran.
Fourthly it helps to be part of an ethnic minority. I don't mean a tiny minority of two or three percent, but 15% to 20% helps. It provides you with a ready core of people willing to fight. This is true for Assad, and also the al Khalifa monarchy in Bahrain, as it was for Saddam in Iraq.
Fifthly, foreign support for those rising up against you is a double edged sword. If you can retain the edge (having tanks and an air force really helps here) foreign support can discredit your opponents and galvanise your own people. Spending too much time worrying about outsiders won't help. Concentrate on your own friends abroad. Tell the Russians that you are a great advert for their weaponry. Does American support for the rebels really help them recruit? Does al Qaeda support for the rebels unite America behind them?
Sixth, while trying to stop foreigners supporting your opponents might not help, stirring up trouble in their backyards almost certainly will. Erdogan took a big risk in getting involved in Syria. It looks like it might be all downhill for him from thereon in. Note that trouble in Yemen has flared up again. I expect Bahrain to witness further stirrings over the summer. If Turkey and the Arabian peninsular are in turmoil, the rebel backers there will have bigger fish to fry. America will be much more cautious about intervening in the middle east.
Seventh, don't panic. Bashar may not have looked like a hardman dictator to start with. There was talk that it was his father's cronies rather than him that ran the show. But he has held on. Long enough to get sufficient Iranian and Hezbollah to decisively shift the momentum at Qusayr. It really isn't over yet, but if his forces can push on to Aleppo, it will be all but done. He has shown enough caution in the early stages, and now looks ruthless enough to finish the job. Had he shown that level of ruthlessness in the beginning, he would have killed unarmed demonstrators. Now he is fighting a civil war.
Eighth, be useful. This may look easier said than done, but how useful was Mubarak, really? Israel is the indispensable US ally. Whereas Syria really is indispensable to both Russia and Iran. You may get more for being indispensable to Russia than 'nice to have' to America.
Bashar al Assad may not have looked strong in the beginning, but whereas Mubarak had only the backing of democracies, Assad had Russia, Hezbollah and Iran, prepared to publicly veto resolutions and break any amount of sanctions to help him survive. Totally unconcerned about the human rights of his opponents,
While Gaddafi had battle hardened Africa militia, the equivalent of Hezbollah at is disposal, he had no help from major powers. Ben Ali was no strategic use to anyone.
Looking down my list you may see that nearly all of it is about how you manage relationships with allies. Assad has done that perfectly. Showing enough determination to win without making it too difficult for his friends to support him (like the Kims of North Korea).
So the two real biggies are look after your alliances, and a relationship with Russia or China will probably help more in a really tight spot than any amount of closeness with a democracy.
The Arabs are reputed to say "better be America's enemy than friend, America betrays its friends and appeases its enemies". For Arab nations, that may be true.
I think Assad will survive. As soon as I saw Hassan Nasrallah publicly commit to the fight I was sure he would survive. Not because I think Hezbollah are invincible (highly effective though they are), but because I think they are smart. Unlike the trigger happy arm chair generals of pundit land, I do not think they would be backing a loser.
The US seems to agree, that is why they have announced they will now overtly arm the rebels.
Assad needs to get to Aleppo before those arms get to the battlefield, then he will have won.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)