Libyan Civil War, part deux

On November 10, 2011, the Libyan civil war erupted again in the coastal city of Zawiya and its immediate surrounding lands. This localized conflict emerged from long-simmering disputes between Zawiyans and the nearby Warshefana tribe, in and around a city that was once under strict Gaddafi control. The conflict ended November 14, 2011, with 13 dead.

Will we see more of these inter-tribal conflicts in post-Gaddafi Libya? Would these conflicts engulf Libya in yet another civil war? If we were to take Libyan history as a guide we can clearly see various geographical, ethnic, and tribal partitions from as far back as the partition of Libya into the provinces of Tripolitania and Cyrenaica during the Roman Empire. These two provinces, in addition to Fezzan – the Sahara desert region in the southwest of the country largely occupied by nomads, form the historical and cultural partitions which have defined Libyan politics and economy for centuries. Fast forward to the 20th century, modern Libya was formed by the merger of two French territories and one British territory and handed over to a monarch, King Idris of Cyrenaica.

Libya has also had a strong tribal culture where loyalties lie with families, place of origin, and adherence to a traditional nomadic culture. Gaddafi was able to use tribal dynamics to his advantage by first elevating his own Qadhadhfa tribe and the allied Warfalla tribe to positions of power and security. Officers in the military of opposing tribes, like the Firjan, were executed. Tribes not allied with Gaddafi would have no chance of advancing in the civil bureaucracy or of running a competitive business.

An unstable Libya would mean a greater chance of weapons proliferation to dangerous terrorist networks or narcotics-trafficking groups who have typically sought desert regions in countries with weak governments, like the deserts of Yemen, as safe havens. An unstable state on the borders of Tunisia and Egypt – countries with nascent civil societies but with significant potential for democratic governance – could throw North Africa into further instability.

But civil war, while the potential is ever-present, seems unlikely. The urbanization of Libya’s coastal cities under Gaddafi means that many migrants to the cities have lost their tribal ties. So while Libya does not have an indigenous tradition of democracy, Libya is also a relatively wealthy, oil-rich country and also relatively well-educated, giving it a chance to have at worst a sectarian democracy but a democracy nonetheless. The NTC also has an international legitimacy that empowers it to negotiate with and disarm the various regional militias which claim to be the guardians of the revolution. While the international community may cast its gaze on Libya, it should remember that the uprising in Egypt has not yet reached its full conclusion, and that the future of Egypt remains in greater doubt than any other country in North Africa (but that will have to wait for another post).

Full of Sound and Fury, Signifying Nothing

The three defining moments of the Republican debate could arguably be the following: Texas Governor Rick Perry forgetting the third federal agency he intends to eliminate as President, Georgia businessman Herman Cain forgetting his own position on the intervention in Libya, and, ah, ummm….I can’t – the third one I can’t. Sorry. Oops.

These recent gaffes highlight the most unusual aspect of this year’s Republican primary race that differentiates it from all previous races: the complete victory of style over substance – the Sarah Palin-ing of Republican politics. As experience over the past few months has shown us, we should assume that these gaffes will have no discernible negative impacts on these candidates’ poll numbers.

And why should they? This race has only one credible candidate who can possibly beat President Obama: former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney (the most recent CNN/Opinion Research poll shows Romney leading Obama by 4 points in a two-way matchup, far ahead of any other Republican). In any other year, Romney would be the clear front-runner. He has worked in the private sector, is independently wealthy, and is heir to a Republican dynasty. Republicans should have already coalesced behind him.

But that hasn’t happened yet, because Romney, with his liberal social record in a blue state, is seen as unacceptable by a large swathe of Tea-Party Republicans. These Republican populists want a “not-Romney” to provide the rhetorical passion they desperately crave during this time of economic recession and social upheaval.

So in quick succession the candidates who were meant to save the Republican party have been Representative Michele Bachmann – who briefly led the pack after winning the Iowa Ames straw poll, Rick Perry – whose pitiful public appearances and soft stance on immigration have weakened his inherent Texas-sized appeal, Herman Cain – who still polls in the top tier despite several sexual harassment allegations, and now former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich – who has soared ahead of Romney and Cain in the past week. In all these cases, none of these other candidates have managed to match Romney on providing coherent policy and substance, yet they still have a massive appeal to the Republican base.

Will Newt Gingrich manage to stay at the top or will he too be replaced by a new “not-Romney”? Perhaps for a few weeks but he too will eventually be superseded by someone else who will by Super Tuesday (the day in February or March when the most states hold primary elections) be replaced by Romney.

Why? There is a fundamental divide between traditional Republican moneyed interests and establishment figures who see Romney as their candidate, and the populist masses who latch on, unenthusiastically, to whoever has the most strident rhetoric. Due to the enormous cost of campaigns in the USA, Romney with the support of power-brokers who see him as their best bet against Obama will have the guaranteed money, exposure, and campaign infrastructure to capture the remaining doubting Republicans.

The Main Enemy

There is a 21st century “red menace” that threatens America, the UK, and Western Europe. Can you guess the “red menace” that threatens the U.S., U.K., and Western Europe today? This country is under effective single-party rule, has a lengthy Communist past, and is armed with nuclear weapons. It has also been active in key regions such as Central Asia and the Middle East, and currently has a love/hate relationship with the West.

You might have guessed Russia. It is easy to argue that the Russian Federation is the new “Main Enemy.” Only two decades ago the Western world considered Russia its “main enemy.” Since the election of Vladimir Putin, Russia has dramatically increased its military spending, sold weapons in countries in volatile regions such as Syria and Iran, and has adopted a policy of pre-emptive nuclear strike (a policy the U.S. is likewise considering). Its government has also rapidly progressed from a nominal democracy to an oligarchy, and finally to that of a single-party rule under a powerful leader.

But is Russia once again poised to conquer the world? Of course not. Yet as we saw in 2008 during the war in Georgia, Russia is seeking to expand its influence in former Soviet states and satellites. Many regions from Central Asia to the Baltic Sea still use Russian as the lingua-franca. Russian ambassadors, such as Alexander Yakovenko to the UK, explicitly advocate a diplomacy that joins Europe with Russia not through 20th century Russian history and years of enmity, but the cultural influence on Western Europe of Russian literary giants such as Pushkin, Tolstoy, and Dostoyevsky. Opponents of cultural diplomacy should look to the successes of the USA and India in using its media to lubricate the wheels of diplomacy.

In many ways, China seems to pose a greater threat. Through increased economic integration and reliance on Chinese exports, the West has become dependent on China for goods it can no longer produce. Western economies have also come to depend on bonds sold to the Chinese (the third largest holder of debt in America after the Social Security Trust Fund and the U.S. Treasury).

Furthermore, China views the sea as its primary conduit of their economic and military power, as well as their geopolitical influence through nascent off-shore balancing. China has been rapidly developing its navy, with the notable recent introduction of its first aircraft carrier. Chinese ventures range from the development of the Karakoram Highway in Pakistan, to the port of Gwadar on the Makran coast and the port at Hambantota, Sri Lanka.

Finally, China has, like Russia, been heavily involved in the political affairs of the Greater Middle East, against Western political and economic interests. For example, they’ve assisted the Iranians in weapons development, whether through the UN Security Council or through the active supply of arms and expertise, in exchange for a source of energy that is otherwise shunned by much of the international community.

The West, while obviously agitated by China, seems to be refocusing its attention away from terrorism and back towards Russia. And who can blame them? Fundamentally Russia is a large, resource-rich country, and it has a tremendous influence in all facets of international relations on its neighbors and the rest of Eurasia. It would be a relief to many strategic planners in the State Department and the FCO to finally dust off those old musty Cold War-era plans than to find a way to deal with terrorism or China.

But China still remains the greatest threat for the foreseeable future, despite nostalgia for the KGB, Khrushchev, and the Kremlin. China is both a nuclear power and the world’s second largest economy. Consequently China can exercise an economic leverage over others that Russia just cannot.

Before we rush into centering our crosshairs on China, it’s important to remember that the movement of military forces and other precautionary defensive actions will invoke a mirror-image response on the part of the Chinese. This would then lead to a continued escalation of arms and tension between the West and the Chinese. To a significant extent, We often create our own enemies through fear.

So that begs the question: do we in the US and UK need an existential rival – an enemy that we must meet in opposition on every battlefield and football field around the world? For many western foreign policy practitioners it must surely be easier to return to a cold war than to deal with complex ever-changing terrorist, narcotics, and WMD-trafficking networks. While we must not ignore the threats large states can still pose in our multi-polar world, we must continue to deal creatively with these more modern 21st-century threats while eschewing the creation of a new one.

Iranian Nuclear Fallout

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) released a report today detailing the progress Iran has made in its nuclear weapons program. Key findings include the development and testing of an implosion device, a build-up in the previously investigated Parchin base, and significant evidence of weapons-grade uranium enrichment.

Why are these new revelations relevant to regional interests, and the interests of the US and UK? For the region, Iran’s possession of nuclear weapons increases the possibility of nuclear proliferation, especially to volatile countries such as Syria and Lebanon. Acquiring nuclear weapons also makes Iran the clear hegemonic regional power with the capacity to clear other countries quite explicitly off the map. Most importantly, a nuclear Iran would draw neighbors like Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Turkey, etc. into a de-stabilizing arms race.

For the US, the UK, and the international community, a nuclear Iran would frustrate the desire for stability and a balance of power in the region. This instability naturally means dramatic fluctuations in oil and gas prices that are detrimental to consumers as well as producers. Nuclear weapons give Iran a significant leverage in talks aimed at lifting sanctions. Finally, Iran has had long-standing ties to various anti-American groups who would appreciate getting their hands on radiological material for dirty bombs.

But is there anything the international community can do about Iran’s nuclear program? In a process increasingly familiar to the Obama administration, the US supplemented the IAEA with intelligence, then waited until the report was released before pushing today for further sanctions. However, because Iran is supported by Russia and China, it has not yet been stymied by Western sanctions. There always exists the possibility of cyber-warfare, a là STUXNET, but the Iranian program has developed to a stage where simply shutting down computer systems is not enough to stop it.

A military strike, much like the Israeli bombing of Osirak in Iraq in 1981, may temporarily weaken the nuclear weapons program, but a strike could also convince the Iranian political elite and Iranian citizens that they should pursue a more secretive, resilient nuclear program to protect themselves from the West.

That leaves us with the most realistic outcome of this report: nothing will happeniran. Nuclear weapons technology is over sixty years old, and ballistic missile technology is fairly accessible. We now live in a world where it is impossible to stop any sufficiently committed country from developing a weapons program. Therefore the best response would be to engage in dialogue along the lines of theTurkey-Brazil-Iran nuclear fuel swap deal agreed upon in the Spring of 2010. But for such a solution to work would require a rejection of a sanctions-only hardline approach to Iran and a development of trust in Iran that, after today’s report, it no longer has.

Nationalist Greek Rebellion

Yesterday, Greek Finance Minister Evangelos Venizelos expressed the core decision about the future of Greece now facing Greek citizens: “Do Greeks want to remain in Europe, in the eurozone with the euro in a country that belongs to the developed world, or do they want to return to the 1960s? Do they think it is good to owe €100bn to the banks, or do they not think it’s good to live with such debt? Each citizen will make their own decision, with responsibility, in a process that’ll give a national sense of relief and recovery.”

Following reports Monday that many Greeks planned to not pay their electricity bills following the imposition of a property tax collected via electric companies, and the cratering approval ratings of the ruling PASOK party in Greece, Prime Minister Papandreou decided yesterday to hold a national referendum on a plan that was recently forged by European leaders to save the eurozone (although the fate of the referendum has become much more uncertain since this morning).

Greek opposition leaders believe that this recent move is a cynical ploy to stave off the ruling party’s – PASOK’s – eventual defeat in parliamentary elections. Outside observers, and debt-holders, view the move with intense anxiety and trepidation; a rejection of the European plan means further Euro instability, a sharp decline in confidence, and of course, a diminishing chance that anyone will get all their money back (as MF Global recently discovered).

It’s not often that I see a fairly direct accountability tool, the referendum, assailed by so many ostensibly pro-democratic critics.

Given the circumstances, how do Europeans hope the Greeks will vote? With a heavy heart and utmost concern for the future of Europe, Greece would vote yes, and delay the inevitable just a bit longer.
How will the Greeks likely vote? With a resounding hell no!

The Greeks seem to have realized that the people who are most hurt by economic downturns are those of lower and middle incomes, for purely structural reasons. These are the people for whom taxes are the most regressive, and cuts in social services are the most dire. This basic economic consequence of austerity is one that is only now being realized by Americans and the British. However, the Greeks have had far longer to internalize this fact.

They also likely realize that there is a mismatch between incentives and disincentives in modern society. Sure, many Greeks from all levels of income reneged on taxes. They also enjoyed a level of social services, job protection, and other labor protections beyond those in – let’s say – Germany. But are all Greeks responsible for the current situation in Greece? Not at all! The upper echelons of Greek society and Europe spent years reaping much of the benefits while socializing all of the inevitable costs. These problems are not cured by austerity at all. Rather, austerity accelerates underlying power disparities among social classes.

I also think it’s important to view Greece as a remnant of the former Ottoman Empire and a constituent nation of the Balkans, and not as a Western European nation in the same way we view France, Germany, Belgium, etc.

The romantic view of Greece as the eternal fount of western civilization is one of the myths that led Greece to unwisely join the eurozone, and other eurozone countries to cheer its entry despite clear economic indications that it wasn’t ready. On corruption (according to Transparency International in 2009), Greece ranks 71st, tied with Bulgaria, Macedonia, and Romania, and just behind Georgia, Ghana, and Montenegro. Modern Greece, founded in 1948 after resisting a post-WWII Communist take over, has fairly weak institutions, and is often prone to single-party, personality-driven dynasties. These are core Greek structural problems that Greece would better resolve with its own currency than while chained to the European Central Bank.

And it is for this reason that it is likely Greeks will seek to reassert its own sovereignty, in a way that may or may not be gently guided by PASOK and the referendum.

The best option for Greece is to default, reintroduce the drachma, and in effect, reassert its national sovereignty – provided that its government doesn’t devolve into indefinite political turmoil.