Redrawing the map

I caught up on a lot of podcasts today, notable ones include Planet Money’s final Iceland report and the intriguing birther/Trump vs Obama political wrangling on both KCRW’s Left, Right and Center as well as the New Yorker’s Political Scene. Of course I was consumed, as much of the world was, by the news that Osama bin Laden was killed outside Islamabad early this morning.

What I find most interesting though is the stalemate that has developed in Libya. Last week’s Economist had an article about the siege of Misrata and the necessity for US drone and A-10 support for any real success to emerge for the rebels. It’s become clear though that Qaddafi is not likely to simply be overthrown by emboldened supporters turned against him (either the unwashed masses or those closest to him) nor by that rag-tag coalition loosely headquartered around Benghazi. As such, NATO stepped up its selected “strategic targeting” of military compounds that all just happen to be places where the Qaddafi family hangs out (but this is definitely not an assassination attempt). It seems we’re hoping that cutting off the head of the snake will dissolve the defenders of the status quo. This move succeeded in Iraq – after Saddam’s death no one remained to defend his government really – but it was a frying pan/fire situation at best.

Which is why I found an Economist online poll (http://www.economist.com/node/21256109) interesting. Is simply partitioning the country appropriate?

A simple look at the map of Africa reveals far too many straight lines, a sign of arbitrary colonial cartographers rather than national and ethnic association. Many of the current problems come from this awkward hodge-podge of countries, with Muslim sections fighting Christian regions (Sudan, Ivory Coast, Nigeria) or historical autonomous regions smarting from distant rule (Morocco). Letting these countries redraw the map wouldn’t promote the western liberal multicultural ideal (that few western countries practice despite their preaching, France being only the most recent example). But with each nationality firmly in control of their state, disagreements could be compromised in a meeting of equal heads of state, rather than in contentious, rigged elections for winner-take-all. As the AU gains power, a loose set of guidelines could become prevalent, deferring to an authority that normally would be rejected for internal matters.

Of course, nations wage devastating war and in this instance such a partition would only change the name of Libya’s war, and the end game would still be a unified Libya sans Qaddafi. But such a change might gain some breathing room for the rebels to learn how to govern and save some face for Qaddafi to promote a bloodless (relatively) transition from power.

Media type: Online poll
From: The Economist
Title: Would the partition of Libya be a bad thing?
Ponder at: http://www.economist.com/node/21256109

Democracy’s nooks and crannies

I’ve been as riveted as the rest of the world as the Arab Spring continues, spilling out in north Africa before hitting the first storm breaks in Tripoli and now Bahrain.  I’ve written earlier about the nearly-neglected democratic crises in Haiti and the Ivory Coast, but today I was caught totally unaware by the recent presidential election in Niger, a country geographically centered between Libya and the Ivory Coast.

Just over a year ago, Niger’s president attempted to amend the constitution in his favor resulting in an eviction notice from the military.  Now, the military is holding to its promise to hand power back to civilian control, specifically to the winner of what looks like a mostly free run-off election.  General Djibo is quoted as being thrilled to return to his post as a humble soldier.  Importantly he has also “appeal[ed] to the two candidates that they respect the outcome…and the loser accepts his defeat.”  No Ivory Coast shenanigans here.

So here we see yet another example of my earlier stated thesis that a focus on divorcing the military from civilian leaders allows for successful evolutions into democratic governance.  To add more support one only need to look at Yemen where the top general, Ali Mohsen, has declared his support for the protesters despite personal and tribal ties to President Saleh, prompting the prognosticators to move his retirement date up.  Saleh is by no means out, he and his family still directly command various elite, well trained Republican Guards and his role in the War on Terror guarantees some awkward shuffling by western leaders.  Still, it seems his tenure is nearly up with tanks ringing the protesters in his capital pointing out rather than in.

When the top leader does not have personal control over the dogs of war, they are less likely to slip the leash.  Countries like Bahrain, Syria and Iran (as well as China, North Korea, Myanmar, and even it seems Gaza) are unlikely to truly see change due to mass uprisings so long as their generals do not feel independent.  It is in democracy-loving peoples interest to focus less on pushing top-down government reform and instead urge independent military control.  While an independent military may not be a sign of stability, such as in Thailand’s numerous coups or Turkey’s tumultuous past, they are able to respond as a counter-weight to any great accumulation of power.

Media type: Online news
From: al-Jazeera
Title: Niger votes in presidential run-off
Read it at:  http://english.aljazeera.net/news/africa/2011/03/201131216474436974.html

A tree fell in the forest

As the west sits back practicing frantic “diplomacy” while waiting for Qaddafi to stabilize his realm, we are starting to witness the ugly aftershocks of revolution. Flanking Libya, both Tunisia and Egypt have seen splinter protests, over everything from wages to a cry that too many old-regime hands are still leading government. New Prime Ministers have been appointed and elections called, but not much actual change seen. Saudi Arabia has sent troops to stabilize Bahrain and Yemen continues to see President Saleh compromising yet failing to disperse the masses.

Today, though, an Arab leader made an announcement that a scant few months ago would have shocked the world: Mahmoud Abbas will not seek another term as president in Palestine. Granted, he’ll only relinquish the position once the West Bank and Gaza are peacefully reunited as a political unit, so who knows when that’ll be. Still, after decades of Yassar Arafat and current events the concept of willing abdication seems surprising.

What this means for the abandoned Israel peace process is anyone’s guess. Perhaps given new economic strength from open borders with Egypt, Hamas will find new support from its constituents in Gaza. As their Hizbullah-allies in Lebanon have recently done, Hamas may find themselves playing a kingmaker even if Fatah retains the presidency. Certainly the sting of failure in the latest round of talks won’t help anyone seen as Abbas’ heir-apparent.

This should be something Israel should watch carefully. Netanyahu’s at best half-hearted attempts at peace may end up causing Palestinians to once again revert away from a diplomatic path. This can only bode ill for Israelis as they continue to brazenly build more settlements and projects in East Jerusalem, seemingly purposefully antagonizing their neighbors. Both Hamas and Hizbullah are suspected of redoubling their missile arsenal and investing in even more sophisticated armament capable of reaching well past the border. Given the stronger political stand of both Shia militias, and the constant distraction in the region, now is not the time for Israel to be the rude neighbor.

Media type: Online news
From: Wall Street Journal
Title: ‘Abbas Offers Hamas an Olive Branch’
Read it at: Wall St Journal