Two factors: first, domestic political ramifications of the Israeli issue. American politicians are terrified of Israel, because of their domestic lobby. You always have to prove your pro Israel cred, least you be tarred and feathered. So the US finds itself constantly having to justify Israeli actions, no matter if they are right or wrong. This leaves no flexibility for diplomats. When someone calls and says, "the people here are angry about X in Israel." The US diplomat simply has to say, ummm yeah we know, sorry, but there is nothing we can do. It used to be like this with Cuba. The US can't have a normal policy towards Cuba due to domestic concerns. But since the Soviet Union stopped funding them, the US just ignores Cuba because it's no longer strategically important. It would be as if Saudi Arabia suddenly ran out of oil tomorrow. The US would leave the region and not care any more than it cares about the Sahel. Second is the inflexibility of some officials. Here is an example... http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/22/world/middleeast/22bahrain.html?pagewanted=1&ref=bahrain That's just poor diplomacy. Constantly weaving and veering off message, confusing the people you are dealing with, picking one side and sticking to them irregardless of the outcome. The idea that, we need this military base at all costs, so support the royal family at all costs, is a poor diplomatic strategy. Eventually it will backfire like it did in Uzbekistan.
Some interesting points here.... http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/24/world/24diplomacy.html?ref=world It does seems like the Obama administration and others are specifically keeping quiet about Qaddafi as long as their citizens are in the country. There is legitimate fears that Qaddafi would attack or kill citizens of regimes who appear to be allied against him. Officially all options are on the table, but it looks likely that the US will do nothing. Because: 1. They have no economic leverage. The US has little to no business interests in the country and sanctions would be pointless. The only option is the removal of Libya and all Libyan economic interests from the US monetary system. This is the nuclear option. They made moves towards this with North Korea once, but the Koreans were prepared to go to war over it. This won't happen. 2. Military actions is unlikely because members of the Arab league are not in favor of it and the US will not get involved without NATO and Arab league backing. This includes the no fly zone. 3. The Swiss have frozen Qaddafi assets.
French Foreign Minister estimates that up to 2000 are now dead in Libya. Slightly less than 400 died in Egypt during their uprising.
I agree with the rest of your post, but, using the Europeans as proxies, the US could create economic leverage against Ghadaffi, would it really be a high priority to do so. Not likely at all, but remotely possible.
I guess the basic thing is that it is up to the Europeans to do anything about that. Although I doubt anybody can do anything in the short term anyway.
Very interesting take on Egypt: http://www.jadaliyya.com/pages/index/717/the-revolution-against-neoliberalism
I just meant to say that Washingtons has plenty of ways to influence Europe. I think sanctions would be totally contraproductive at the moment; as long as we don't send more weapons to Quadaffi it should be fine. And I guess the notion that we have to get all foreigners out before any country can do anything is true. With all this violence against their citizens it is possible that Egypt or Tunisia do something about it, since they have to keep public opinion in mind as well.
oil prices dropped late on a rumor that Gaddafi has been shot; no evidence that he has been shot though
I agree that Iran has very little to do with Egypt, Libya, Tunisia RIGHT NOW. And Iran has a lot less influence than Israeli policymakers like to believe. Iran's real influence in the region is political (ie. supporting popular groups). But if *democracy* is what America is after in the Middle East (ie. one man-one vote), then the government will respond to aspirations in the population which are anti-Iran for sure but they are a lot more anti-Israel and anti-US than anti-Iran. So "democratic" governments in those countries will lead to foreign policies that are against Israel and the US first and foremost but also against Iran. And Bahrain is also important as it pertains to Iran since Bahrain is led by Sunnis but with a Shiite majority...and it is the house of the US Fifth Fleet. I don't know how long Qaddafi will hold on power...but hopefully he gets the boot as soon as possible.
Glad to hear this, although maybe the rebels shouldn't broadcast their tatics: "In a bustling complex that is the center of the rebel military operations in Benghazi, a senior member of a newly formed military council says that small groups of rebel soldiers have been dispatched to infiltrate the capital. The roads to Tripoli from the east are still largely controlled by pro-Gadhafi forces, he says, and small bands of soldiers attract less attention." "The rebels also are trying to pinpoint Gadhafi's location. Tarek says they have information that he is moving from house to house." http://www.npr.org/2011/02/24/134034855/In-Libya-Defectors-Organize-In-Benghazi
I agree with you on the efficiency of the Iranian leadership compared to other regimes in the region (particularly Libya, Mubarek's Egypt, etc)...removing the morality of the issue, the IRI has been successfully putting down protests for almost 20 years. The protests culminated in 2009 with the presidential election aftermath but even that was put down. Had Mubarek handled the protests in Egypt like the IRI did, he would still be in power. And I also agree with your analysis.....regarding why nothing will happen re: Libya. At least as of now.
I finally got news about the EU trying to make aid packets for Tunisia and Egypt to promote democracy in the region (ie this is not directly related to Lybia yet), and to have incentives for the Arabs to stay in their home countries and not try to venture into Europe in the search for work. Wish they would announce a visa programme as well for the long run, akin to what we have in the Balkan, but that's probably wishful thinking for now. Seriously, they (the EU) need to become better at advertising what they are doing. Since it hasn't been said yet: RIP to all those who lost their life, be it in the pursuit of freedom and democracy, in pursuit of a better life, or 'just' because of the madmen that were in power down there for too long.
Yes, it's not easy, indeed. But isn't it our moral duty (as always proclaiming the respect of human rights & importance of democracy) not to distinguish between "friendly" & "hostile" despots just because "friendly" dictators might serve our interests? Since I grew up in a country where a crazy despot (who oppressed & robbed the own population) got flattered by the West for many times due to his aversion against Moscow, I simply hate this hypocrisy! And there's always the huge problem that it's only the corrupt regimes that benefit from our "business deals" money, whereas the vast majority of their countries' population suffers ... until despair makes those people get over their fear and take the streets. Thankfully, history tells us that oppressive dictatorships don't last forever. Btw: I think you totally misunderstood me concerning Russia. I didn't mean to stop any political/economic cooperation between Brussels & Moscow (I'm realistic, nearby I'm not that crazy to compare the Russian government with despots like Gaddafi, Ben Ali, Mubarak, Ahmadinejad etc.) ... but just tried to point out that rightfully criticizing the Russian government for many things (corruption, human rights abuse, huge democratic deficits etc.) doesn't have the effect you'd expect (although there's some hope that the current Russian president if smart enough to realize the importance of reforms in his country) ... so it's probably the fear of risking domestic riots in the future "forcing" the Russian government to finally change some things. I don't have any problem with your postings as long as you (finally) stop trying to always emphasize the role of Iran in this conflict! It's obvious that Mubarak's tumble gets Khamenei & his puppet Ahmadinejad happy ... but this thread is about the Arab revolutions and not about Iran's hegemony in the region!
It's amazing to see Al Qaeda suddenly trying to gain ground in this conflict and also crazy Gaddafi's "smart" reaction. The most crazy thing is that he blamed Bin Laden AND the West for "conspiring" against him... I wonder he forgot to mention the "Zionists".
I brought up Russia myself. I wasn't taking it to mean that you were saying any of those things. Some of the Russian government's policies, especially in the North Caucasus, rivals all of those autocrats you mentioned. My point was that we have deal with autocrats and unfriendly governments sometimes. Obviously we should be very careful with the old "he's a son of a bitch, but he's our son of a bitch." It's a tough row to navigate certainly. And to some extent, we really don't have a choice. I mean even if America and Europe wanted to really clamp down on Russia, Saudi Arabia, Equatorial Guinea etc, we really can't, because our economies and societies would collapse without gas and oil. Like I said, a tough road to navigate and we have to be very careful. But if the past decade proved anything, is that it has to be up to the people of a country to change things, not up to the US and EU.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/25/world/middleeast/25diplomacy.html?hp How the US is hedging its bets in the region. Kings good Presidents, eh..........
If the violence escalates further in Libya, I have a thought. Why don't the forces that currently control much of the country declare a new government? I'm not a lawyer, but wouldn't the international community be able to recognize this new government and assist it if help is requested. At this point the question is really how many more lives Gaddafi takes before he is pushed out and the number keeps getting bigger and bigger.
I don't think it would change much the situation on the ground. It's still going to be a battle between two armed groups.
Borussia... This article addresses your comments, if a bit ambiguously.. http://www.economist.com/node/18231320
Qaddafi needs some small change it seems... http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...631bn-in-libyan-banknotes-foiled-2227577.html Plan to grab £1bn in Libyan banknotes foiled Treasury managed to stall the export of uncirculated notes to the Gaddafi regime British authorities have thwarted an attempt to export nearly one billion pounds worth of mint Libyan banknotes back to Tripoli. Last night the Government moved to officially freeze the assets held by the Libyan regime in the UK following sanctions imposed by the UN Security Council. But yesterday it emerged that an attempt was made last week to move £900m of uncirculated notes held in a secure storage facility in the UK back into Libya. Presumably a check of the back of the couch wasn't enough
Kuwait? Qatar will be the last to have problems. The oil wealth has been distributed to a small population where none of the Qatari citizens have to work or really do anything.
<none of the Qatari citizens will have to work> - Not even for the World Cup...where they will buy a bunch of Brazilians.
Yup. Calls for the prime minister's resignation and plans for demonstrations. http://www.google.com/hostednews/af...ocId=CNG.8a385502b491a612fde23cd3e59f1fdb.c21 Even the filthy rich want democracy.