President Obama's Hands ?

President Obama's speech yesterday night must go down in history as being one of the most "on the one hand... on the other hand" speeches in modern history. "Did the President set the proper tone and is this an introduction into what can be termed as the Obama Doctrine?" pundits are asking.  

Well, on the one hand (!!!), there should be no question the US President is having to work within the confines of some difficult constraints- not least of which are the teetering US economy, the two wars in Afghanistan and in Iraq, a war weary nation, and of course continuing to support friendly regional autocrats.

On the other hand, by their very definition, dictators rule with nothing but a FIRM hand, and any "other hand" presented to them is a gift of an opportunity to fight another day. Theirs is an existential fight and there is no other hand to consider. This gives them an implicit advantage over uncertainty. Their goal is one and one alone: survival, no matter how ugly it gets. Saddam preferred to remain in power notwithstanding the 500,000 Iraqi children deaths that resulted from the embargo slapped on his nation during the 1990's. The only hands he cared for were those assuring his and his regime's survival. 

Long before him history had been littered with dictators and victims of their intransigence. Churchill warned of Hitler's sinister intentions at a time when the international community preferred to present the Fuhrer with "other hands". It resulted in the deaths of millions and incalculable destruction. The wily Brit proved to be equally prescient when he warned during the Potsdam conference of the impending Stalinist Iron Wall. Again a historic miscalculation resulted in a Cold War that lasted for half a century. Of course, Truman eventually realized the gravity of leaving the Soviets to their own devices and introduced the Truman doctrine which stood in support of every freedom seeking nation. Arguably it was this Doctrine and the clarity of its vision, goals, and indeed the resources placed at its disposal that would lead half a century later to Soviet disintegration.   

This brings us back to the Obama speech. Knowing Libya's Gadhafi and what he and his brutal regime are capable of, any other hand dealt to him will likely result in more pain and suffering by his people and eventually higher costs to remove him. Recent events tend to prove this as experts state that had the international community moved three weeks earlier when the rebels were on the outskirts of Tripoli, Gadhafi would have been gone by now. Instead he was given the opportunity to regroup and push back the rebels almost wiping them out. Of course, when the No-Fly Zone finally came, it came at a cost in the hundreds of millions of Dollars and in itself was no guarantee to seeing him leave. This is leading some to question whether giving Gadhafi an ultimatum would not finally lead him to see the futility of his fight. It might very well. Unfortunately, an ultimatum such as this is not likely to come if the threat to his existence comes from the rebels whom he feels he can destroy. Rather, it has to come from the international community whom he fears. And it is here that Obama's speech and indeed his Doctrine, may fall short of the support needed prolonging the inevitable but causing more unnecessary pain, loss and desctruction and in the interim.

What was missing from Obama's speech was perhaps a more clear Peaceful Transition to Democracy Doctrine that promises to support any nation in the Middle East and North Africa who decide to overthrow their dictators. Nothing short of this will size up to the challenges and indeed opportunities an inevitably democratizing Arab world present to America and the world.

Qatar becomes 1st Arab country to fly over Libya

Good Job Qatar for Supporting Libya No Fly !!!

This is a recent Associated Press article of how a Gulf country is coming to the aid of the Libyan people against Qadhafi. Good job Qatar! Full Article can be found here:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110325/ap_on_re_af/af_libya

Libya in The Balance

Attached is a recent article from Time Magazine, which highlights the precarious situation in Libya,and the fact that Gadhafi seems to be holding his ground. The question many are asking now is what to do next? The answer is one of both interests and morality.

In terms of interests, it is in US and Western interests to see Gadhafi ousted. Allowing him to remain in Libya (or a part thereof) will be a bill outstanding that will have to be paid sooner or later, not unsimilar to what happened in Iraq when Saddam was kept in power in 1991. The cost and risk of keeping him will by far exceed the benefit to everyone involved and will only postpone the inevitable. If one looks at the potential risk of a single terrorist attack that he might help finance or perpetrate and the high possibility of it happening given how erratic his behavior, it would not be hard to justify his ousting. For those preaching splitting Libya with him allowed to keep the Western part, none of the above risks would be mitigated. As long as gadhafi has at his disposal state resources- no matter what the size of the resulting state or statelet state- he will pose a risk to the international community as well as his neighboring countries as he has done in the past.

This brings us to the issue of morality. Some are talking of stifling embargo with no fly zones so as to avoid outright invasion. Interestingly, few point to the fact that the deaths amounting from the embargo placed on Iraq in the 1990's exceeded by THREE FOLDS the deaths of the entire Second Iraqi War (500,000 for the first by some estimates versus 150,000 for the latter). The embargo deaths were primarily due to malnutrition of which children proved to be the victims. If the same policy is applied in Libya, would it not mean that we are punishing the entire population of Libya for the sins of a madman? And would this not be morally reprehensible? Of course, others are talking of invasion and "boots on the ground".

While it is true that invasion should not be top on the list, if indeed Gadhafi cannot be coerced to leave his country in peace, then there may be no other choice but to forcefully invade and oust him. Many are weary of this option having seen the calamities resulting from the Second Iraqi War. What other option is there since he continues his military bombardments and attacks on his people in Ajdabiya, Misrata, and elsewhere?

Having gotten involved in cases like Rwanda, Bosnia, Liberia, and East Timor ... there seems no logical reason why it should not contemplate doing it in the case of Libya.

Attached Article:Libya: Despite Airstrikes, Gadhafi forces Ougun Rebels
Time Magazine

By ABIGAIL HAUSLOHNER / BENGHAZI Abigail Hauslohner

Benghazi – Wed Mar 23, 6:50 am ET

http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20110323/wl_time/08599206091700

Islamophobia in the News ...

Lately, in the US, there seems to be a surge in what some are terming Islamophobia. A recent emotional hearing on the hill touched on the subject of Islam in America. It is being followed up by TV reports one of which is ominously called "The Muslim Next Door" running on mass media outlets like CNN.

The timing of this surge is interesting as there hasn't been any recent attacks on US soil. If anything, it coincides with more  alignment between fledgling democracies emerging in the Islamic Arab heartland. One would think that this should mean a reduction in Islamophobia as certain fundamental social and political principles begin to reconcile with those in the West. It hasn't happened yet. And while justification of this phobia continues to be debated, one thing is for sure, many still regard Islam as a religion to be feared because of some intrinstic incompatibility with democracy.

New Realities in an Old World looks into this by delving into political, judicial, and militant Islam and what implications it has on democracy in the Arab region and the world at large. The book does so in several ways, one of which looks at non-religious institutions that have existed within Islam for more than a millenia. It does so by citing some verses that provide for religious compatibility and co-existence. It also does so by doing a comparison with the Christian world's own development and struggles. Here is a brief exerpt from Chapter 2 titled, Islam and Democracy:

If Christianity had been so fundamental to the establishment of democracy, why was it the case that democracy as we know it today never flourished in the Christian World, until after it had escaped autocratic European persecution and found refuge in the Americas? Indeed, why is it that not until democracy flourished in the Americas and was later exported back to Europe that religious persecution- as late as the 1940’s (a mere seventy years ago) and epitomized by the Jewish Holocaust- finally ceased in Europe? Was it the presence of the Christian faith that led to the establishment of sound political democracies in the West, or was it democracy that led to the sound establishment of religious tolerance and freedom? “Christianity” being a pre-requisite to constitutional democracy whereas Islam is its arch nemesis is at best a historical fabrication ...

A democratizing Arab world will allow a more moderate Islam to emerge, just as it did with Christianity in the West. In the meantime, Islam is here to stay. The world must learn to live with it.

Op-Ed: Obama Needs to Issue a Doctrine of Peaceful Democratic Transition

Wissam S. Yafi, February 17, 2011

Throughout the Egyptian uprising, President Obama and his administration played a balancing act trying not to alienate their autocratic regional allies, while simultaneously not opposing the will of the Egyptian people. So far, this approach seems to have worked. The Egyptian regime fell, other allies in the region didn’t (not yet at least), the popular revolution remained relatively peaceful, and the US did not come out on the wrong side. The question now is: Will this approach continue to work as the Egyptian democracy begins the more challenging process of building itself?

The answer to this question depends on the assumption being made. If, for instance, one assumes that the source behind the revolutions was simply ideological- a desire for freedom- then the fence approach may indeed be sufficient. In this case, the Obama administration would best not take center stage and instead deploy more subtle policies and behind the scenes support. This ideological assumption, however, appears incomplete at best as it fails to explain why there is still discontent on the streets of Cairo and Tunis even after the autocrats have left?

A more compelling assumption perhaps is that the source of the revolution was a tipping point reached due to several deteriorating conditions- most salient of which is the economic situation (Unemployment, poverty, corruption…). If this were the case, one is bound to reach a different policy prescription since things are likely to get worse before they get any better, threatening the whole enterprise.

For instance, businesses that were once associated with the regime may close their doors in the short term; and the hated economic oligarchy could flee with its money- a lot of it (Both things recently occurred in Tunisia). In an effort to curtail inefficiencies, the government is likely to cut down on its spending and its employment (In Egypt alone there are more than 6 million public employees, which is twice the size of the US federal government). And so, many jobs are likely to be shed before new ones are created. Poverty conditions are probably not going to improve in the short term either. Manifestations over work conditions continue to occur in Egypt’s airport and Suez Canal aggravating the situation. If this situation is allowed to spiral out of control, people may soon begin to question what they got themselves into. The fledgling Egyptian democracy may find itself at risk of leaving an ideological void ripe for the picking. For all those fear mongers, it may lead to the nightmare scenario.

What should the US administration do about it? For one thing, it must recognize that sitting idle or making subtle moves will not help. Once a regime has fallen, euphoria may indeed carry the nation for a few weeks, months at most. The business of building democracy and reforming, however, will take years as Iraq and Afghanistan have shown. Unfortunately, between euphoria and a consolidated democracy lies a big chasm full of uncertainty and violence. Doing nothing during this period is a risky policy if not foolhardy- especially if we consider Egypt to be the Arab world’s centerpiece.

What the US needs to introduce is nothing short of a Peaceful Transition to Democracy Doctrine acting as a safety net for those democratizing Arab nations who request it. It needs to be honest and overt, showing Arab masses that the United States stands behind its democratic principles. This doctrine needs to provide substantial economic and institutional aid to help democratizing countries like Egypt, while simultaneously carrying a big stick against any sinister movements or coup attempts.

The Doctrine will serve multiple key US interests. First, it will secure these nations and keep them as strong allies. Second, it will keep the extremist elements at bay. Third, it will serve to consolidate success stories for others in the region to emulate at a fraction of what a potential war might have cost. Fourth, it would help win the hearts and minds of many Arabs and change the age-old perception that the US is hypocritically only for the autocratic regimes and Arab resources and against the Arab people.

Truman and Reagan’s anti-communism doctrines once helped Europe face a much more menacing and dangerous foe. In their day, these doctrines were all that stood between the free world and a red one. Today, a Doctrine of Peaceful Transition to Democracy supported with generous economic and institutional aid may be what stands between true democracies in the Arab world and a chasm into a dangerous unknown.

If ever there was a time for the United States to be positively engaged within the region, now is that time. Let us not shirk away from the opportunity to help, not when it is firmly in our interest to do so.

Upcoming Lecture at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government

Friday, March 25, 2011

New Realities in an Old World: The Inevitable Road to Democracy... What Now?

Speaker: Wissam Yafi, TidWiT Inc.A technologist by trade, Wissam Yafi obtained an MPA/ID degree from the Kennedy School in 2001 having studied in its first cohort under Jeffrey Sachs, Dany Rodrik, and Lant Pritchett, among others. Since graduation, Wissam has been leading TidWiT Inc, an e-learning organization that helps governments, non-profits, and large businesses disseminate their knowledge. Wissam writes frequently on economic development, geopolitics, and technology policy in the Middle East and is in the midst of publishing New Realities in an Old World, which looks at the dynamics forcing change in the Middle East.

• Location: Perkins Room, 4th Floor, Rubenstein Building, Harvard Kennedy School
• Date: Friday, March 25, 2011
• Time: 11:45 AM

Harvard Event link.

Op-Ed: Pacing Change or Changing Pace

I came across this Op-Ed, which I had written for the Daily Star in May of 2003, and which was co-published with Al Jazeera (The Internet source can be found here). Here is a transcript:

Pacing Change or Changing Pace
Wissam S. Yafi
May 26, 2003

As Arab regimes begin to feel the heat from masses wanting change as well as the international community tired of popular repression whip-lashing in their own backyards ­ an interesting theme that has come to the fore is the pace in which change should occur ­ change meaning reform. While one typically finds that regimes in the Arab world do not always agree with change; if and when they finally get around to it, they resort to the paternalistic argument of it needing to be done at a slow pace so as not to negatively affect the dynamics of the region. Anything rash, they warn, would yield “undesired results” pointing to revolutionary Iran, Algeria’s civil war, Afghanistan’s Taleban, and the Islamic militants supposedly waiting in the shadows in Palestine, Lebanon and Saudi Arabia.

But if one thinks about it, will the problems be solved by pacing change or rather by changing pace? Is our region’s predicament due to the speed of reforms that have been introduced, or is it due to slow or never-seriously-introduced-in-the-first-place reforms? Since the Arab world itself does not offer much experience on reform, one needs to look to other places. Unfortunately, history does not seem to be consistent with respect to the pace of reform. Sometimes a quick split with the past has yielded reasonably good results, as was the case with the 18th century American revolution, the 19th century Japanese Meiji Restoration, and the 20th century end of the Soviet Union. Sometimes slow change has also worked, such as the case of modern China and, to a certain degree, Chile and Spain.

Closer to home, ironically, many of the regimes now calling for slow change themselves came to power through very quick and revolutionary upheaval. Indeed, Arab history reached its zenith on the heels of a blitzkrieg conquest ­ seldom seen before or since. So, where exactly does this notion of the requirement for so slow a pace of change in the Arab world come from ­particularly when economic and socio political theories do not give clear guidance? Could it be self-interest? Is it not evident that self-interest exists with anyone who has been in power for decades ­ or has benefited from it ­ to call for unhurried change.

Then again, could it not be genuine fear? Autocratic Arab regimes may have much to fear for their murky past and their opaque policies. Would those who are socio-economically distraught react violently, would families of abducted loved ones take revenge, or would religious zealots take over? While all these fears may be legitimate, an equally legitimate question is why the ruling regimes have not able to circumvent them. Surely, “insufficient time” could not have been a factor, as most of these regimes have been in power for decades.

While Rome was not built in a day, much less-endowed contemporary and yet equally complex ­ societies (such as Japan, Korea, Taiwan, and Singapore) all reformed and as a result have become much freer. What is it that Arab regimes can do going forward? For one, they can continue to do nothing. Regimes have been in power for decades. But they would do this at their own peril ­ as Saddam Hussein saw first hand, and as the Saudis and Palestinians are seeing now with all the turmoil around them.

The third option is to genuinely speed up political, economic, social and educational reform. Risky? Of course it is, but not more than the risks of doing nothing or pacing reform at a snail’s pace.

At a time when the region is going through some tough times, it can yet count its blessings for the resource endowment that God has bequeathed it. However, it must also use it for the benefit of improving the well-being of the people.

Ceding more power to the people should take center stage. What the region needs most now is a fraternal changing of the pace of reform as opposed to a paternal pacing of change. This should not be done by feeding them, but by trusting them and making them responsible for their own decisions and lives.A second option is for them to simply pack up and leave ­ a risky proposition, and perhaps not the optimal one, as economic strife and religious fervor could lead to regional anarchy.

Ibn Khaldoun: An Exerpt from New Realities in an Old World

Here is an interesting exerpt from New Realities in an Old World's Chapter 2 titled: It's the Economy Stupid- Geoeconomic Realities.

"Some four centuries before the birth of Adam Smith, an Arab philosopher by the name of Ibn Khaldoun (1332-1406) wrote a famous treatise describing the different aspects relating to the rise and fall of civilizations. It was entitled, Al Muqqadima (The Introduction to The Book of Lessons). In it, he described the political, economic, social and cultural underpinnings of civilizations. In its economic aspects, he delved into everything from financing wars to fiscal responsibility, taxation, the effects of geography on industry and trade, productivity, and wealth creation. One of the primary concerns he appeared to have had is finding a balance between rulers and their regimes with that of the people’s economic potential. Unfortunately, most of the Arab region would not take his advice during the following eight centuries."

New Realities in an Old World, Copyright © 2004 - 2011, Wissam S. Yafi.

Why Is the Arab World Suddenly Awakening?

I often get asked the question of why the Arab World is suddenly awakening and why now? The truth of the matter is there isn't a single reason for it. While some may have thought the breakdown of the Soviet Empire would lead to the democratization of the Middle East, as it did to other regions, in itself it didn’t. Others thought the US invasion of Iraq would lead to a democratic domino effect. It didn’t either. Others talked about development and education leaps and called for reform. Arabs have been relatively educated for more than two decades- more so that India and Indonesia and on par with Latin America. While it helped the other regions in the 1990’s to cement their democracies, it didn’t have such an immediate effect in the Arab world. Technology has certainly played a role, but mobile phone technology and the Internet have been around for more than a decade, so why did it make a difference now and not before? Is it one reason that brought about all this or a coalescence of all?

New Realities in an Old World is a book that argues for the latter highlighting the key developments and milestones that occurred along the way. Of course the key question is: Is this not just stating the obvious? It isn’t. In fact some policy prescriptions occurring now are based on false assumptions. Until we know the full extent of the causes for what is happening today could we understand their implications to the future and what policy prescriptions best be applied to cement these positive development keeping at bay sinister elements within Arab society.

 

A word about New Realities in an Old World from the author

I began writing New Realities in an Old World in 2004 with the primary hypothesis being that democracy is bound to emerge in the Arab World. This was not an ideologically imposed or driven argument. Rather, it was based on an objective study that found several dynamics in place including geopolitical, geoeconomic, geosocial, and technological- all pushing the region in that direction.

Over the next several years, I would continuously update the material in the book as new events unfolded in places such as Iraq and Lebanon and of course more recently in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, and Yemen. The overall hypothesis, however, remained the same because facts on the ground continued to point to the same dynamics.

This blog will be sharing many of the arguments presented in the book. It will also provide insight into the analysis on which the book was based as well as insight into the author's thoughts of the events that are currently emerging and more importantly what is likely to happen beyond.