It's funny - right when one NYT article lays out how al Qaeda has not been an influence in the Arab uprisings and ponders why they might now be; the next day a cleric with alleged ties to al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula voiced his opinion that Yemen must be turned into a true Islamic state. It is an interesting development since al Qaeda has not played any role in the protests throughout the Middle East and North Africa (as far as we know, since these protests have been characterized as pro-democracy). Expect for case of Libya, where Qaddafi has blamed al Qaeda and hallucinogenic drugs for the riots and violence, and a government spokesman Musa Ibrahim claimed that rebels in the city of Zawiyah are hiding Qaeda members from the media.

But for the most part until today, there has been no mention of al Qaeda in relation to the uprisings in the MENA in the Western media. This is because the media has been portraying the protesters as embracing democracy and fighting for democratic principles that will soon be implemented in their new governments. However we must remain skeptical of how the new governments will form and with what governing methods. Right now, Tunisia and Egypt are the two countries that have ousted their dictators and new governments are being formed as we speak. It appears Libya is going the same way, and perhaps Yemen is not far behind. Yet we must wait (while the international community tries to influence) the new look of these two governments.

Still, it has been odd that al Qaeda has not even addressed the uprisings. This does not mean al Qaeda is not plotting something while waiting in the wings or will not begin attacking demonstrators in certain countries, especially Libya and Yemen, as a way to instigate sectarian violence, as insurgent groups did in Iraq. In fact, disorder in these countries could be beneficial for AQ as they could more easily maneuver, recruit, propagandize against the current government, and even create cells in cities. Further, if the outcome of events prove disappointing for the protesters, e.g. Egypt and Tunisia become dictatorships once again, civilians will have only one other alternative to get results - engage government forces in battle with organizations that are knowledgeable in this area. To join up with radical groups like al Qaeda is most likely to become influenced by their ideologies and outlooks for an Islamic state. Although this does not necessarily have to happen; people can fight for the same cause and not agree politically.

The debate has begun as to whether the uprisings pose a threat for al Qaeda and its affiliates, because if democracies are to come about in the MENA, citizens will have legal and secure outlets to voice their grievances. Subsequently they would not have to join up with radical groups to fight the government if they disagree, rather they can use their freedom to express themselves in public. On the other hand, if democracy does reign in the region, it could strengthen al Qaeda forces with those who disagree with a 'Western' form of government, one that may not let religion play a lead role in formulating laws and policies. All of this remains to be seen, but should play out soon as the uprisings continue.

PBS - Frontline: "Revolution in Cairo"

An interesting report from good, old PBS. The video is embedded, or you can go to the Frontline website.

A discussion on Kosovo at GPIA: Intervention and State-building

(Left to Right: Anna Di Lellio, Julian (?), Lamberto Zannier, James Rubin)

I attended a discussion hosted by the Graduate Program in International Affairs at the New School University (my alma matar) this past week. The discussion was titled: "Kosovo: The Hazards of Intervention and State-Building" with panelists James Rubin, Former Assistant Secretary and Chief Spokesman, Lamberto Zannier, the current Special Representative of the Secretary-General and the head of the UN Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK), and Zannier's Political Director for UNMIK (who was a fill in for Zannier until he showed. Unfortunately his name was not posted, but his first name is Julian, I believe). Although the moderator, Anna Di Lellio, wanted to at first speak about the past and bring the conversation to the present and future of Kosovo, like all discussions with diplomats, it did not go as intended. But nevertheless it was interesting to hear what Rubin, Zannier, and Julian had to say - Rubin was the most loquacious of the three. Here is a summary and brief analysis of the event:

The first question Di Lellio brought to the panelists was whether the humanitarian intervention was successful in light of the problems and failings it has has economically, politically, and socially. Rubin, who was part of Madeline Albright's entourage at the peace discussions between Kosovo and Serbia in 1999, was adamant that it was successful, for two reasons. The first being that it prevented a genocide, which he was sure would have occurred, and second because there was no commercial interest or potential for profit in state-building. Hence Rubin believed the intervention was successful for the US and the West in the moral use of military action. Yet the problems in which Kosovo faces currently have been there since the war's end and it will take some time to solved the Kosovo crisis, which Rubin says won't be over night (or in a decade since the end of the war in 1999, apparently).

Of course it will never be known how many Albanians would have been killed by former Serbian dictator Slobodan Milosevic had NATO not intervened in Kosovo. And there is also a critique that NATO actually prompted Serbia to kill more Albanians before they their potential defeat by NATO. But the past is the past, and there is a general consensus according to Rubin that atrocities to Albanians in Kosovo would have been worse if NATO did not intervene. (There is two sides to this story, which includes the Kosovo Liberation Army and how they might have stepped up their attacks on the Serbian army and Serb residents because they believed they were backed by NATO no matter what. This is another debatable topic, which you can read about in my Kosovo posts of this past summer).

The second question was addressed to Julian, since Zannier was not present at the time. Di Lellio asked whether one can measure the progress of democracy in Kosovo, especially with the presence of all the state-building and democracy-promoting international institutions. Julian, who works for UNMIK, addressed his answer first toward his organization. He said that UN Resolution 1244, which allowed UNMIK to administer to Kosovo and prepare it for its independence, was never meant to be in place 12 years after implementation. There is now something of a 'checkmate' in Kosovo since Kosovo has its independence and is calling for UNMIK to leave. The UN supposedly wants to repeal 1244 because it has largely fulfilled its mandate, but it is not up to the UN, rather to the UN Security Council. But because Russia and China are on the Security Council, they will not repeal the mandate because this would imply they are recognizing Kosovo's independence, which they do not. (The other members of the SC recognize Kosovo as an independent state.)

This is where things got a bit interesting. Rubin proclaimed that China will eventually change its disposition on Kosovo and recognize it. Julian stated that if Kosovo receives over 100 recognitions from UN member states (it now has 75), there could be a psychological shift within the UN to see it as an independent state. Julian did sound skeptical that this would happen any time soon. Zannier, who showed up by this time, had this to say: Kosovo has a parallel universe, on one side it is the citizens of Kosovo and the other it is the stakeholders (i.e. international community, donors) who expect results. Particularly when one talks about the rule of law in Kosovo, it cannot be just about Pristina, the capital, but about the whole country, and much needs to be done. Although UNMIK is trying to scale down activities, there is still a number of countries who object to Kosovo's independence and there are many political problems that UNMIK can assist with. Hence, UNMIK still survives. Rubin, on the other hand, simply stated that the US needs to get moving on this issue, because the US is still a world leader, and "without US action, it is unlikely international action can be galvanized."

The last big question Di Lellio was able to posit before opening it up to the floor, had to do with the prospect for partition in the North of Kosovo. Zannier answered first. He said the the government of Kosovo's strategy of penetrating the North and trying to convince the Serbs in Kosovo to play along with it is not working. No matter how much money the Kosovo government funnels into the North or the institutions they try to implement, the Serbs are not buying in to becoming a true citizen of the Kosovo government. Serbia however is pushing partition or some sort of special status in the North, like Republika Sprska. There have been rumors of a land swap in the North, meaning North Kosovo will go to Serbia and in return, there will be some land in South Serbia which is mainly inhabited by Albanians that will fall under Kosovo's jurisdiction. Or there has been a proposal of a free trade zone in the North, which would include Mitrovica South (see previous blog posts on this city), but Zannier seemed to dismiss these propositions. He said that territorial adjustment would set a precedent for malfunctioning, multi-ethnic societies, which is potentially destabilizing in these areas. Although Zannier did not give a direct answer or solution, he did say that Kosovo has been relatively stable since independence, which is a good thing. But to address the situation in Northern Kosovo, the root of the problems between Serbs and Albanians in this area must be addressed.

I'll conclude with some brief remarks by Rubin and Julian on what Kosovo means for the field of humanitarian intervention. Rubin says that the international community will have to solve the problems in Kosovo to avoid arguments against the aftermath of interventions, i.e. state-building. But also that in the future, if one threatens force, one may have to use it, which was the case of NATO against Serbia in Kosovo in 1999. Julian ended with saying that the nature of peacekeeping has changed due to the creation of regional and sub-regional organizations like the African Union or Organization of American States. The UN has decreased its peacekeeping operations in the face of these organizations doing the work for them, but it is still the case that in the most dangerous places, like Sudan (but not Somalia), the UN is the only organization that will attempt peacekeeping missions.

This event was taped and should be posted on the GPIA website soon. It will most likely be located under "Announcements" when you scroll down.

Unbelievable! Hosni Mubarak Leaves Office! History is Made!

(Taken from NYT)

Today, the Hosni Mubarak waived his term in the office of the President of Egypt. The crowd goes wild! He is now the former president of Egypt and has asked the military to take charge. Newly appointed Omar Suleiman may also take responsibility in leading new Egypt. He is supposedly residing in his mansion in the Sinai resort town along Egypt's coast. I do not think anyone in the Western world, or the world for that matter, really saw this coming. People have talked about what ifs, but now this is reality. Obama is going to have to make some smooth moves to remain friends with Egypt's new leadership. Although I do not think this will be a problem. Israel on the other hand will have its work cut out to keep the peace treaty between Egypt and Israel. They may have to make a lot of concessions now because their 'friend' has now left. It is very exciting to see how things will resonate in the Middle East now. Freedom has been sought (as of now) in Egypt. Let us hope that the new administration progresses this freedom the way the protesters desire.

You can watch live on Al Jazeera: http://english.aljazeera.net/watch_now/.

UPDATE:

Hamas has welcomed Mubarak's resignation and urges the new administration to drop the Gaza blockade and open up the route for freedom of access. This route connects Gaza with Egypt and obviously not everyone is allowed to pass between the borders. This is exactly what is expected to have happened - many other Arab political parties will try to use the new administration to their advantage and leverage the new administration to work towards Arab demands/needs. Of course Western nations will do the same thing. It will be a scramble to see how foreign governments interact with the new Egyptian government (as of now the military). It is said it may take close to a year for a real, new government to become elected, and rightly so. It will take time for Egypt to reform the political process and hold free and fair elections.

Waxing Philosophic (or trying too)

(Photo taken from NYT)

With the protests raging on in Egypt, and those that have sprung up in Jordan, Yemen, and now Serbia, many questions come to mind. For one thing, what are we, as on-lookers (particularly from the West) exactly living for? Those protesters in all these countries have something to live for - a new government, a new economy, a new life in a new political social system (whether that be democratic or not). The Western media believes that what they want is democracy, but this is not necessarily true. Perhaps they want more democratic principles added to their political system, such as multi-party representation, freedom of the press and speech, but these things are starting to become a norm, internationally. But really what these protesters want is a better life with more educational and economic opportunities.

So some questions for us on-lookers: are we content with our lives? Are we greedy? Two-thirds of the world live in poverty, they strive to live, in the minimal sense of the word, whereas the other 1/3 strive to live, in the maximal sense of the word. Should we not just live for the day (the age old question), since we don't know what will happen in the future? Every country has an elite class (read rich people), but many normal people are driven by greed - greed to acquire wealth and live materialistically. However greed is an unobstructed driver of motivation that propels one to excel and "grab whatever is in front him/her." Greed can maximize one's potential in the world, although it may be negative potential depending if you see greed as bad or good. It can also push others to the limit, such as what we are seeing in Egypt, and hence greed can be an inhibitor of action, albeit indirectly.

Perhaps this is a system of the world, and not just the Western world. All countries has elites can we cannot fault them for being born into the system. But this is also motivation to change the world, which is a bit of a Marxist argument, because to change the system most likely means to change the social class system. And to have a hypothetical here, if the class system was eliminated and everyone started on the same level with the potential to earn the same amount, there will still be a percentage of people that become rich, a percentage that becomes poor, and a majority that fluctuate in the middle. Most will remain content with their living situation and many will struggle. The world would probably look the way it does now, just because it is not in everyone's nature to be the best one can be.

But does greed bring out the worst in people (this too can depend on how one define's greed). For example, Warren Buffett, one of the world's wealthiest persons, is greedy. He is 80 years, loves making money (and a lot of it), and shows no sign of slowing down. Making money is his forte. Yet he is major philanthropist; so his greed results in good things too. But what is the point of being rich? We die and we don't know what happens next, we don't know what happens to our stuff that has accumulated nor do we know what will happen to our legacy, if we have one. Some people are honored and recognized after death, but the dead person does not know this. Even if this is what the person wants, does it matter, if s/he is revered after death since this person does not know it? This also begs other questions to ponder: why do some people have the motivation to succeed, why do some succeed, and why do others not succeed, especially when all are presented with the same opportunities before him/her (barring mental illness, disease, and the like). Why are people allowed to be different in the working world? To clarify, if efficient people product efficient things, then why do we allow people to be inefficient?

Right now, it seems that in Egypt, people are not being inefficient, mainly because there is nothing else to do but to protest the government. In this way they are able to voice their opinions in a way that is not being repressed (as was in the past). Some think that the time to transition to democracy has passed for Egypt (you can get this sense in this NYT article or in Foreign Policy), but that is not necessarily so. The situation is fizzling a bit, the police are moving back in and discussions are taking place, but demonstrators are still going strong and it doesn't seem to be letting up. As long as they are motivated to protest Mubarak's regime, they will be maximizing their potential as a person because they are fighting for something they believe in, even if they don't live to see it.