After boycotting Nouri al-Maliki’s government for the last six weeks, Iraq’s Sunni-aligned Iraqiya List returned on Tuesday to participate in Baghdad’s parliamentary session. Immediately billed as a confidence-building measure that could “ease” Iraq’s political crisis, both Iraqiya and U.S. officials say the decision paves the ground for Baghdad’s looming “national conference.” Except a major caveat obstructs Washington’s efforts to spin progress out of a crisis that it helped generate.
As his organization announced its future political plans, Ayad Allawai cautioned, “if there had been an active Parliament and Government, and a real partnership, there would have been no reason for the holding of the National Conference.”
Iraqiya’s formal re-engagement merits an uptick in optimism, but not for the reasons cited by Washington. The administration's defense has remained unchanged since President Barack Obama welcomed al-Maliki to the White House, a controversial move that added fuel to Baghdad’s meltdown. U.S. officials argue that, by not resorting to violence, Iraqis are building their democracy through the political process. This reasoning, while true in a vacuum, inadvertently dehumanizes Iraqis by assuming them to be violent; most stand ready to rebuild their country through non-violent means. Some were unforgivably suppressed during the Arab Spring’s initial stage.
By turning the present crisis into an “opportunity,” the Obama administration has steadfastly ignored al-Maliki’s centrality to Iraq’s discord. The answer to every Iraqiya plea is “dialogue.”
U.S. policy might end up on its feet once Baghdad’s national conference, an event pushed hard by Washington, finally convenes. Weakening the divisive al-Maliki through Iraq’s political system offers a means to improving America’s strategic relationship inside (with Sunnis, Kurds and Shia) and outside (against Iran) of the country. Yet the breakdown between March 2010 and January 2012 suggests the opposite scenario: Washington is reacting to the consequences of favoritism towards al-Maliki. Consumed by Afghanistan’s surge, Iraqi officials accused the administration of checking out during the country’s parliamentary election. U.S. officials such as Vice President Joe Biden eventually increased their involvement over the summer by throwing their weight behind al-Maliki’s coalition, going so far as to accept his Iranian ties and Muqtada al-Sadr’s 30 seats.
Allawi was offered a national security post that he never received, and the Sunni-Shia chasm failed to dispel while transitioning to Iraq’s political battlefield. Prolonged friction has resulted in security lapses, inefficiency and a general lack of confidence in the new government.
The Obama administration now hopes that President Jalal Talabani can patch al-Maliki’s government into a more stable form. Biden would again phone al-Maliki, Allawi and Talabani over the weekend to stress “the importance of resolving outstanding issues through the political process.” Iraqiya possesses limited motivation to withdraw from al-Maliki’s coalition, as some officials of the bloc have threatened, due to the loss of power. A new election would be necessary, scaring away most representatives, and Iraqiya must hold onto this option as a last resort. Thus Iraqiya is coming to battle al-Maliki at Baghdad’s “national conference,” not reconcile with him. Allawi sees nothing to reconcile - Iraq’s Prime Minister must cede the powers (including the Interior Ministry) that he agreed upon in November 2010.
Iraqiya spokeswoman Maysoon al-Damluji listed several other priorities, starting with a resolution to Vice President Tariq Hashimi’s case. Currently awaiting his future in Kurdish territory, Hashimi has been accused of running a Sunni death squad that targets Shia politicians. Iraqiya plans to block Maliki’s request to dismiss Vice Prime Minister Saleh al-Mutlaq, who responded to Obama’s praise of al-Maliki by calling him a dictator; al-Maliki subsequently threatened a no-confidence motion. Iraqiya also wanted to convene over the nation’s budget and amnesty program. The bloc has yet end its boycott of al-Maliki’s cabinet sessions, and nine ministers failed to show on Tuesday. Ultimately, some Iraqiya members (including Allawi) view a national conference as the door to kick al-Maliki out of.
This situation doesn’t resemble the sunny glow of U.S. rhetoric: “we are encouraged by the decision of the Iraqiya bloc to end their boycott and to return to work at the Council of Representatives and also by the statements of other key blocs inside Iraq welcoming that decision.”
The Washington Post observed “it is unclear what Iraqiya has accomplished” through its boycott, but the results are beginning to add up. Iraq’s democratic obstacles would remain unaltered, with minimal pressure applied to al-Maliki as U.S. combat troops complete their withdrawal. Forcing the U.S. to respond at all, even in al-Maliki’s corner, is no small feat in itself. Had Iraqiya done nothing, al-Maliki would continue Iraq’s status quo indefinitely.
"What sort of Iraq we are talking about?" Hashimi wonders in response to Obama’s quasi-victory statements. "How the Americans will feel proud? How the American administration is going to justify to the taxpayer the billion of dollars that has been spent and at the end of the day the American saying, 'Sorry, we have no leverage even to put things in order in Iraq'?"
Separately, the State Department’s fleet of surveillance drones has produced another inadvertent error in the middle of a political crisis. These drones were downplayed as non-lethal by none other than Obama himself: “I think that there’s this perception that we’re just sending in a whole bunch of strikes willy nilly. It is important for everybody to understand that this is kept on a very tight leash.” Many Americans and Iraqis understand this distinction exactly. What Obama may not understand, judging from his rhetoric and potential use of private contractors, is the overwhelming power of perception.
Iraqis also value their sovereignty and privacy just like Americans.
Coupled with the Pentagon’s urgency to advance Iraq’s security relationship with al-Maliki, drones create the vivid impression that Washington remains primarily concerned with protecting its own interests, not Iraqis. This policy is not conducive to the country’s stability, but instead prolongs its politico-security vacuum. Now the White House must await Baghdad’s next storm with everyone else - and dividing Iraqiya or rescuing al-Maliki could shatter Iraq’s relative peace.
When President Barack Obama told Americans last week that al Qaeda operatives in Yemen "are scrambling, knowing that they can't escape the reach of the United States of America," he may have been telling only half the story.
While al Qaeda's Yemen branch has been hit hard - most notably with the killing of American cleric Anwar al-Awlaki - U.S. officials and experts say there are signs that al Qaeda is making significant gains in Yemen as the government's control over outlying regions continues to fray amid political unrest.
Furthermore, they say, al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) hasn't given up its goal of striking the United States, though there have been no attempted attacks on American soil by al Qaeda since 2010.
While the death of al-Awlaki by a CIA-operated drone in September eliminated AQAP's external operations commander and chief recruiter of English-speaking militants, key players remain at-large in Yemen.
They include AQAP leader Naser al-Wuhayshi - a close associate of Osama bin Laden - and Ibrahim al-Ashiri, the skilled bomb-maker U.S. officials believe was behind the attempt to blow up a U.S. commercial airliner on Christmas Day in 2009 and a plot to bomb cargo planes belonging to such companies as FedEx the following year.
And while some of al Qaeda's most-wanted members may be "scrambling," as Obama put it during his State of the Union speech Tuesday, AQAP's goal of striking the United States either overseas or at home has not diminished, according to one U.S. official.
"AQAP hasn't changed its two main aims which are to attack the West, while establishing a safe-haven in Yemen. They may have more success at the latter if they continue to take advantage of the political unrest there, which is going to be tense for some time," said the U.S. official, who spoke only on condition of anonymity.
Gregory Johnsen, a Yemen expert at Princeton University, said AQAP members "are taking advantage of the chaos" in Yemen right now.
In addition to the fight against AQAP, Yemen has been wracked with protests throughout the past year, with demonstrators and rival factions demanding the departure of President Ali Abdullah Saleh and calling for elections.
Daniel Green, a fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, agreed that AQAP has much more room to operate within Yemen, and offered a dire prediction: the group has an incentive to launch a spectacular attack in a presidential election year.
"They have shown a very entrepreneurial ability to get explosives into the U.S.," Green said. "I wouldn't put it past them to try and do something this year."
Most of the group's gains have been in the southern provinces where the government exercises little control, according to the experts. Clashes between suspected militants and security forces have been particularly fierce over the past year in southern Abyan province, where suspected AQAP members held the provincial capital of Zinjibar under siege for months before eventually being flushed out.
The U.S. official agreed AQAP is "particularly strong" in the southern provinces and warned, "they'll most likely try to expand from there to establish themselves as a force in the surrounding provinces."
It appeared they did just that with the recent seizure of Radda only 100 miles south of the capital of Sanaa and considered a key transit route to the south. Suspected militants stormed the town earlier this month, taking over government buildings and mosques and freeing inmates from jails, according to local authorities and residents...
Partial list of errors revolving around the absence of policy discussion:
Withdrawal by Saleh’s Republican Guard and Central Security Organization enabled AQAP’s takeover of Abyan governorate and its capital, Zinjibar. These areas have not been cleared.
This deceptive maneuver was replicated in Rada’a.
Although a U.S. official “cautioned against confusing secessionist violence with AQAP actions,” the Obama administration sacrificed Yemen’s Southern Movement to Saleh’s U.S.-trained counter-terrorism forces.
Overall, CNN documents AQAP’s expansion without any reference to America’s deeply unpopular and unstable presence in Yemen. The word "revolution" is never mentioned, being replaced by "turmoil" and "chaos."
CNN has yet to publish a report on Saleh’s recent arrival in New York City.
Two weeks ago The Trench speculated on the possibilities of intervention in Syria. One of these contingencies - organized insurgency against Bashar al-Assad’s regime - is already underway as oppositional representatives and commanders await further assistance from foreign powers. Those governments opposed to al-Assad’s rule can pursue this objective through their own volition, but direct military aid faces a stiff political battle in the UN Security Council. Walid al-Mouallem, Syria’s Foreign Minister, recently alerted the West of Moscow’s “red line."
“Russia cannot accept foreign intervention.”
This battle is set to commence after the Arab League decided to create space between the regime. Accused of cooperating with al-Assad and his security details, the League’s monitors were cornered by oppositional forces demanding material action and given no room for error. al-Assad’s tactical shifts left hundreds of protesters dead since mission commander and Sudanese General Muhammad Ahmed al-Dabi arrived in late December. At least 100 people were killed as the League met over the weekend, with government forces attacking multiple cities (Hama, Homs) from multiple directions. al-Assad also continues to organize mass rallies in praise of his “comprehensive reforms,” another sign that he has no intention of halting his crackdown.
A staunch defender of the regime and his mission, even al-Dabi is now forced to admit, “The situation at present, in terms of violence, does not help prepare the atmosphere” for negotiations. Violence has increased "in a significant way.”
Unable to broker a compromise with al-Assad, a divided League is increasing its pressure to maintain its own credibility with Syria’s opposition and Western capitals. Qatar currently leads the face of Arab intervention, with Riyadh looming in the background, and the withdrawal of Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) members helped push the debate into the UNSC. Turkey also hosted GCC foreign ministers in Istanbul to declare “unequivocal support” for the League’s decisions, including the recent suspension of its observer mission. This chain of events represents a modest victory for Syria’s opposition, but the UNSC’s battle could exceed the Arab League’s mission in length and casualties.
First circulated on Friday, a preliminary UN draft “calls on al-Assad to hand over authority to his deputy and calls for the formation of a national unity government.” The document also “condemns the continued widespread and gross violations of human rights" and demands an immediate ceasefire. al-Assad would be given 15 days to comply or risk new diplomatic and economic sanctions, with military force reserved for the political endgame. For now the UNSC is prepared to support Arab-led initiative “to facilitate... the transfer of power from the President and transparent and free elections.”
Specific analysis of the League’s initiative will be published shortly. Copied from the GCC’s power-sharing deal in Yemen - an unpopular and unstable agreement - the Arab League’s plan threatens al-Assad and Syria’s opposition alike.
Its secondary target is Moscow, where the UN’s political battle will rage most intensely. Months of pressure from the Obama administration and European powers such as Britain, France, and Germany is gradually encroaching upon Russia’s red-line, generating an unpredictable outcome. State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland responded to the UN’s Friday diplomacy by speaking to Moscow: “We now have all of the members of the E.U., the United States, Australia and the Arab League countries making very clear that it's time for Assad to step aside... our question to those who are still protecting him is whether Syria really can go forward under his leadership, given the violence that we've seen."
So far Russia’s response hasn’t been positive. Labeling the current draft “unacceptable,” Deputy Foreign Minister Gennady Gatilov instead pointed out the “positive aspects” of stopping violence and launching a “national dialogue” to “persuade the Syrian opposition to start a process of reconciliation.” He said Moscow was seeking clarification over future punitive measures. As for al-Assad’s fate, “Any decision about a future political settlement in Syria must be made during the political process without... preliminary conditions, and the demand for Assad’s resignation is a preliminary condition.”
Gatilov insists, “We cannot support a call to support Assad’s departure in any UN Security Council resolution.”
On Sunday Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov expressed his own disapproval of the League’s decisions, lobbying for more observers and time to open negotiations with Syria’s opposition. Lavrov has been a vocal advocate of the GCC’s deal in Yemen, but the Foreign Minister is keeping his cards close in Syria. No draft should be formally considered, in Lavrov’s opinion, until the League’s observer mission submits a report later this week. He might even be going through the trouble of ignoring Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who will attend UN meetings tomorrow and has been trying to reach Lavrov for 24 hours. “He’s in Australia and apparently unavailable,” according to State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland.
Russian analysts also point out the realities of an election year, and Vladimir Putin’s desire to avoid being outmaneuvered by the West in Libya and Syria.
As mentioned earlier, Syria’s opposition is now in danger of being squeezed by international forces, a process that inevitably weakens the control over a democratic transition. Most oppositional forces - including Syria’s National Council (SNC) and Local Coordination Committees - support international intervention on various levels, either humanitarian (no-fly) corridors into Turkey or military assistance to the national resistance. After receiving assurances from Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud al-Faisal that the Kingdom will recognize the SNC “as the official representative of the Syrian people," the council expects action to eventually replace diplomacy.
Bassma Kodmani, a Syrian-French member of the SNC’s 10-member executive board, explained, “I grew up hating NATO. I was taught it was the devil. It was unimaginable for decades for any Syrian to even think about asking for [help] from the West... But now people on the ground want humanitarian intervention. They want to be rescued.”
However the SNC still faces resistance from the Syrian National Coordination Committee for Democratic Change, which the group has unsuccessfully attempted to link with. Unlike the SNC, the NCC adheres to non-intervention and supports Russian diplomacy; spokesman Haitham Mannaa told the AFP “we hope to see Arab League Secretary General Nabil al-Arabi head to Moscow before New York.” Although Mannaa reasonably argues that “sidelining” Russia will increase its support for al-Assad, this policy relies on two authoritarian forces to reach a democratic outcome.
Giving Russia “a bigger role” in the political process will bring disaster upon Syrians of all backgrounds.
Conversely, Kodmani stands firm on the SNC’s demand that al-Assad “move out before the transition can occur… he has no intention of having dialogue.” She said the opposition rejects open dialogue, instead favoring “a discussion on the modalities of [Assad’s] departure.” As a counterweight to the NCC, SNC chairman Burhan Ghalioun is wooing Moscow to let go of al-Assad and continue its “historic relationship” with Syria’s people. At the same time, the SNC has allegedly rejected an invite to Moscow. Whether the SNC and LCC will accept one of al-Assad’s vice presidents, Farouk al-Sharaa or Najah Al-Attar, remains uncertain, but the streets may take the decision out of their hands. Popular revolutionaries across the region are committed to regime change, not “sharing power” with the regime.
Another executive minister, Abdel Baset Seda, just clarified, "I say clearly that our position has not changed and it is that there is no dialogue with (President Bashar al-Assad).”
The council’s plan is to move forward in the UNSC and hope “the Arab League has the clout to convince the Russians to change their position.” Kodami says that Syrians expect “a serious Security Council resolution that says the council looks to blame the regime and then sets a period of time after which it will take other measures.” Meanwhile the SNC is mapping, coordinating with, and financing military groups operating in Syria and Turkey. Defected military commanders and experts are busy “linking them into some form of command chain."
In short, preparations are being made to infuse a long-term insurgency with foreign assistance.
At first Nicholas Sarkozy’s rhetoric sounded relatively harmless.
Pressured by an impending election, challenger Francois Hollande and chronically low approval for war in Afghanistan, France’s incumbent Prime Minister needed to make up some ground. Hollande has pledged to withdrawal all troops from Afghanistan and, sensing an opportunity to close the gap, Sarkozy utilized the deaths of four French soldiers (shot by a Taliban infiltrator) to float his own accelerated withdrawal. The premier initially backed off from his expedient reaction last Tuesday, when Foreign Minister Alain Juppe told Parliament that Sarkozy would make a decision after meeting Afghan President Hamid Karzai in Paris.
Pointing out a “clear distinction” between “organized withdrawal and rushed withdrawal," Juppe promised that his government “will not give in to panic.” Except Sarkozy is now generating this exact sensation in Afghanistan, Washington and NATO capitals after closing ranks with Karzai. His current plan would bring 1,000 of France’s 3,900 troops home in 2012 and accelerate the final withdrawal from 2014 to 2013. "A few hundred" advisers would remain in the country.
"The pursuit of the transition and this gradual transfer of combat responsibilities will allow us to plan for a return of all our combat forces by the end of 2013," he said on Friday.
What Sarkozy fails to address in depth is the disproportionate effects of his words and actions. The immediate military upshot could first manifest in Kapisa, where Sarkozy promised to transfer French control by March instead of late 2012. The Taliban is almost certain to mount an offensive in the vulnerable province, a possibility that could dampen NATO’s overall transfer of the country. Afghanistan’s provincial and national levels could then become trapped in a mutual cycle of violence and propaganda typical of fourth-generation warfare (4GW).
For their part, U.S. officials realize that Sarkozy’s primary damage was inflicted in the political sphere, not on the battlefield. Withdrawal is already unpopular with conservatives and President Barack Obama cannot accelerate based on French politics - even if both capitals may share the same political boat. Reactions range from terse to approving; U.S. Army Lt. Col. Jimmie Cummings insisted that "ISAF sees no effects to our current campaign plan.” Similarly, the State Department’s Victoria Nuland argued that Washington knew about Sarkozy’s change of course prior to the incident in Kapisa. Citing Sarkozy’s meeting with Karzai, she claimed that “this timetable was worked through both with the Afghans and with NATO as part of our collective process...”
“So this was a national decision of France. It was done in a managed way. We will all work with it. As the President has said with regard to our own presence, we are working on 2014. The alliance as a whole is working on 2014, but we are also going to work within this French decision.”
These comments indicate that the Obama administration is more worried than it publicly admits. An honest reaction was delivered by NATO’s own Secretary General, who warned Paris to make its decision “following consultations with commanders and ISAF partners.” Anders Fogh Rasmussen also told reporters, "It's important to the success of the operation that we maintain a commitment to this agreed plan.” The main threat of Sarkozy’s plan is overwhelmingly political in nature, and a textbook example of the dilemmas created by guerrilla warfare. Unwilling to be seen as acting in isolation, France’s premier also says he will use next month's NATO summit to accelerate its entire transfer.
"We have decided in a common accord with President Karzai to ask NATO to consider a total handling of NATO combat missions to the Afghan army over the course of 2013," Sarkozy said.
As the situation currently stands, France’s government would undertake a politically expedient decision with no basis in reality. Although the transfer of authority should occur as quickly as possible - many Afghans want foreign troops out of the country ASAP - much of Afghanistan remains unprepared for authorities to govern or police. This exchange cannot occur within two years. Of equal importance, Afghans won’t be leading Special Forces raids when 2014 dawns on the horizon. Karzai did qualify his conditions, saying 2013 marked the “earliest” deadline, but Sarkozy’s political damage is already being felt in Afghanistan’s provinces and capital.
Time will reveal the effects of Sarkozy’s reaction on NATO’s own coalition. Intense U.S. pressure is already being applied in order to keep the coalition from openly dividing, while British Prime Minister David Cameron attempted to establish a middle ground by relating to Paris: “Obviously, between now and 2014 there will be opportunities for different countries to reduce their troop numbers. Britain has reduced our troop numbers over the last year.”
However Cameron advised Sarkozy to act within NATO’s common perimeters, saying the rate of withdrawal and provincial transfers “should be the same for all of the members of NATO.”
Problematically for NATO, no contributing country enjoys a majority consensus on Afghanistan. The war is particularly unpopular in France, England, Germany, Italy, Spain and Australia, unnerving other contributors such as Poland. Sarkozy has effectively poisoned the well by unilaterally announcing a divisive proposal, one with significant approval in Western households. This damage is left to expand in all directions, starting with Afghanistan's provincial security and reverberating nationally by impairing the perceptions of Afghans. Boosting Taliban morale in the field is likely to be dwarfed by a propaganda campaign directed at NATO’s “weakness.”
Sarkozy’s rhetoric has opened Pandora’s Box a little wider. A concerted NATO effort is required to prevent France’s actions from becoming a systemic threat to the mission in Afghanistan.
President Barack Obama’s State of the Union address made minor headlines in Bahrain by ignoring its 11-month uprising. Pro-democracy protesters expected nothing less, having vocalized their realization of America’s double-standard for months. This new batch of silence, though, turns out to be particularly potent.
Not only did Obama refuse to tell Bahrainis or Americans what his administration is up to - he won’t even tell Congress.
Hoping to polish U.S.- Bahraini relations through arms, the White House and Pentagon carried their weapons package straight into the unwelcome obstacle of democracy. A small coalition of Senators (allegedly six) opposed to the deal, first leaked in September, would briefly raise Bahrain’s profile high enough to temporarily block the delivery. Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon knows the odds are stacked against Bahrain’s pro-democracy movement and hasn’t stopped lobbying the cause.
“Imagine if everyone in Congress had kept quiet and this arms sale had been completed,” Wyden wondered in December. “What kind of message would this have sent the world or to the people aspiring for freedom and democracy? America should NOT be rewarding brutal regimes with arms. It’s that simple.”
Instead of encouraging true reform in Bahrain, the Obama administration decided to respond by expanding the island’s political vacuum and media blackout. Copying the process of his “National Dialogue,” which collapsed in less a month, King Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa’s Independent Commission of Inquiry (BICI) took center stage as the administration defended its actions. All questions related to the arms sale and daily state-sponsored violence were redirected to the impending BICI, ultimately highlighting the regime’s willingness to reform. By offering silence and inaction to Bahrain’s opposition, the Obama administration telegraphed its intent to deploy arms under the BICI’s cover.
"There is merit in naming and shaming and embarrassing, in pushing, in enlisting public opinion, domestic and international,” said Cherif Bassiouni, who chaired and initially defended the King’s inquiry. “This is not the style of Secretary Clinton or President Obama, and I'm not sure they are necessarily doing the right choice.”
Nevertheless, the administration has decided that Bahrain’s profile dipped enough to smuggle the arms past Congress - using the most duplicitous means available. As Foreign Policy reports, “the State Department has not released details of the new sale, and Congress has not been notified through the regular process.” The administration “simply briefed a few congressional offices and is going ahead with the new sale,” disregarding the need for formal notifications and a public explanation. Congressional sources said the State Department found a “legal loophole” around $1 million notifications; the $50+ million package will be broken down into “multiple sales of less than $1 million” to “avoid the burden.” The packages’ contents (reportedly Humvees, missiles and other technology) are now being kept secret.
"The Bahraini government has shown little progress in improving their human rights record over the last few months and in some ways, their record has gotten worse," Wyden told The Cable in response to the administration's actions. "Protesters are still being hurt and killed, midnight arrests are still happening and the government continues to deny access to human rights monitors. The kingdom of Bahrain has not shown a true good faith effort to improve human rights in their country and the U.S. should not be rewarding them as if they have."
Naturally, U.S. officials continue to base their argument precisely on the “recommendations” of King Hamad’s BICI. They will likely hedge their language along a similar line as one of Foreign Policy’s anonymous sources, who welcomed the King’s “important initial steps” before urging him “to take action on the full range of recommendations that we believe will help lay the foundation for longer-term reform and reconciliation." After exploiting the BICI’s torture findings and rejecting its superficial reforms, Al Wefaq and a growing majority of street protesters no longer trust the King’s ability to reform.
"This message of ‘business as usual' will only strengthen the regime's belief that there will continue to be lack of consequences to their human rights violations internationally," Maryam al-Khawaja, the head of the foreign relations office at the Bahrain Center for Human Rights BCHR, told Foreign Policy. "At a time when the United States is already being criticized for practicing double standards when it comes to the so-called Arab spring, to the protesters in Bahrain, the U.S. selling any arms to the government of Bahrain is exactly like Russia selling arms to Syria. Bahrain has become the United States' test on how serious they are about standing against human rights violations, and they are failing miserably."
The administration’s impending shipment comes three weeks after the State Department’s Victoria Nuland insisted that Bahrain hasn’t “fallen off Washington’s radar.” Of course not - the administration is actively minimizing its uprising. More weeks of silence would elapse as funerals were dispersed with ubiquitous tear gas and protesters died of “mysterious” circumstances. No U.S. response followed the government’s assault on Al Wefaq’s office, while Nabeel Rajab’s confrontation with security forces prompted both concern and praise for the King. The BCHR chairman is a vocal critic of U.S. policy in Bahrain and has directed his energy towards its double-standard. These factors generate a jarring experience: the Obama administration seeks to restore public confidence in U.S.-Bahraini relations, but must do so in secret.
The same juxtaposition is unfolding at a policy level. Maria McFarland, deputy Washington director at Human Rights Watch, predicted in September, "By continuing its relationship as if nothing had happened, the US is furthering an unstable situation."
Following his interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski, former National Security Advisor and one of Washington’s highest ranking Ministers Without Portfolio, Charlie Rose keeps the spotlight on Iran and China by interviewing Tom Donilon. President Barack Obama's National Security Adviser also praised his boss as a “natural executive,” before engaging in some PR on behalf of Egypt’s Supreme Council of Armed Forces (SCAF).
If only U.S. foreign policy was as comprehensive as its accompanying propaganda campaign.
And speaking of Ministers Without Portfolios - a common position in Israel’s government, the State Department has clarified Dennis Ross’s status in Washington. The former Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for the Central Region was never going to embrace private life after resigning in November 2011, instead wading back into the Beltway until a position opened in the next administration. However Ross never officially left Obama’s White House, despite his formal declaration, and retains his security clearance. He visits every week and meets regularly with Obama’s National Security Council.
Yesterday a senior Israeli official confirmed that Ross met Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu after requesting a “private” meeting to jumpstart Israeli-Palestinian negotiations. The State Department's Victoria Nuland would tell reporters on Friday, "Dennis has been a good partner to administrations of all kinds, whether he was in government or out of government, and always remains in close touch."
“We have done everything we can to recruit and retain Dennis in the government,” Donilon remarked upon Ross's "resignation." “He is one of those rare individuals who has global reach.” Ross also represents a key piece of the U.S. mainstream narrative that Obama has been overly harsh to the Israelis, and too soft on the Palestinians. The opening paragraphs of his recent Washington Post op-ed placed all of the blame on Mahmoud Abbas instead of Netanyahu; “changing the realities on the ground” functions as a codeword for allowing Israel to dictate these realities on its terms. Ross presumably lobbied Netanyahu to offer the Palestinians as little as possible in order to build their confidence in the Israeli government, a process that is likely to yield a lopsided final-status agreement.
So goes life for the point-man of backchannel negotiations between Washington and Jerusalem - another “foreign policy success” for the Obama administration.
What has changed since protesters first massed in Cairo’s streets demanding the end of Hosni Mubarak’s regime? Everything or nothing remains the same, depending on the respondent. Wednesday’s scene in Tahrir Square unfolded as if hurled through a parallel dimension, with cautious peace replacing anxious violence and Egypt’s political parties joining the youth-induced civil movement.
Most noticeable of all, the revolution’s main opponent has reversed polarity from the weaker Mubarak to his mighty Supreme Council of Armed Forces (SCAF).
Wednesday's calm was a product of this strength, a “goodwill gesture” designed to cast Egypt’s military council as the revolution’s eternal guardian (security forces lurked on Tahrir’s outskirts). Egypt’s SCAF launched a variety of counter-revolutionary initiatives after Mubarak collapsed in February, but few more pivotal than its information warfare against pro-democracy protesters. Exploiting its media powers to spin the revolutionaries as Egypt’s new enemy, the SCAF has manipulated all aspects of society by oscillating between condemnation and praise. State media “repeatedly warned the public of a foreign-financed plot to undermine Egypt on Wednesday.”
The previous week, during a setup speech for January 25th, Field Marshall Hassan Tantawi declared, "Egypt is facing grave dangers it has not seen before. The armed forces is the backbone that protects Egypt. These schemes are aimed at targeting that backbone. We will not allow it and will carry out our task perfectly to hand over the nation to an elected civilian administration."
Tantawi would build on these statements in another nationally-televised address by “partially” lifting Egypt’s emergency law, arguing “we've never deviated from the aims of the revolution.” He also deployed the blanket label of “thuggery” to defend future crackdowns against pro-democracy protesters; Mohamed Attiya, a member of the Jan. 25 Youth Coalition, said that “thuggery” has become Egypt’s equivalent of “terrorism.” Shaping negative public opinion around the revolutionaries facilitates the SCAF’s political hegemony and cushioned its heavy-handed crackdown.
Yasser Ramadan of the April 6 Youth Movement explained, "People began to hate the revolution and thought it only made the economic situation bad. It's been hard to make the people believe in the revolution again."
Armed with this impression, the SCAF took preemptive action to solidify its authority after a new constitution is drafted, and subsequently leveraged political parties to keep these powers when a civilian government is sworn in. The SCAF’s totalitarian tendencies - Tantawi and his generals obeyed Mubarak for decades - eventually alienated Mohamed ElBaradei, one of Egypt’s liberal presidential candidates. Although ElBaradei lacks widespread popularity inside Egypt, he is viewed as a relatively honest and capable leader.
He recently warned that the SCAF "has insisted on going down the same old path, as if no revolution took place and no regime has fallen.”
The SCAF, on the other hand, isn’t overly concerned with ElBaradei’s decision (even though he was reportedly urged to delay his announcement). Tantawi immediately perceived the division between Tahrir and Egypt’s political opposition, especially the Muslim Brotherhood, and has capitalized on their parliamentary gains to widen this gap. Either unwilling to confront the SCAF or awaiting a later opportunity, the Brotherhood is playing along by mirroring the council’s double-sided rhetoric. Days ago the group’s secretary-general, Mohammed Badie, told a televised audience that parliament “will scrutinize the military's budget and hold the army accountable for mistakes made during the transition.”
"We respect and appreciate the army but the military council must be held accountable for any mistakes," he promised. "No one is above accountability."
Other officials, such as spokesman Mahmoud Ghozlan, then apply a counter-spin: “The army is the army of the people. Some of its activities must be surrounded with secrecy and we respect that.”
Parts of the Brotherhood’s behavior can be rationalized in a beneficial way; no group possesses as much leverage to check the SCAF, leaving some protesters comfortable with the dual track of political and street pressure. This is all they can reasonably hope for in a pluralistic Egypt. However the SCAF expects much from the Brotherhood in return for political favoritism in a post-Mubarak world, a dangerous prospect for the revolutionaries. The Brotherhood regularly abstained from demonstrations against the SCAF and flooded national protests, and its Freedom and Justice Party now holds a near-majority when the 100-member drafting committee meets on a new constitution.
The SCAF will attempt to dominate this process directly and indirectly, as control over Egypt’s parliament and constitution will shield investigations into its commercial assets. Already expecting immunity for crimes committed by the military and police since Mubarak’s fall, Tantawi’s ultimate goal is finding a suitable President before June 30th.
The SCAF has further streamlined its operations by maintaining the support of Western powers, notably America. With Gulf states keeping their relations intact - the Saudi-bankrolled Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) sent Bahrain’s King to reel in Tantawi - Washington completes the international community’s buffer around Egypt’s generals, allowing them to act with minimal consequences. The SCAF is viewed as the key to every door: preserving Israel’s treaty, controlling the Muslim Brotherhood and Al-Nour Party, inking economic deals and sidelining the youth movement. Days of violence often passed before Washington expressed “concern,” even holding the military and protesters equally responsible. Raids on NGOs, a tactic specifically designed to test Washington’s limits and manipulate Egyptians, generated private discussions and eventual praise from Defense Secretary Leon Panetta.
Unconcerned with his image in Egypt’s streets, “President Obama called Egyptian Field Marshal Tantawi today [Jan. 20th] to reaffirm the close partnership between the United States and Egypt and to underscore the United States’ support for Egypt’s transition to democracy.” When Tantawi announced a partial end to Egypt’s emergency law, the State Department’s Victoria Nuland welcomed these “good steps” before taking a question on Tantawi’s use of the word “thuggery.”
“Well, there was a little footnote on this, as I understand it, that it would continue to be applied in the case of thuggery and other small cases... We are seeking some clarification from the Egyptian Government what they mean by that. But the fact that they are finally, after these many, many months of demands, taking the major step is very important for Egypt and for its future.”
As if Tantawi’s constant use of “thuggery” requires clarification.
Facing overwhelming forces, Egypt’s revolutionaries have persevered beyond any expectations outside of themselves and their supporters. The energy of youth can only accomplish so much in the face of overwhelming historic and financial powers. These groups inevitably lack experience in the political arena, contrasting the savvy veterans within the SCAF and organized parties, and need years to equalize the playing field. This inexperience is why revolution still affords the ultimate school to Egypt’s youth, strengthening them through education and by forcing them to engage on the national level. These groups will mature through a trial of fire and gradually expand their role in a new Egypt.
Wael Ghomen, one of Egypt’s high-profile revolutionaries, was recently asked by The New York Times, “As there was no clear alternative to Mubarak, was it unwise to encourage revolution?
“I’m fully aware of a lot of opinions that this was a very big downside of the revolution — that it had no leadership to take over after Mubarak stepped down. Only history will judge. Regardless, a lot of Egyptians are now empowered.”
Consequently, revolutionaries mobilized to check anti-democratic forces throughout 2011 and will continue for as long as necessary. Many outsiders perceive their actions as a failure, but their absence would allow the SCAF to delay and manipulate Egypt’s democratic transition with relative impunity. Some revolutionaries admit to temporary defeat, or else concede a return to square one, before affirming their determination to continue organizing. Others believe that their revolution isn’t back in square one, never went away, and isn’t starting anew.
They will tell you that 2012 marks the second year of Egypt’s democratic revolution.
After boycotting Nouri al-Maliki’s government for the last six weeks, Iraq’s Sunni-aligned Iraqiya List returned on Tuesday to participate in Baghdad’s parliamentary session. Immediately billed as a confidence-building measure that could “ease” Iraq’s political crisis, both Iraqiya and U.S. officials say the decision paves the ground for Baghdad’s looming “national conference.” Except a major caveat obstructs Washington’s efforts to spin progress out of a crisis that it helped generate.
