What is Mursi Up To?

What is Muhammad Mursi's plan?  It is difficult not to take him at his word - that the powers he seized under a set of decrees last Thursday which greatly enhanced his power and prevented the judiciary from challenging any action he might take - would be dropped when a constituion is finalized (now extended from the end of December to the end of February).  However, the make-up of the Constituant Assembly is heavily weighted toward the Muslim Brotherhood. 

Keep in mind that many secularist and Christian representatives have resigned from the Assembly which is drafting the new constitution. Despite Mursi's attitude of inclusiveness, which even if true is not what his party believes, the risk that a liberal, pluralist and inclusive society will not arise seems to be more likely than before. Consequently, the constitution may eventually be so non-inclusive and religiously oriented that almost 50% of the country will be subject to a loss of rights that it expects. 

In the meantime, the key decree, at least for me, is the one that says the president may take any steps he feels necessary to preserve the revolution, or national unity, or the country’s security. Coupled with the other decrees preventing the judiciary from questioning or dissolving the Islamist dominated Constituent Assembly or upper house of Parliament, these decrees are a recipe for a potential disaster between now and the end of February.

Mursi's margin of victory was slim, to say the least.  If half the country believes that the revolution is under threat and that the constitution is one-sided, under the circumstances of the Egyptian environment, the much wished for stability could rapidly circle the drain.

The Good Guys

WE WIN

US Election Prediction

Time's up for Romney and his pack of racsist, knuckle dragging mouth breathers and his wealthy financiers.  I give Virginia and Florida to the racists but not Ohio, despite an Attorney General who believes in voter suppression.

EV - Obama between 290 and 303. 

Republican and Mitt's Geography Lesson of the Day

Since this is a foreign policy blog, I won’t deal with the misogynistic proclivities of the Republican Party and its slimy politicians. What is interesting is their complete lack of depth in international affairs (at least ever since their Christianista Misogynist in Chief, Richard Mourdock won the primary against Senator Lugar in Indiana).

Aside from the astoundingly cluelessness of Mitt Romney in general at the final debate with President Obama, there was a remarkable moment when he floated the notion that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad could be indicted for his inflammatory statements against Israel. The Iranian President was once quoted saying that Israel “must be wiped off the map,” though the translation was later revealed to be just a tad wrong.

“I’d make sure that Ahmadinejad is indicted under the Genocide Convention. His words amount to genocide incitation,” Romney said.

That was followed quickly by one of Romney’s advisors, Eric Fehrnstrom, suggesting that the World Court could arrest Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

First of all, can someone please supply the world with the address of the “World Court”?

No?

I didn’t think so. And for a political cult party that, along with its tea-bag followers, finds international agreements and institutions loathsome, appealing to one, even though it doesn’t exist, strikes me as a bit of a stretch, even for these buffoons.

In case these moth-brained neo-cons haven’t noticed, their cartoon compatriot Ahmadinejad is going to be out of a job pretty soon; so, unless they act quickly to get the "World Court" to issue an indictment and provide the "World Police" with a warrant to parachute into Iran, snatch their suspect and whisk him away to the "World Jail" where he can await trial by the "World Court" as soon as a "World Prosecutor" can be found they will miss the moment.

On more thing. Republicans, like a good number of their disciples, couldn't find Iran with a map and a flashlight. Hence, this statement by Mitt at the debate:

"Secondly, Syria’s an opportunity for us because Syria plays an important role in the Middle East, particularly right now. Syria is Iran’s only ally in the Arab world. It’s their route to the sea."

Uhm. Well. No.

According to the CIA fact book, Iran's coastline consists of pretty nice beachfront on the Persian Gulf leading out to the Gulf of Oman which is connected (get the map Republican boys and girls) to the Indian Ocean. That's 1,520 miles of sipping pina-coladas and sunbathing by the sea while watching its excuse for a navy go by. If that's not enough, then they can float some toy ships on the Caspian as well - anywhere along 460 miles of shoreline.

Oh, yeah. Iran doesn't border Syria, although thanks to the last American president they were gifted Iraq, so I guess that's something

Rocks and Hard Places - Turkish Edition

I’ve just returned from Turkey and unless you’ve been living on Pluto, the four days of shelling by Syrian forces of Turkish towns, killing civilians, and counter-fire by the Turkish army is big news.  Turkey has warned that it is very close to war and the al-Assad regime must cease its attacks – or else.   The “or else” should be of concern to everyone because it is very clear that the Syrian regime is engaging in desperate measures to stay alive and attempting to provoke a war with Turkey in the hopes of destabilizing Turkey with the help of the PKK in the southeastern part of the country.

Turkey should not take the bait.

The Syrian army, consisting of little more than small units in the region and having lost control of large swathes of territory and border crossings, is in no condition to resist a Turkish assault.  It could be swept from the border area and would likely end up in a burning heap along the roads leading to Damascus.  That is not in the interests of Turkey for several reasons.

The first is that the Turkish economy is growing at 7% and has been doing so for a good part of the last decade.  A war puts the economy at serious risk of losing momentum, if not stopping growth altogether.  The towns along the Syrian border and the southeast in general had been booming until the Assad regime’s struggle for survival brought trade crashing to the ground.

Second, the PKK is under extraordinary pressure both militarily and politically. Turkey maintains military bases inside Iraq (much to Baghdad’s ineffective vocal objections) to counter PKK activities while at the same time Ankara has pursued a policy of inclusion for the Kurds within its borders.  A war puts political stability inside Turkey at risk, would energize the PKK and cause turmoil in large parts of eastern Turkey.

Third, Ankara is clearly aware of the geo-political problems in the region.  The Assad regime is allied with Iran, Iraq and Hezbollah in Lebanon.  Iran has invested considerable money and reputation into the fight – money it can ill afford to lose, not to mention losing the political advantages it has gained since the Iraq war.  Without Russian support, the Assad regime could not continue its policy of slaughter. Russia is a major trading partner of Turkey and furthermore, controls the politics of Armenia which impacts Turkey’s resource rich ally, Azerbaijan.

Fourth, Turkey cannot count on NATO for support.  Although it has the right under international law to defend itself, invoking Article 5 to bring in all of NATO is likely to go nowhere.  The US and Europe, with the probable exception of France, have no stomach for war in the region.  Syria is not Libya and military intervention by NATO – which is the default military organization – would trigger large asymmetrical responses by Iran and its surrogate Hezbollah that would affect Israel and the Gulf.  Turkey would be on its own.

A full scale border crossing, no doubt inflicting what would be crushing losses on the Syrian military, would have economic, social and political repercussions that cannot be predicted, but all of which can be described charitably as not good for Turkey.

The Turkish Parliament has voted in favour of a motion permitting the government to engage in cross-border raids on Syria and in the past few days, the Turkish military has moved additional tanks and mechanized units to the region hoping to send a message.  Prime Minister Erdoğan said yesterday “I am calling once more on the al-Assad regime and its supporters: Don’t dare to test Turkey’s patience,” adding that testing Turkey’s capacity for deterrence would be “a fatal mistake.”  The motion authorizing raids is not a blank check, however; more importantly, It was on the agenda in any event to renew the authorization for the Iraq bases targeting the PKK.  The timing is coincidental. Hopefully, Damascus will get the message.

Russian and Iranian support will not save al-Assad or his regime as rebels continue to seize territory and have failed to be dislodged from Homs, Aleppo or villages along the border with Turkey.  I don’t doubt that Turkey will launch cross-border missions to clear out Syrian military positions  if necessary – but they can be pushed back out of range without doing so and provide leverage so that  the rebel units in the area could take control. 

At the end of the day Turkey needs to show restraint – difficult under the type of provocation pursued by Damascus.  They are trapped between national interest and national honour.  But, Turkey has more to lose than gain if it unleashes its army.   

The Syrian civil war, now a sectarian one as well, will be a swamp which, once sucked into, will be difficult to escape.  Unfortunately, NATO and the West are tired of nation building and the UN is paralyzed by Russian pretensions of being a major power and Chinese fundamental principle of non-interference. Turkey is left with little choice but to deal with the situation that involves a civil war along hundreds of miles of its border and more than 100,000 refugees.  The rest of world will let Turkey sort this out and it does not have a lot of choices for maneuver.  One choice however – massive military intervention – should be avoided.

Be Careful What You Wish For...

Iran, hosting the non-aligned conference this week in Tehran, launched a strenuous effort to get Mohamed Mursi, the new Egyptian president, to attend.  They were successful and really, really happy. 

Mursi, on the other hand, revealed a level of independence that no one – NO ONE – anticipated as he condemned the Syrian government and urged the Syrian rebels to unify and turn out President Assad.  No doubt somewhat shocked, the Syrian delegation walked out.  More importantly, the Iranian government likely had a collective heart attack as Mursi, a conservative from the Muslim Brotherhood (feared and loathed by the Americans and Israelis) basically told Iran that he supported the rebels whom the West want to see take down Assad, putting him on the same side as Turkey, Western Europe and the US and against Russia, Iran and the current Syrian government. I leave China out because their veto of the UN resolutions, where they joined Russia, were  based on the principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of another country (not liking the idea that it could be applied to them) rather than the vaporization of an ally and major arms purchaser.  

As if to rub salt into the wound, Mursi then went on to compare the rebel cause in Syria to the plight of the Palestinians.  Just to be clear – the Palestinian cause is sacred to Egypt and a frequent, convenient rallying point for Iranian propaganda.  Mursi has effectively put Iran in the shoes of Israel vis a vis the Syrian rebels. Sting much? 

This speech is clearly not what Iran wanted and ups their cost as they will now have to deal with an increasingly annoyed Turkish government, the vast wealth of Qatar and Saudi Arabia and now a moral opponent in the leading Arab state of Egypt supposedly being run by one of their own. This is clearly not the optimum outcome from the point of view of the Iranian Ministry of Foreign Affairs nor will Hezbollah be celebrating in the streets of Beirut.  Hezbollah leadership is likely re-calibrating everything at this point.

Multiple  factors seem to be in play. Aside from the fact that President Mursi is a creation of the Egyptian revolution and likely feels a good deal of sympathy for the similar revolt in Syria which began peacefully and was met by violent responses from the Assad family,  Mursi is Sunni in a largely Sunni country.  Turkey is Sunni as well.  The Sunni minority in Iraq has been sidelined from power, with the Sunni Vice President forced to flee to Istanbul.  Iran has the upper hand in Iraq (thanks Bush Jr.) and Egypt wants Western, Qatari and Saudi money and investment.  Qatar and Saudi Arabia are, like Egypt and Syria, Arab.  Iran is decidedly not Arab or Sunni and, to make matters worse is flexing its muscle in the direction of the Gulf Arab states.

So, now the game becomes more complex.  Moscow is sweating and Iran is probably not in the best of moods.  An interesting sidelight to this is the American displeasure that the non-aligned movement held its conference in Tehran.  They actively tried to convince the UN Secretary General not to attend (any place, except Iran).  The Republican Party railed against the meeting and the UN – largely because they prefer killing to peace - and thought a dictator like Hosni Mubarak was their kinda guy.  Who’s laughing now?

Assad said the army was “cleansing” society and needed some time to finish the job.  Not the best choice of words.  Once ground-to-air missiles and some anti-armour weapons begin to make their impact through the largess of Qatar and the Saudi’s, Moscow should start to fixture a nice dacha for him.

For Assange - What now? What now?

Now that the Ecuadorian government has granted political asylum to Julian Assange (for those living on Pluto, the Wikileaks founder) to escape extradition to Sweden on sexual abuse allegations resulting in - ultimately - a snatch to the US, what now?  He is confined within the walls of the Ecuadorian London embassy.  For his purposes, not very optimal.

Leaving aside the arguments of whether publishing communications of limited value, aside from some amusing and embarrassing anecdotes and to which literally millions had access anyway, is some sort of crime - the granting of asylum could hardly have been a surprise to anyone with half a brain.  The current government in Ecuador is not especially supportive of the US and its foreign policy, for one thing.  It also sees the UK as in the pocket of the US.

However, even if there was a chance that Ecuador would reject the plea for asylum, the UK foreign office certainly slammed the door on that possibility by announcing that, under UK law, it could legally strip the embassy of its status, storm in and arrest poor Julian and ship him off to Stockholm.  Simply pointing our the law was a threat.  Have the people in the UK government been standing too long in the hot sun?  Were they running a high fever?  What ever made them think that floating the idea was a good plan?  If anything was going to guarantee a decision to grant asylum, that certainly was going to do it, while simultaneously enraging the government of Ecuador.  Furthermore, such an action would create a precedent of unaccountable proportions.  It doesn't need to be spelt out.

Why not have the Swedish government fly over a bunch of their crack prosecution team with the witness making the claims (who, apparently has not even been questioned) and conduct an interview inside the Ecuadorian embassy to determine if a case really exists?  If it is shown that the allegations are for real and that enough evidence exists to support an arrest (he has not been arrested) and criminal trial, it is likely that the Ecuadorian government will be placed in an awkward position and request his departure.