Freedom without democracy?

A new book, With Liberty and Justice for Some, argues that the system is stacked in favor of the elite, regardless of which political party runs Washington.

With only five percent of the world's population, the United States nevertheless holds nearly one-quarter of all prisoners in the entire world. And yet, nearly no one ever goes to prison in America for violating the United States Constitution or crimes against the American people. That includes everything from illegal wiretapping of thousands of U.S. citizens, to the financial meltdown that engulfed our nation just over three years ago. In fact, our financial agencies are controlled by executives of Goldman Sachs and a few other major banking firms, regardless of which party controls Washington.

I've been blogging this past year about how Egypt will remain under the same military rule, regardless of whether the brave demonstrators in Cairo succeeded in getting Mubarak removed as the President (though I had hoped otherwise). Russia will continue to be run by the same security apparatus and moneyed classes as before, but this past month's popular protests will force them to scale back some of their control and possibly change one or both faces at the top. Whatever it takes...

In the United States, a previous generation mounted full-scale protests against military adventurism in Vietnam and racism at home, and truly changed the face of our land. New laws were enacted, freedoms were expanded, and public welfare enhanced for millions. 

But do we have effective and functional democracy today?

The real meaning of Sarkozy-Obama chat

Many people still seem curious or worried about what the recently overheard exchange between President Obama and French President Sarkozy reveals about their bias against Israel and its Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu. There is reason to worried and buoyed, but not in the way most observers -- whether left-wing or right-wing -- might think.

The first lesson is not that Sarkozy's statement -- that Netanyahu is a "liar" -- reflects the innate anti-Semitism of European leaders. (Obama commiserated, noting that he has to deal with Netanyahu "every day".) It's that Netanyahu has managed to forfeit the trust of one of Israel's most ardent champions on the Continent. The French invented modern diplomacy, so they are used to bearing the endemic deceit and betrayal of international wheeling and dealing.

(It would be ironic if the publication of memoirs by the son of Israel's former Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon, was the impetus for Sarkozy's claim, since Sharon famously uttered the same charge to Netanyahu in person.)

Sarkozy has been committed to assuring Israel's security and to tolerating Israeli actions that most of his colleagues roundly condemn. He has long contended -- at least in off-the-record meetings -- that if the West does not stop Iran's nuclear program, then Israel will do so on its own. So, if Netanyahu has managed to alienate Sarkozy, one of Europe's most powerful politicians, that speak more to Netanyahu and Israel's own course than to anything else.

What's a Great Power to do?? (see under: Syria)

What's a Great Power to do?

Syrian mobs loyal to President Bashar Assad attacked the U.S. and French embassies earlier today in Damascus, at the urging of pro-regime radio, with the evident collusion of Syrian police, and by the calculated strategy of Assad himself. This same tool was used by his father, the late President Hafez Assad.

The casus belli was the recent, principled visit by both ambassadors to Hama, amid a brutal crackdown against brave democracy demonstrators, nearly 30 years after Assad Senior slaughtered upwards of 10,000 civilians in the same city.

Assad takes advantage of the fact that the West has few remaining sticks left against him, short of a costly and complicated invasion scenario. We also have an abiding self-interest in the continuation of his late father's despotic dynasty or at least in an orderly and legitimate transition toward democracy - as do the Israelis. To some extent, Assad has called the West's bluff. With all the emphasis on democratic change around the Middle East and Africa these days, the United States has no option but to at least talk the talk. But when it comes to Syria, U.S. policymakers are loath to do much more than protest and punish -- regime change, especially with Iran covering the exits on both sides, is not something we're willing to contemplate.

The strike on the French Embassy also serves as a reminder to all, within Syria and across Europe and the Atlantic, that Syrian grievances extend beyond the perceived sins of America, and that Assad's best claim to power is the self-fulfilling and contradictory ethos of Syrian exceptionalism, regional domination, and international isolation. But, as they like to say in Washington, "make no mistake"-- the Assads have always been ruthless, and the West has always tried to look the other way. The non-lethal attacks on embassies are neither the first nor the last straw. But a fellow can still wish, can't he?

Downplaying violence of Libya's rebels helps no one

The Libyan rebellion could end today, if Muammar Qaddafi decides to take some deal from the international community and the forces opposing him, or it could continue for some time. What distinguishes Libya from the other countries being overtaken by popular frustration and protests is that Qaddafi's opposition is armed, organized, and dangerous.

Non-violent protest is a noble undertaking, and where it inspires or succeeds, all the better. In Libya's case, tribal allegiances have been suppressed for 40-plus years, the regime has been especially brutal, and Qaddafi unleashed his wrath and fury early in the peaceful phase of demonstrations. The American Revolution was certainly violent, and it had to be, though the British oppression that provoked it was mostly economic and political rather than physical. Non-violence is not a prerequisite for legitimacy.

The outcome is far from certain, even if the rebels succeed. Will there be anything resembling a democracy that respects minority rights? There seems to be no military guarantor of security and stability, as has so far emerged in Egypt. Although many nations, including recently the United States, have traded with Qaddafi's Libya and supplied weapons, the West cannot be considered his sponsor in any substantive sense. His downfall need not be a rebuke against Washington, and NATO, the European Union and the United Nations Security Council seem to be mostly on the same page.

Aside from possibly establishing a limited "no fly zone", we need to give the rebels some space to wage their own battle for Tripoli. Whatever Libyan government results will likely be no more lethal than Qaddafi has been over the years, and there will probably be more opportunity for collective leadership and transparency.

Overall, the press coverage and commentary have downplayed the two-way violence in Libya, exception for concerns that weaponry might find its way into the hands of terrorists (imagine that!). Discounting the rebels' use of force does a disservice to the Tunisian and Egyptian transformations still underway, and to the murmurings of change elsewhere in the region.

There is no shame in a violent uprising, especially if it is justified and moreso if it is objective reality. The price of liberty is not just martyrdom, it can also be violent combat and ruthless aggression against a tyrant. It would be valuable for a Western audience to be reminded of this once in a while.

Bad timing for US to withdraw from the world

Once again, the United Nations plays a role in the world. Changes throughout the Middle East have underscored the Secretary-General's potential as a moral voice. International sanctions against the Qaddafi regime were rapidly adopted through the Security Council. The Human Rights Council, often reduced to slavish condemnations of Israel, has issued condemnations of the massacres in Libya. Major powers are debating whether to refer Libya to the International Criminal Court (ICC) or send in UN Peacekeeping forces, or "Blue Helmets".

The UN has been useful in other crises, including the Haiti earthquake. But more than crises, 99.99 percent of the UN's budget has nothing to do with condemning Israel (OK, so what if it's only 99.8 percent...). World health, hunger, economic development, literacy -- these are global causes that require a global response.

As the situation in Libya reminds us (especially those of us so "blessed" to have interacted with Qaddafi!), a large number of nations are not run democratically. That may be a good reason to support democratic evolution, and even revolution (or counter-revolution) in a few dozen countries, but it is a poor excuse for trashing the UN itself, or walking away from the whole diplomatic exercise, as various UN critics routinely advocate.

How not to prevent mass murder in Libya

Some well-meaning human rights advocates, among them supporters of Israel, are responding to Qaddafi's mounting campaign against his own people with calls to investigate human rights practices in Libya. This reminds me of the evangelist sporting a sandwich board with the words "Repent Now," as an asteroid is about to obliterate New York City.

There were some noble and tactical efforts to expose Qaddafi's human rights violations over the years, especially while Libya has been a member of the United Nations Human Rights Council. But right at this moment, the actual and potential loss of life in Libya is staggering. Auditing tax returns and dispatching a special rapporteur -- even expelling Libya from the Council -- will have zero impact on how many thousands Qaddafi massacres in a desperate bid to preserve his rule or exact revenge.

Qaddafi runs out of realpolitik

It is fitting that members of Libya's UN delegation have resigned in protest against the ongoing slaughter of hundreds of protesters at the hands of Muammar Qaddafi's regime, and that the Security Council is finally convening (privately) to address the situation on the ground. In fairness, the Council first needed to go through the motions on a resolution condemning Israeli settlements, though everyone knew the United States would veto that, anyway.


All this begs the question: Why now? Qaddafi has been a ruthless dictator for four decades. Washington restored relations with Libya a few years ago, when Libya agreed to pay compensation for a string of terrorist attacks including Lockerbie (the bombing of Pan Am 103) and to abandon its dubious nuclear weapons program, while the United Kingdom has sold Libya millions in "crowd-control" equipment. 

Over the years, it's probable that Qaddafi has supported various insurgent movements across Africa, though in recent years he has supported regional security and the status quo. Just last year, however, behind closed doors, he stunned his fellow Arab leaders by going around the table assigning each a specific number of tanks and jets with which to destroy Israel.

Qaddafi has finally gone too far, even for the Security Council, even for Brazil which holds the rotating presidency of the Council this month, even for Russia, China and the other permanent Council members. Libya's now-former envoys are safe enough in New York, especially with Qaddafi's assassins probably seeking new clients.

Rather than transforming his regime, Qaddafi appealed to the international community's sense of cold realpolitik. That succeeded for a time, but now realpolitik and its incentives have swung around in his face. Isolating Qaddafi may be convenient, and it may be politic in anticipation of his opposition taking power, but it is still the proper course of action.

At the UN, Palestinian timing falls flat

What’s the secret to telling a good j-- TIMING!

A month ago today, I blogged here that Israel’s Foreign Minister couldn’t seem to get a break. Now the timing has turned against Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas. 

Egged on by the Arab League, Abbas has dropped the ball on direct negotiations with Israel that might have delivered some new concessions for Palestinians, or would at least put the Israeli side in a tough spot. At the insistence of the Palestinian Authority, and Lebanon as the sponsor, the United Nations Security Council voted on a resolution condemning Israeli settlement activity. The United States exercised its veto, as one of the five permanent members of the Council.

Not only is Abbas in the process of losing some or most of the same old faces around the Arab League table (Tunisia and Egypt and Libya? Oh my!), Israel is starting to look a little better than it did two months ago. At this moment in Mideast history, it would be hard to dispute that the most reliable, stable country is, in fact, Israel. No one would suggest any possibility of Israel's government being overthrown except in the Knesset or at the ballot box. It's an imperfect democracy, but it is a democracy nonetheless. And perhaps the contrast has never before been so widespread, obvious, and accessible. 

This also makes the spectacle of last Friday’s vote even more absurd than usual.

Defying the United States once again, Abbas forced President Obama into vetoing the resolution, which undercuts U.S. credibility going forward, when Abbas may need it. By emphasizing settlements now at the United Nations, when President Obama is still recuperating from two years of pointless refereeing between Israelis and Palestinians, Abbas has hardly endeared him to the Palestinian cause. 

Why Bahrain matters

I was very flattered to be invited to last December's Manama Dialogue, in Bahrain, and the experience itself was unique: Iranians and Arabs, Americans and Europeans, ministers and experts, all sharing perspectives and strategies for regional stability and security -- and all on a small slice of sand between the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the Islamic Republic of Iran.

No one who visits Bahrain, or any country, for just a few days can get behind all the posturing and pathos -- no matter how small or large the country, regardless of whether one has 500 Twitter followers or one million. But here is how I see the outcome so far.

I am deeply saddened by the loss of life. I had really thought that Bahrain could turn a corner this week for the entire region, that engaging in open and peaceful dialogue would offer an example of how monarchies need not fear peaceful dissent; that the Iranian regime would be more strongly repudiated by comparison with a sophisticated, confident and tolerant Bahrain; that the whole region might see that Bahrain's courtship with the West helped its rulers find a golden path to consensus-building and moral inspiration.

The particular challenges facing Bahrain had made its achievements that much more impressive. It is the Gulf state most vulnerable to Iran's regional machinations. Without trivializing this week's protesters or their grievances, it's inconceivable that Iran hasn't found some way to manipulate elements of the native Shia opposition. Bahrain is small, not among the wealthiest of oil nations (yes, there is the U.S. Fifth Fleet), and it has pushed to embrace the West on all fronts while maintaining an absolute monarchy. 

Why Iran hopes Egypt's waves hit Bahrain ASAP

[Update: Since posting the entry below, I learned that one death resulted from today's confrontations. The loss of life is tragic and my thoughts are with the people of Bahrain, but my analysis has not changed.]


Every country has restive populations with legitimate grievances, and that includes the United States. Bahrain is no exception, either. But today's demonstrations by members of the Shia majority are extremely convenient for those clinging to the status quo in Iran, barely half a tankful of gas across the Gulf from Manama.

The Bahrain police put down the protests, at the same time Iranian police were putting down a massive opposition rally in Tehran with even more violent means. Iran's subversive strategy across the Gulf -- and in Iraq, Lebanon, Gaza -- raises significantly greater concern in Arab political circles than anything Ahmadinejad's regime could be developing in its declared and undeclared nuclear facilities.

The irony of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's government -- lacking international legitimacy since his farcical 2009 "re-election" -- extolling the Egyptian revolution while denying the right of its own opposition to rally in solidarity with the people of Egypt is sadly unremarkable. Suppressing democracy rallies at home may be necessary for his regime, but it's not the best messaging. Enter the latest Shia protests in Bahrain, and just in time.

Egypt loses its rallying cry

Mubarak has stepped down - wonderful!!! He has transferred power to the military, though last night he'd transferred most powers to his new Vice President and recovering intelligence czar -- in other words, that constitution we were so worried about using is no longer in effect.

There is both good news and bad news. The United States can now force the Egyptian military to comply with democratic changes (if we so choose) without appearing to betray Mubarak the Ally, while the Egyptian people have lost the personification of their grievances.

Can even 10 million Egyptians really take power from "the military"? Possibly, if they can push enough soldiers to defect or a least stand down. Without serious pressure from the United States (apologies to Europe), the people may not have much of a chance. Much of the decision remains in the hands of the military-turned-junta -- are they willing to gun down hundreds of peaceful but determined demonstrators? And what would be Washington's response in such a case?

On Mubarak, a choice between credibility or legitimacy

The Obama administration is in an awkward situation. By not clearly calling for Mubarak's rotted regime to vacate the national institutions and hand over power to a genuine transition government, the United States is rapidly losing credibility both in the region and back at home. But to step in and force an outcome could instantly undermine the legitimacy of our own global role, much as the U.S. invasion of Iraq did under George W. Bush. 

I have been blogging in recent weeks in support of democracy in Tunisia, and now in Egypt (though Tunisia already needs a booster shot). So it is with disappointment (but not yet resignation) that I note: Hosni Mubarak's status under international law has not changed since the "January 25" protests started. He has been an autocratic leader with shaky legitimacy for three decades. Cracking down on peaceful protesters and news media should carry consequences, but what if President Obama had spontaneously called last year for an orderly and immediate transition to democracy in Egypt? Did we need the Tahrir events to know he has no popular mandate? And hadn't he already scheduled elections for September 2011?

By what right in international law can the United States suddenly step in? Convenience and opportunity are incomplete responses. Waiting for massive bloodshed provides a casus belli, but that's morally indefensible. And it's already arguable that Mubarak's continued presence contradicts his claim to be a force of "stability" for his nation.

By intervening to unseat a dutiful American ally, however corrupt and despotic, the United States also risks losing credibility among dozens of allies and clients around the world, specifically those who make Mubarak look enlightened and urbane by comparison. Will America ditch them as soon as their own people rise up, or some better catch rides through town? Remember, Saddam was once our man, too.

Of course, "stepping in" does not require smart bombs and embargoes. The United States has a range of public and discreet tools at its disposable. But it will be seen as interference either way, and don't expect China to allow the United Nations Security Council to authorize any action against a kindred, undemocratic regime.

I hope the Administration finds its way to doing the right thing, and soon, regardless of the uncertain risks and definite costs. In the long run, we shall gain both credibility and legitimacy.

Mideast revolutions, one at a time

Visiting Romania in the 1970s and '80s, it was impossible to understand how one sector of the population could completely stifle all dissent and resistance. But it was equally inconceivable that someday the people would rise up, and the dictator would be subject to their swift justice. Then suddenly, one day it happened.

Recent events across the Middle East defy easy explanation. As I pointed out a couple of weeks ago, no single empire or coordinated ideology is holding back Arab and Middle East nations -- not Ottomans, French, British, Communists, mullahs. Each country has its own unique set of circumstances and personalities, its own culture and identity. There is no unified tsunami of freedom sweeping the region, but there was obvious inspiration from Tunisia, reinforced by widespread solidarity with Egyptians. The stronger, indirect impact of events is already being felt in the Mideast peace process, between the rival Palestinian factions, and among leaders in the region.

Last year's post-election demonstrations in Iran clearly had some influence on Tunisians, and perhaps some of the Wikileaks cables did as well. There was no way to predict when (or even if) the Ben-Ali regime would fall, precisely because it appears to have been spontaneous -- the right martyr, at the right time, with the right combination of popular forces. Many Egyptians were already anticipating a showdown next September, when Mubarak was expected to let his son succeed him through the usual fixed election, and then Tunisia happened.

Beyond Egypt, the Hashemites in Jordan have survived far worse than last week's demonstrations, and King Abdullah retains the loyalty of the military and key tribes -- and without 50 million hungry mouths to feed. In Yemen, President Saleh hastened to announce his retirement in another two years -- anyway, Yemen has already been suffering from an insurgency and civil war, so revolution will have to take a number. The Gulf states are too wealthy, with too few people, to invite much "revolution", and palace coups happen on their own timetable. 

Iran, Israel (and the U.S.) face up to Egypt

Is Egypt all about the rest of us, or isn't it? Iran has high hopes for the Egyptian revolution, but they may be running out of revolutions (Stuxnet pun, sorry). Israel is more in damage-control mode, while also figuring out how to remain low-key. The United States has stakes and responsibilities in Egypt, plus a score to settle with Iran and deep bonds with Israel.

How dangerous is the potential for Islamist influence in a future Egyptian government? The Iranian regime is now scrambling to protect against the possibility of a new round of protests inspired by the Egyptian uprising. The chances of the Islamic Republic taking over the Egyptian revolution while also defending its own are... remote.

Israelis do have good reason to be concerned about the willingness or ability of the next Egyptian government to enforce all terms of the 1979 peace treaty with Israel, as well as stopping weapons from reaching the Hamas-ruled Gaza Strip. It is unlikely that any Egyptian leader would abrogate the treaty and risk the wrath of Israel's military -- and Egypt's military will probably maintain control over national security regardless of who's running the country (see under: Turkey). But Israel is in no position to dismiss any contingency.

There have been specific warnings about Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood, which could end up joining a transitional coalition. It is on record opposing the peace with Israel, and one of its leaders recently reaffirmed this position. But those so concerned about what leaders of Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood say might take comfort from the experience of Avigdor Lieberman, who notoriously said Mubarak could "go to hell" if he didn't want to pay an official visit to Israel. This wasn't just some fringe member of Knesset, and no religious fanatic, and subsequently -- and currently -- Israel's foreign minister. (He has also been known to stress Israel's capability to bomb the Aswan Dam, should the need arise.)

Egypt's Greatest Generation

A big lesson from my childhood experiences behind the Iron Curtain has been a deep gratitude for the freedom and relative prosperity we enjoy in the United States. I actually get "warm and fuzzy" when I see the American flag flying over one of our embassies overseas, or when I hit passport control upon my return. 

I have watched people risk prison just to stand outside a U.S. Embassy, let alone to enter and use the library. And if they really could swim here, many would. Regardless of any developments or negative propaganda, the United States of America remains a beacon of hope to billions worldwide.

This week, watching the courage and anguish of ordinary Egyptians -- amid systemic poverty -- I am reminded again of what sacrifices came before me, here in America and among my forbears in the Jewish dispersion. And again, this reinforces the tremendous gratitude to live in 21st century post-industrial liberty, security, and comfort.

Waiting on the station platform for my express train to arrive, I look across to Battle Hill -- today just another middle-class neighborhood, but 225 years ago the scene of a pivotal battle between American and British forces. Even World War II is a pensioner's memory. We have it pretty good over here.

Battle Hill, 1776-2011

Clearly, the United States has a duty to its own principles and an obligation to its recent past to play a constructive role in Egypt's evolution as a pillar of Middle East civilization. And obviously we face momentous decisions and policy challenges here at home, and an eternal struggle to defend our own rights. But we should never lose sight of the unprecedented and unparalleled benefits of living here and now.


As President Obama affirmed last week in his State of the Union address, "I know there isn’t a person here who would trade places with any other nation on Earth." A benefit, and a responsibility.

Quote of the Day

When people extol "Judeo-Christian" values, they usually mean Christian values. Welcome to America.