Grossman: Call your Congressman and Save International Studies in the US!

Posted on 10/26/2011 by Juan

The current House of Representatives don’t hold with Amurkins knowin’ ’bout furriners, and seems determined to defund federal support for international studies in the US. The Neoconservative lobbyists have been gunning for these programs for years and want the money given to rightwing think tanks in Washington instead. And whereas in the old days, senatorial lions would roar back and protect this key resource, Sen. Reid & co. have folded on this one. This step represents a rollback of everything achieved since Sputnik reminded Americans that they are not the only game in town. The programs being cut are in Federal terms funded at the peanuts level and no real savings are had, but they leverage the big universities into being more supportive of less-taught languages, e.g. Please follow the instructions below if you care about America’s ability to understand the world and compete in it.

Jim Grossman of the American Historical Association writes:

Dear Colleagues,

. . . tis the season of the budget in Congress, and this is an important one—as is NEH funding, which will be the subject of an additional appeal in the near future.

This is Title VI / Fulbright-Hays, an essential aspect of the infrastructure of research and education in areas beyond the boundaries of the United States. Many of you will be familiar with these programs. For those who are not, I can say with confidence that they are essential to our mission. The AHA Council has declared Title VI/Fulbright-Hays as one of the highest legislative priorities as we look at funding cuts in various sectors.

Background

The U.S. Department of Education’s International Education and Foreign Language Studies (IEFLS) programs, including HEA-Title VI and Fulbright-Hays programs, form the vital infrastructure of the federal government’s investment in the international service pipeline. The 14 IEFLS programs support comprehensive language and area study centers with the United States, research and curriculum development, opportunities for American scholars to study abroad, and activities to increase the number of underrepresented minorities in international service.

The Fulbright-Hays programs are of particular importance to historians because of the resources they provide for research and education relating to foreign languages and cultures. Funding opportunities include:

Short-term study and travel seminars abroad for U.S. educators in history and related disciplines for the purpose of improving their understanding and knowledge of the peoples and cultures of other countries.

Grants to support overseas projects in training, research, and curriculum development in languages and area studies

Grants to colleges and universities to fund individual doctoral students who conduct research in other countries, in modern foreign languages and area studies for periods of six to 12 months.

Funding for the Department of Education’s Title VI/Fulbright-Hays International Education programs was cut $50 million (or 40%) from $126 million in FY 2010 to $76 million in FY 2011).

Congress did not complete work on the FY 2012 Labor, HHS and Education Appropriations Bill before the October 1 start of the new fiscal year. A short-term Continuing Resolution for FY 2012 was enacted through November 18 at the FY 2011 Continuing Resolution levels, minus an additional 1.5% across-the-board cut.

Current Status

In the Senate Appropriations Committee’s version of the FY 2012 Labor/HHS/Education appropriations bill (S. 1599), all programs in the higher education account—including Title VI and Fulbright-Hays—are continued at the FY 2011 levels. Thus, a 40% decline from 2010 levels, which seriously threatens these crucial programs.

While the House Labor/HHS/Education Appropriations Subcommittee has yet to take up its version of the bill, Chairman Denny Rehberg (R-MT) has released a “draft” FY 2012 funding bill that eliminates funding Fulbright-Hays and the Title VI-C, Institute for International Public Policy. Title VI-A&B would be funded at the FY 2011 level.

Action Needed

If you are in the congressional district or state of the Members on the House and Senate Appropriations Committees (see list below) call and urge their support for “holding the line” on funding, that is to say, no more cuts to Title VI/FH in FY 2012. Emphasize the impact of these programs in the Member’s district/state and on the national interest overall. We strongly encourage you to personalize this message. Working off the basic script below, tell Congress, in your own words, why one or more of the Title VI/Fulbright Hays programs are important to you (and/or your institution).

You can call the U.S. Capitol switchboard at 202-224-3121 and ask to be transferred to your Representative or Senator’s office, or you can call directly. If you know the name of the staffer who works on appropriations policy, you can send an email or call and ask to leave a message for that person. If you don’t know the staffer’s name, phone the appropriate number below and ask if you can leave a voice mail message for the person who handles appropriations issues for the Member.

Time is of the essence. Congressional staffers are negotiating agreements on the Labor/HHS/Education FY 2012 appropriations bills now.

Message

My name is _____ and I am calling from (place name in state). I want to urge Representative/Senator to oppose further cuts in Title VI international education programs.

Title VI higher education programs have already sustained a $50 million or 40% reduction in the FY 2011 Budget. Currently the differences between the House and Senate versions of the FY 2012 Labor, HHS, and Education Appropriations Bill are being reconciled.

I urge you to consider the important federal role played by these international and foreign language education programs in supporting our nation’s long-term national security, global leadership and economic competitiveness capabilities. Successful U.S. engagement in these areas, at home or abroad, relies on Americans with global competence.

Instruction is provided in over 130 languages and 10 world areas, with emphasis on the less commonly-taught, strategic languages and areas of the world. Most of these languages would not be taught on a regular basis but for this support.

I strongly urge you to safeguard these programs from further reductions by providing no less than the FY 2011 level of $75.729 million provided in the Senate committee bill. This includes $66.712 million for the Higher Education Act, Title VI-A&B; $7.465 million for Fulbright-Hays 102(b)(6); and $1.552 million for the Title VI-C Institute for International Public Policy.

Thank you for your time.

——
Jim Grossman
Executive Director
American Historical Association

——–

Truth in advertising: Juan Cole directs a Title VI National Resource Center at the University of Michigan.

0 Retweet 0 Share 12 StumbleUpon 0 Printer Friendly Send via email

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments

Islamic Law not a problem in Bush’s Afghanistan & Iraq, but a Problem in Libya?

Posted on 10/26/2011 by Juan

George W. Bush said of Iraq and Afghanistan,, “I’d like to be a president [known] as somebody who liberated 50 million people…”

The 2004 Constitution of Afghanistan [pdf], drafted and passed under the rule of George W. Bush in that country, makes Islam the religion of state and forbids any law that contravenes the sharia or Muslim religious law (the official translations on the Web misleadingly render ahkam or religious laws with the word “provisions,” which hides the real intent of the constitution, so I have translated those passages more literally):

“Article One Ch. 1. Art. 1: Afghanistan is an Islamic Republic, independent, unitary and indivisible state.

Article Two Ch. 1, Art. 2: The religion of the state of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan is the sacred religion of Islam.

Followers of other religions are free to exercise their faith and perform their religious rites within the limits of the provisions of law.

Article Three
Ch. 1, Art. 3

In Afghanistan, no law can be contrary to the beliefs and laws [ahkam] of the sacred religion of Islam.

A human rights report notes:

“The Afghan Constitution and Islamic Sharia law both support polygamy, allowing men to take up to four wives. Certain conditions apply to polygamous marriages, such as the equal treatment of all wives, but these are not always observed.”

The constitution of Iraq, adopted in 2005 under the rule of George W. Bush over Iraq, says:

Article 2:
First: Islam is the official religion of the State and is the primary basis for legislation:

A. No legislation may be enacted that contradicts the established laws of Islam

B. No law may be enacted that contradicts the principles of democracy.

C. No law may be enacted that contradicts the rights and basic freedoms stipulated in this Constitution.

Second: This Constitution guarantees the Islamic identity of the majority of the
Iraqi people and guarantees the full religious rights to freedom of religious belief
and practice of all individuals such as Christians, Yazidis, and Mandean Sabeans.

Polygamy is legal in Iraq with a judge’s permission, and Iraqi legislators have been considering making it easier for men to take more than one wife in order to have the country’s vast number of war widows supported.

But the following recent statements by Libyan leader Mustafa Abdul Jalil provoked the CNN headline, “Libyan leader’s embrace of Sharia raises eyebrows:”

“As a Muslim country, we have adopted the Islamic Sharia as the main source of law. Accordingly, any law that contradicts Islamic principles with the Islamic Sharia is ineffective legally.” Jalil also urged an end to restrictions on taking more than one wife, and wanted to see Islamic banking principles instead of Western-style interest.

The Western press seems unaware that when Muammar Qaddafi came to power in 1969 he pledged to implement Islamic law or sharia and to abolish Italian and British colonial-era laws and regulations. He forbade alcohol, e.g. When in 1977 he declared Libya to be a “masses-ocracy” (Jamahiriya), he proclaimed that the holy Qur’an was the source of law or sharia for Libya.

So far, Jalil has said nothing that was not said repeatedly by his predecessor, Qaddafi. He has said nothing that is not in the constitutions and/or legal practice of Bush’s Afghanistan and Iraq. But there is no hand-wringing about those two “liberated” countries and Islamic law or sharia. I guess if secular, communist Afghanistan was made fundamentalist by Reagan and Bush, or if the relatively secular Baath Party of Iraq was overthrown by W. in favor of the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq and the Islamic Call Party and the Bloc of Ayatollah Sadr II, that is unobjectionable and not even reported on. But if there’s a Democratic president in the White House, all of a sudden it is a scandal if Muslims practice Muslim law.

0 Retweet 1 Share 13 StumbleUpon 0 Printer Friendly Send via email

Posted in Afghanistan, Iraq, Islam, Islamophobia, Libya | 16 Comments

Namibia: Largest Solar Plant in S. Hemisphere Planned

Posted on 10/26/2011 by Juan

US-based SSI Energy Solutions plans to construct the largest solar power plant in the southern hemisphere in the southern African country of Namibia (population 2 million). The plant is expected to cost $1.6 to $2 billion US to construct. Namibia typically has 300 days of sunshine a year.

Namibia is heavily dependent on imported coal, which it cannot always acquire from neighbors in the desired quantities. Ground will be broken on the solar plant in January and it has a two-year completion timeline. It will initially generate 500 megawatts, but over time its capacity will be doubled to a gigawatt. That is, when expanded this solar plant will generate about the same amount of energy as a typical nuclear plant. But it will be much cheaper to build, and far, far cheaper to fuel and operate, nor will it produce toxic waste that lasts for centuries and cannot safely be disposed of.

Namibia also hopes to build a controversial nuclear power plant, scheduled to be completed in 2018, and the country has uranium mines and is an exporter of that metal. Namibia says, pretty unbelievably, that it hopes to enrich its own uranium to the 3.5 percent level needed to run a nuclear power plant. The nuclear project has been criticized as extremely expensive ($15 billion), with nuclear plants costly to maintain even after built. And there are fears of the toxic nuclear waste ultimately harming Namibians’ health.

Namibia had been a colony of Germany and then from World War I a colony of neighboring South Africa. It became independent in 1990 and has a population of 2 million and a relatively stable parliamentary regime.

Its major exports include copper, uranium, fish, meat and grapes, and it has a tourism industry oriented to the middle and high end of the market. The Eurozone crisis has hurt Namibia’s economy this year. About 13% of its gross domestic product is generated by industry, which requires more electricity generation.

If the solar plant is built as quickly and inexpensively as now planned, it is possible that it will simply displace the nuclear plant, which might then never get built. Competitive solar and wind energy will increasingly be chosen over coal and nuclear by developing countries, since the plants will be less expensive to build than nuclear ones, and the upkeep and security issues are not nearly as pressing.

0 Retweet 1 Share 8 StumbleUpon 1 Printer Friendly Send via email

Posted in Energy, Environment | 3 Comments

Ambassador Ford’s Departure a Defeat for al-Assad

Posted on 10/25/2011 by Juan

With the departure of the US ambassador to Syria, Robert Ford, from Damascus and the summoning home of Syrian ambassador Emad Moustafa, President Obama’s original Syria policy has now crashed and burned.

There is no immediate danger of Obama going in the direction recommended by Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), of military action against Syria. But the likelihood of Ford actually returning to his post any time soon, despite State Department assurances, is low. He has repeatedly been the object of ire among regime loyalists in Syria, and his abrupt return to Washington appears to be related to some sort of planned attack on him. Ford has vocally supported the right of Syrians to peaceable assembly and protest (he should have a word with the US police forces who have arrested or harassed so many of the “Occupy” protesters). Despite his being a thorn in the side of the Baathist regime, President Bashar al-Assad is making a huge error in allowing the situation to deteriorate so badly that Ford has had to leave.

Barack Obama came to office in 2009 determined to talk to all parties in the Middle East, including Iran and Syria. This policy of ‘jaw-jaw’ rather than ‘war-war’ (in Churchill’s phrase) contrasted with George W. Bush’s ‘cooties’ theory of diplomacy, wherein he never acknowledged that Syria and Iran existed except to condemn them, and declined to allow any US official to get near enough to them to actually speak to them. While the Baath in Syria and the Islamic Republic have adopted policies deserving of condemnation, it is not useful for a great power only to scold from a distance, in the absence of other forms of engagement.

Thus, Obama addressed the Iranians on the Persian New Year (typically March 21), and had a US representative meet along with other UN Security Council members and Germany with a representative of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei to negotiate the impasse over Iran’s nuclear enrichment program. (Iran says it is a civilian program to produce fuel for reactors).

With regard to Syria, Obama restored diplomatic relations and sent an ambassador to Damascus. Syria had had an envoy to the US all along, Emad Moustafa, but no one in the capital seemed to talk to him and he was billed the loneliest man in Washington.

But Obama’s determination to talk with his enemies abroad met the same fate as his attempt to reach compromises with the Republican Party domestically. Iran weirdly made a deal on sending low-enriched uranium out of the country to be turned into fuel for a medical reactor, then abruptly reneged on it.

Relations between the US and Syria foundered on the Arab Spring and the widespread demonstrations in Syria’s provincial cities, which have been met with brute force that has left an estimated 3,000 demonstrators dead and many more wounded or imprisoned.

Reuters has video on Ford’s departure:

On Friday, some 25 protesters were killed by the Syrian army.

Obama has been left with a policy toward Syria of financial sanctions and a diplomatic freeze, despite his best efforts to craft a better approach.

Syrian President Bashar al-Assad should realize that keeping Ford in Damascus and safe is his best option for keeping a line open to Obama. By allowing or perhaps fostering threats to the US ambassador, he has cut himself off from any dialogue with Washington. It is Sen. McCain’s warmongering that has filled that vacuum.

McCain is wrong that Western military intervention is plausible in Syria. There has been no Arab League resolution calling for it, and no UN Security Council resolution (action is being blocked by Russia and China). Most Syrian protesters themselves have opposed foreign intervention. There is no framework of international legality or legitimacy that would permit an outside intervention. Additionally, Syria’s geography is diverse and often rugged, and no attempt at intervention would be simple, tactically or logistically.

Given the danger that sinister accusations will come to substitute themselves for reality in Washington with regard to Syria, Damascus would be better off finding a way to get Ford back into the country. To jaw-jaw is better than to war-war.

0 Retweet 2 Share 3 StumbleUpon 0 Printer Friendly Send via email

Posted in Syria | 17 Comments

Surprises of the Tunisian Election

Posted on 10/24/2011 by Juan

Tunisia kicked off the Arab Spring, with its urban crowds effectively protesting the decades-long dictatorship of Zine El Abidine Ben Ali and his nepotistic in-laws, the Trabelsi clan. The Tunisians were the first to demonstrate that flashmobs could, if sufficiently determined, outmaneuver the secret police and send a dictator into exile.

Even more remarkable than the revolution of last January, to my mind, is the widespread conviction on the part of Tunisians that the way forward is liberal, parliamentary democracy. Thus, Sunday’s election of a constituent assembly that will fashion a new constitution and form an interim government is in some ways the real revolution. For decades, most Arab states implicitly accepted the Leninist critique of parliaments as mere instruments of plutocracy and wholly unrepresentative. But it turns out that the main alternative to parliamentary democracy is not direct democracy but rather oppressive dictatorship masquerading as the latter.

Tunisia is a small country of 10.5 million, with 4.4 million registered voters. Astonishingly, almost all those registered voters went to the polls on Sunday, with an estimated turnout of 80- 90%. The thirst for democracy demonstrated by such a statistic is mind-boggling. (Americans won’t now remember this issue, but they were wild about the deeply flawed elections in Iraq in January of 2005, conducted amidst bombings and assassinations and under the tutelage of a foreign military occupation; turn-out there was in the end estimated some 30 points less than what we just saw in Tunisia).

There has been remarkably little election violence in Tunisia, as noted by Higher Elections Authority head Boubakr Belthabit.

Some 81 parties contested the elections, with a campaign season that began October 1 (Americans should imitate this feature of Tunisian elections)

Half the candidates put forward for seats by the parties have to be women.

Tunisia’s censorship bureau, the “Ministry of Information,” was abolished last spring, and the press and television is relatively free and lively. The most-watched television station is a fierce critic of the interim prime minister. Tunisia is the only Arab country without state censorship.

7472 persons, including 533 foreigners, were accredited as election observers, with the presence of 15 international organizations.

Although the Muslim religious party, al-Nahda (Ennahda) or Renaissance, is expected to do well, secular parties are turning in a solid performance in second place in early partial returns from provincial cities. It is unlikely that al-Nahda will get a majority of seats or be able to rule without secular coalition partners.

The rest of the Arab world is transfixed by the Tunisian elections. Since there has been a strong “demonstration effect” in the Arab world from Tunisian events, with the Egyptians and Libyans emulating Tunisian techniques of protest and reform. A successful election and democratic experiment could have a huge impact in the region.

0 Retweet 10 Share 24 StumbleUpon 0 Printer Friendly Send via email

Posted in Tunisia | 16 Comments

Karzai: Afghanistan would Side With Pakistan in War with US

Posted on 10/23/2011 by Juan

Admiral Mike Mullen, outgoing Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, recently told Congress that the Haqqani Network, a guerrilla group accused of hitting the US embassy in Kabul, is an “arm” of Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI). Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) immediately suggested that if the US military wanted to attack Pakistan, it would have support on the Hill.

The astonishing talk of US military action against its Pakistani ally has died down a bit, but it was noticed in the region. On Saturday, President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan pledged that if the US did go to war against Pakistan, Afghanistan would take the side of Islamabad.

The film clip can be seen here.

It has long been apparent that Karzai, a putative American ally, has some sort of mental problem. He has been known to rant that he made a mistake in allying with the US against the Taliban, and should have backed the latter. Last year he told astonished visiting US congressmen that if the US pressured him too much, he would join the Taliban directly.

It would sort of be as though Prime Minister David Cameron, an ally of the US, should occasionally threaten to join al-Qaeda.

But then sometimes he praises the US and lambastes Pakistan for supporting Taliban

One of the big problems with the ‘counter-insurgency’ program of Gen. David Petraeus in Afghanistan is that counter-insurgency requires a reliable local partner. But the US only has Hamid Karzai, who stole his last presidential election and who micro-manages Kabul while letting much of the country go to hell, and he has now pledged a defense pact with Pakistan against his US ally.

It makes a person angry about the idea of US troops losing their lives to defend and stand up the Karzai government.

Below is a transcript of the relevant part of the Karzai interview on Geo, the Pakistani satellite channel, courtesy the USG Open Source Center:

‘ President Kazai Says Afghanistan To Stand by Pakistan in Case of Foreign Attack
Words and sentences in double slantlines in English
Geo News TV
Saturday, October 22, 2011 …
Document Type: OSC Translated Text…

Afghan President Hamid Karzai has said that Afghanistan would support Pakistan in case of an attack by India, the United States or any country. Talking to senior anchor person of Geo News, he said no country can give dictation to Afghans against Pakistan.

(Begin recording) (Karzai) God forbade, if any war took place between Pakistan and the United States. We will stand by Pakistan.

(Saleem Safi) Well, you will stand by Pakistan.

(Karzai) Yes, definitely. We are your brothers. The way Pakistan provided us shelter and the way Pakistan gave us homes considering us as brothers. And we remained there as refugees with great respect. In the same manner, God forbade if Pakistan is….

(Safi interrupts) This is a big claim. God forbade, if there is a war between Pakistan and India then?

(Karzai) No, if anyone attacked Pakistan. //If Pakistan is attacked and if the people of Pakistan needed Afghanistan’s help, Afghanistan will be there with you. Afghanistan is a brother. But please brother, stop using all methods that hurt us and are now hurting you. Let us engage from a different platform. The platform in which the two brothers only progress towards a better future in peace and harmony, and Afghanistan will be with you. So Afghanistan is not going to be dictated in any way by any country US or India or Russia or China or whoever. Afghanistan has its own policy, its own (word indistinct), its own clear view on things. And from that point of view, from that stance it is dealing with its brothers in Pakistan.// (end recording) ‘

0 Retweet 2 Share 14 StumbleUpon 4 Printer Friendly Send via email

Posted in Afghanistan, Pakistan | 43 Comments

US out of Iraq, but Peace remains Elusive

Posted on 10/22/2011 by Juan

The Iraq War is over except for the packing, President Obama announced on Friday. He held out hope that the US would be at peace for the first time since 2001 in the coming years. The Libya war is ending, and US troops will steadily come out of Afghanistan through 2014.

Alas, the peace will be illusory. It is not clear that we have learned the lessons of the Iraq fiasco, including, as I told Dan Froomkin, how to avoid being stampeded to war by unscrupulous politicians.

The US is entering an age of perpetual drone wars. The US is hitting targets in Yemen and the tribal belt in Pakistan. When will the drone wars be over?

The huge, bloated military budget, higher than in the Cold War, keeps us forever on a war footing.

The US is also arming Israel to the teeth and stoking an arms race in the Middle East, even as Washington seeks de facto to deny Palestinians their right to a state and to the basic human rights that only a state can back. That is, the US is deeply involved in the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict as a partisan. 9/11 was in part a skirmish in that war.

US sanctions on Iran are becoming so severe as to constitute a blockade, which in international law an act of war. The war party in the US is salivating for that war with Tehran, which is halfway begun as we speak, and it is freely acknowledged as a goal by most Republican presidential candidates.

If Obama really wants a US at peace, he has much more work to do– as do we all.

0 Retweet 7 Share 26 StumbleUpon 0 Printer Friendly Send via email

Posted in Iraq | 23 Comments

Qaddafi’s People’s Temple

Posted on 10/21/2011 by Juan

The final weeks of Muammar Qaddafi’s violent and coercive life reminded me vividly of Jim Jones and the People’s Temple Cult. It was obvious from late last August that Qaddafi had lost. The people in his own capital of Tripoli rose up against him in all but a few small neighborhoods, courageously defying his murderous elite forces.

Qaddafi had on more than one been occasion offered exile abroad, but sneaked off to his home town of Sirte to make a suicidal last stand. His glassy-eyed minions determinedly fired every last tank and artillery shell they had stockpiled right into the city that sheltered them in order to stall the advancing government troops. This monumentally stupid last stand turned Sirte into Beirut circa the 1980s, as gleaming edifices deteriorated into Swiss cheese and then ultimately blackened rubble. Qaddafi had favored Sirte with magnificent conference centers and wood-paneled conference rooms even as he starved some Eastern cities of funds, and in his death throes he took all his gifts back away from the city of his birth, making it drink the tainted Kool-Aid of his maniacal defiance of reality.

Among the attackers were citizen militias from Misrata, the city of 600,000 that Qaddafi had determinedly besieged, subjecting its civilian population to cluster bombs and tank and artillery shells, even bombing it from the air before the UNSC intervened. The Security Council strictly instructed him to cease attacking his own population simply because they had come out to peacefully protest his rule. Qaddafi’s siege turned a Tahrir-like popular uprising into a civil war, as inexperienced young civilians in the surrounded city took up arms to fight off the armored Khamis Brigades and save their parents and younger siblings from the awful ire of the dread enforcers of Qaddafi’s malevolent will.

His defiance of the UNSC order turned him into a recognized war criminal, for which he was indicted by the ICC. But of course the bomber of PanAm 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, the butcher of Abu Salim prison, the aggressor against neighboring Chad, and the fomenter of wars, tyranny and strife in Sierra Leone and Liberia, had long been a war criminal when few would mouth the words in public.

It is hard to see how the UNSC desire that the civilian population be protected from him could have been implemented solely on a defensive basis. As long as he had an offensive capability he would clearly deploy it, piling up towers of innocents’ skulls. Once he besieged and murdered the non-combatants of Misrata and Zawiya so mercilessly, all bets were off. He began with 2,000 tanks, which he sent against the demonstrators. When he had almost no tanks left, he was done, reduced to secreting himself in a sewage drain.

In contrast to Qaddafi’s encirclement of Misrata for months and use of cluster bombs in areas where children lived, the Transitional National Council troops advancing in Sirte regularly pulled back to allow local residents to evacuate, attempting to convince them to join the new Libya. Qaddafi never did a similar favor to civilians in Misrata or Zawiya.

The last stand at Sirte was very like Jim Jones’s last stand in the jungles of Guyana. Jones was an American religious leader who gradually went mad, demanding more and more sacrifice and obedience from the members of his People’s Temple congregation, which then gradually became a cult. I define a cult as a group wherein the leader makes very high demands for obedience and self-sacrifice, and the values of which diverge from those of mainstream society. When the outside world seemed clearly to be pursuing the People’s Temple into Guyana, with a Congressmen showing up in Jonestown to rescue a handful of adherents who wanted to go home, Jones reacted with fury, first sending a militia to kill the congressman and the defectors, and then instructing his followers to drink poisoned Kool-Aid. Many were injected with cyanide laced with liquids or shot. Those who would not agree voluntarily to be “translated” to the next world together with their messianic leader would be subjected to the ultimate coercion.

Qaddafi’s stand at Sirte underlined the cultish character of his politics, with the Revolutionary Committees and Khamis Brigades resembling the enforcers in Jim Jones’s encampment. The tragic episode highlights the irrationality, fanaticism, violence and tyranny of his acolytes.

It would have been better had Qaddafi been left alive to stand trial. The exact circumstances of his death are murky, but it appears that some of his loyalists may have attempted to rescue him from government troops and he died in the firefight or was dispatched lest he be sprung from captivity and serve as a rallying point for the remaining handful of cultists.

Those who expect Libya now to fragment, or to turn into a North African Baghdad, are likely to be disappointed. It is improbable that Qaddafi’s cult will long survive him, at least on any significant scale. Libya has no sectarian divides of the Sunni-Shiite sort. Almost everyone is a Sunni Muslim. It does have an ethnic divide, as between Arabs and Berbers. But the Berbers are bilingual in Arabic, and are in no doubt as to their Libyan identity. The Berbers vigorously joined in the revolution and more or less saved it, and are very likely to be richly rewarded by the new state.

The east-west divide only became dire because Qaddafi increasingly showed favoritism toward the west. A more or less democratic government that spreads around the oil largesse more equitably could easily overcome this divide, which is contingent and not structural.

Libyan identity is not in doubt, and most Libyans are literate and have been through state schools. Most Libyans live in cities where tribal loyalties have attenuated.

There will be conflicts, and factionalism is a given. The government is a mess, with only a small bureaucracy and limited pools of persons with management skills. But oil states in the Gulf facing similar problems back in the 1960s and 1970s just imported Egyptian bureaucrats and managers, and Egypt and Tunisia have a surplus of educated potential managers who face under-employment of their skills at home. Oil states most often generate enough employment not only for their own populations but for a large expatriate work force as well. Just as the pessimists were surprised to find that post-Qaddafi Tripoli was relatively calm and quickly overcame initial problems of food, water and services, so they are likely to discover that the country as a whole muddles through.

The new government already is gaining significant resources from oil production. In September, the TNC was pumping 100,000 barrels a day. It is now doing 200,000 b/d, and analysts expect it to pump 500,000 b/d by January.

The final defeat of Qaddafi and Qaddafism is a victory for the Fourth Wave of democratization that began in Tunisia and continued in Egypt. There is now a contiguous bloc of 100,000,000 Arabs in North Africa who have thrown off dictatorship and aspire to parliamentary government (Tunisia’s elections are coming up on Sunday). Those who dismiss this movement because Muslim religious forces will benefit are exhibiting a double standard. Roman Catholicism benefited from Third Wave democracy movements like those in Poland and Brazil, as did Eastern Orthodoxy. Were democracy to break out in Burma, Theravada Buddhism would benefit. So what?

The Arab League, President Obama and NATO have been vindicated in their decision to forestall the massacre of eastern Libyan cities such as Benghazi. The region’s remaining bloodthirsty tyrants, who have not scrupled to massacre non-combatants for exercising their right of peaceable assembly and protest, should take the lesson that mass murder is a one-way ticket for them to the sewage drain of history. As I told the NYT today, ““The real lesson here is that there is a new wave of popular politics in the Arab world… People are not in the mood to put up with semi-genocidal dictators.”

I saw George Friedman of the Stratfor group on Erin Burnett’s CNN magazine show rather apocalyptically predicting a Baghdad on the Mediterranean in Libya. Those with investment capital who short Libya out of such overblown concerns will only be missing a big opportunity. The Transitional National Council needs our support now, and the new, liberated Libya will remember who befriended it in these uncertain times. The bulls are running in Tripolitania and Cyrenaica.

0 Retweet 19 Share 63 StumbleUpon 4 Printer Friendly Send via email

Posted in Libya | 61 Comments