Friday, November 30, 2012

Crisis in Egypt?

Shortly after Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi succeeded in mediating a ceasefire in Gaza between Israel and Hamas, for which he received international acclaim, Morsi stunned both Egyptians and Western leaders by declaring that, until the new Egyptian constitution was ratified, his decisions were not reviewable by the Judicial courts. The U.S. State Dept. issued a statement saying, “The decisions and declarations announced on Nov 22 raise concerns for many Egyptians and for the international community.” Opposition figures in Egypt decried the decree as a blatant power grab. Western media breathlessly reported on street demonstrations in Egypt by comparing them with the million person demonstrations that led to the overthrow of Hosni Mubarak. (See here) I think that the reality is much more nuanced.

We should remember that Morsi has previously used this tactic. Shortly after his election, there was much concern that the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF) would refuse to relinquish power. Morsi aggressively stripped SCAF of political power and eliminated its influence over the constitutional assembly. In the end he compromised and allowed the military leaders to gracefully retire.

In the case of the judiciary, Morsi was faced with much the same problem. The judiciary is largely made up of holdovers from the Mubarak regime. Some are well respected legal figures, but many are Mubarak era political hacks who would like nothing better than return to the “good old days”. The have previously disbanded the elected Parliament and the Constituent Assembly tasked with writing a new Constitution. Morsi seems determined to get a Constitution ratified, to get Parliament elected and to move on. He has compromised with the judiciary while at the same time moving aggressively to bring the new Constitution to a vote. While not everyone likes the result of constitutional process, the people will get a chance to speak.

An examination of the street demonstrations shows that they are nothing like the 2011 demonstrations which represented all segments of society. The current demonstrators are protesting Morsi’s power grab and the Islamist tone of the Constitution. Peter Hessler, the New Yorker Cairo correspondent who interviewed many demonstrators, describes them as including “a large number of affluent and educated people; it was common to see women whose heads were not covered.” Many “were as practiced as an army—a group of kids whose education has been shaped largely by the violence around Tahrir.”

In the Parliamentary elections, the Islamist parties received 75% of the vote and the secular liberals less than 10%. It seems to me that the secular liberals are trying to win in the streets what they couldn’t win at the ballot box. I expect that the Constitution will be quickly ratified and a new Parliament elected so that Egypt can move forward in addressing its problems. If not, there will be a real crisis.

Technorati Tags: ,

Friday, November 23, 2012

Gaza: Winners and Losers

As of today the ceasefire agreement between Hamas and Israel, negotiated by Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi, appears to be holding. (The only violation has been the killing of a Gazan farmer by an Israeli soldier. Hamas reaction was relatively muted. They seem to want to give peace a chance.) As in any armed conflict, it is difficult to say that anybody won when almost 200 people were killed on both sides. That said, it is possible to point out some winners and losers.
Winners:
Hamas: In any conflict such as this in which the power equation is so unbalanced, the weaker side wins by not losing and the stronger side loses by not winning. Hamas in Gaza was able to absorb over 1500 airstrikes and live to fight another day. Hamas’ popularity, both in Gaza and the West Bank has soared. Their strategic objectives of stopping the bombing raids, stopping the targeted killings and easing the blockade of Gaza have been agreed to in the cease fire agreement. It remains to be seen whether or not Israel will implement the agreement. If not, we may be back in the same mess a few weeks from now. Hamas’ political capital in the region has also been enhanced by statements of support and by numerous visits by ranking Arab officials.
Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi: Morsi’s key role in brokering the ceasefire agreement has raised his personal status and as well as that of Egypt.
Iran: Iran’s game changing supply of longer range weapons and missile technology to Hamas has helped to cement this relationship. In addition, Iran had a chance to watch the much vaunted Israeli “Iron Dome” missile defense system in action and to better assess its strengths and weaknesses. In the event of an Iran-Israel conflict, this information will certainly be helpful to the Iranian military.
Losers:
Israeli Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu: The last thing that Netanyahu needed two months before an election was to have his arm twisted into agreeing to a ceasefire agreement that is enormously unpopular with the Israeli population. A snap poll conducted shortly after the cease fire was announced showed that 70% of the respondents disagreed with the decision to sign the cease fire agreement and supported a ground war in Gaza.
Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas: The U.S. supported Abbas was completely sidelined during whole process. His standing among Palestinians, already low has plummeted.
To be determined:
President Obama and Hilary Clinton: While this is based on speculation on my part, it is hard for me to imagine that Netanyahu would have agreed to this ceasefire without some serious pressure from the U.S. Obama’s adroit handling of the relationship with Morsi and Clinton’s persuasion of Netanyahu (I would love to know what she said.) may bode well for U.S. relationships in the Middle East. Time will tell.
Technorati Tags: ,

Friday, November 09, 2012

After the Election:What Now?

After months of campaign wrangling, the presidential election is now behind us and we are left with the question: What will US Middle East policy look like going forward? Since the election campaign was largely devoid of any discussion or debate on policy options, pundits are left to speculate based on a combination of hope, realities and educated guesses. Some things are clear. The major winner from the election outcome was Nate Silver, the NY Times statistics blogger, (See here) who got the results exactly right. (Close, but never in doubt.) The major loser was Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, who bet big time on the wrong horse. On everything else we can only speculate and wait and see what will happen. In general, not much is likely to change.

The Syrian civil war drags on with the death toll on all sides rising with each passing day. Obama has little choice but to support the rebels rhetorically and with some modest aid, while relying on the wealthy Gulf States to do the heavy lifting of arming the rebels. There is no mood in the US to get entangled in another Middle East ground conflict. Iran and its allies will continue to support the Assad regime. Any negotiated settlement would require engagement with Iran. This would acknowledge Iran’s role as a regional player and is an anathema to Washington’s foreign policy wizards. The biggest losers will be the Syrian people.

The so called “Arab Awakening” will likely continue on its own path with the US having little influence on the outcomes. The road to functioning democracies in Egypt, Tunisia and Libya will be bumpy with an ending that is not likely to be friendly to US ambitions for regional control. There is not much that the US can do to influence the ending except to continue to support them and hope for the best. Hopefully, Congress will not mess it up.

As the “Arab Awakening” spreads to authoritarian US allies in the Gulf region and Jordan, the US will face some uncomfortable choices. With US bases in place and the US requiring Arab support for its anti-Iran policies, the policy has been to offer soft encouragement for reform, but no direct regime criticism. As the regimes crack down more aggressively on dissidents, (See here and here) this policy may become more untenable. Again, I expect that the US will continue current policies and hope for the best.

In Israel/Palestine, Prime Minister Netanyahu has lost all credibility with the Obama administration. His antics have left him on the outside looking in. However, I believe that Obama has realized that a “two state solution” is no longer possible. Given Israeli intransigence and control of Congress, and Palestinian divisions, there is not much that he can do to change the situation. Again, he will continue to be disengaged and hope for the best.

Iran probably offers the best opportunity for improvement. The Iranians have signaled their willingness to compromise by softening their rhetoric, transferring some of their 20% enriched uranium to civilian uses and offering to suspend enrichment to higher levels. (See here) If the US responds in-kind, the upcoming talks may bear some fruit. The Iranians, however, will not move without some reduction in sanctions. Given that Congress controls the sanctions regime, Obama will have little ability to negotiate in good faith on sanctions. Promising to consider reducing sanctions at some time in the future will not cut it.

All of this ignoring the problems and hoping for the best, reminds me of the Bill Clinton administration when President Clinton told a State Department official that he was not particularly interested in foreign policy issues because none of his voters were interested. The response was “Sometimes, Mr. President, foreign policy issues find you.” Usually at the most inopportune time.

 

Technorati Tags: ,,