The Death of Sykes-Picot

Following WW I (the “war to end all wars”) British Diplomat Sir Mark Sykes and his French counterpart François Georges-Picot negotiated the now infamous Sykes-Picot Agreement, which was intended to divide up the remnants of the Ottoman Empire into British and French spheres of influence. The resulting hodgepodge of artificial entities controlled by London and Paris was a recipe for conflict from the start. The borders and installed governments largely ignored tribal, ethnic, sectarian and geographic realities in establishing the entities. As David Fromkin points out in his seminal book “A Peace to End All Peace”, “It (the agreement) showed that Sir Mark Sykes and his colleagues had adopted policies for the Middle East without first considering whether, in existing conditions, they could feasibly be implemented…and suggested the extent to which the British government did not know what it was getting into when it decided to supersede the Ottoman Empire in Asia…” Now, after almost 100 years of ongoing turmoil, we are witnessing the violent collapse of the ill-conceived political structure in the region.

Of the entities that remained after Sykes – Picot, only Egypt and Iran had any semblance of the characteristics of a nation-state. While Iran is home to numerous ethnic groups, it is united by its overwhelming Shia Muslim character. As the recent Iranian election of Hassan Rowhani with high voter turnout demonstrates, Iran’s system of integrating Islamic governance and participatory politics continues to have the support of most Iranians living in the country. Iran is emerging as a more confident and cohesive state. Egypt on the other hand is falling apart before our eyes.

The overthrow of the democratically elected, Muslim Brotherhood led government by the Egyptian military and its co-conspirators in the Egyptian deep state seems to herald the end of the brief Egyptian experiment with democracy. As a result the Muslim Brotherhood’s mode of coming to power by nonviolently, incrementally invading the centers of governance has been discredited. The al Qaeda “idea” of creating an atmosphere of strife and civil disorder as a vehicle for allowing local Islamic groups to come to power through the collapse of the nation-state has gained more credibility. As western democracies tire of the ongoing strife, the resulting “emirates” will be able to throw off the remnants of western hegemony. Al Qaeda can now plausibly say “I told you so”.

The Syrian civil war is likely to result in the breakup of the Syrian state which will spill over into Lebanon, Iraq and Turkey. The ethnic Kurds whose nation-state aspirations were ignored by Sykes – Picot will probably reassert themselves in Syria, Turkey, Iraq and possibly Iran. The autocratic Gulf Monarchies of Qatar, Kuwait, UAE and Saudi Arabia and their partner in Jordan are torn between the need to support their Sunni “takfiri” co-religionists among the Syrian rebels with the possibility of jihadist blowback among their own dissidents and their hatred for Shia Iran. They seem to have decided to double down in Syria while repressing dissent at home.

Whatever the final outcome, it seems certain that the Sykes-Picot construct, which never evolved into a social contract between governments and governed, is doomed to collapse. U.S. policy makers have no good options and little influence. Intervention will likely make a bad situation worse. It won’t be pretty.

Technorati Tags: Middle East,Egypt,Syria

Egypt: Can Collapse be Prevented?

 

As Egypt rapidly descends into chaos and as the likelihood of a brutal crackdown by the army on disaffected Islamists increases, the U.S. is struggling to find a path forward which is politically palatable and which supports American interests. American national interest has traditionally been defined as a stable environment that protects Israel, provides low cost energy and allows free access to the Suez Canal. In a 2005 speech at American University in Cairo Secretary of State Condi Rice forcefully articulated a new approach for American policy in the Middle East saying, “The US pursuit of stability in the Middle East at the expense of democracy had achieved neither. Now, we are taking a different course. We are supporting the democratic aspirations of all people." This new approach lasted less than a year. In January 2006 Hamas won a free and fair election in Palestine and the U.S, promptly cut off aid and isolated the Palestinian Authority. Since then, support for democracy has largely taken a back seat to other considerations.

Many have praised the Obama administration’s pragmatic approach to the “Arab Awakening”. The U.S. has supported democracy movements in Tunisia and Egypt and violent revolutions in Libya and Syria, while at the same time supporting brutal suppression of opposition movements in Saudi Arabia and Bahrain. There is, however, a fine line between a pragmatic, tactical approach and having no strategy.

The lack of a strategic approach has led to verbal gymnastics by administration spokespersons in order avoid calling the Egyptian Army’s overthrow of the democratically elected government a coup which would trigger a cut off of aid to the government. (See here.) While the Morsi government was certainly guilty of incompetence and a majoritarian approach, fortunately for U.S. democracy, these are not fatal sins justifying a coup. As the old saw goes, “If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is probably a duck.” The U.S. government has little ability to influence the outcome in Egypt, but its failure to take any position has alienated all sides. Today the Egyptian state media blamed the current unrest on U.S. Ambassador Anne Paterson.

If the U.S. is to have any ability to prevent Egypt from driving over a cliff, it must make clear to the military that it rejects a return to “Mubarakism without Mubarak” and a return to “emergency law” in the name of the “War on Terror”. It must also insist on the release of Muslim Brotherhood leaders, opening of shuttered media outlets and prompt free and fair elections with all parties participating. It must be clear that U.S. military aid depends on their actions.

 

Technorati Tags: Egypt,Muslim Botherhood,Egyptian Coup

Egypt’s Political Collapse

Following the ouster of Egypt’s democratically elected President Mohammed Morsi by the Egyptian Army and the arrest of many Muslim Brotherhood (MB) leaders and the shuttering of pro-MB media outlets, the Obama administration has struggled to decide how to react to the fast moving events on the ground. Obama’s advisors differ on whether to support the democratically elected government or to back the Egyptian military that has a history of being supportive of U.S. policies in the Middle East. The end result has been a series of bland statements calling for peaceful resolution.

In its effort to formulate a coherent policy, the administration has had no shortage of free advice. New York Times columnist David Brooks wrote an opinion piece (See here) in which he supported the military’s action essentially arguing that a military coup is justified if it overthrows a government that he doesn’t like.
I received an email from an Egyptian friend who supported the military’s action saying:
“Please explain to all your families and friends and deliver to the media that the Egyptian army is protecting the will of the Egyptians to get rid of the Terrorist Muslim Brotherhood, 33 million Egyptians went out in the streets, our army is protecting us Morsy is calling for a civil war, we are asking for an early presidential elections to stop the deterioration of our country and economy. This man and his group are traitors”.
Others have argued that the removal of a democratically elected Islamist government by the military echoes events in Algeria which led to a bloody civil war. (See here and here) The message to political Islam is that you cannot trust democracy. You won’t be allowed to win. The message from the Arab Awakening was that al Qaeda was wrong; an Islamic government can be established through a democratic process. After Egypt, al Qaeda will say, “I told you so.”
I come down on the side that the road to political change in a democracy is through the ballot box and not through confrontation in the street. Sometimes in a democracy, the guy you don’t like wins. Get over it. Change it in the next election. As an Arab friend once said to me, “We can forgive you for electing George W. Bush the first time. Everybody makes mistakes. But the second time, what were you thinking?”
Following today’s massacre of over 40 MB supporters by security forces and the defense of it by Egypt’s so called “liberals”, it is hard to see how this can end happily for Egypt. The choices are stark. Either the military has to cave in and restore Morsi to power (an unlikely event) or the MB has to quietly go away. (Also an unlikely event) Even quick elections that are free, fair and open are unlikely to heal the huge political divisions in Egypt The MB would probably win free and fair elections as the opposition is a fractious coalition of Salafists, liberals, and remnants of the Mubarak regime that is already falling apart and probably would not survive the political process. We are then back to square one. This is a sad time for Egypt and its people.
Photo by Getty Images

Technorati Tags: Egypt,Muslim Brotherhood

Egypt’s Messy Politics Get Worse

Two years ago Tunisia, Egypt and Libya led the way for the so called “Arab Spring” by successfully ousting long entrenched authoritarian regimes. Tunisia accomplished this with a relatively peaceful series of demonstrations that forced President Ali to leave. Egypt’s overthrow of President Mubarak was more violent, but still relatively peaceful. Libya on the other hand endured months of civil war in order to force Muammar Gaddafi from power. I thought at the time that Libya would have the most difficult time in transitioning to a democratic system. Gaddafi had destroyed all of Libya’s civil society institutions and the country had a history of, sometimes violent, tribal rivalries. Despite these problems, Libya has managed a relatively successful transition and the IMF predicts that the economy will grow at a rate of 116% in 2012.

On the other hand, Egypt, the so called “leader of the Arab world”, has allowed its political issues to deteriorate into one big street brawl with opposing political groups shooting at each other. In order to understand how we got into this state of affairs, it is useful to examine the history of the Egyptian electoral process and how the results were read differently by the various parties.

The process began when the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF) assumed power following Mubarak’s ouster. SCAF decided to hold elections before drafting a new constitution. The rapid timetable for Parliamentary elections favored the more organized Islamist parties. Following a convoluted series of elections and an even more obscure system of allocating seats, the Islamist parties emerged with 65% of the votes and 70% of the seats. Unsurprisingly, the Constituent Assembly, tasked by Parliament with writing the Constitution, was dominated by Islamists.

The Presidential elections were held in two stages. In the first stage, which determined who would move to the second round, the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) candidate Mohammed Morsi (25%) edged out Ahmed Shafiq, a remnant (falool) of the Mubarak regime (23%). The remaining moderate and secular parties could not agree on a common candidate and split the vote resulting in Morsi and Shafiq facing off in the second round. In this round Morsi won a narrow victory (52% to 48%) with many voters voting against the MB rather than for Shafiq. All this said, however, it should be pointed out that, however convoluted the process, Mohammed Morsi is the most democratically elected president in Egypt’s history.

The MB looked at the parliamentary results and concluded that they had an overwhelming mandate to govern. This conclusion has led to governing overreach. The opposition looked at the presidential results and concluded that a majority of Egyptians oppose the MB. The secularist and falool parties, who couldn’t agree on anything during the elections, have formed an odd coalition, The National Salvation Front (NSF). They have called the “regime” illegitimate, called for its overthrow and vowed that they “will not allow the constitutional referendum to go forward”. The tanks are back in the streets again. As Jason Brownlee points out in a recent article, by banking on military intervention and “courting a coup against Morsi or prolonging Egypt’s transition (the NSF) risks erasing the great strides made toward popular sovereignty and civilian control over the state.” Reza Aslan’s pithy Tweet sums it up, “For God's sake Egypt. The world is watching. Throwing rocks at each other is not politics. Get your shit together!”

Technorati Tags: Egypt Election,Egypt Unrest

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: Egypt,Mohammed Morsi

Experience or Stupidity?

As I have watched the US government try to balance its conflicting strategic interests and policies in the Middle East in the run up to the Annapolis conference or meeting (I noted today that it is now being downgraded to a “gathering”.), I was reminded of the efforts of the Eisenhower administration to do the same thing in the 1950’s. Eisenhower publicly promulgated a policy that the US would protect any Middle East country that was threatened by a country “dominated by international communism”. Middle Eastern leaders and scholars were puzzled at the time about exactly what that meant since neither the Soviet Union, nor China nor any eastern European state were threats to invade the Middle East. It wasn’t until the records of the Eisenhower administration were opened to the public that scholars realized that the policy had nothing to do with international communism but was about countering and containing the influence of the Arab nationalism of Egypt under Gamal Abdul Nassar. The vehicle to accomplish this was to provide economic and military aid to countries (mostly undemocratic and conservative like Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Iraq) that would ally themselves with the US in the region. Most countries who agreed to this bargain were unwilling to do so publicly as it flew in the face of the views of the average man on the street. Even though the governments were undemocratic, they had to pay attention to public opinion or risk being overthrown. The result of this policy was that anytime a sitting government was overthrown, whether peacefully as in Lebanon or violently as in Iraq and the people’s voice was heard, the resulting government quickly allied itself with Nassar and Egypt/Syria. The Eisenhower Doctrine was short lived as the US administration soon realized that Nassar was too politically powerful and they attempted to implement a policy of engagement with Nassar. (This didn’t work either, but that’s another story) If one substitutes Iran for Egypt and “Islamofascism” (whatever that is) or Al Quada for international communism one can see the same scenario playing out again. Egyptian President Gamal Nassar is quoted as saying to an American friend, “The genius of you Americans is that you never made clear-cut stupid moves, only complicated stupid moves which make us wonder at the possibility that there may be something to them that we are missing”. In today’s American political battles there is a lot of argument over who has the most experience. The dictionary definition of experience is “knowledge acquired by living through an event”. Acquiring knowledge requires learning something. Doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results is not experience it is stupidity.