It's Morning in Arabia

 (The Gold Standard for political advertising, dammit. No wonder Mondale/Ferraro got stuffed.)

(Without apologies to the Gipper.)

Firstly, Happy 2012!

It's hard to believe that less than 12 months ago, I posted a tongue-in-cheek piece about autocrats' egomania after the thunderclap of Tunisia's Jasmine Revolution. Yet less than a year on, brave people are protesting (and dying) in Syria,  three dictators have gone, with Tunisia, Libya Egypt and Yemen all standing at the dawn of a new and vibrant cacophony of politics and social change, with only Bahrain's regime looking like it has successfully suppressed popular anger. But it is unlikely to end here, as the siren calls of fresh air continue to echo around the Arab world, with unpredictable, but likely positive long-term effects. And crucially, an acceptance in the West that we can't reverse this tide even if we wanted to, so it's much better to be on the right side of history rather than having history's wave crash over you. 

Just before Christmas, Chatham House published a really interesting paper on Saudi Arabia's medium term economic and fiscal position which is fascinating (and for Saudis facing a demographic explosion, terrifying). Accountability is going to be key in making the choices that such a fiscal transition will require, so pressure for change will only increase. Interesting times ahead!

Three-and-a-half down....

 

(No risk of running out of red paint.....)

Back in January, I put up a tongue-in-cheek post on the Arab world's dictators, taking the chance to laugh at the cults-of-personality that have blighted the governance of the region since decolonisation in the 1950s. All good clean fun, provided that you don't have to live in any of the more-or-less authoritarian states they ran (badly).

I certainly never expected to be recording the final defeat of Gaddaffi's forces in Sirte at the same time as Tunisia is preparing for its first-ever democratic elections - with an astonishing and inspiring 11,000 candidates running for 218 seats - this Sunday. Hence, we are witnessing a zone of democratic opportunity running from Tunisia to Egypt - absolutely excellent news. Moreover, given the UN vote due today, it seems impossible that Ali Abdullah Saleh will be able to revert to running Yemen in the same manner as he has since 1978, bringing the winds of change to Yemen. And Syria? Well, I'd be a seller of shares in Asad Inc., were they publicly traded.

The legal bit
But the process of revolutions matters, and in Libya there was clearly an International Armed Conflict (IAC) between NATO and Gaddaffi's forces, sanctioned by UNSCR 1973, and a Non-International Armed Conflict (NIAC) between the National Transitional Council and the Gaddaffi regime; the ruling law was clearly some flavour of LOAC in places where conflict was actually taking place.

(Gaddaffi's last redoubt)

In the last 24 hours, it has also become clear that Gaddaffi was alive - though injured - at the time of his capture, and that he was subsequently shot dead, apparently in cold blood. Let's be clear - killing Gaddaffi was the execution of a presumptive PoW (presumptive in that Gaddaffi would have had PoW rights until an a GC III Article 5 Tribunal - which doesn't appear to have been held - decided that he did or didn't qualify), which itself is a War Crime contrary to Article 8(2)(b)(vi) of the International Criminal Court's Rome Statute.

As Elham Saudi of Lawyers for Justice in Libya (LFJL) pointed out on the UK's Channel Four news last night, it would have been much better for him to have faced trial, both from notions of justice and for the victims to have their day in court. What is interesting now is how the new Libyan authorities choose to deal with these important legal issues - as the Rome Statute makes clear, crimes committed by both sides of an armed conflict need addressing.

Am I my brother's keeper?

(No sign of Muammar. An oversight.)

Cain, Abel and Muammar Gaddafi are perhaps not the most obvious of bedfellows. But Cain's riposte to God after killing the mysterious and unexplained death of Abel (a matter that remains sub judice)* is as pertinent now as it was to biblical author: what responsibility do we carry singly and jointly for the well-being of our fellow human beings? Relatedly, how does this operate in a world in which Article 2(7) of the UN Charter restates the most ancient tenet of international law - non-interference in the internal affairs of another sovereign state? In short, are we the keepers of our Libyan sisters and brothers as they face the threat of annihilation by their own government in a (final) spasm of murderous repression? 

Let's look at the notion of non-intervention, at the doctrine of humanitarian intervention and the notion of an international "Responsibility to Protect", known as R2P in txtspk.

Non-Intervention - the international community's prime directive?

If non-intervention is a cardinal rule, then Cain is right and as long as it happens next door, it's no concern of mine: I am implacably not my brother's keeper.

Some countries argue that non-intervention is the cornerstone of the international system, and that this has been the case for centuries. This is, of course, palpably risible nonsense. Advocates of non-intervention generally mean that they are in favour of non-intervention in their affairs; it is therefore no surprise that the strongest and most persistent advocates of the non-interventionist mantra include PR China, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Cuba, Sudan and Zimbabwe, all of which have human rights records that they would wish to protect from outside scrutiny or interference. 

It is also important to note both that history is based around countries intervening in each others' internal affairs, and that intervention spans a much wider ambit than simply the use of force - sanctions, consumer boycotts, trade agreements reflect power realities and are used by stronger states to coerce weaker ones. Try asking an Irish or Greek politician about the amount of non-intervention that they’ve had to accept in their internal affairs in the form of a financial bailout – and no shots were fired. In other words, intervention in the internal affairs of other states is the norm, and the non-interventionist language in Article 2(7) is the aberration. 

 (Do we protect them? If not you, who? If not now, when?)

Humanitarian Intervention

Back in the early 1970s the International Law Association (ILA) created a framework for humanitarian intervention** which was picked up over the next decade led by Fernando Teson, an Argentine lawyer proposed along with some American lawyers a doctrine of humanitarian intervention. As a legal proposition, humanitarian intervention proposes an exception to the ban on the use of force in Article 2(4) of the UN Charter in cases of genocide, crimes against humanity or massive human rights abuses where there is no option due to time or because the Security Council is deadlocked. 

All good. (Except that Teson and his proto-neo-conservative American chums decided that not being a democracy was a gross violation of human rights, and then used this to propound the deeply problematic notion of "pro-democratic wars"; Teson's supporters tended to find themselves on the hawkish/paranoid Republican right, some of whom went so far as to suggest a NATO invasion of central Europe to drive out the Soviet totalitarians. No prizes from your blogmaster for guessing the likely outcome of that particular policy choice if you'd tried to implement it.)

In one of those strange historical oddities,*** Teson's champions today are on the left, under the banner of solidarism. Nicholas Wheeler's "Saving Strangers" is the classic exposition of the need for a framework for where there should be an exception to the UN Charter rules on non-intervention and bars on the use of force. As Wheeler shows, the three classic Cold War interventions that could have been presented as humanitarian interventions (India in East Pakistan/Bangladeshi War of Independence, 1971; Tanzania in Uganda, 1978; Vietnam in Kampuchea, 1979) never claimed any humanitarian rationale at the time. Kosovo in 1999 is a partial example of humanitarian intervention, but some structural elements were not in accord with the ILA's 1974 blueprint. Similarly, UK/US/FR extending UNSCR 688 to (and arguably beyond) breaking point for Operation Provide Comfort with the Northern and Southern No-Fly Zones over Iraq.

(Op Northern Watch - aka heroic Jags over northern Iraq. Ahh....)

So under humanitarian intervention, you can present yourself as your sister's keeper, but you don't always get a chance to do anything about it - and if you do want to do something about it, then you need to make sure you work through the ILA check list, and crucially, you need to make explicit that it is a humanitarian intervention at the time that you do it. 

Bottom line: humanitarian intervention provides an optional route for States that want to intervene - if the world is indifferent, humanitarian intervention doctrine does not require the community of nations to do anything about massive human rights violations. Just ask Jim Hacker - he explains it far more eloquently than me; the Russians were indeed too strong...

Responsibility to Protect (R to P, R2P)

The 2005 UN World Summit outcomes document specifically recognised the need for a responsibility for collective action to stop "genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity" - which are all defined in the ICC Rome Statute. This is the genesis for Responsibility to Protect - a key turning point in international law. 

Paragraph 139 of the 2005 World Summit outcomes states in part:

The international community, through the United Nations, also has the responsibility to use appropriate diplomatic, humanitarian and other peaceful means, in accordance with Chapters VI and VIII of the Charter, to help protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. In this context, we are prepared to take collective action, in a timely and decisive manner, through the Security Council, in accordance with the Charter, including Chapter VII, on a case-by-case basis and in cooperation with relevant regional organizations as appropriate, should peaceful means be inadequate and national authorities manifestly fail to protect their populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. 

Which is a real drafting hodgepodge, betraying the lack of unanimity in the international community. The answer appears to be that there is no unilateral right of intervention, the Security Council should do the right thing but there may be a regional organisation get out clause. Or not. 

So R2P is not clear yet: NGOs are pushing for clarity and for the world to move towards a Responsibility to Protect. Let's see how we're getting on. We need to speak clearly that the international community does have responsibilities and Libyan-style repression is a crime, pure and simple.

* This is a legal blog. You get legal jokes - bear with me, some of them are even funny.

**The ILA's Third Interim Report of the Subcommittee on the International Protection of Human Rights by General International Law, New Dehli, 1974

***For example the manner in which the British Conservatives have moved from being the principal supporters of British membership of the EEC to being dominated by anti-EU forces, whereas the British left moved from visceral anti-EEC agitation based on the notion that the EEC was an anti-worker capitalist plot to being broadly in favour of the EU as a method of promoting workers' interests.

Formula 1 as predictive revolutionary yardstick

(Sakhir Circuit, Bahrain. A really, really, dull modern F1 track.)

Don't laugh. When you hear that Bernie Ecclestone is thinking of cancelling a Grand Prix, then you know it's got to be serious - this last happened.... when? And so in Bahrain we face another bit of history in the making - or for the reality tv addicts "History - Live, Innit?!" Or perhaps "Arab Authoritarians Lack Talent"?

It's easy to see why Egypt matters - it's been a cultural, economic and political fulcrum for much of the the last 6,000 years, and it remains the most populous Arab nation, and the home of the one of the most influential Islamic centres of learning in Al Azhar. Indeed, arguably the period in which it has mattered least regionally was from the signing of Camp David Accords in 1978 to Gulf War I 1990-91 when it was persona non grata with the rest of the Arab world due to recognising and agreeing a peace treaty with Israel.

(Oil and oppressed Shias. Lots of both in and around Al Jubayl, Dammam. And next to Bahrain - interesting.)

But in many ways I would argue that what's happening in Bahrain is significantly more important. As an absolute monarchy with an efficient police state, with a Sunni ruling elite and majority Shia population, Bahrain has important similarities with both Qatar and Kuwait, but crucially with eastern Saudi Arabia, especially around the oil production centres at Dahran / Dammam. 

Does this mean that the Saudi monarchy is under direct threat? No, not yet. But the really revolutionary point over the last six weeks in the Arab world seems to have been the people understanding that if enough protest together, the authoritarians cannot kill enough of them to suppress them - at which point the regime is finished in practical terms. So Bahrain as the first of the Arab monarchies to start shooting its citizens is going to prove an interesting litmus test - if people power works here, then where the dominoes fall next becomes very strategically interesting.

So, if they end up cancelling this year's Abu Dhabi Grand Prix in November, then 2011 will have been a truly revolutionary year. And no, I don't see predictive causality in Formula 1. At least not yet.

I'm in charge. Let there be billboards!

Ok, so after Tunisia, and now in Egypt, we see riots of repressed people shouting for freedom and the possibility of overthrowing authoritarian regimes. But freedom and democracy, whilst instinctively attractive, would have certain downsides, including the loss of the principal point of one-party states: the cult of the Maximum Leader, Imperator, Man of Destiny, and with it, his image everywhere. (I can't think of a female dictator. Margaret Thatcher could only dream of this level of sycophancy...) Let there be billboards!

Muammar Abu Minyar al-Gaddafi was always a reticent wallflower....

Whereas in Yemen, you get to buy your own Ali Abudallah Saleh. ("Buy one, get one, free?"; soon enough, "Buy one, get one, flee..")

Hosni Mubarak smiles benignly from Egyptian streetlamps...

...but no-one compares with Gaddafi-as-multifaceted-visionary

Royalists don't need to feel left out - here's Jordan's King Abdullah II bin al-Hussein keeping an eye on things in Amman...

 

... but in this selection, only Syria's Bashir al-Assad gets to watch over his people night and day.

You say you want a Revolution? Well you know, we all want to change the world.

I'm the President. I love me. No, no, really, I do.

(With apologies to The Beatles).

Tunisia.

At the end of last year, it was not the most obvious place for an Arab revolution. Yemen has an active tribal and Islamist insurgency, Syria was slightly more oppressed in the 2010 Freedom House index, and Egypt was heading for another illegitimate election in which President Mubarak's amusingly ironically entitled "National Democratic Party" would save everyone the trouble of having to decide between too many qualified candidates.

The self-immolation of Muhammad Bouazizi in the main square of Sidi Bouzid last December 17th was a visceral cri-de-coeur, but in even a moderately effective police state should have posed no major threat to an entrenched regime. So why did it lead to a snowball of protest that led to the President and his cronies fleeing by jet without anywhere to go - until Saudi Arabia accepted them after France demurred?

More importantly, will this herald a wave of liberalisation across the Middle East, and should western policy evolve - and if so, how?

It's easy to be wise after the event. Yes, President Ben-Ali's wife's Trabelsi clan was "intensely disliked" according to a July 2009 US Embassy cable leaked to wikileaks , yes it was madly corrupt, with few opportunities for young graduates like the unfortunate Mr. Bouazizi, yes it was politically oppressive with lots of Presidential portraits around and about (see picture above). But in these things it was hardly alone, and compared with the autocracy of Morocco or the two decades of war / near war next door in Algeria, Tunisia was a bastion of stability in an unstable region.

And that's the point. The west, led by France, supported a kleptocratic regime largely, it seems, for fear of something worse. But in so doing, we connived in blocking the legitimate aspirations of the Tunisian people to have a say in their governance, whilst the West (rightly) pushed other despotic regimes towards democracy and human rights, with sanctions if necessary (e.g. Zimbabwe). In short, we abandoned the people to their Government to promote short-term stability. The historians amongst you may detect certain similarities to western policy in Persia in the late 1970s.

Zhou Enlai, Mao's first Premier of the People's Republic famously opined that "It is too soon to tell" the impact of the French Revolution, and so it is here. But the challenge to the West is simple: do we repeat the mistakes of Iran and support oppressive regimes because they happen to be vaguely pro-Western, driving our natural allies in the educated and middle classes into the arms of other - often virulently anti-Western Islamist - opposition? Personally, I'd be much happier if we were more overt in helping our allies democratise now before something potentially much worse takes over. Let's start with Egypt - and be prepared to take aid off the table if the NDP aren't willing to have a free and fair election.

That, and free and fair elections in Tunisia, would be a fitting epitaph for Mr. Bouazizi. May he rest in peace.