I totally agree with what you have put. I didn’t mean to imply that the ‘tech’ was the cause, but rather a catalyst for the changes that we’re seeing. I’ve always believed that there are two types of future we could have, namely the Bladerunner version, or the Star Trek one. I know which one I’d rather have;)

I agree, technology plays a role. But i see technology more like a coordination tool and means of information for the middle-upper class. I don’t know how much of the population in Tunisia for example is tech-savvy, but you don’t need to be tech-savvy or have access to internet to see that you can’t buy food. When the ingredients are there, it takes a sparkle to set fire.

I think the future is more towards the more “big brotheresque” version of Blade Runner… The Star Trek “no money, no war” version will probably remain science fiction.

IMO the major factor that has caught the leaders of many states off guard, is that they have failed to grasp the massive changes that have resulted in a world in which great swathes of people in a great number of countries by-pass them in communicating with each other, and organising themselves to achieve change. Ordinary people, as we have recently seen, can bring about fundamental changes without even bringing their governments into the equation, until they are helping these governments to pack their bags and showing them the way out. Where we are seeing this unrest in the Arab world, and I predict that there’s more to come, I think that we are also seeing signs that for these young, tech savvy people, the geo-political status quo that these governments have long presided over, are of secondary importance now. I often think how much earlier the collapse of Communism would have occurred, had the phenomenon of the internet and social networking sites been around a couple of decades earlier.

The genie is now well and truly out of the bottle, as certain middle eastern and other leaders now well know. Governments the world over, ‘democratic’ or dictatorships know that the game as they know it, is up, and the world order that they have so jealously guarded, now obsolete. It really is a case of adapt or die for them. This is a dire situation that these leaders now find themselves in. Personally, I think that the world landscape is in the throes of major transition, and unhappily for these governments and their ‘advisors’ its happening too quickly for their outmoded processes to handle. Supposedly powerful governments have been toppled in recent times by people who have a different vision of what they want their countries to be. The big worry for governments is that these people have the means to achieve these visions without them.

The technology and communication are certainly new tools that help coordinate people and it’s no coincidence that in both the case of Egypt and Libya, the state had disrupted the internet.

But the technology isn’t the cause. The causes are deeper. In Tunisia, the insurgency started because of high food prices. Then one must think that ANY democratic goverment, VERY RARELY can stay in power for more than 10 years without interruption. Because it’s inevitable, that who stays in power, gets political “attrition” over time. Sooner or later, one takes a decision that is disliked. Thinking that these countries have had NO regime change for decades, was a time bomb waiting to explode. Add the big economic imbalancies between the richer and poorer, the fact that new generations of especially Egyptians have studied abroad and have seen western democracies and you have the ingredients for insurgency.

I mean, technology alone isn’t enough. An empty belly, a lack of civil rights, a long totalitarian like regime and the lack of the minimal ray of hope that this can bring you better days, are the things that lead you to the streets.

And i agree, we haven’t seen the end of this. Major changes are coming. Food prices are bound to go up, global population is rising, economic growth is shifting more to Asia, in the west the gap between upper and lower class is widening, climatic change may cause water supply issues in large areas of the world. All this is recipy for violent changes. The continuous rise of world population alone, is enough to cause violent changes, because it will bring more poverty, more migration, more cultural clashes, more competition between countries for the same resources, lowering of living standards for many countries.

I don’t know whether at some point there will be some kind of world war or whether mother nature (or some lab) will take things at her hands and unleash some new disease to reduce the world population to manageable levels in the future, but, it’s rather obvious to me, that things don’t lead to a calm future. Countries historically have competed for resources and waged war for them. The more need the same resources, the more the chance for clash increases and “international laws” are easily forgotten and bypassed with the right excuse… Humanity hasn’t reached the levels of peace and solidarity of Star Trek to hope for something better. But, there is always hope, that some aliens from outer space might attack earth and then humanity will unite…

Just contrast the US/EU reaction to troubles in Arabia Penesula Sunnies Monarchy States with a big Shi’ite majority. The Media key word are always stability and the ruling absolute monarchy is always given a sympathetic coat of paint liken them to some progressive elitened ruler. if that’s not enough Iranian specture is always useful remind why these rulers are important… absolute monarchy or not.

Of course. Consider that several US reports indicate Saudi money being involved in anti-US terrorist activities too, yet it is amazing how nobody wants to make a big deal out of it. “Oil flow here. Do not disturb”. 😀

Libya is prob just an spill over effect from Tunnisa and Egypt.
seed was planted when the new silicon valley wiz kids from state department’s undersec for global affair’s office decided to train middle eastern opposition groups for mass organization using social media.
Oh, the rule of unintended consequences.
If Saudi or Bahrain or even Yemen falls, then I would really could see Gates cursed out these amatures!

(Civil) War is delightful to those who have had no experience of it!

Yes, Libya is a spill over and just when Gadaffi had restored practically all ties with EU. Nobody in the EU wanted Gadaffi really to go. They didn’t want Mubarak to go either (because Egypt had a known a stable role towards Israel under Mubarak), but , it’s the new reality emerging now, where even the US can’t control certain things anymore. The involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan has drained resources, weakened economies, the rapid evolution of things in north Africa took everyone by surprise. And seems this trend will continue. I don’t know if this originated from the trainning organized by the State Dept and then went out of control, but one thing is for sure. The US isn’t in its best shape. Some years ago they would have anticipated the events, would have pushed Mubarak to reforms, maybe even Gadaffi and they would have opened a “pressure valve” to let off some steam from the population.

exactly!

And even more, somewhere in the back of the head of the American administration, is the fear that if this islamic unrest keeps on for a long time, it may “infect” Saudi Arabia too. And if an insurgency occurs there and the pumps stop pumping oil, we will have apocalyptic scenarios worldwide… Fortunately, the Saudis have one characteristic that may avoid this. Higher income than north african countries.

So, Gadaffi, poor fellow, has found himself in a very bad timing. While he had fixed relations with EU (including UK after Lockerbie), made energy deals, arms deals (almost got the Rafale!), seemed at last “accepted” as “legitimate leader” by those who were seeing him as terrorist in the past, now he found himself in a position that everyone simply wants this over as soon as possible.

Fascinating.
How easy and willing people pick sides, how easy they judge and differentiate good from bad guys, how easy they cheer for military intervention in someone else’s country. By using good old media reports. Cheers…

That’s exactly why mass media are for. People want “fast food” news and simple stories. People like stereotypes and slogans. Things they can grasp easily and quickly…

The truth behind all this, lies on politicians’ desks. Nobody really wants to intervene, everyone would like for a faction to win quickly. Even if it’s Gaddafi. The catalyst to intervene won’t be the “humanitarian crisis”, but the fact that the interruption of the flow of Libyan gas and oil towards Europe, causing a climb of oil and gas prices, will, if prolonged cause halting of recovery of US economy and worsening of the conditions of other economies that are in trouble in Europe. In other words, the “double dip” recession that was feared some time ago and seemed to be avoided, is becoming again a distinct possibility.

So, if nobody wins quickly in Libya, this will cause the intervention. The “humanitarian crisis” argument will be used from the mass media as the moral explanation for the people…

In Gaddafi’s case, it won’t be hard to sell the “bad guy” story either. He has a rich history of not exactly a “saint” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muammar_al-Gaddafi) , he is a dictator and he is fighting not some enemy forces led by some state enemy or some nationalist fanatics or some politically indoctrinated from foreign centers guerillas, but his own people that are fed up with him. The same people that “would die for him”… You see, when you ‘re a “good guy”, and the “people who love you”, have taken control over most of the country against you and you reply with force, it’s easy to appear as “bad guy”. It’s not like the media will have to make some particular effort in that. In any democratic country, the goverment would have resigned by now. Even Mubarak prefered that instead of ordering to kill thousands of his people… If the Libyan people “love Gaddafi and would die for him”, he could do something much simpler. Announce elections and let the people show him their love. Now that would make foreign media have a tough time describing him as a “bad guy”, would it?

The West had no grudge with Gaddafi. In the last years, the EU had made many deals with him. As a matter of fact, USA/EU didn’t react quickly condemning him immediately, they wanted to wait and see if he could handle things.

Some analysts say that an oil price over 115$ , will kill the recovery of the US economy. Britain’s on its way to cut deficit too,so mustn’t be very happy with high oil prices either. Italy has her own spending cuts and as in the case of Greece, the supply of gas and oil from Libya has stopped. So if USA decides that had waited enough, i believe that all these 3 will partecipate in a way or another. I am not surprised that Greece seems ready to give support through Crete either, since high oil prices are making any recovery plan even more futile than already is. But we ‘re already bankrupt and we don’t have political weight anyway, so that’s the least important part in all this. Those in the UNSC and with leading role in NATO are those that count…

If Gadaffi wants to avoid intervention (the NATO can supply simply air cover to the insurgents and a limited marines contingent, no need to mass ground involvement), he ‘d better start some quick wins and take control of the country within 2 months or come to a political compromise with the insurgents. Otherwise, if this continues to be a military crisis that goes on and seems a stalemate, i think the US will do something about it. Because i don’t think Obama will like the US to fall into recession again… Nor will the British enjoy more cuts.

I agree with your view on the sad state of affairs of international law. That’s why one needs to be especially careful when treading into other people’s business. follow the golden rule, if you will. all religion and philosophies seems to have a version of it. it is as good a rule as any.

As to UN, I think about it this way, UN is a vast improvement to its feeble forefather the league of nations. and before that…age of empires and colonies and might-makes-right.

at least UN has shown to have some restraint on actions of its members. the power to make war legitmate is a very potent force not seen since the days when papal authority rules european princes.

The UN would be better IMHO if the general assembly had more power or at least abolish the veto right inside the SC. Right now, the UN is practically just the Security Council as far as any true power is concerned. The same members are those who had the most conflicts of interests too most of the time. So you end up with a flawed “law”…

I have mixed feelings about all this. From one side, “law is the law”, and so no matter if flawed, it should be kept (like the Romans were saying “tough law, but law”). From the other side, what do you do when someone in the SC is for political profit halting the “right decision”?

Generally speaking, i am against intervening in the interior affairs of a country without UN resolution.

But in such a case like Libya, with a civil war, if a faction was to ask it, i ‘d be in favour.

In any case, at the end, it’s all about how powerful you are. If you are powerful, you can intervene wherever you like to protect your interests. That’s even more sad, but true.

If Humanitarian law (or utilitarian argument of how many people’s lives will be saved) really comes before soverignty then Britain was right to subjugate India. More people were killed in the Indian partition then there ever was under the British Raj.

The sad truth is that international law is bended and “interpreted” each time according to the will of those that have more power…And on a case per case scenario. Theoretically, only the UN Security Council has legitimacy to order attack against another state. The “humanitarian” argument was born for cases where the Security Council doesn’t agree…

Always on paper, the respect of foreign sovereignty isn’t just a law, but it’s fundamental in the UN Charter, which is the essential text of the international law, as all UN members recognize it.

Article 4

All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapter1.shtml

How do you overcome article 4? By Security Council Resolution. What do you do if such resolution isn’t satisfactory for your positions? You evoke humanitarian need. Is it legal? Probably not, since it bypasses the Security Council, but when the UN facade fails to serve your policy, you have to do something, don’t you… The UN was made by the powerful of the planet to be able to legitimize their acts. But when it fails to do so, one has to do what he has to…

“Legal” becomes such a relative term at the end. The Security Council doesn’t really serve the declared purpose of the UN, but the foreign policy of each of its members. This is something that has been accepted by all its partecipants. When there is a clash in the foreign policy of more members, the result is a compromise. At that point, “law” becomes relative…

Any difficulty would be entirely political.

Exactly. The islamic world is being shaken by insurgencies, the whole area is unstable, Egypt has internal problems as well as 100.000 nationals in Tunisia asking for evacuation. They won’t take the lead role to a NFZ over a neighbouring country.

Once again, the US will lead… An initial UN resolution would be a good start. Once this is obtained, then politically it becomes easier to take more active role to help the insurgents and make pressure on Gadaffi.

The US 6th fleet is moving to the area and is reinforced with USS Kearsarge and Monterey. In the greek parliament there was already enquiry about what the goverment intends to do with Souda Bay and the MoD replied that “if some operation is going to be done, it won’t initiate from Crete, but from US carriers. Of course will will help the support the US 6th fleet and marines, in the context of the UN”.

The PM himself said that “the use of Souda will be made according to national interests”, which is unusual , since usually it’s “according to what the UN will say”. Which indicates, that this time the gov is ready to give full support to US requests and although the communist party asked (once more) to close the base, their moral position this time is weak, since Gadaffi is killing his own population and is a dictator.

To me all this says that the US will lead the way, not the Arab league and certainly not Egypt. Already in Crete there are some fresh US marines arrived waiting to be picked up by incoming ships.

Gadaffi should spare all the trouble and just leave.