Hi everyone!
So in a bid to prove his legitimacy, Bashar al-Assad held elections of a sort yesterday. The Syrian people voted on a referendum of changes to the government that Mr. Assad believes proves that he is indeed reform-minded. The referendum includes changes that are supposed to shift the monopolistic hold on power currently enjoyed by the ruling Baathist Party. For the first time, presidential term limits are being introduced. According to this referendum, the Syrian president is now limited to two terms at seven years a pop. Lest anyone think Mr. Assad is planning to cede power any time soon, these new term limits don't actually go into effect until 2014 which is when his current term expires. This means that Mr. Assad can potentially remain in power for another two terms. This is reform in name only.
As one might expect, voter turnout was high in Damascus and Aleppo, both of which are bastions of support for Assad. Meanwhile in the embattled city of Homs, the polls--understandably--weren't exactly teeming. Nor were they in other locations around the country despite the images and messages broadcast by Syrian state television that declared the vote was truly a step toward Syrian democracy.
I don't think anyone was fooled. As the votes trickled in, the bombs continued to blast Homs to mere rubble while the so-called Friends of Syria alliance tried to figure out how to bring Mr. Assad to the negotiating table without the support of Russia.
And speaking of Russia...
This morning it was announced that a major assassination plot against Vladimir Putin was foiled. The thing is, this isn't exactly breaking news as the plot was uncovered last month but was only made public today. Apparently it involved the rebel leader of Chechnya and suicide bombers set to disrupt the election process later this week. It isn't just the Syrians who are going to the polls. Vladimir Putin is set to win back the presidency on March 4th. The election, of course, is a mere formality. Of course, whether or not there really was plot against Mr. Putin's life is almost irrelevant. It's all in the timing. Reveal to the Russian public just days before an election that their leader successfully thwarted an assassination attempt, the people are supposed to believe that they need Putin's strength in the face of outside elements that are poised to attack the Russian heartland. Therefore, it's almost unpatriotic not to "vote" for him.
Bashar al-Assad and Vladimir Putin. Syria and Russia: best friends forever. Both are corrupt. Both need the other to 'legitimize' their hold on power. Both see themselves as besieged by foreign aggressors who would dare to disrupt their delusional little fairy tales. Both hold elections (of a sort) that seek to prove they have the support of their people. As farcical as it seems, they're doing a fairly good job staving off the rest of the rational world. Hopefully, it'll only be a matter of time before the cracks really start to show.
Ciao.
Showing posts with label Russia. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Russia. Show all posts
Monday, February 27, 2012
Sunday, February 5, 2012
The Syrian Civil War
Happy Super Bowl Sunday, everyone!
As predicted, Russia and China vetoed the Security Council resolution requiring Assad to essentially turn the Syrian government over to a vice president pending elections. As if on cue, Syrian government troops intensified their crackdown on the town of Homs, which has become the eye of the Syrian protest movement. The vote would have resoundingly passed had it not been for Russia and China who said any such resolution would have been a violation of Syrian sovereignty. This veto has initiated a diplomatic firestorm with angry accusations being hurled between U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Russian foreign minister Sergey V. Lavrov, among others. According to Mr. Lavrov, Russian objection to the resolution stemmed from the fact that Russia feels there was an inadequate balance of blame for the violence being placed on the Syrian government and that the opposition was just as responsible, if not more so, for the rising body count.
Of course, this isn't the real reason for Russia's objections. The real reason, as I've written here before, is that Russia makes a lot of money selling arms and other types of military equipment to Syria. If Russia were to be seen criticizing its number one client, that business and lucrative source of income would surely evaporate. Russia can't afford to lose that.
It seems there's very little to be done unless the U.S. or other countries within Europe or the Arab League take matters into their own hands. This, however, isn't likely. After Iraq, the U.S. is loath to take the lead in setting foot in another Arab country without such action being unilaterally approved. I could be wrong, but I do not believe the Arab World has its own multinational force--like, for example, the African Union Force that currently has troops on the ground in Somalia--that could intervene through military action. It's a shame because I do believe any sort of intervention has to be Arab-led. But the state of affairs between most of these Arab countries is so fraught with uncertainty and sectarian animosity that I don't imagine it would even be possible.
In Egypt and other countries throughout the Middle East as well as Germany and Greece, Syrian embassies were burned overnight in direct protest of the intensifying action against the opposition in Homs. Because foreign journalists are not allowed inside Syria, it is difficult to get a true sense of the violence taking place there. However, video has been smuggled out and posted on YouTube that vividly brings the situation to life. According to one eyewitness account related in today's New York Times:
Ciao.
As predicted, Russia and China vetoed the Security Council resolution requiring Assad to essentially turn the Syrian government over to a vice president pending elections. As if on cue, Syrian government troops intensified their crackdown on the town of Homs, which has become the eye of the Syrian protest movement. The vote would have resoundingly passed had it not been for Russia and China who said any such resolution would have been a violation of Syrian sovereignty. This veto has initiated a diplomatic firestorm with angry accusations being hurled between U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Russian foreign minister Sergey V. Lavrov, among others. According to Mr. Lavrov, Russian objection to the resolution stemmed from the fact that Russia feels there was an inadequate balance of blame for the violence being placed on the Syrian government and that the opposition was just as responsible, if not more so, for the rising body count.
Of course, this isn't the real reason for Russia's objections. The real reason, as I've written here before, is that Russia makes a lot of money selling arms and other types of military equipment to Syria. If Russia were to be seen criticizing its number one client, that business and lucrative source of income would surely evaporate. Russia can't afford to lose that.
It seems there's very little to be done unless the U.S. or other countries within Europe or the Arab League take matters into their own hands. This, however, isn't likely. After Iraq, the U.S. is loath to take the lead in setting foot in another Arab country without such action being unilaterally approved. I could be wrong, but I do not believe the Arab World has its own multinational force--like, for example, the African Union Force that currently has troops on the ground in Somalia--that could intervene through military action. It's a shame because I do believe any sort of intervention has to be Arab-led. But the state of affairs between most of these Arab countries is so fraught with uncertainty and sectarian animosity that I don't imagine it would even be possible.
In Egypt and other countries throughout the Middle East as well as Germany and Greece, Syrian embassies were burned overnight in direct protest of the intensifying action against the opposition in Homs. Because foreign journalists are not allowed inside Syria, it is difficult to get a true sense of the violence taking place there. However, video has been smuggled out and posted on YouTube that vividly brings the situation to life. According to one eyewitness account related in today's New York Times:
"It's a real massacre in every sense of the word. I saw bodies of women and children lying on roads, beheaded. It's horrible and inhuman. It was a long night helping people get to hospitals."Unfortunately, I think the situation is going to get a whole lot worse before it gets better especially as the Free Syrian Army advances closer to Damascus, Syria's capitol that has until now been spared most of the carnage. While diplomats and military experts are hesitant to label it thus, what we are seeing in Syria today is a civil war. Unless Russia is made to stand down from its position, there's really nothing the Security Council or anyone can legally do. And the Free Syrian Army is too scattered and ill-armed to seriously be considered capable of overthrowing the government. What are we left with? More of the same.
Ciao.
Sunday, January 29, 2012
How Do You Solve a Problem Like Syria?
Hi everyone!
So the Arab League finally did it. Deciding that their observer mission to Syria was inadvertently doing more harm than good, it suspended the operation until further review. This means there are no observers on the ground and that the Assad government is now free to unleash its vengeance upon the opposition with impunity.
I suppose this shouldn't come as a surprise. I mean let's face it, the observers were never given the freedom of movement required to really get an accurate view of the situation. When you are under strict escort by troops loyal to the Assad government--the source of the problem to begin with--how much could they actually have expected to see? Not a lot.
Even though the League voted last week to extend the mission for another month, observers were dropping out right and left, thereby further eroding the credibility of the entire endeavor. It is important to keep in mind, however, that the Arab League does have a peace proposal on the table with the United Nations Security Council. In fact, most of the world--with the exception of course of Syria, Russia, China, and Iran--welcome the League's proposal as being the most proactive approach yet to taking the first steps toward ending the violence. The plan calls for Bashar to step down, temporarily ceding power to a vice president while a new government was formed. Of course, Bashar has stated ad nauseum that he has no intention of doing any such thing. He knows he has the support, in particular, of Russia from whom Syria imports tens of millions of dollars of arms each year. Russian Vice President (and soon-to-be President) Vladimir Putin has publicly expressed support for Bashar and has joined him in condemning Western (read U.S.) influence in inciting the Syrian insurgency. This is a similar accusation to that which Putin has made about the recent protests in his own country.
Although I have always been a skeptic of the Arab League observer mission, now that the mission has been suspended--albeit temporarily but I'm not hopeful of a renewal--where does that leave things? In a very bad way indeed. For however long it takes the League to decide whether to continue the mission or not, Assad has a perfect window of opportunity to inflict maximum damage upon the opposition movement. You'd be a fool to believe otherwise.
What gets me is that no one outside the Arab World really seems to care all that much. The Obama administration repeatedly claims to be "closely monitoring" events in Syria but what does that really mean? I don't advocate sending American troops to Syria. This would give Iran an opportunity to further decry American hegemony in the region and who's to say that Iran wouldn't use this as a catalyst to move the Republican Guard into Syria under the guise of protecting its Syrian ally? We don't want another Iraq. It's unlikely this would happen anyway given the fact that Obama is in the process of initiating a "reset" in its relations with Russia and is unlikely to do anything that would provoke further Russian consternation. It seems where the U.S. is concerned, democracy is great as long as it falls in line with our own political sensibilities, otherwise democracy just gets in the way of promoting our master agenda...though I'm not sure anyone--including our leaders in Washington--really knows what that is anymore.
There has been mention in the U.N. Security Council of enacting a no-fly zone over parts of Syria. It was an effective tool in bringing down Qaddafi in Libya and to a lesser extent Saddam in Iraq. But there are enough dissenting opinions in the Security Council about this that it's unlikely a no-fly zone is realistically within the equation.
So what to do? We need to give full support to the Arab League peace proposal and perhaps offer a sort of amnesty to Bashar and his allies in the Syrian government as an incentive for stepping down, not unlike that which was offered to President Saleh of Yemen--who, incidentally, is now in New York for medical treatment. Beyond this, our hands are tied. The situation on the ground is dire but, in Syria, military intervention could truly ignite a much greater regional conflagration than we've seen to this point, a conflagration that might include Iranian missile strikes on Israel, the threatened closing of the Strait of Hormuz...and much much worse.
Not good. Not good at all.
Ciao.
So the Arab League finally did it. Deciding that their observer mission to Syria was inadvertently doing more harm than good, it suspended the operation until further review. This means there are no observers on the ground and that the Assad government is now free to unleash its vengeance upon the opposition with impunity.
I suppose this shouldn't come as a surprise. I mean let's face it, the observers were never given the freedom of movement required to really get an accurate view of the situation. When you are under strict escort by troops loyal to the Assad government--the source of the problem to begin with--how much could they actually have expected to see? Not a lot.
Even though the League voted last week to extend the mission for another month, observers were dropping out right and left, thereby further eroding the credibility of the entire endeavor. It is important to keep in mind, however, that the Arab League does have a peace proposal on the table with the United Nations Security Council. In fact, most of the world--with the exception of course of Syria, Russia, China, and Iran--welcome the League's proposal as being the most proactive approach yet to taking the first steps toward ending the violence. The plan calls for Bashar to step down, temporarily ceding power to a vice president while a new government was formed. Of course, Bashar has stated ad nauseum that he has no intention of doing any such thing. He knows he has the support, in particular, of Russia from whom Syria imports tens of millions of dollars of arms each year. Russian Vice President (and soon-to-be President) Vladimir Putin has publicly expressed support for Bashar and has joined him in condemning Western (read U.S.) influence in inciting the Syrian insurgency. This is a similar accusation to that which Putin has made about the recent protests in his own country.
Although I have always been a skeptic of the Arab League observer mission, now that the mission has been suspended--albeit temporarily but I'm not hopeful of a renewal--where does that leave things? In a very bad way indeed. For however long it takes the League to decide whether to continue the mission or not, Assad has a perfect window of opportunity to inflict maximum damage upon the opposition movement. You'd be a fool to believe otherwise.
What gets me is that no one outside the Arab World really seems to care all that much. The Obama administration repeatedly claims to be "closely monitoring" events in Syria but what does that really mean? I don't advocate sending American troops to Syria. This would give Iran an opportunity to further decry American hegemony in the region and who's to say that Iran wouldn't use this as a catalyst to move the Republican Guard into Syria under the guise of protecting its Syrian ally? We don't want another Iraq. It's unlikely this would happen anyway given the fact that Obama is in the process of initiating a "reset" in its relations with Russia and is unlikely to do anything that would provoke further Russian consternation. It seems where the U.S. is concerned, democracy is great as long as it falls in line with our own political sensibilities, otherwise democracy just gets in the way of promoting our master agenda...though I'm not sure anyone--including our leaders in Washington--really knows what that is anymore.
There has been mention in the U.N. Security Council of enacting a no-fly zone over parts of Syria. It was an effective tool in bringing down Qaddafi in Libya and to a lesser extent Saddam in Iraq. But there are enough dissenting opinions in the Security Council about this that it's unlikely a no-fly zone is realistically within the equation.
So what to do? We need to give full support to the Arab League peace proposal and perhaps offer a sort of amnesty to Bashar and his allies in the Syrian government as an incentive for stepping down, not unlike that which was offered to President Saleh of Yemen--who, incidentally, is now in New York for medical treatment. Beyond this, our hands are tied. The situation on the ground is dire but, in Syria, military intervention could truly ignite a much greater regional conflagration than we've seen to this point, a conflagration that might include Iranian missile strikes on Israel, the threatened closing of the Strait of Hormuz...and much much worse.
Not good. Not good at all.
Ciao.
Friday, December 9, 2011
The Russian Elections
Hi everyone! I'm coming to you today from my family's weekend getaway house in Galena, Illinois, about a 3-hour drive northwest of Chicago, right on the Illinois/Iowa/Wisconsin tri-state area. It's a beautiful Frank Lloyd Wright-inspired house situated on sixteen acres of secluded woodland with an eagle's eye view of the surrounding countryside. It is indeed the perfect country retreat and I am very happy to be out here for the weekend, getting in some much-needed R&R.
What's on my mind today? I've been following the news out of Russia. It seems that Vladimir Putin is in trouble of losing his grip on his decade-long control of Kremlin politics. This week's elections, which were essentially intended to cement support for Putin's United Russia party in advance of his election to become president again in March, proved (perhaps unsurprisingly) to be a rather corrupt affair, with allegations (and photographic proof) of ballot box stuffing and the like on behalf of Putin. The interesting thing, however, is that despite these allegations, United Russia still faired rather poorly with only some 50% of all votes cast in favor of the party. Speculation is that without these criminal tactics, United Russia would have done even worse. So...what does this say about Putin's chances of becoming President again in 2012? I'm thinking at this point it's a shoo-in, especially as Putin's personal approval ratings are still quite high despite the middling performance of his party at the polls. But, with a massive protest scheduled to hit Red Square on Saturday, and fearful whisperings of an Arab Spring-type revolution in the making, I'd think Putin and his Kremlin cronies might be a little less smug about their chances. Putin's accusation that Hilary Clinton was at the forefront of stirring up the anti-United Russia pot just smacks of desperation...well, maybe not desperation exactly but it doesn't exactly inspire confidence.
I'm curious to know what others think, especially those of you who are reading this blog in Russia. I know there's at least a few of you. I'm curious to know your in-the-trenches perspective. Are any of you planning to be at the protest tomorrow? If so, post a comment. Let me know what you're thinking. Let's get a discussion going. I have my own opinion about democracy in Russia--not unlike that alluded to in my post the other day about the democracy movement in the Middle East--but I'm curious to know your thoughts. Can a country as vast and diverse as Russia in terms of landscape and ethnicity with no real historical experience with democracy be expected to function as a Western-style democracy...or does it need a strong man-type (like Putin) to keep the country together? Share your opinions.
Oh...and my holiday party last night was great, thanks! Leslie, Shannon, Heather, Tom, Melissa, Craig, Mom and Dad and the family---thanks for coming over! The shrimp skewers came out okay after all and there was plenty of food and drink to go around! Cheers!
Ciao.
QUESTION OF THE DAY: "What are your thoughts and opinions about the elections in Russia? Should Putin be allowed to run as President in 2012? Why or why not?"
What's on my mind today? I've been following the news out of Russia. It seems that Vladimir Putin is in trouble of losing his grip on his decade-long control of Kremlin politics. This week's elections, which were essentially intended to cement support for Putin's United Russia party in advance of his election to become president again in March, proved (perhaps unsurprisingly) to be a rather corrupt affair, with allegations (and photographic proof) of ballot box stuffing and the like on behalf of Putin. The interesting thing, however, is that despite these allegations, United Russia still faired rather poorly with only some 50% of all votes cast in favor of the party. Speculation is that without these criminal tactics, United Russia would have done even worse. So...what does this say about Putin's chances of becoming President again in 2012? I'm thinking at this point it's a shoo-in, especially as Putin's personal approval ratings are still quite high despite the middling performance of his party at the polls. But, with a massive protest scheduled to hit Red Square on Saturday, and fearful whisperings of an Arab Spring-type revolution in the making, I'd think Putin and his Kremlin cronies might be a little less smug about their chances. Putin's accusation that Hilary Clinton was at the forefront of stirring up the anti-United Russia pot just smacks of desperation...well, maybe not desperation exactly but it doesn't exactly inspire confidence.
I'm curious to know what others think, especially those of you who are reading this blog in Russia. I know there's at least a few of you. I'm curious to know your in-the-trenches perspective. Are any of you planning to be at the protest tomorrow? If so, post a comment. Let me know what you're thinking. Let's get a discussion going. I have my own opinion about democracy in Russia--not unlike that alluded to in my post the other day about the democracy movement in the Middle East--but I'm curious to know your thoughts. Can a country as vast and diverse as Russia in terms of landscape and ethnicity with no real historical experience with democracy be expected to function as a Western-style democracy...or does it need a strong man-type (like Putin) to keep the country together? Share your opinions.
Oh...and my holiday party last night was great, thanks! Leslie, Shannon, Heather, Tom, Melissa, Craig, Mom and Dad and the family---thanks for coming over! The shrimp skewers came out okay after all and there was plenty of food and drink to go around! Cheers!
Ciao.
QUESTION OF THE DAY: "What are your thoughts and opinions about the elections in Russia? Should Putin be allowed to run as President in 2012? Why or why not?"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)