Uncategorized
Syria: What does Ahmed al-Sharaa mean?
The west and Israel seem to be concerned about what Ahmed al-Sharaa, the leader of Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) is saying. His pronouncements both in recent years and since the HTS victory in Syria have been measured and seem to reject the idea that his aim is to establish a fundamentalist Islamic regime in Syria. However, his past connections with the Islamic State of Iraq (ISIS) and Al Qaeda are pointed to, as is his previous nom de guerre, Abu Mohammad al-Julani as evidence of his ideological position. They say they want to see actions not just words.
Given the experience of diplomacy in the region a degree of scepticism is sensible. Fine words butter no parsnips as they say. Furthermore, words do have a remarkable degree of flexibility in the Middle East. The term “defence” comes to mind.
However, given what went before, in the murderous Assad regime, and the scenes of celebration from Syrians across the country it is difficult to simply dismiss al-Sharaa. Given this most nations and agencies seem content to adopt a wait and see policy. Wanting to see if the promising words do get translated into actions.
Israel, as so often, is the exception here. It is busily defending itself against an attack, of which there is neither sign nor capacity, by bombing any and all military facilities in Syria. They are also annexing land inside Syria to secure Israel’s border.
If the scepticism of western, commentators, journalists, diplomats and politicians proves well founded then Syria’s appalling condition may simply continue under new management. If this is the case it will confirm a view of islamist insurgents as simply interested in gaining power in order to impose a version of Islam which is authoritarian, brutal and misogynistic. Together with a new regime of corruption and crime.
If this happens it will reinforce the view that you can never trust such groups. That radical islamism, or indeed, for some, merely islamism, is an inherently authoritarian and regressive force. Given this they must be opposed and where possible eliminated and certainly kept away from any levers of power.
It is right that the establishment of another fundamentalist regime with no interest in the rule of law outside of strict religious control, or an independent, multi-faith civil society, or any form of participatory government would certainly add to the woes of the people of Syria with negative consequences for other peoples in the region.
It may however be the case that the threat that al-Sharaa poses is not if he does not do what he says but rather if he does do what he says.
Clearly, it is early days however the actions taken so far by the new regime led by al-Sharaa and HTS are unlike previous insurgent takeovers. No bloody reprisals, no looting and no ill-disciplined soldiery. No immediate implementation of fundamentalist Islamic social measures. Co-operation with the existing governmental institutions with the existing government being asked to remain in power until March 2025 to oversee a prcess of transition. Universities have been opened as opposed to closed. No curfews.
The army is being maintained not dissolved, the civil service is not being replaced with people whose qualifications are ideological fervour as opposed to administrative competence. The strong underpinning message and fundamental aim is claimed to be a commitment to rebuild Syria and the “…establishment of a government based on institutions and a “council chosen by the people“. It will be interesting to see what this council is in due course. But there have been clear commitments to religious tolerance, the rule of law, and a strong civil society.
What seems to have happened to date in Syria seems to be characterised by a very disciplined fighting force. Disciplined in their approach to fighting certainly. But more importantly, disciplined in victory.
al-Sharaa has been absolutely explicit that the country has no interest or capacity to engage in a war with Israel. This, despite the illegal and substantial programme of bombing being done by their neighbour to “defend” themselves.
What might ring alarm bells in the West and Israel is the commitment to a process of change by Syrians for Syrians. A demand that all foreign forces now leave Syria to allow them to get on with the immense task of rebuilding a country that has been systematically destroyed by a brutal despot.
One of the many problems of the region is the constant maneuvering by global powers and Arab neighbours to secure advantage it times of uncertainty. Attempting to obtain territorial or other advantages when states are riven with internal conflicts or political instability.
If al-Sharaa does substantially what he says, it will create a real dilemma for the West, Israel and other Arabic nations. A moderate muslim nation with genuinely independent institutions, religious tolerance and a genuine distribution of power is going to stick out, in the region, like a sore thumb.
Time will tell but al-Sharaa presents very well. His interview on CNN is illuminating as much for the tone and thoughtfulness of his comments as for what he actually says. He has learned the lesson of previous insurgent groups, terrorists or freedom fighters depending on you politics. He is not picking fights he knows he cannot win. There is no inflammatory rhetoric about the State of Israel or the West. He does not shy away from his Islamic faith but neither does he see this as monopolising power in a new Syria.
The. task of rebuilding Syria will be monumental. An economy that is on its knees. Fighting continuing in the north as the Kurdish cause has Turkey and the United States maneuvering for advantage. Its South Eastern border with Israel being eroded, together with a substantial bombing campaign as Israel defends itself. Loud calls for swift and public retribution against those of the former regime engaged in the systematic torture of relatives of suvivers. And on top of all this external forces trying to ensure al-Sharaa fails.
If it does not fall back into a brutal fundamentalism Syria could become a model for a new kind if Islamic regime with enourmous consequences across the whole of the middle east.
Gaza Buffer Zone: Impact on Population Density
Early on in the conflict in Gaza Israel unilaterally decided to create a buffer zone stretching from the top right hand corner of Gaza ie. the North East corner by Beit Hanoun down to the Egyptian border. A distance of approximately 48 kilometres. The zone would be 1 kilometre wide so would steralise 48 square kilometres of Gaza territory.
Gaza comprises 360 square kilometres per the CIA World Fact Book which also records a population in the Strip of 2.1m people. This works out at 5,833 persons per square kilometre (ppsqk). This slightly more than London at 5,608 ppsqk but less than Tokyo at 6,362 ppsqk. When the 48 square kilometre’s are taken off however Gaza’s populations density increases to 6,730 ppsqk exceeding that of Tokyo.
Of course the Gaza strip is not a City it is a… territory. If you were to compare with a nearby country, say Israel the population density there is circa 400 ppsqkm.
The reason for the buffer zone is to protect against another 10/7. But there is currently a 20 foot high fence around the whole of Gaza and a blockade of its coastal waters. Will a kilometre wide buffer provide greater security? Or will it just reduce further the land available in the occupied territory?
Bad and Badder, Dumb and Dumber
The Conservative leadership process has whittled the runners down to two. This may be as a result of an incompetent attempt to game the process or it may be the will of the Party but the two candidates are vying with each other to appear farthest to the right. The continuous drift in that direction over the past decade has resulted in a number of bizarre decisions. With “One Person Toryism” exemplified by Boris Johnson removing the whip from such giants of “One Nation Conservatism” as Michael Heseltine and perhaps culminating in the appointment of Liz Truss as Prime Minister. Someone whose blind ideological fervour was only excelled by her gross incompetence and lack of personal insight.
At one time this drift to the right would be seen as a strategic mistake. The orthodox view being that there were bedrocks of political support on the right and the left and in order to win, parties had to extend their appeal as far as possible in the direction or their opponents to secure the floating voters who would determine the outcome of the election. This had a moderating effect preventing parties drifting too far away from the centre ground.
It may be argued that this balancing process reasserted itself at the last election. However other “theories” are available to explain this landslide shift. The “pendulum theory” which suggests the electorate just feel its time to give the other side a go. A theory based on young children’s universal appeal to fairness when they have not “had a turn” on the bouncy castle yet. Another is that a party which has been in government for a long time has “run out of steam”. They are “exhausted” and unable to come up with new ideas to address the evolving challenges they face. Again it relies on an analysis which simplifies and anthropomorphises a complex social/political reality.
My own guess is the main driver of the last election was, above all, the complete lack of credibility of the Tories, informed by their spectacular incompetence in managing, public services, the economy, a global pandemic, the national finances, in fact, pretty much anything they turned their inattention to.
Supporters of the Labour party may rejoice at the options being put forward for the Conservative Party leadership. They may feel the option of bad or badder for their opponents is a positive thing as both candidates seem set to push the party further away from the “centre” where elections are supposed to be won.
This view may be too optimistic. If we look across the Atlantic we have in the Republican Party a situation which could be characterised as dumb and dumber but none the less may have a winning strategy. A strategy based on moving the bedrock.
Donald Trump is certainly not the sharpest knife in the draw. His record demonstrates he does not have the moral insight, the intellectual capacity nor the personal interest to address the fundamental problems facing the United States at the moment. His shortcomings are well documented and largely come out of his own mouth.
He does have one real strength however. He has, inadvertently, acted as a lightening rod for the broad discontent which has been building across America for at least the last two decades, but with roots going much further back. The growing awareness that the age of the American Dream has passed and the sense that history might be moving East has created a level of uncertainty about the future which has not existed previously for many Americans. Whilst the Dream may never have existed as promoted, there was a long period of sustained and significant growth in the US which meant it was normal for parents to expect their offspring to be better off than they were.
The tectonic plates of growing inequality, a concentration of economic power and willingness to use this to exercise political influence/control, ignored by both Republicans and Democrats, began to reveal themselves in tensions and fissures in the body politic. This process exploded into sharp relief in the earth shivering event which for short hand was called the credit crunch in 2007/8. The credibility of the political elite was significantly undermined by its response to this crisis created by the purely profit motivated innovations of the banking and wider financial sector. To address the rapidly building catastrophe Main Street was sacrificed to Wall Street. Millions of hard working Americans lost their homes and their life savings whilst the banks were bailed out.
Prolonged austerity, “difficult decisions”, technological change and globalisation seemed to be leaving huge numbers of Americans behind. Low wage, short term jobs replaced the blue collar jobs that had sustained decent lifestyles for millions, their circumstances becoming increasingly challenging and, indeed, desperate if any members of the family fell ill. A widespread feeling they were the victims of processes they did not understand but a strong feeling of unfairness, being ignored and left behind.
Fertile ground for someone to come along with slogan simple solutions. Particularly, ones which focused the blame on foreigners in general and immigrants in particular. This approach has manifest risks both for the United States (indeed their very unity) and the wider world given the pivotal role the nation plays in global economics and diplomacy.
To blame the current problems of the United States just on Donald Trump, even accepting the wide range of personal failings he suffers from, is unfair. The leadership of the conservative right in the US has to accept a substantial proportion of the blame. They have remained dumb when some of their number have turned their back on bipartisan politics and the conventions which resulted and sustained that approach. The refusal of a Republican Senate to confirm appointments to the Supreme Court of the sitting president was a particularly egregious example of this, which happened before Trump was elected.
When you start down this road you are faced with having to rationalise and make sense of statements and policy proposals which are incomprehensible, inconsistent or even contradictory. A lot of very clever people have to race around trying to minimise the damage being done. Ultimately you end up having to support a convicted felon as your candidate for the White House.
Remaining dumb in the face of a clearly unqualified candidates ramblings, or “weavings”, results in a spiral into a realm of dumber and dumber actions which may have existential implications not just for the United States and not just for countries around the world but indeed for the future of the planet.
The party political system has many functions. One of its key functions in the past has been to train and develop political leaders. And, perhaps more importantly to winnow out those who are simply incapable of doing what is a very difficult task. On both sides of the Atlantic the parties of the right have failed in this critical function. Their desire for power has overwhelmed all other considerations. Leaders and political policies have become judged first and foremost on whether they will secure power not whether they will contribute to the welfare or wellbeing of their citizens.
Such a value free environment is set I fear to end badly. Conservatives who should and probably do know better need to stand up and be counted. Easier to propose than to do. Liz Cheney, a person of impeccable right-wing conservative credentials took a very public and brave stance against Trump and paid the price as her party turned against her and ousted her. Indeed there are many Republicans who have made a stand but the Republican party machine is so much in awe of Trump’s ability to shift a bedrock of voters that they continue to boost his credibility by backing him.
Going back to the theory about how the floating voters in the centre of politics are a reassuring stabiliser against extremist positions. This mechanism breaks down if the bedrocks of political support move and the centre ground is shifted to the right or indeed the left. What The Republicans have done in the US has been to shift the centre to the right. This process has been going on for many years however it became supercharged when Donald Trump came to dominate the political landscape. His character, or lack of it, has raised the stakes significantly. His challenge to the rule of law, constitutional conventions, the very notion of rational argument and, indeed, any view of the world other than his own has changed the very nature of politics.
This same process of the centre right being undermined from the far right is evident in the the United Kingdom but has not had a character as egregious as Trump to supercharge it. However problematic they are bad and badder do not constitute the same level of threat to democracy as the dumb and dumber issue that the States face… yet.
It may seem odd for someone on the left to be concerned about the health of the right. However, democracies have to be based on compromise. There needs to be a broad degree of agreement of what is acceptable and what the aims of government, in the broadest sense, are. When this breaks down, whatever the longevity or sophistication of its institutions and conventions might be, democracy is at risk. When this is combined with an unstable demagogue much worse may happen. If Donald Trump is elected in November the Republican Party will have to take responsibility for what follows. They may regret this for a very long time.
northerncomment 