The Arab Spring

We're gonna look back on this as our decade's Rwanda.

Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.

Rwanda, IIRC, involved more than a million killings. And, of course, even if it ends in a genocide, we'll still be able to point fingers to Russia and China for blocking any UN agreement, something that wasn't possible at the time.

The only person who can save the civilians is... the Brazilian president. Let me explain: if she officially announces that her air force is doubting over what plane to buy for the FX 2 contract, but that she'll buy 120 of those before the end of the year, with the contract opened to the PAK-FA, J-17, Typhoon, Rafale and Super Hornet (not F-35, let's not get too far here in the madness), then you'll suddenly see a non-fly zone all over Syria, with the five permanent members of the UNSC taking bold actions to save the civilians from certain death. All for purely humanitarian reasons, of course!

As the size of an explosion increases, the number of social situations it is incapable of solving approaches zero.

... Then why the heck doesn't she capitalize on this golden chance to earn massive bonus points with the Syrians that would pave the way for future contracts/treaties?

Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus.

Because BRIC, I suspect.

Except for 4/1/2011. That day lingers in my memory like...metaphor here...I should go.

Elaborate, please.

Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus.

No, I imagine it's probably because her campaign fund is rather full of defense contractor dollars.

Yeah, well, the Russian government needs to get tipped over on its side and shot.

"Can ye fathom the ocean, dark and deep, where the mighty waves and the grandeur sweep?"

Syria is their last client state in the Middle East (except for Iran, who is Syria's other main supporter). If they abandon their ally, no one in the region would ever trust them again, which would mean that they would lose all their influence in a region that is vital to the West. And Russia's point that no one knows who would take over if Assad were gone is a valid one. Although I think if the West wanted to pick a faction and support them we are now in a position to do that.

@11553 to 11555: I was kidding when I wrote the thing about the fighter deal, but now that I think about it, it seems sadly realistic... but it would cost 10 billions to Brazil for such a thing, so let's not hope that much (even if I'd enjoy 120 other Rafales sold, any foreign sale is good for the economy).

@De Marquis: if Russia finds a way to save face, they can hope to have a future in the region. Remember Iraq, which was supported by France until the very end for both the stupid reasons the Bush administration invoked and the fact that Iraq was a good customer for Paris. The war happened, but it didn't look like the client state was dropped altogether. So, maybe Russia will try to force NATO to act outside the UN (privately allowing them to do so), protest very loudly and maybe officially set very strict rules of engagement, getting Assad and his pals to safety, having guarantees for the naval base, things like that.

As the size of an explosion increases, the number of social situations it is incapable of solving approaches zero.

And of course basically nothing in this sentence is acceptable.

"Can ye fathom the ocean, dark and deep, where the mighty waves and the grandeur sweep?"

Maybe, but you're ignoring the "one valid point" the Russians are making. Any government after Assad is as likely to be a Sunni theocracy as anything else. That serves Saudi Arabia's interests, but almost no one else's.

I didn't say that is acceptable either, did I?

EDIT: That said, however, I am not in the business of telling people in other countries what their government should be. At the same time, it's much different for outside interference to be supporting genocidal dictators.

edited 1st Jun '12 9:53:08 AM by DerelictVessel

"Can ye fathom the ocean, dark and deep, where the mighty waves and the grandeur sweep?"

Sorry, I was responding to Rufus.

Oh. My apologies.

"Can ye fathom the ocean, dark and deep, where the mighty waves and the grandeur sweep?"

I don't care anymore if it's a Sunni theocracy or not. Sunni theocracies don't massacre their own people. There's a difference. If Russia honestly believes that not intervening is the best decision, fine. I can respect that. But selling weapons is absolutely unforgivable. This is why I don't like Russia.

Except for 4/1/2011. That day lingers in my memory like...metaphor here...I should go.

The Egyptian court has spoken on Hosni Mubarak and Habib El-Adly's case.

Verdict: Guilty of killing protestors during the revolution.

Sentence: Life imprisonment.

Street response: Wide-spread anger, thousands massing in the Tahrir Square in protest, and all because, due to several convoluted quirks in Egyptian law *

, Mubarak stands a good chance of having his sentence effectively reduced to a handful of years.

Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus.

@Radical Taoist: More like Somalia I'm betting. The reason i think this is that I'm thinking not all of this is with Assad's knowledge or permission, I think some elements of the army are going rogue. Things are breaking down.

Trump delenda est

I think Assad's tacitly approving.

I suspect that the standing orders to most Syrian officers are to suppress civilian protests, and some of them have taken...extreme interpretations of those orders.

Egyptian life imprisonment laws seem pretty badly designed. Who came up with 25 years? Last time I checked, a human life lasts a lot longer than that.

Except for 4/1/2011. That day lingers in my memory like...metaphor here...I should go.

"Sunni theocracies don't massacre their own people." Well, if you take AQ as the main contender, they do seem to have a habit of massacring other people. Maybe the Devil we know is better, maybe not. But I agree the Russians are acting like jerks.

"life imprisonment is technically "25 years" apparently, good conduct can swipe off a good chunk of one's sentence, and as Hosni Mubarak is old-aged and allegedly quite ill..."

The US does very nearly the same thing.

I don't know myself. I only recently learn of "life sentence essentially amounts to only 25 years", though apparently that's the effective result rather than how the sentence's duration itself is defined in the legal texts.

The U.S.? Elaborate, please. Nevermind, just did a more throrough reading of this article. Still, from what I know, it would be trivially easy for Mubarak to arrange for his parole to be paid off in the end... assuming that it doesn't get reduced by aforementioned methods, anyhow.

And just because the U.S. does it doesn't mean that it's right. I've heard stories of serial killers getting off with much more lenient sentences by exploiting such flaws, turning a two- or three-decades sentence into a mere four or five years by being a model inmate, and then returning to sociopathic criminality once he's out.

edited 2nd Jun '12 11:44:12 AM by MarqFJA

Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus.

Syria has retaliated to the expulsion of diplomats by declaring 17 western diplomats "personae non gratae", including the Swiss diplomat. This is alongside the expulsion of the entire Turkish diplomatic team. However is a weird double move they have agreed to allow humanitarian assistance into 4 provinces. I'm gone guess that Assad is simply working his way though every possible agreement he can make (then break) with the west while also trying to squish the uprising. If I’m right then all the Free Syrian Army has to do is hold on until Assad has made (and broken) every possible deal he can with the west. He’s already worked thought the “allow free elections” option, the ceasefire option, now it’s the “allow humanitarian aid” option, next is probably the “withdraw military elements from certain areas” option.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-18330403 http://www.aljazeera.com/news/asia-pacific/2012/06/201265131251913374.html

In other news Putin is in China, officially he's there to talk about energy but I'm going to hold out hope that he's actually trying to prevent the Chinese from jumping from "Veto" to "abstain" for the next Security Council resolution. A man can dream, right?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-18327632

One thing that just occurred to me is the effect that the American election is having on the situation. So far Washington has taken a bit of a back seat, but assuming Obama wins (big assumption I know) how do people think his stance will change? After all post November he’s not going to have to worry about the reaction back home to taking tough action, as much.

Edit:

An interesting piece on Syria for anyone with the time: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-18326869 The main points made are how the landscape has changed since Libya. France and Italy have new leaders, Russia technically has a new leader(though I find the suggestion that Medvedev, not Putin, was the one that decided Russia's position on Libya is laughable) and the Euro zone is in a deeper crisis than ever.

But much more interesting (at least to me) the Libyan's have started their trails for the Gaddafi era leadership. Abu Zeid Omar Dorda (head of foreign inelegance) has been charged, with protesters deaths, they still have Saif al-Islam in custody (thought the ICC want him, as he's wanted under their warrant to) and former head of military intelligence, Abdullah al-Senussi, is being charged in Mauritania (the only West African country not signed up to the ICC) for illegally entering the country. He’s probably much safer there than anywhere else, as I doubt the punishment for illegally entering the country is anywhere near what he would face at the ICC or back home in Libya. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-18330584

Edit 2: I should really go through all the news sites then make one post, instead of throwing anything I find in, piece meal. O well.

Al Jazeera says that the state prosecutors are going to appeal the acquittal of the police chiefs. If this will actually go anywhere remains to be seen. http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2012/06/201263125332419994.html

Likewise calm has apparently been bought to those areas of northern Lebanon that have been plagued with spill over fighting from Syria, how long this will last is anyone’s guess. http://www.aljazeera.com/video/middleeast/2012/06/20126471315873387.html

Also 'something' has gone down at Tripoli airport in Libya. By the sound of it a group of dissatisfied rebels took control of the airport as part of a protest and had to be driven off by NTC loyal forces. http://www.aljazeera.com/news/africa/2012/06/201264125943640669.html

On top of that the elections in Libya have been delayed. However this seems to be for good reason. Apparently so many people want to vote and run that they need more time to get the logistics set up. http://www.aljazeera.com/news/africa/2012/06/20126454143274307.html

O and here's a CNN article on how a Yemen style resolution might work in Syria: http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2012/06/04/could-russia-help-push-out-al-assad/?hpt=wo_c2

edited 5th Jun '12 7:49:58 AM by Silasw

“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran

Putin has officially declared that "Assad staying in power after the political peace process is not necessary". Guess the Kremlin's decided that it's too diplomatically costly to insist on that being a precondition after last week's Al-Houla massacre.

Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus.

This thread typically moves way too fast for me to keep up but I'll try to participate again.

So, from what I can tell on the Russian and Chinese positions, they aren't equivalent in the slightest.

Russia believes that allowing the current dictatorships to fall are going to let in islamic theocracies, something they believe will increase tension and turmoil in the region in the long term. I think they are wrong but that is what the government appears to believe. I doubt that they care that much about losing their weapons contracts (they're not going to sell to either pro-west or Islamic regimes) and just think that militant groups will be on the rise and tacitly supported by the new regimes.

For China, I think that while they were supportive of the Libya mission they were alarmed that NATO air-dropped weapons to the rebels (what do you call rebels who have won?) and went much further than a no-fly zone. Their primary beef appears to be that they think the West is using military might to topple anti-West regimes in the mid-east and doing nothing about Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Iraq and other pro-West regimes. From what dialogue does appear in the news, China seems to think they got backstabed by the West after supporting the Libya mission politically.

All that said, whether or not they use the veto in the UNSC, if the UNGA wants to go ahead with a mission, it goes ahead. I'm just unsure whether even NATO reeeally wants to get into Syria. There's no (as previously stated by other posters) unified rebel movement with a good chance of succeeding. We'd likely wait until the military was in full revolt against the government before we stepped in any way.

Revolutionaries.

Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus.

Ohhohohooo, so in other words, "You Have Failed Me for the last time, Assad."

China's Middle East policy is driven by their ever-growing demand for a source of energy free from foreign interference.