Arab Spring

[coprolite]

Remember when a wave of democratic optimism spread through the youth of the former Ottoman Empire, and they threw off the yoke of  authoritanarianism?

Does anybody know why it's all gone so horribly wrong?

[welshbairn]

9 minutes ago, coprolite said:

Remember when a wave of democratic optimism spread through the youth of the former Ottoman Empire, and they threw off the yoke of  authoritanarianism?

Does anybody know why it's all gone so horribly wrong?

A shortage of nice, liberal, middle class Facebook types to get between violent governments and religious extremists.

[Jambo: First Blood]

On 27/10/2018 at 16:08, coprolite said:

Remember when a wave of democratic optimism spread through the youth of the former Ottoman Empire, and they threw off the yoke of  authoritanarianism?

Does anybody know why it's all gone so horribly wrong?

Why do you think it went wrong?

[NotThePars]

The western world has propped up tyrants all over the shop there because it has historically suited our national interests. When these places revolt and try to elect their own governments that doesn't suit, so a quiet word is had and El-Sisi types come along and put it all back in the name of security, law and order or anti-corruption etc.
It seems to me that where it seems to have largely worked (Tunisia, Morocco, Lebanon) the historical western political interest has been French mainly and they've left them to it after the disaster of French intervention in Libya. The places where it has gone badly (Egypt, Yemen, Bahrain) chime much more strongly with US geopolitical interest, or the tolerance by the US of Saudi/Israeli regional interest.
 
 

Wasn’t Syria a French mandate

[Melanius Mullarkey]

On 27/10/2018 at 16:08, coprolite said:

Remember when a wave of democratic optimism spread through the youth of the former Ottoman Empire, and they threw off the yoke of  authoritanarianism?

Does anybody know why it's all gone so horribly wrong?

I think when Mixu came in it all went to f**k.

[Hillonearth]

I was actually in Tunisia when the revolution took place in 2012, and it was interesting to watch first hand - Ben Ali was a corrupt authorltarian p***k, but there's perhaps an argument that in some cases it's only those types that are capable of holding some of the countries in that part of the world together, although it's all too often by force.

In many cases there's too much disparity between the metropolitan population which are largely secular-thinking and Westernised,  and those in rural areas who are the exact opposite. More often than not things seem to end up in a face-off between "democratic" and Islamist values which makes it all but impossible for the state to cohere and progress.

[coprolite]

2 hours ago, Jambo: First Blood said:

Why do you think it went wrong?

Multiple complex  factors of which i know little probably.

My impression is that most lacked institutions that support democratic government.

Genuinely interested to hear people's opinions, insights and facetious comments.

 

[John Lambies Doos]

Classic only fools episode. Was on UK gold Friday evening

[new kyd in town]

On ‎29‎/‎10‎/‎2018 at 20:49, coprolite said:

Multiple complex  factors of which i know little probably.

My impression is that most lacked institutions that support democratic government.

Genuinely interested to hear people's opinions, insights and facetious comments.

 

Probably not enough bakesh to go around.

[SandyCromarty]

On 10/29/2018 at 19:46, MixuFixit said:

The western world has propped up tyrants all over the shop there because it has historically suited our national interests. When these places revolt and try to elect their own governments that doesn't suit, so a quiet word is had and El-Sisi types come along and put it all back in the name of security, law and order or anti-corruption etc.

It seems to me that where it seems to have largely worked (Tunisia, Morocco, Lebanon) the historical western political interest has been French mainly and they've left them to it after the disaster of French intervention in Libya. The places where it has gone badly (Egypt, Yemen, Bahrain) chime much more strongly with US geopolitical interest, or the tolerance by the US of Saudi/Israeli regional interest.

 

 

I wasn't aware that the French were involved in Libya, I do know that they are heavily involved in Iran's oil production with Total and virtually run Kharg Island.

Since oil was found in Libya the Americans have been the main partner with the Libyans all the way through from King Idris to Gadaffi and even to the present day, desert production sites were staffed mainly by Brits but the Yanks are the money, from time to time when I flew down from Tripoli to some of the sites there would be a yank on the flight and when I asked one of them what he was doing he replied that he was looking after his Company's interests, though he didn't mention which company.

On the exploration side of the business I did meet once some American Occidental guys checking out a licensed site in the desert.

I never did meet with any French production personnel in Libya but they may have been there.  Their main areas were Morocco, Tunisia and Algeria.

[Detournement]

In Syria it's pretty clear that the Saudis, Israel, the USA and initially Turkey saw the opportunity for a war. If you said this circa 2014 you were a crank but we now have a situation where the USA illegally occupies 1/3 of Syria, Israel has admitted to supplying Jihadi groups in the south and we have quotes from Hillary Clinton's emails that the Saudis are funding ISIS.

Egypt was never going to be allowed to self determine and western media and governments averted their eyes to the Rabba massacre. Libya was probably the most shameful episode of all as the CIA opportunism was only successful because of the idiocy and vanity of Cameron and Sarkozy. Libya is completely destroyed and possibly beyond repair and the migrant flows are going to cause huge problems in Europe for years to come. Yemen is just a complete moral failure on the part of everyone involved, i've been reading about the anti Vietnam War movement in the UK and compared to the 60s we are completely docile in accepting this kind of atrocity.

[SandyCromarty]

2 hours ago, Detournement said:

In Syria it's pretty clear that the Saudis, Israel, the USA and initially Turkey saw the opportunity for a war. If you said this circa 2014 you were a crank but we now have a situation where the USA illegally occupies 1/3 of Syria, Israel has admitted to supplying Jihadi groups in the south and we have quotes from Hillary Clinton's emails that the Saudis are funding ISIS.

Egypt was never going to be allowed to self determine and western media and governments averted their eyes to the Rabba massacre. Libya was probably the most shameful episode of all as the CIA opportunism was only successful because of the idiocy and vanity of Cameron and Sarkozy. Libya is completely destroyed and possibly beyond repair and the migrant flows are going to cause huge problems in Europe for years to come. Yemen is just a complete moral failure on the part of everyone involved, i've been reading about the anti Vietnam War movement in the UK and compared to the 60s we are completely docile in accepting this kind of atrocity.

The following from a report published yesterday;

The port closure for more than two weeks in June-July blocked 850,000 bpd of Libya’s oil (nearly all Libyan production) from being exported from four ports. As a result, Libya’s oil production slumped to just 673,000 bpd in July, as per OPEC’s secondary sources. In August, production recovered to an average 950,000 bpd, while Libya’s production in September further jumped by 103,000 bpd to average 1.053 million bpd, OPEC said in its October Monthly Oil Market Report.

As of the end of September, Libya’s oil production hit its highest level since 2013, NOC’s chairman Mustafa Sanalla said, adding that if the security situation in the country improves, Libya’s production could further rise from the recent 1.278 million bpd.

So it seems that the oil production continues as before in Libya but who is benefiting financially is anybody's guess.

However you are absolutely right when you mention the CIA's involvement in the removal of Gadaffi, it was well known that Gadaffi being from Sirte  was despised by the people of Benghazi who had made many failed assassination attempts on him, so it was easy for the CIA to finance the uprising from Benghazi.

There is absolutely no doubt that the Gadaffi family were despots and corrupt however changes were being made under his son Saif who had taken over running many departments and was aiming for modernisation, he for instance introduced yearly inspections on all of Libya's drilling operations under the National Oil Corporation, this was a world first. Dubai's Crown Prince had bought a major section of Tripoli's waterfront to develop it along the lines of his own country as a holiday destination for Europeans. Anyway it's all over now but who knows how it would have panned out.   

[NotThePars]

The overthrow of Gaddafi and Saddam, two people that actively pursued WMD programs before pulling back, is going to keep having knock on effects with countries like Iran and North Korea in pursuing their own deterrent. There's no reason for Tehran or Pyongyang to have any faith in long-term US diplomatic guarantees.

[Savage Henry]

1 hour ago, SandyCromarty said:

The following from a report published yesterday;

The port closure for more than two weeks in June-July blocked 850,000 bpd of Libya’s oil (nearly all Libyan production) from being exported from four ports. As a result, Libya’s oil production slumped to just 673,000 bpd in July, as per OPEC’s secondary sources. In August, production recovered to an average 950,000 bpd, while Libya’s production in September further jumped by 103,000 bpd to average 1.053 million bpd, OPEC said in its October Monthly Oil Market Report.

As of the end of September, Libya’s oil production hit its highest level since 2013, NOC’s chairman Mustafa Sanalla said, adding that if the security situation in the country improves, Libya’s production could further rise from the recent 1.278 million bpd.

So it seems that the oil production continues as before in Libya but who is benefiting financially is anybody's guess.

However you are absolutely right when you mention the CIA's involvement in the removal of Gadaffi, it was well known that Gadaffi being from Sirte  was despised by the people of Benghazi who had made many failed assassination attempts on him, so it was easy for the CIA to finance the uprising from Benghazi.

There is absolutely no doubt that the Gadaffi family were despots and corrupt however changes were being made under his son Saif who had taken over running many departments and was aiming for modernisation, he for instance introduced yearly inspections on all of Libya's drilling operations under the National Oil Corporation, this was a world first. Dubai's Crown Prince had bought a major section of Tripoli's waterfront to develop it along the lines of his own country as a holiday destination for Europeans. Anyway it's all over now but who knows how it would have panned out.   

I was in Tripoli and then Benghazi during the revolution.  There is a certain masochistic desire for liberal westerners to decry the CIA for intervening in Libya.  In reality, it began as a genuine movement of the people against their hated dictator.  His removal has done nothing to assist the USA, and considering it was more likely to have been the USA that helped permit his rise to power, it seems too convenient to me.  What came after, while absolutely malevolent, was not US inspired or backed.  I'd argue it perhaps should have been, but it wasn't.

Ghadaffi was seriously hated outside his tribal circles.  Tripoli fell in a day, not because of the CIA but because everyone hated him.  There's a left wing romanticism about Ghadaffi era Libya.  This is based on the fact that it had better healthcare facilities than, oh, Chad or South Sudan.  There was very little progressive about what he was doing, and it certainly was not heading in a direction of modernisation, even although Saif was educated at the LSE.  Maybe one of our resident trolls taught him?  

The Dubai investment in Tripoli is either a myth or grossly overplayed.  The waterfront of Tripoli is and was a series of antiquated 1950s Italian-splendour hotels on either side of a motorway, and the old museum and medina.  The private financing came in the form of two Middle Eastern hotel chains which paid blood money to be allowed to operate, and one of which was overlooking a series of intricate tunnels which the ruling classes used to escape in the initial days of the uprising.

The impact of Libya is not one of oil.  That's a zerohedge/infowars red herring.  The real trouble has come in the form of border control and oceanographic transportation.  Mass refugee movement via the Mediterranean coast was restricted brutally by Ghadaffi, and now it's fairly anarchic.  

[SandyCromarty]

2 hours ago, Savage Henry said:

I was in Tripoli and then Benghazi during the revolution.  There is a certain masochistic desire for liberal westerners to decry the CIA for intervening in Libya.  In reality, it began as a genuine movement of the people against their hated dictator.  His removal has done nothing to assist the USA, and considering it was more likely to have been the USA that helped permit his rise to power, it seems too convenient to me.  What came after, while absolutely malevolent, was not US inspired or backed.  I'd argue it perhaps should have been, but it wasn't.

Ghadaffi was seriously hated outside his tribal circles.  Tripoli fell in a day, not because of the CIA but because everyone hated him.  There's a left wing romanticism about Ghadaffi era Libya.  This is based on the fact that it had better healthcare facilities than, oh, Chad or South Sudan.  There was very little progressive about what he was doing, and it certainly was not heading in a direction of modernisation, even although Saif was educated at the LSE.  Maybe one of our resident trolls taught him?  

The Dubai investment in Tripoli is either a myth or grossly overplayed.  The waterfront of Tripoli is and was a series of antiquated 1950s Italian-splendour hotels on either side of a motorway, and the old museum and medina.  The private financing came in the form of two Middle Eastern hotel chains which paid blood money to be allowed to operate, and one of which was overlooking a series of intricate tunnels which the ruling classes used to escape in the initial days of the uprising.

The impact of Libya is not one of oil.  That's a zerohedge/infowars red herring.  The real trouble has come in the form of border control and oceanographic transportation.  Mass refugee movement via the Mediterranean coast was restricted brutally by Ghadaffi, and now it's fairly anarchic.  

Gadaffi's downfall began in 2010-2011 with the civil uprising starting in Benghazi which led to the UN intervening to stop his forces  by initiating a bombing campaign led by the USA and assisted by the  British and French so the writing was on the wall then, but as I mentioned in an earlier post the Americans still kept up their interests in the southern oilfields throughout the conflict and to this day.

Among the 'series of antiquated 1950's hotels' you mentioned was Idris's main palace in Tripoli, the waterfront investment was told to me by senior NOC staff and again told to me over a beer at the British Embassy at an evening do, maybe a myth but it was real to a lot of people, on the flip side I asked our agent what the reaction would be if the european women  turned out in bikini's at the resort and he wasn't too pleased at the thought being a dedicated muslim.

I hope you managed a trip to Leptis Magna the roman town and harbour.  

[Detournement]

'Tripoli fell in a day'

Or after a 3 month NATO bombing campaign.

 

[welshbairn]

Cameron and Sarkozy promoted the Libyan adventure and convinced Obama to give air support against his better judgement. The idea was that it would be a quick change over to democratic rule and Britain and France would make it happen. They didn't, they did f**k all. Believing "likes" on facebook in Benghazi and Cairo killed thousands of dreams and lives, for no purpose and a horrible ending.

[Savage Henry]

11 hours ago, SandyCromarty said:

Gadaffi's downfall began in 2010-2011 with the civil uprising starting in Benghazi which led to the UN intervening to stop his forces  by initiating a bombing campaign led by the USA and assisted by the  British and French so the writing was on the wall then, but as I mentioned in an earlier post the Americans still kept up their interests in the southern oilfields throughout the conflict and to this day.

Among the 'series of antiquated 1950's hotels' you mentioned was Idris's main palace in Tripoli, the waterfront investment was told to me by senior NOC staff and again told to me over a beer at the British Embassy at an evening do, maybe a myth but it was real to a lot of people, on the flip side I asked our agent what the reaction would be if the european women  turned out in bikini's at the resort and he wasn't too pleased at the thought being a dedicated muslim.

I hope you managed a trip to Leptis Magna the roman town and harbour.  

The reason I say it was a myth, it that I had the precise same conversation only with Tony Blair as the protagonist, rather than an Emirate prince.  Leptis Magna is genuinely up there with the pyramids at Giza and the Valley of the Kings as the most spectacular places I've ever been to.  There's another place, to the east of Tripoli, which fell into IS hands at one point.  I have no idea what happened to it.

11 hours ago, Detournement said:

'Tripoli fell in a day'

Or after a 3 month NATO bombing campaign.

 

Think you've got your timeline a bit wrong.  Tripoli fell almost instantly.  It fell into chaos, admittedly, but the government left within a day and a half of the uprising.  The air bombing was, for the most part, on the roads either side of Sirt.  

6 hours ago, welshbairn said:

Cameron and Sarkozy promoted the Libyan adventure and convinced Obama to give air support against his better judgement. The idea was that it would be a quick change over to democratic rule and Britain and France would make it happen. They didn't, they did f**k all. Believing "likes" on facebook in Benghazi and Cairo killed thousands of dreams and lives, for no purpose and a horrible ending.

Yeah. Everyone was so keen to avoid another "boots on the ground" Iraq type scenario, they did the minimum possible and left the Libyans to have at it.  As a case study in liberal interventionism, it has to go under jobs half-done (or even jobs quarter-done).

[Detournement]

2 hours ago, Savage Henry said:

 

Think you've got your timeline a bit wrong.  Tripoli fell almost instantly.  It fell into chaos, admittedly, but the government left within a day and a half of the uprising.  The air bombing was, for the most part, on the roads either side of Sirt.  

 

NATO started bombing Tripoli in April. Gaddafi left in August. 

The bombing was targeted at infrastructure and in Sirte at civilians.

[Killie87]

Probably need to stop looking at the situation through western eyes because we are used to democracy and how in theory it should work, someone can tell me if im wrong but has the middle east ever been a bastion for democracy in the first place ? Before the middle east was carved up into the countries we mostly know after WW1 was the area not ruled by kings/queens/sultans ?

Whether we like it or not religion has a major influence in most middle eastern countries and that's why you tend to find religious goverments come into the fray if the people get a vote, if Syria did go democratic before it went mental i would suspect they would have elected a religious goverment as well.