The Arab Winter

The Arab Spring is looked upon as a tragic failure.  At the time there was much hope that dictators would be thrown out, but also some fear that fundamentalists would gain power.  It was not totally a failure and not without lessons.  Noah Feldman explores it.

 My interest is partly due to the influence of a brother in law, Ali Bouanba, a Muslim from Morocco.  He married my sister who I always thought the most independent minded of all my siblings.  One Christmas I asked my sister what would be a good present for him and she suggested a particular book.  I bought the book a few weeks ahead of time and decided to read it.  It was about Palestinians and although I had been a bit sympathetic this opened my mind.  I didn't get to know him until years later when on trips to Halifax I took a stop on the south shore of Montreal where my sister's family lived and over years went out of my way to drop by.  He illustrated Arab hospitality at its best.  On one trip I remember meeting some friends that had come from Ali's birth place, Safi, Morocco.  The friend was a banker working in Quebec.  I enjoyed the conversation.  Like Ali, Abdul was at least tri-lingual speaking Arabic, French and English.  Their five year old son seemed surprised I didn't speak French.  On another trip Ali made a suggestion that changed my life.  He pointed out  that a Quebec francophone trying to sell in Ontario would not do very well, but an Anglophone like myself could make a go of it in Quebec and he proved to be correct.   Read:  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2012/07/travels-of-salesman-part-3-quebec.html

Noah has an understanding of Arabic and spent a few pages to point out that there was a feeling of Arabness that were part of the thinking, but that the dynamics broke down to national boundaries.  In most cases the underlying goal was merely to get rid of an autocratic ruler.  Essentially the Arab populace was looking for jobs, freedom and social welfare, not necessarily democracy.  American failures in Iraq weakened its image in the Arab world.

Egypt, the largest Arab country was successful in ridding itself of the dictator Mubarek, but then two years later threw out his replacement and returned to a military dictatorship.  Noah identifies a number of the population that played a role:  Islamists, military and the Egyptian liberal elites.  He claims the Muslim Brotherhood played little in the initial protests, but that in fact they were the most organized of any political faction.  In effect the liberals were the major part of the Tahrir Square protests of 2011 after which the military decided in their best interests to force Mubarek out as it turned out they resented his son who was slated to take over the dictatorship.  Elections were forced and Muslim Brotherhood were best suited to win control of the government.  Unfortunately although they won by only a slim margin they were not inclined to involve other political factions and in turn infuriated the liberal elites.  Although democratically elected, Morsi had lost the support of enough Egyptian people that the army felt confident enough to replace Morsi with their own choice, Sisi.  My summary is admittedly over simplified but in essence is what happened. 

Syria has been ruled for several decades by two members of the Alawite sect.  Alawites are only 15% of the population and thus they have been careful to maintain control.   France when it ruled over Syria played one ethnic group against another.  Syria gained support from the Soviet Union and later Russia and when Israel attacked the P.LO. in Lebanon they had American support, making the battles a proxy war. Not willing to make concessions to the majority Sunnis, Assad was able count on support of Russia and Iran when he turned the conflict into the Syrian Civil War.

The Syrian Civil War freed up Sunni areas and elements organized into ISIL or ISIS to capture this area and later expand into Iraq.  They attracted Muslims and Arabs from all over the world who saw their goals as a sort of Arab Utopia.  Violent elements controlled the movement, but eventually attracted opposition from the Russians, Americans and Kurds.  They too failed at least in part as they were unwilling to consider the wishes of the people already living in the conquered areas.

Tunisia where the Arab Spring originated when Mohammed Bouazizi burned himself to death in protest the circumstances were more favorable.  Tunisia lacked oil wealth that concentrated wealth to particular individuals and had traditions that favored both democracy and secularism.  Different elements sought consensus.  Two assassinations shook the situation, but in some ways spurred the search for consensus.  By 2014 Tunisia became the first functioning democracy in the Arab speaking world.  It is still precarious because the economy did not significantly improve, meaning unemployment was still a concern.

The author has told us the failures of the Arab spring, but feels although discouraging there was one success (as of the writing).  Examining the differences to suggest future efforts.  He thinks the winter may last a long time, but eventually another spring will come.  The rest of us need to reflect on the fragile Tunisian success and do what we can to nurture it.  This is only a crude summary of what Noah Feldman wrote.

EMIGRATION AND REFUGEES

Immigration frightens a lot of natives forcing us to adapt our life style.  Thousands of people are risking their lives and those of their loved ones.  We hear every week it seems of another boat sinking in the Mediterranean.  Not so long ago we heard about young children being sent up through Central America to the American border.  We know there are millions seeking refuge in western countries.

What would make most people leave the comforts of their home and contact with familiar family, friends and neighbours?   Some no doubt are seeking fortune and could be labeled greedy, but many others are motivated by fear.  Sitting in our comfortable western homes we both wonder why people would risk their lives and fear how they might change our lifestyle.

Trends that are easy to overlook or ignore are continuing to gather steam and it is time for mankind to ask what options we still have.  It is a global problem with causes and effects in every corner.

Mexico, central America and parts of South America are caught up in drug gang wars.  In poor countries it is common for desperate people to do desperate things.  Some have chosen to get involved with the drug trade.  Why is that so profitable?  It isn't because of domestic demand as most locals really can't afford it.  The truth is the demand comes from western countries.  We have more money, but we also have our own kind of despair.  In some cases it boils down to looking for bigger "kicks" and in other cases life seems meaningless.  Others can analyze the causes, but no one can deny the demand for illegal drugs emanates from the wealthier western countries.

In poorer countries those at the bottom have an opportunity to do the spade work (growing, packaging, transporting, selling locally) while others fight for the top where there is often huge profits.  Inevitably the power goes to the most ruthless.  This creates all sorts of other problems.  Drugs amongst the locals hurts health, productivity and feelings of self-worth.  Fighting causes fear.  It is not strange that so many parents in Central America want their children into a safer environment.

Fighting with different motivations is happening in the middle East, including northern Africa.  Literally millions of Syrians have fled their homes and for the most part have ended in refuge camps in nearby counties.  Western countries are reluctant and fearful to accommodate Muslims that they associate with terrorism. Others are willing to take advantage and charge for re-settling.

For decades western corporations with political support have been propping up dictators who were able to keep a lid on tensions.  There have always been what we might label "fanatics", but they were largely ignored or suppressed.  Now many gain attention and support as one way of fighting oppression.  Money that could have been spent on education and alleviation of poverty was spent on military weapons and security measures.  Oil was incredibly cheap and fuelled our lifestyle.  The fanatics are blaming misery on their dictators with their western support.  Just as some fanatics blame our disasters on our sinfulness, the Islamists are seizing the opportunity to blame their enemies and their religious lapses.  Religion is a powerful force that has been abused by many, but admittedly giving many others comfort.

I was surprised to learn in my family tree research that at least two branches of my family fled Europe for religious freedom.  One branch was literally on the boat, after the Mayflower with religious dissenters looking for freedom to worship.  One group actually ganged up together to flee through Indian territory to establish their own church.  Another branch were Mennonites who as anabaptists were persecuted in Europe.  Once established in America another generation felt they had to leave for Canada to avoid conscription.  Like many I have become detached from these earlier forces in my history.

There are many vested interests belittling concerns about Climate Change and they have found allies in fundamentalists, other religious factions and those invested with the status quo.  Scientists have been warning us for years with irrefutable evidence that there are going to be drastic changes.  Drought is having an impact in different parts of the world, now including California, but also Africa, the Middle East, Australia and elsewhere. We forget that agriculture is the base industry of the world--without food everything slows down.  It is only natural that people look for alternatives to make a living and to feed themselves.  In addition to droughts there are also floods and rising sea levels.  Storms are becoming more powerful and having more than just temporary inconveniences.  Bangladesh has developed a reputation for cheap labour which comes from desperation which in part comes from Climate change.

Economics is tied up in everything mentioned so far, but another strong trend is global inequality.  It is true that cheap labour is still in demand and that many poor countries are able to take advantage of rich corporations looking to lower their costs.  A bigger trend is that machines (including computers) are making production less and less dependent on human labour.  It is getting common to talk about the 1% in America, but at one level it seems so unreal.  How can a very few people have so much wealth and power?  Part of it is when they get enough traction they help set the rules and the rules are meant to protect their interests.  Another part is modern technology allows them to seek the lowest production costs which basically means at the expense of others.

Many people feel like they are on a sinking boat and are looking for a way off.  Literally that is what we are seeing in the Mediterranean.

All of this could be an opportunity.  Just as slavery relieved burdens and created wealth for some of our ancestors, machines could do the same more humanely for the benefit of everyone.  Clean energy, cleaning up the mess, education, could help re-balance our enviromen.  Obviously it would take a global effort to re balance some counter productive historical global efforts.  If everyone waits for someone else to make the first move the problems will increase.  Fortunately efforts are being made from different quarters, but at this stage they look like they are not gaining enough traction.

Knowledge could lead to greater awareness of our mutual interests, but that will not be enough.  We also have to develop trust.  Any efforts that boost education and awareness of the true reality will help, but it really boils down to political will.

A phrase credited to Scottish town planner Patrick Geddes,  "think globally act locally" seems appropriate for most of us.  Understanding the issues helps guide voting decisions--but more basically, questioning.  Individuals can only do so much, but understanding the issues and prioritizing choices is something that needs to be brought into the political arena.

At the moment political decisions seem very closely tied to vested interests.   Most of the vested interests seem very narrow so a goal would be to expand the viewpoint of those interests.  One result of increased wealth is greater security concerns in such forms as alarm systems and gated communities.  Does a wealthy person want to live like that or are they too fearful.  Fear is just as big an enemy as greed, especially when they are so short sighted.  Trust is an important element of a solution as we all need to transition to the future.

The wealthy industrialized nations of the west fear that unless the developing nations are willing to forgo their own fossil fuel energy expansion, action on their part is meaningless.  The United Nations seems the most logical place to deal with these problems,  Bi-lateral is most practical for specific issues, but some issues are bigger.  Encouraged to hear that Ontario, Quebec, British Columbia and California are tying some of their efforts together.  If these sorts of efforts can expand they can also develop some momentum.  Perhaps we will then expand beyond climate issues to deal with some of the other underlying causes of modern problems.

Photo is of the famous Statue of Liberty during a trip with my office at New York.  also visited Ellis  Island where my wife's Grandmother came from Italy during World War I.

the price of gas and our future

Up until recently it seemed like the price of gas would just keep going up.  Alarmists were telling us that demand was up and supplies were drying up.  For several months the price has fallen and has caught many of us off guard.  What does it portend for our future?  Nobody really knows, but there are many factors involved and many decisions that can impact the trends.

At least three factors are responsible for the current lower price trend.  One is that demand has diminished due to economic slowdown that has impacted globally.  Secondly that new sources have been developed such as fracking.  Thirdly, Saudi Arabia has decided to keep up its supply even though it is very aware that it will keep the price low.

A big question is how long will that Saudi decision hold and why did they make it in the first place.  Speculation is that low prices will hurt some of their competitors who they are displeased with.  They want Iran to bend to the American nuclear negotiating.  They are also displeased with Russia,who has been supplying Syria who is also a concern of the Saudis.  ISIS is complicated so that the government feels threatened by it, but some Saudi religious elements support it financially and some in combat.  Furthermore the Saudis are worried that America will now be competitive with their fracking efforts.  I don't believe they have a quarrel with Canada, but the tar sands cannot generate a profit at a low price.  The Canadian dollar is tied fairly close to the price of oil so that has implications for all Canadian consumers and travellers.

Jeff Rubin once wrote that the reason for the Recession of 2008 was primarily the price of oil.  His argument included the cost of doing business was so high that the credit system could no longer support it.  Most other people were talking about over extended credit meaning consumers could not borrow money and could not afford to maintain their standard of living.  Now that the price has lowered how will that affect growth?   Read my post from August 20.2012 about Jeff's thinking back then http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2012/08/investors-and-environmentalists-should.html

For the time being people have more money to spend.  Some are spending it on more gas while others are buying consumer goods they couldn't afford a short time ago.  If the price remains low this means the extra spending will result in new jobs and could create pressure to raise wages.  Sounds pretty good, but of course it is not that simple.  First it means Americans cannot afford the expensive fracking and the Canadians cannot afford the expensive tar sands meaning those sources will shrink.  Previously it was thought the price would go up as the cost of acquiring oil would go up and it would become scarcer.  However what will eventually put the price up is when demand increases because more people are able to spend money.  This is a delicate balance as when price goes up demand tends to go down.  At the same time as the price goes up so can the supply.  Standard economic theory. There is still uncertainty so no one is counting on price remaining low for very long.

Climate change will become more of a factor.  Instead of looking for environmentally positive alternatives while gas prices are low most consumers will continue to use fossil fuels.  At some point and it might be sooner than expected citizens will be more conscious that climate change is not a fraud and I suspect at one point even the Tea Party will be demanding action.  Heavy storms and tornadoes, floods, droughts, rising water levels on coastal land, even earthquakes linked to fracking will be perceived as too dangerous to ignore.  Many actions will be expensive and adjustments demanding.  In the end pollution will diminish with all sorts of benefits, jobs will be created and the price of energy will lessen.  There will be some losers and they will resist.  Unfortunately they have a lot of resources to protect their sources of wealth.  Their credibility will decline, but some wealthy people will use their resources to diversify.

The tradeoffs will require decisions at all levels.  Consumers will choose with their available cash to conserve, look for alternatives or just stick to their routine.  The previously increasing price of oil has spurred the search for alternatives.  Long term thinking suggests that the true price of the fossil fuel industry will continue to increase while we strangle in its other effects.  Most of us are really short term thinkers looking for a momentary pleasure.

Jobs can be created by converting to alternative energy and/or by increased consumer spending.  We can all live healthier more productive lives.  Adjustments will be made one way or another.  Will they be long term or just short term?  Fracking right now is providing jobs directly and indirectly, but will decline if the price stays low.

There is a fork in the road ahead and we will have to wait to see how mankind proceeds.  The consequences will be more than interesting.

Photo is in Havana with the old cars they needed to retain.

The Pottery Barn Analogy underlies Mideast problems

In this mid term election process there are knee-jerk "experts" ready to pounce on any statement they can stretch to prove a point.  They are appalled by "no strategy," but really have little constructive to help make better decisions.  Political posturing needs to be minimized, hopefully not using the Bush methods to silence dissenters. 

Colin Powell is said to have given an analogy to George Bush when informed the administration had decided an invasion of Iraq was imminent.  As I understood it when you pick up a piece of pottery in a store and drop it you own it.  Americans despite all their access to modern technology really had a very poor understanding of Iraq.  Even so there was no real excuse to invade as there was no connection to 9-11 or proof of weapons of mass destruction.  If they thought about it, Saddam Hussein had more to fear from Al Qaeda than Americans.  Yes the rhetoric coming from Iraq was belligerent and all evidence points that Saddam was not very nice.  The White House dismissed the UN inspectors and put their reliance on suspect sources and their own (political) guts.

Instead of overwhelming the Iraquis, the administration brushed off suggestions of General Shenseki and failed to contain all the factions.  They then showed their priorities very quickly doing what they could to protect oil interests, but ignoring almost everything else.  As in any major civil disturbance there are criminal elements ready to take advantage, they let citizens fend for themselves.  They decided that since the Baath party had been in control all members should be prohibited from government.  They did not take into account that many members only joined for career survival reasons and that many of these people had vital knowledge and skills to offer a new governance.  As is true in situations where a minority controls the majority there would be vengeance seekers and resentment from those losing power.

Where there had been no Al Qaeda there was now a vacuum filled by jihadists from abroad, but who were able to recruit fighters from amongst dissatisfied members of the minority Sunnis, many of whom had military experience.  In Iraq there were other minorities that played significant roles, mainly the Kurds, but also Turkmen, Christians and others.  The Kurds have used the situation to leverage for more power and seemed to be most aligned to American interests.  Part of their motive is gain their own separate state.  This commendable aspiration is a big concern to neighboring powers such as Turkey, Iran and Syria who feel threatened by it.

The Arab Spring caught a lot of us off guard, but some were quick to credit George Bush with helping to get it going.  It has played out differently in the countries involved, but with some obvious benefits for democracy, but also with some outstanding concerns.  Where it has caused the most confusion seems to be Syria where a civil war has erupted.  Assad is another dictator abusing his country.  He seemed up against the wall, but has fought back and in the process unleashed elements nobody seems to be able to control.

The outcome of most concern seems to be ISIS which consists mainly of the most extreme fanatics who are able to use brutal tactics to conquer territory.  Their brutality is frightening, but there is also a level of sophistication that might be more frightening.  To be effective they had to have access to large amounts of financial support.  At this point they are self financing through kidnappings for ransom and oil.  They have started to "tax"some of their conquered people.

It is possible their brutality will create enemies for them.  I recall that the long ago English Civil War was started by those who frowned upon an arrogant monarchy.  The Puritans that took over, not only executed a monarch but restricted activities such as card playing and dancing that eventually the people rebelled against.  That seems to be happening in Syria and Iraq, but there are still those who think they use these brutal warriors for their own purposes.  Sunnis feeling displaced want power back, religious conservatives want to see religious laws guide government.  Assad, like many dictators likes to use the presence of a terrible alternative to justify his own power.

ISIS has successfully conquered territory in two national states and trying to provide a government bureaucracy to control it all.  They have tapped into a lot of resentment and brutalized their opponents.  It seems they cannot be defeated without an international effort.  The Americans of which Obama is a good example realized a major part of the problem was the Iraqui government controlled by Shiite factions created dissatisfaction amongst other factions weakening everyone.  They have taken steps to correct that situation while trying to respect sovereignity.

The big question seems to be can the Americans bomb ISIS in Syria without seeming to support Assad?  Can they avoid more "boots on the ground"?  Can they get more military support from countries that have a vested interest in the outcome and can that include Muslim nations?  A pretty delicate situation requiring care and attention to details.

A further complication is presented by Russia.  Their agenda apparently includes restoring at least part of their empire starting in Ukraine.  They have been allies of Syria and have tried to ameliorate  some of Syria's excesses, for example regarding chemical weapons.  They could possibly play a similar role, but they have other priorities.  Russians having become a major energy exporter are asserting what they feel is their imperial right to enlargen their sphere of influence while most of their former empire is increasing ties with EU and NATO. It is not reasonable to expect co-operation.

There are no good solutions and it must be acknowledged there are a wide variety of views on how best to handle the situation.  A little bit of honesty should be appreciated as there is "no strategy" that will not cause harm to relatively innocent participants.  A politically obstructive Congress" is a big part of the problem and should voters let themselves be influenced by political posturing with the November election the situation could become even more difficult.

The decisions made by the previous administration will impact the world for at least a generation.  We have opportunities to change direction in a more helpful way, but politics is making the difficult choices more difficult.

Syria, what a mess!

There are no good choices at this point.  No one should be condemned for however they vote or even for their motivation.  There are undoubtedly many who want to be associated with the majority without delving into the issues.  I do not understand all the issues and admit that it is more complex than can be dealt with in a short blog.

Part of the problem goes back to my biggest pet peeve which is short term thinking.

One primary problem is that America (and most of the rest of the world) feel most comfortable dealing with whoever is in power.  At some stage we are complicit in maintaining the status quo.  We can be self righteous about being superior and conscious that everything is not fair under a particular jurisdiction, but our tendency is to protect our own short term interest and do business with just about anyone.

China and Russia are in the equation and have decided that their best interest lies in supporting the Syrian government.  Russia sells weaponry to Syria.  China needs to keep all energy options open. Both are authoritarian and fear the idea of a successful revolution.  Oversimplified perhaps, but trying to overcome their UN security council veto could lead to further tension.

Iran is a player as it is allied with Syria.  Finally Iran has elected someone who is more open to solving the nuclear dilemma.  With few allies and a load of rhetoric, Iran has to be concerned to maintain its alliances.  At the same time some Westerners feel that striking against Syria is weakening Iran and perhaps forcing them to be more compliant.

In the Middle East an always underlying concern is Israel.  One really pertinent connection is the Golan Heights where Israel has conquered land they now feel is a buffer.  Israel has bombed Syria to cut nuclear development.  Part of the Syrian opposition comes from Islamists who see an opportunity to overthrow a government that is relatively tolerant of Christians and Jews and install a more fundamentalist  regime.  They are not looking for a two state solution, but many would work towards destroying Israel.

Israel is fearful of what its neighbors intend.  Palestinians are resentful and many are desperate. Israel has more powerful friends in the United States that protect it with money, weapons, political decisions including a UN veto.  There are many who want a two state solution, but others who feel more secure by occupying Palestine.  Still others on both sides have given up on the two state solution. Alleviating fear requires courage, patience and understanding.

Refugees have fled to Turkey, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon and others.  In such numbers they create logistical problems and potentially are an unknown political force.

Recently became aware of another factor which you can read in more depth at http://billmoyers.com/2013/09/06/drought-helped-spark-syrias-civil-war-is-it-the-first-of-many-climate-wars-to-come/  I am struck at the number of people who belittle climate change, but their points strike me as being politically/economically linked.  Climate scientists for the most part seem very reluctant to draw links from climate change to weather problems such as hurricanes, tornadoes, floods and droughts, but the links seem stronger almost daily.  I recall that the Arab Spring started with a protest of one man in Tunisia who was affected by food prices.  Food prices were affected by drought.  This is only one factor, but really unemployed youth and food prices have been critical.

Should the United States use a military strike against Syria and if so how can they contain it?  The risks are very high that the best they can achieve a rebel victory or less likely a chastened Assad. They will inevitably fan anti-American hatred.   Who knows how Russia, China, Iran might react. Mideast turmoil seems inevitable.  If not resolved the same question might be asked--can a regime do whatever it wants to suppress its own people?  Will any nation feel they can do what they want even against American threats?

What alternatives are available?  America needs international support.  The United Nations is frozen by veto's allowed to only five countries.  The Arab League has its own factions.  Turkey is a Muslim country that is negatively impacted by Syrian refugees and occasional stray bombs.  They have concerns over Kurds, another complicating issue itself.  Can United States afford to be the world's policeman without at least some economic support.

The Americans have been hurt and embarrassed by the efforts of the George W Bush government to deceive them with false information (some of which was deliberate) regarding the Iraq invasion.  I think they were stunned that the Iraqi people resisted and then learned that they had opened a hornet's nest.  At the same time a new President finds himself dealing with a polarized electorate.  A part of the electorate seems to feel that Obama is a Muslim or sympathetic to radical Muslims.  Seems ridiculous, but not something that can be ignored.  For some this seems an opportunity to make him look bad while on the other side some think this is an opportunity with respect to dealing with the sequester problem as well as the debt ceiling.  Some support as they feel the need to support a president, others to send a message about chemical warfare.  Others feel that we need to commit to democracy.

The rest of the world has its own perspective.  They are split in that they mostly seem to think that the Syrian government is guilty of using chemical weapons against their own people, but are skeptical of any course of action.  They fear potential spread of violence, even world war.

Are there alternatives?  I can't see a risk free short term alternative and either striking or not striking sends a powerful message with horrific consequences very likely.

The United Nations was created to deal with these types of problems, but many see a single country veto as insurmountable obstacle.  At the time it was thought to be an inducement to get participation of the winning Allies.  Since then many changes have occurred and newly empowered nations such as India, Brazil and others are left out.  My solution would be to negotiate a new deal such as a veto of one of the selected countries (or even two or three) can be overcome by 2/3 votes of General Assembly members representing 2/3 of the world's population.  China is a delicate issue as they might feel ganged up with a too low a population requirement as they represent approximately 25% of the world population.  This would also empower India.  We don't want them to have an effective veto based on population, but to gain their co-operation we don't want them to feel too threatened. This will only happen when the original veto holders see it in their best interest to accept world opinion.

The International Criminal Court is another  possible solution.  One of its weaknesses is that United States will not join as they feel they will be ganged upon.  Other countries resist to protect themselves.  Perhaps the UN veto and the International Criminal Court membership issues can be negotiated together. Perhaps that is naive, but other forces are making it a little more possible.

One of those forces is climate change.  It affects everyone, although not evenly.  The biggest problem is  distrust of science and economic short term self interest.  We in North America and Europe need to realize food prices even in remote parts of the world can have global effects.  We need to realize that floods, droughts, hurricanes although natural are being aggravated by our actions on an international scale.  War is one of the consequences.  To provide our own security in our backyard we need to be concerned about forces in areas we haven't given much thought to.

Did I cover all the issues?  Definitely not, but I hope that more people take a long term view so we can minimize future damage and get on the course to a more logical future for all mankind.  Syria is a mess, but it didn't happen overnight.