Russian and Chinese Arms Sales to Authoritarian Regimes – Part 2 (China)

Posted on by
5

Russian and Chinese Arms Sales to Authoritarian Regimes – Part 2 (China)

China: The Evil Twin?

This article is Part 2 of Russian and Chinese Arms Sales to Authoritarian Regimes.  Part 1 can be found here.

This article is also available in Arabic (العربية) at Free Syrian Translators

As Russia equips the world’s authoritarian regimes with the means to discourage Western intervention, China is selling them one of the worst tools of oppression against their own people: artillery.

(Artillery, as defined by the FAS report, includes field and air defense artillery, mortars, rocket launchers and recoiless rifles and FROG launchers 100mm and over)

Artillery sold by China (2003-2010): 1,890

Artillery sold by the US (2003-2010): 390

Why artillery?  Assad’s shelling of Syrian cities like Homs shows how essential artillery is to waging an effective campaign against a popular uprising.

Map showing artillery damage after Assad's army bombed Homs Syria
Map showing artillery damage after Assad’s army bombed Homs, Syria

In Syria, the use of artillery by Bashar al-Assad has accomplished numerous goals:

  1. Artillery has allowed Assad to avoid the mistake that Muammar Gaddafi made – using airpower to bombard the opposition – which led to calls for a no-fly zone and eventually Western military intervention to remove the regime.
  2. Artillery bombardment allows the regime to kill not only freedom fighters but also civilians, reducing the pool of potential recruits and dramatically increasing the war weariness of the population.
  3. The large-scale destruction of towns and cities serves as a warning to the civilian population not to support the uprising, and discourages rebels from holding ground in cities because of the destruction the regime response will cause.
  4. Using artillery provides the regime with some plausible deniability of intent when civilian buildings are hit (such as hospitals or media centers) because it is indirect fire.
  5. Artillery allows the regime to bombard the enemy from a distance, keeping the army together so as to prevent individual units from defecting to the other side.

These Chinese artillery purchases are in addition to all of the Russian artillery already purchased by the regimes in the past and doesn’t even include the smaller mortars (60mm and 80mm).  Syria and other authoritarian regimes have acquired a truly massive stockpile of artillery rounds for leveling cities and destroying any uprising against their rule.

China has been particularly aggressive with artillery sales to Africa.  Algeria, Sudan, and Egypt (under Hosni Mubarak) have purchased the 155mm howitzers from China.  China shipped mortars and rockets to President Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe despite international pressure in 2008.

When the regimes don’t have enough cash to pay for the weapons China negotiates trade deals for the natural resources of the countries, allowing the regimes to further pillage the country and the resources of its people in exchange for the arms to remain in power.  This is part of the reason that China deals with pariah states under sanction by other countries; in their weakened state the regimes are forced to enter into resource deals on terms very benficial to China in exchange for weapons.  This allows China to expand influence in the Third World and obtain resources it depends on for economic growth.

Protecting Their Investment

The Russian and Chinese arms trade with authoritarian regimes isn’t just about money and resources.  Russia and China view themselves as superpowers intent on spreading their influence throughout the world.  Chinese weapons are viewed as cheap substitutes for Russian arms and as a consequence they’re the budget alternative for many authoritarian regimes.  With China’s focus on economic power as their means of influence in the world this presents an opportunity for them to ship cheap weapons to the Third World in exchange for favorable trade terms, natural resources, and establishing a foothold in developing countries.

Russian and Chinese Arms Sales to Authoritarian Regimes – Part 1 (Russia)

Posted on by
10

Russian and Chinese Arms Sales to Authoritarian Regimes – Part 1 (Russia)

This article is Part 1 of Russian and Chinese Arms Sales to Authoritarian Regimes.  Part 2 can be found here.

This article is also available in Arabic (العربية) at Free Syrian Translators

Russia: The Evil Empire Revisited?

Wherever you find people fighting for their freedom you’ll find a regime killing them with Russian weapons.  During the Libyan civil war I was often under fire from Russian guns, grenades, rockets, and mortars used by Gaddafi’s forces, and I used captured Russian weapons myself on many occasions.

Freedom Fighter Matthew VanDyke in the Libyan Civil War

Freedom Fighter Matthew VanDyke with his Russian DShK machine gun in the Libyan Civil War

There is no greater ally of authoritarianism in the world than Russia.  Russia obstructs intervention in Syria through the UN Security Council, while at the same time shipping weapons to Bashar al-Assad to ensure that he remains in power and a good customer for future arms deals.  Moscow has developed close relationships with several authoritarian regimes around the world that oppress their populations and abuse human rights using the weapons that Russia supplies.  As a result of the Arab Spring and a wave of democratization sweeping the world, Russia is watching its influence drain away like water from a busted dam and it doesn’t care how many bodies it takes to plug the leaks.

The FAS report “Conventional Arms Transfers to Developing Nations, 2003-2010” contains Russia’s customer list for arms deals.  The usual suspects are all there:

Iran – Libya (under Gaddafi) – Syria – Algeria – Yemen – China – Sudan – Zimbabwe

For comparison, the United States’ main customers are:

Israel – Taiwan – Saudi Arabia – Egypt – Pakistan – India – Jordan

Some of these countries are authoritarian regimes and I have not listed every country that buys weapons from Russia and the USA, but the moral implications of the Russian and American customer lists are quite clear.  Although the US is not innocent of arms sales to questionable regimes, the actions of Russia and China are arguably appalling in their strategy and magnitude.

The Disturbing Pattern

The customer lists don’t tell the whole story.  A close examination of which weapons systems Russia is selling to these regimes reveals a strategy that appears designed specifically to discourage military intervention by the West against authoritarian regimes (such as occurred in Libya).  The evidence is in the numbers (I have also included the numbers of US weapons for comparison):

Surface-to-Air Missiles sold by Russia (2003-2010): 10,570

Surface-to-Air Missiles sold by the US (2003-2010): 1,427

Supersonic Combat Aircraft sold by Russia (2003-2010): 320

Supersonic Combat Aircraft sold by the US (2003-2010): 152

Helicopters sold by Russia (2003-2010): 390

Helicopters sold by the US (2003-2010): 138

Why would Russia be selling massive quantities of Surface-to-Air Missiles and air force assets to these regimes?  The answer is clear: to discourage Western military campaigns against their best customers.  It has worked in Syria where one of the arguments against Western airstrikes to support the rebellion against Bashar al-Assad is the strength of the regime’s air defenses and the massive undertaking it would be to dismantle them.  Their work is ongoing – in November 2011, Russia allegedly sent technical advisers to help set up very sophisticated S-300 surface-to-air missile defense systems in Syria and update Syrian radar systems around critical facilities.

Syria’s major weapons imports increased 580 percent between 2002-2006, and Russia supplied 78 percent of the arms to Syria during the 2007-2011 period.  These purchases included air defense and anti-ship missiles; the anti-ship missiles have a long range of 300km.  Syria received 7% of Russia’s $10 billion total arms deliveries in 2010.

Libya, Venezuela (a hybrid, partially authoritarian regime) and Burma (Myanmar) have all purchased surface-to-air missiles from Russia in recent years.  Russia also planned to sell S-300 surface-to-air missiles to Iran, clearly intending to discourage an American or Israeli strike against Iran’s nuclear program, but the sale has not taken place because of diplomatic pressure from the US and EU.

Protecting Their Investment

Russia, a shadow of the former Soviet Union, desperately seeks influence in the world through the arms trade.  Many of their customers purchased Soviet-era weapons systems and are reliant on Russia for repairs, replacements, upgrades and ammunition.  Russia also produces technologically advanced weaponry and sells it to regimes that the US and EU countries won’t deal with.  By doing so, Russia aims to counterbalance American influence in the world, protect its military and economic interests (as well as national ethos), and more recently to help stop the spread of democracy around the world that might lead to a Russian Spring arriving in Moscow.

Unfortunately, these games of international intrigue and influence are played on the backs of people suffering in the developing world in countries like Iran, Syria, Algeria, Yemen, Sudan, Zimbabwe, and until recently, Libya.

Click this link for Part 2: Russian and Chinese Arms Sales to Authoritarian Regimes (China).

How Osama bin Laden Changed My Life

Posted on by
1

How Osama bin Laden Changed My Life

My article this week is at The Huffington Post.  Click below to read it:

“I didn’t learn that Osama bin Laden was dead until August 24, 2011, nearly four months after he was killed. I had just escaped from Abu Salim prison in Libya a few hours earlier and was talking to my girlfriend on the phone for the first time in nearly six months.”

“I now realize with the benefit of hindsight that the course of my life was altered dramatically by Osama bin Laden in ways that I had never considered. Specifically, the response by my country to bin Laden’s attack on 9/11 changed my fate and exposed me to a world and experiences that would lead me down a very strange path.”

Read more at The Huffington Post HERE

Mali, Sudan, and Ethnic Conflict in Northern Africa

Posted on by
15

Mali, Sudan, and Ethnic Conflict in Northern Africa

(also available in French here)

Africa, for all its beauty and rich history, has always been a complex and often harsh continent.  Hundreds of ethnic groups, some of which have hostilities that date back millennia, live in largely impoverished conditions in a forced co-existence dictated by colonial-era national borders.

map of ethnic groups in Africa

Ethnic groups in Africa

One of the clearest examples of ethnic and racial tension in Africa is the conflict between Arabs (and the Tuareg, who are Berbers) and sub-Saharan (black) Africans.  For over 1,000 years Arabs enslaved black Africans; estimates of the victims of the Arab slave trade range up to 18 million.  Although the Arab slave trade began to rapidly decline in the 1960s Mauritania did not criminalize slavery until 2007 and even today tens of thousands of Africans remain enslaved through bonded labor or other forms of slavery in the region (it is estimated that 8% of Nigeriens and 10-20% of Mauritanians are slaves).  Beyond this predatory relationship, interaction between Arabs/Tuaregs and black Africans was somewhat limited by the vast expanse of the Sahara desert which acted as a natural buffer zone.

That began to change in the 1800s during the “Scramble for Africa” when European powers colonized and carved the continent into what became (for the most part) the modern national borders.  Arabs, Tuareg and black Africans were lumped together in a band of French and British territory stretching straight across the southern expanse of the Sahara that later became the current states of Mauritania, Mali, Niger, Chad, and Sudan.

map of the European colonies in Africa

How the European Colonialists Created the Borders of Africa

In the past decade four of these countries (Mali, Niger, Sudan and Chad) have experienced rebellions or civil wars fought predominantly along ethnic or racial divisions.  This is not to suggest that ethnicity and race are necessarily the root cause of these conflicts and that the racial conflict was inevitable, but the role of ethnicity and race cannot be dismissed either.  The ethnic and racial animosity that exists is very real and apparent to anyone who has spent time in the region.  These wars occurred for a multitude of standard reasons – politics, resources, religion, history – but it was often quite clear that ethnicity and race were determining factors when the locals chose which side to fight for.

The latest Tuareg rebellion in Mali claimed the desert north of the Niger River as the independent state of Azawad in 2012, separating the Tuaregs from the black Africans in southern Mali.  The previous Tuareg rebellion (2007-2009) occurred in both Mali and Niger with the Nigerien Tuaregs demanding decentralization and that the Nigerien military in their territory be dominated by Tuaregs instead of black Africans.  Sudan fought two civil wars between the Arab-dominated north and the black African south, the most recent from 1983-2005 which resulted in autonomy and later the independence of South Sudan in 2011.  The Sudanese Civil War spilled over into Chad from 2005-2010 as mostly a proxy war between Sudan and South Sudan utilizing the same ethnic militias from the Sudanese Civil War.

Mali, Niger, Sudan and Chad should never have existed in their current form and the redrawing of borders in Mali and Sudan is long overdue.  There may unfortunately never be any widespread reconciliation between Arabs/Tuaregs and black Africans given the history of slavery, racism, discrimination and competition for resources in combination with literacy rates that are among the lowest in the world (a substantial obstacle to education programs designed to foster racial harmony).  Black Africans have been continually victimized by their Arab and Tuareg neighbors in Northern Africa for over a millennium, resulting in a hatred and fear that is deeply engrained.  Religious (generally Muslim vs Christian and animist) and cultural differences further exacerbate the situation.

Sudan and South Sudan are now on the brink of war after less than a year of separation, feuding over border demarcation and oil revenues.  Both sides are using proxy rebel forces and Sudan has conducted air strikes against targets in South Sudan.  If history is any indication, the violence will slowly but surely spill over into Chad as rebel groups conduct cross-border raids.  It is also likely that Uganda will intervene militarily and fight alongside South Sudan if necessary.  This would escalate the conflict into looking very much like a disturbing, regional race war.

In Mali the Tuareg rebellion is far from over.  As the Tuareg celebrate their declaration of the newly independent state of Azawad counter-revolutionary forces are assembling into militias of their own and revenge is at the top of their agenda.  One of my sources has told me on good authority that at least some of the militias are debating whether killing off the Tuareg fighters will be enough or if they should also execute the Tuareg women and children to prevent yet another Tuareg rebellion in the future.  The rest of the war won’t be fought by the Malian army and the Tuaregs, but by disparate militias that will rack up a list of human rights abuses that will dwarf those that occurred during the Libyan civil war.

What is coming will shock the world.

The only way to prevent these horrific outcomes in Mali and South Sudan is aggressive diplomatic intervention by the international community to force a settlement of hostilities.  Such negotiations must result in a legitimate separation that allows for self-determination by both sides.  In Mali this would mean allowing either the independence of Azawad or legitimate, federal autonomy.  The current conflict between Sudan and South Sudan is fairly straightforward (it’s about oil) and can be negotiated; however, the only long-term solution is for South Sudan to construct another pipeline that will free it from dependence on Sudan.  The mutual reliance designed to prevent conflict – South Sudan has the oil but Sudan has the pipeline to transport it – will only cause future conflict.  When China finally chooses a side (it supplies Sudan with weapons yet imports oil from South Sudan) and agrees to construct a pipeline in South Sudan that allows for the export of oil through Kenya, a permanent peace will become possible.  Reconciliation between the Arab north and the black African south is not possible after two civil wars that left over 2 million dead.

Unfortunately, it is far more likely that the Mali and Sudan wars will continue to escalate.  President al-Bashir of Sudan has vowed to fight the South Sudan “insects” who “do not understand anything but the language of the gun and ammunition” and Mali’s President Traore is threatening “a total and relentless war” against the Tuareg.  The only potentially positive outcome is that these wars will be so devastating to all involved that they result in the Arab/Tuareg and black African conflict being finally settled when, desperate to prevent this from recurring, both sides genuinely separate and wage their conflict purely on political and diplomatic fronts, from a distance.  This is the only solution that will fully respect the principle of self-determination and the only permanent one given the amount of bloodshed over the years.

The question is whether Niger and Chad, trapped in the middle of these two wars and having their own history of ethnic and racial conflict, will escape the turmoil unscathed.  If history is any indication, they won’t.

How to Run a Revolution: The Success of Libya and the Failures of Syria

Posted on by
1

How to Run a Revolution: The Success of Libya and the Failures of Syria

My article this week is at The Huffington Post. Click the text below to read it:

How to Run a Revolution: The Success of Libya and the Failures of Syria

“Syria is far more complicated than Libya because of sectarian divisions, but if an American Christian like myself can fight in the same Libyan rebel army as Abdel Hakim Belhaj, surely Syrians can put aside their differences long enough to overthrow Assad.”

Read more at The Huffington Post

The Failure of the United Nations in Syria

Posted on by
21

The Failure of the United Nations in Syria

Today has proven that the United Nations is powerless to stop the Syrian civil war.

Kofi Annan says he’s “shocked” by the surge in violence and atrocities leading up to the April 10th deadline for Syrian regime forces to cease military operations. Journalists are writing stories that should have been written last week and saved in a folder for publication today – the outcome of this fiasco was that predictable.

The only thing “shocking” about the latest failure of the United Nations is that anybody is shocked by it.  The United Nations is a deeply flawed organization unable to accomplish its stated purposes, much less meet the needs and expectations of the multitudes of oppressed and suffering around the world who look to it in desperation as their last and only hope.

The Purpose of the United Nations

The United Nations charter lists four purposes of the organization (I have paraphrased them for brevity) in Chapter 1, Article 1.  Unfortunately, some of these purposes are mutually exclusive:

  1. Maintain international peace and security. The United Nations was founded in 1945 with the primary purpose of preventing a third world war, and to this day peace and security remains the paramount concern of the UN.  Everything else is a secondary consideration.
  2. To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples. With this second purpose the scheme begins to unravel – a large number of UN member countries do not represent the self-determination of their population, nor does the UN make any substantial effort to demand self-determination among its members.  Only 78 of the 165 UN nations that are included in the Economist Intelligence Unit’s Democracy Index are democracies, and 52 of the 165 members are authoritarian regimes (the remainder are hybrid systems of government). This creates a situation where a UN vote by the United States represents the interests (through democratic elections) of its 312 million people.  Syria, by contrast, represents the interests of one man – Bashar al-Assad, not the 20 million people of Syria.  The “friendly relations among nations” are based on respect for the self-determination of a single person in 1/3 of the member nations, not on the self-determination of peoples.  In other words, of the nearly 7 billion people represented by the United Nations, the 3.39 billion of them who live in democratic or flawed democratic countries have their interests represented in the UN, while 2.6 billion people suffer the will of 52 despots and their supporters who use UN membership for their own interests.
  3. To achieve international co-operation in solving international problems and promoting human rights and fundamental freedoms. The UN seeks international cooperation to achieve these goals and has a mixed record of success doing so.  The reason is obvious – when 1/3 of the member states are authoritarian regimes with little respect for human rights or fundamental freedoms, how much cooperation can there possibly be on these issues?
  4. To be a center for harmonizing the actions of nations in the attainment of these common ends. Kumbaya.
The Economist Intelligence Unit Democracy Index

2011 Democracy Index - The United Nations (Dark green countries are the most democratic, dark red countries are the most authoritarian)

The UN Security Council

The UN Security Council is where the power lies with regards to conflicts like Libya and Syria and it is arguably the most malignant cancer infecting the United Nations.  The Security Council consists of five permanent members with veto power: the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Russia, and China.  The latter two countries are the problem.

How did Russia and China find themselves on the Security Council?  The council members were the countries that won WWII.  This meant the Republic of China and the Soviet Union, not the People’s Republic of China and Russia.  The Republic of China was a democratic country exiled to Taiwan during the Chinese Civil War in 1949, and the communist victors of the war took over the seat at the Security Council in 1971.  Russia inherited its seat on the Security Council after the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991.

For the past 65 years Russia and China have been a force of oppression by acting as the primary backers of authoritarian regimes around the world.  Wherever you find a dictator killing his own people you’ll find him using Russian weapons to do it.  I was on the receiving end of Russian bullets, rockets, and mortars while fighting in the Libyan civil war.  China boosts authoritarian state economies with foreign investment (and supplies them with weapons as well.)  Both Russia and China also protect authoritarian regimes through obstructionism on the UN Security Council.  In recent years they have successfully shielded Iran, North Korea and now, Syria.

A Security Council with a Communist, authoritarian China and a deeply flawed, quasi-democratic Russia whose foreign policy is focused on supporting authoritarian regimes around the world as permanent members with veto power makes the UN charter’s stated purpose #2 (self-determination) and #3 (human rights and freedom) impossible to achieve.

The United Nations has become like a Superhero who consults the villains before deciding whether to save the city.

Reforming the United Nations

If the United Nations wishes to remain relevant in a 21st century world as an organization that can achieve the goals stated in its own charter, it is imperative that one of two things happen.

  1. The UN charter is re-written to remove provisions #2 (equal rights and self-determination) and #3 (promoting human rights and fundamental freedoms).  Both of these purposes are impossible to achieve with Russia as a permanent member of the Security Council, so the existence of these two stated purposes makes the UN doomed to perpetual failure as an organization.
  2. Russia’s permanent membership on the Security Council is revoked

The second option is clearly preferable.  Many arguments can be made to support revoking Russia’s permanent membership on the Security Council, but three of them stand out as most prescient:

  1. There is no provision for succession in the UN charter, so the legality of Russia inheriting the seat of the Soviet Union is in question.
  2. The Soviet Union was given permanent status as a world superpower.  Russia represents not only a fraction of the former Soviet Union territory and people, but is far from a superpower – it is an aspiring world power (at best).
  3. Russia has a pattern of obstructionism through the Security Council that endangers world peace and security, thus undermining the very purpose of the Security Council.  Furthermore, Russia’s support of authoritarian regimes makes fulfillment of UN purposes #2 and #3 impossible.

The case for revoking the People’s Republic of China’s membership as a permanent member of the Security Council is more complicated.  The People’s Republic of China did succeed the Republic of China as a UN member following their conquest of mainland China in the Chinese Civil War, but United Nations General Assembly Resolution 2758 in 1971 put an end to any effective legal argument against China’s status on the Security Council.  Furthermore, China is inarguably a world superpower.

However, China has never vetoed a UN Security Council resolution on its own; China so far has only vetoed when Russia does.  Removing Russia as a permanent member of the Security Council would at least encourage China to abstain on some Security Council resolutions it disagrees with rather than be a lone veto.

Unfortunately, the chance of Russia losing its permanent member status is about the same as Assad surrendering himself to the International Criminal Court.  The only possible reform of the Security Council is expanding the permanent membership to include additional countries (democratic ones), a proposal that has been gaining support in recent years.  This would dilute the perceived legitimacy of vetoes by Russia or China by having more countries opposed to such vetoes.

The Way Forward

Failing to enact necessary reforms that begin with changes in the Security Council, the United Nations will continue to be largely irrelevant beyond its primary mission of maintaining international peace and security, for which it has a mixed but acceptable record of success.  For this purpose the UN should be supported.

After today’s deadline on Syria nobody should remain under the delusion that the United Nations can advance freedom, self-determination, or human rights.  If anything, the fact that the primary mission of the UN is stability and peace means that it will often be diametrically opposed to the cause of freedom around the world since in many cases, Syria included, freedom and self-determination can only be achieved through war.  Peace and freedom are often mutually exclusive concepts and throughout history it has often been revolutions and civil wars that paved the way to freedom and liberty.

Stability means preserving the status quo, and for 1/3 of the world’s population the status quo means living under authoritarianism.

Was Kofi Annan really “shocked” that Assad’s regime intensified military action as the deadline for a ceasefire drew near?  Did Annan really believe that he would achieve anything other than helping Assad by delivering a public relations victory and providing the regime with some diplomatic cover as it escalated violence against the Syrian people?  Was he just leading the United Nations through the motions of diplomacy, having the UN act to save face so the diplomats could say they tried something?  Or is Annan suffering from delusions of grandeur so profound that he really believed he could successfully negotiate the beginning of the end of civil war in Syria and pave the way for the voluntary departure of Assad and a transition to democracy?

Did Kofi Annan, with all his experience and past success, really believe that the Syrian regime, which tortures children, summarily executes its own citizens, and has mocked the international community for decades, could be an honest and reliable partner in negotiations?  Could he not predict that the regime would ruthlessly press their advance against the opposition in the days leading up to April 10, taking a deadline as a greenlight for action in advance of it?  Is Annan (and the UN at large) so incapable of empathizing with both the Assad regime and the Free Syrian Army that he believed the two sides would negotiate after a year of revolution that has claimed 10,000 lives and left both sides in an all-or-nothing, irreversible position?

But it really doesn’t matter what Annan and the UN was thinking – the end result is very clear.  The Syrian civil war will continue, Assad will remain in power, and nothing short of a military victory by the Free Syrian Army is likely to remove him and bring peace and security, and most importantly freedom and self-determination, to Syria.

It is also clear that Russia and China will continue to protect Assad as permanent members of the UN Security Council.

The UN has only one opportunity left to play a role in Syria – persuade Russia that Assad cannot be reasoned with and must be removed from power.  It is possible that Kofi Annan knew that Syria would fail to honor the April 10 deadline all along, which would allow him to show Russia that their preferred strategy would not work with Assad and that other measures were needed. The problem with giving Annan and the UN the benefit of the doubt in this case is that Russia should have been able to exert more influence on Assad if they really felt that their ability to support him was in jeopardy, and because it is highly unlikely that Russia will ever back down on Syria; the Russians believe Assad’s rule can survive and they have already invested considerable political capital supporting him.

The United Nations has its uses.  The chance of world war is virtually non-existent, partly due to the existence of the UN.  Occasionally positive agreements are reached and the UN has managed to extinguish some conflicts before they spiraled out of control.  But the UN should never be expected to fulfill any mission of advancing freedom, human rights, or self-determination – it can rarely do so effectively with 1/3 of its members being authoritarian regimes and 2/5 of the Security Council willing to protect many of those regimes using their veto power.

The United Nations is focused on peace, stability, and diplomacy.  There is no role for any of this in Syria.  Any organization that has peace and security as its primary mission is an obstruction to the cause of freedom in Syria, and any actions by the UN other than military intervention will only serve to strengthen Assad and prolong the suffering of the Syrian people.  For every action like today’s expired deadline, the UN will only soil its hands with more Syrian blood by prolonging the war and strengthening Assad’s grip on power.

The time has come for the nations of the free world to act unilaterally in the cause of freedom and human rights in Syria. Let the United Nations be where the democratic countries meet with the 52 authoritarian ones to discuss matters of peace and security. But have NATO do what it can to eliminate as many of those 52 as possible when the opportunities present themselves, as in Syria now.

At the very least, it is time to provide the Free Syrian Army with what is required to win the war. The Gulf Cooperation Council should send arms, Turkey should help establish a buffer zone in Syria, and the West should continue to provide equipment and intel to hasten the fall of the regime.

When the UN is comprised of democratic countries that actually do represent the principles of freedom and self-determination, then we can focus on achieving world peace.

Why Islamists Winning Elections Is Good for Democracy and the War on Terrorism

Posted on by
5

Why Islamists Winning Elections Is Good for Democracy and the War on Terrorism

My article this week is at The Huffington Post. Click the text below to read it:

Why Islamists Winning Elections Is Good for Democracy and the War on Terrorism

“Journalists, pundits and politicians seem increasingly obsessed with fears that Islamists winning elections in the wake of successful Arab Spring uprisings will prove detrimental to democracy, regional security, and the War on Terrorism.

Nothing could be further from the truth…”

Read more at The Huffington Post

The Tuareg Rebellion in Mali

Posted on by
11

The Tuareg Rebellion in Mali

(also available in French here)

Matthew VanDyke wearing a Tuareg tagelmust in the Sahara desert

Matthew VanDyke wearing a Tuareg tagelmust in the Sahara desert

I admittedly had some mixed feelings when deciding whether to write about the Tuareg rebellion because of my experience as a freedom fighter in the Libyan civil war.  Thousands of Tuaregs were serving in Muammar Gaddafi’s army during the Libyan civil war and others went to Libya as mercenaries to join them.  If I had encountered any of them on the battlefield they would have been in my crosshairs like any other Gaddafi fighter.

But I never saw a Tuareg during the war and with good reason.  Most had already fled back to Mali before I escaped from prison and returned to the front lines.  They weren’t Gaddafi loyalists, they were Gaddafi opportunists – they came for money – and while I consider this even more deplorable than actually believing in Gaddafi and being a true loyalist, it at least suggests that their participation in the Libyan civil war was morally but not ideologically corrupt.

The Tuareg desire for self-determination cannot be dismissed despite the desire of many to do so for the past hundred years.  This is a conflict that has been ongoing since 1962 and is just the latest of four Taureg rebellions in Mali.  The Tuareg, the fabled Blue Men of the Desert, have demonstrated repeatedly that they won’t disappear quietly into the Sahara.

The current Tuareg rebellion, by far the most organized, equipped, and successful of them all, has given the Tuaregs the best opportunity for self-determination that they have ever had.  They may never be in this position again, flush with arms and ammunition and their ranks dominated by veteran fighters returning from war in a neighboring country.  The military wing of the movement, the National Movement for the Liberation of Azawad(MNLA), has learned the mistakes of past Tuareg rebellions and will not repeat them.  This time they have also learned some lessons of the Arab Spring and are supported by a virtual army of Tuareg activists around the world who use social media to communicate, coordinate, and propagandize the conflict to carry it far beyond the sands of the Sahara.

Azawad Calling

The Tuareg want to establish their own country, Azawad, in northern Mali.  Their traditional homeland in the Sahara was carved apart by the French during the Scramble for Africa and divided among Mali, Niger and Algeria, all of whose borders were carefully drawn by France to pursue its own interests in Africa.  The Tuareg of Mali, a nomadic desert people, were lumped into a country twice the size of France and quickly fell under the dominance of their former slaves, the black Africans living in tropical Mali south of the Niger River.  Like many of the colonial borders drawn in Africa, the Middle East, and Asia by European powers in the 19th and 20th centuries during the period of New Imperialism Mali was destined for perpetual strife.

Unlike many other intrastate conflicts, the Tuareg aren’t fighting for resources or valuable land.  The conflict is primarily ideological, a matter of cultural pride to a people with simple needs and interests.  Mali is already one of the poorest countries in the world and Azawad would be even poorer, at least for the first several years.  However, the geology of the Taoudeni Basin in northern Mali suggests that significant oil and gas reserves may lay beneath the sand.  Companies have been unable to conduct adequate surveys of the area due to poor security in the region, but there is little doubt that there is enough oil to allow Azawad to survive as an independent nation.  Cynical observers with no sense of history have suggested that those oil reserves are behind the current rebellion, an argument that doesn’t stand when one considers that the Tuareg have been fighting for independence in Mali for 50 years.

Resistance by the West, Mali, and its Neighbors

The arguments in favor of preserving Mali’s territorial integrity at the expense of the Tuaregs are difficult to justify.  The West’s primary interest in Mali is fighting Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) and preserving Mali’s 20 year history as a democratic country and stabilizing force in West Africa.  Mali is active in several programs, initiatives, and organizations in the region and has been a valued and reliable partner of the West.  The US and EU are also concerned that unrest in Mali could spread and that a lack of central authority in the Azawad region could lead to a safe haven for Al Qaeda as existed in Afghanistan prior to 2001.

Algeria and Niger believe that the creation of Azawad would incite Taureg rebellions in their own countries (and in the case of Algeria, perhaps a Tuareg-inspired Berber rebellion as well).  This is similar to the arguments made by Turkey and Iran about Kurdish independence – that it would inspire the Kurds in their own countries to also seek independence.  Like Turkey and Iran, Algeria and Niger will do everything they can to crush the aspirations for self-determination in a neighboring country in the pursuit of crushing them at home.

The government of Mali is panicked, despite enjoying the overwhelming support of non-Tuareg Malians (and a limited number of Tuaregs as well).  The Tuareg rebellion has been so successful that it prompted a coup d’etat by military officers desperate to stop it, ending 20 years of democracy in Mali.  The Malian government and most of its citizens believe that preserving their multi-ethnic, territorially vast, democratic country is in the best interest of everyone.  They also don’t want to lose whatever natural resources might lay hidden beneath the sands of northern Mali.

Intelligence and Policy Failure

The scandal in all of this was that the Tuareg insurgency of 2012 was entirely predictable and could have been prevented by Mali and its allies.  Tuareg fighters were able to haul a massive arsenal of weapons and ammunition over a thousand miles from Libya to Mali, through Algeria or Niger, without interference by Mali’s allies in the West, Algeria, or the Malian government.  It was an extraordinary display of incompetence by all involved.

That a Tuareg insurgency would follow the Libyan civil war was entirely predictable.  The Mali civil war (1990-96) was begun by Tuareg fighters supported by Libya, including Tauregs who returned to Mali after serving Gaddafi in his war against Chad.  A veteran of the civil war,  Ag Bahanga, led the failed 2006 uprising and was forced to flee to Libya in 2009.  He became a close confident of Muammar Gaddafi.  Another Tuareg leader, Mohammed Ag Najm, became a commander of one of Gaddafi’s elite desert units, and many Tuaregs enlisted in the Libyan army.

Bahanga and Najm waited for their opportunity to act.  Once the Libyan civil war began to turn against Gaddafi in early summer 2011 Bahanga and Najm led the Tuaregs to raid the arms depots and then headed southwest back to Mali.  They were in command of elite desert units that had the men, equipment, and knowledge of the desert necessary to transport their massive stockpile of weapons over a thousand miles through three countries.  It was a time-consuming and difficult operation that allegedly took several trips over a period of months and is rumored to have had the consent of the Libyan rebel government (the NTC) because it reduced Gaddafi’s arsenal and took Tuaregs off the battlefield.

The United States clearly had an interest in preventing this through either direct action or by coordinating with the Algerian or Niger authorities to stop it, especially since Bahanga and Najm’s arsenal may have included surface to air missiles.

Once again the US intelligence community has dropped the ball despite overwhelming technology and funding simply because they lacked the ability to think a few steps ahead and have the wrong people (with the wrong type of experience) working as analysts.

What happens next?

This time the proverbial genie is out of the bottle and it isn’t getting put back.  The Mali government strategy, if one can call it that, appears limited to waiting for the Tuaregs to run out of ammunition.  This is unlikely to happen anytime soon as the MNLA will successfully negotiate for the surrender of towns and garrisons as they proceed south and capture the weapons left behind.  Tuareg soldiers from the Malian army have also defected to the rebels bringing with them vehicles, weapons, and ammunition.

The coup d’etat, intended by the conspirators to better enable the military to crush the rebellion, will at least for now have the opposite effect.  The government is weaker than ever, which will hurt the morale of government forces and lead to more surrenders and defections from army ranks.

Years of cooperation between the US and Malian government are going down the drain and analysts are typing away on their keyboards generating assessments of what the latest Tuareg rebellion means to the United States and the War on Terrorism.  A determination will likely be made that short-term regional stability trumps all other concerns, as usual; even the right to self-determination which is part of our national ethos.

The State Department will frantically start pulling the levers of diplomacy to find a negotiated solution to end the conflict – a negotiated solution that will certainly not allow for the creation of Azawad as a new country.  The US military may even cooperate with the Malian military to crush the rebellion which will do far more than anything to push Tuaregs, who have historically shown little affinity for AQIM, straight to their neighborhood jihadi recruitment office.

Red, White, and Blue Men of the Desert?

The current situation presents a historic opportunity for the United States.  The coup d’etat was counterintuitively fortuitous by giving the US government an excuse to withhold support for the Malian government.  This will provide more time to assess the situation, avoid angering the Tuaregs, lessen AQIM’s ability to capitalize on the insurgency with propaganda against the West, send the message that coup d’etats against democratic governments will not be tolerated, help the US walk the fine line of not angering Algeria and Niger, and most importantly allow the Tuaregs to achieve their goal of establishing Azawad.

How is the creation of Azawad possibly in the interest of the United States?  The time to stop this from happening was when Bahanga and Najm set off from Libya.  Tracking their movements and having the Algerians stop them, or alternatively, making sure those convoys mysteriously disappeared in the desert with nothing but charred, smoking wrecks of vehicles left behind, would have solved this before it started.  Now, it is too late.

Within the next few weeks Kidal, Gao, and Timbuktu will fall to the Tuaregs.  With the acquisition of the three capitals of the three regions that will compose Azawad the territorial aspirations of the Tuaregs will be largely complete.  Entrenched in favorable terrain and enjoying the support of the local population, the Tuaregs can defend Kidal, Gao, and Timbuktu against any counter-offensive by Mali’s small army of 7,000 (now likely only 4,500 if estimates of casualties and desertions are accurate).

The war is lost.

If policymakers in Washington have learned anything from the Arab Spring (and they appear to be learning, slowly) they should realize this and will soon begin tapping every connection they have with the Tuaregs to convince them to stop at the Niger River, to negotiate a ceasefire with Mali, and to guide the Tuareg leadership towards democracy, self-governance, and further cooperation with the US against AQIM in exchange for political and economic support.  They’ll push for the federal solution to the conflict that grants the Tuaregs semi-autonomy over northern Mali, which might not be acceptable to either side.  The Tuaregs have been burned before by the Malian government refusing to honor the terms of previous agreements.

The US government will be reluctant to support the creation of Azawad as a new country.  Those working at the State Department, Pentagon, and the intelligence agencies have never understood this part of the world, as revealed by Wikileaks documents on Mali.  A career government analyst will have a hard time wrapping his head around how dispersed desert nomads would be better partners in the fight against AQIM than the government of Mali.

The reason why should be obvious even to those who haven’t spent time among the people of the Sahara.  Mali has never had any real control over the Azawad territories.  The Tuaregs are culturally, racially, and politically foreign to the central government, and the Sahara is hostile territory to the vast majority of Malians.  They have never been able to tame it, understand it, or function in it.  Mali was never going to be a truly effective partner against AQIM.

Azawad, on the other hand, will be.  Nobody knows the desert better than the Tuaregs.  They have lived there for two thousand years, know every route and every track in the desert, are connected by tribal and family ties that make it impossible for someone to join AQIM without others knowing, and most importantly have shown little desire for either radical Islam or terrorism in the past.  The MNLA has made it very clear that they intend to create a secular, democratic state. With no history of radical Islamism, the majority of Tuaregs opposed to the imposition of sharia law, and a matrilineal society that respects the rights of women, there is no reason to doubt their intentions.

Most importantly for the United States, the Tuareg are the only people who can effectively police that region of the world, and since the Tuaregs are dispersed over 5+ nations their reach and potential as a partner in the War on Terrorism should not be underestimated.

The Sahara is their sandbox, and they know everyone who plays in it.

Fighting AQIM is the only significant strategic interest the United States has in this fight, other than maintaining good relations with Algeria and Niger or preventing instability from spreading beyond Mali’s borders.  Every effort should be made to reach out to the Tuaregs and gain influence and favor with them to ensure that the United States has influence in Azawad when this war is over.

It won’t be easy.  The Tuareg are fiercely proud and independent.  Whatever we do they won’t ever love us – they even fight among themselves.  They’ll always question our intentions and the Sahara is notorious for conspiracy theories that will only bolster their suspicions.  However, the Tuareg relationship with Gaddafi should serve as a model for a US-Azawad relationship.

The Tuareg can be bought.  They have replaced their ancient camel caravans transporting salt across the Sahara with Toyota pickup trucks smuggling cocaine, weapons, and migrants.  They’ve been involved in kidnapping foreigners for sale or ransom.  Corruption and criminality have spread among the Tuaregs as the Mali and Niger governments have failed to integrate them into modernity and the rest of society.  When Gaddafi stepped into this void by funding development projects, employing Tuaregs in his armed forces, declaring support for a Tuareg state, and identifying himself with the Tuareg by sleeping in tents and various other displays of tacky showmanship, the people loved him for it.

Therein lies an opportunity for the United States.  Obama doesn’t need to sleep in a tent, but supporting the Tuareg’s Azawad aspirations would go a long way if accompanied by economic development projects.  Stepping into the void left by the removal of Gaddafi would position the United States to have real influence in the region and monitor a part of the world that is often obscured in darkness.

This might be achievable through the likely outcome of this war: the federal solution of Tuareg semi-autonomy in Azawad, while remaining part of Mali.  This would resemble the situation of Kurdistan in Iraq and might satisfy enough Tuaregs to take the steam out of their rebellion.  Regardless of whether the Tuaregs achieve semi-autonomy or independence (and one of these outcomes will be the result of this successful rebellion) the United States must position itself as a friend of the Tuaregs and aggressively support the region with aid and development to buy the support of the people.

The United States cannot risk Azawad resembling Afghanistan pre-2001, where American reach was so limited that Al Qaeda was able to operate with impunity.  If the US reaches out to the Tuaregs now we will gain influence over the emerging Azawad government and create bonds that could be among our most significant victories in the fight against Al Qaeda.

The Founding Fathers, The Declaration of Independence, and The Arab Spring

Posted on by
11

The Founding Fathers, The Declaration of Independence, and The Arab Spring

Muslim woman with American flag face paint

We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness – The Declaration of Independence

All men.  When Thomas Jefferson penned these famous words in the Declaration of Independence in 1776 he didn’t write “the people of the British Colonies.”  He chose the words “all men” for a reason.  The two principle beliefs articulated by the Declaration of Independence – Natural Law and the Right of Revolution, were not stated in narrow terms.  America was setting an example for the world.

Many Americans, especially those who are quick to wrap themselves in the flag and proclaim their patriotism while at the same time criticising the Arab Spring, have forgotten what our nation’s founders wrote in the Declaration of Independence.  It was not a policy statement derived in a cubicle at the State Department involving careful calculations of the economic consequences of British trade policy.  It wasn’t written after consultations and Powerpoint presentations by Pentagon officials.  The 56 visionaries who signed the Declaration didn’t take a poll to see what popular opinion was before signing it.

If such approaches had been deployed in 1776 as they are now when determining American policy towards the Arab Spring we’d be living on scones and tea, soccer would be popular, and this blog posting would be full of “jolly good” and “blimey.”

The Founding Fathers were stating unequivocally that freedom is a right given by nature (or God) to every human being, a principle termed Natural Law by John Locke in his Second Treatise on Government  and expounded upon by Thomas Paine in Common Sense.  As Benjamin Franklin famously wrote, “Freedom is not a gift bestowed upon us by other men, but a right that belongs to us by the laws of God and nature.”  The Declaration of Independence coupled this belief in Natural Law with the Right of Revolution, which held that the people have the right to overthrow a government that acts against their interests.

That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute a new Government, laying its Foundations on such Principles and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to Them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness – The Declaration of Independence

The authoritarian regimes of the Arab world do not derive their powers from the consent of the governed, and in the view of the Founding Fathers the people have the Right of Revolution – the Right of the Arab Spring – to overthrow their governments and create new ones that respect Natural Law.

But the Declaration of Independence goes even further:

When a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a Design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government.

The Founding Fathers clearly state in the Declaration of Independence that revolution against tyranny it is not only a right, but a duty.  Since mankind is given unalienable rights by God, it is a duty – a responsibility and a necessity – to overthrow any government that violates Natural Law.

Anything short of support for the Arab Spring by the United States is clearly a betrayal of the vision and values of the Founding Fathers and contrary to our very own Declaration of Independence.  The words of the Founding Fathers leave no doubt as to what their view of the Arab Spring would be.  There is no ambiguity about the fact that a tepid response to the Arab Spring, and even worse the obstruction of its progress, would cause the signatories of the Declaration of Independence to turn over in their graves.

It is idealistic, but perhaps not practical, to take the position that the United States must always follow the vision of the Founding Fathers.  If we did we wouldn’t have an income tax or a standing army.  But the extent to which we’ve strayed from the core principles that our nation was founded upon is alarming, and when we’ve done so it has often been to our peril.

One example is American support for authoritarian regimes in the Arab world.  We supported Saddam Hussein in the 1980s and cooperated with Muammar Gaddafi in the 2000s only to later find ourselves militarily removing them from power when they proved uncontrollable.  We supported Hosni Mubarak of Egypt, Ben Ali of Tunisia, and Ali Abdullah Saleh of Yemen only to be forced into embarrassing backtracking that hurt our credibility in the international community.  Our support has not been forthcoming to the freedom fighters of Syria and the protestors in Iran.  We have consistently supported authoritarian regimes in the Arab world because of short-sighted interests usually centered on regional stability and our capacity to influence authoritarian regimes more easily than democratically elected governments.

It is very clear what the Founding Fathers would say about these policies as there is no way to reconcile them with a belief in Natural Law and the Right of Revolution.

And it is equally clear what the Founding Fathers would say about the Arab Spring.

In their own words:

“God grant that not only the love of liberty but a thorough knowledge of the rights of man may pervade all the nations of the earth, so that a philosopher may set his foot anywhere on its surface and say: This is my country.” – Benjamin Franklin

“I always consider the settlement of America with reverence and wonder, as the opening of a grand scene and design in providence, for the illumination of the ignorant and the emancipation of the slavish part of mankind all over the earth.” – John Adams

“Natural liberty is a gift of the beneficent Creator, to the whole human race” – Alexander Hamilton

“Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom, must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it.” – Thomas Paine

“Rebellion against tyrants is obedience to God” – Thomas Jefferson

Gaddafi’s Prisoner – Reflections on My Time as a POW in the Libyan Civil War

Posted on by
11

Gaddafi’s Prisoner – Reflections on My Time as a POW in the Libyan Civil War

(also available in French here)

The events and experiences contained in this article can now be seen in two films, Point and Shoot and Gaddafi’s American Prisoner

Matthew VanDyke the American prisoner of war sits in his cell at Maktab al-Nasser prison in Tripoli Libya

Freedom fighter and prisoner of war Matthew VanDyke in his cell at Maktab al-Nasser prison in Tripoli, Libya

One year ago today on March 13, 2011 I was captured by Gaddafi’s forces during a reconnaissance mission in Brega, Libya.  I was struck in the head and woke up in a prison cell to the sounds of a man being tortured in the room above me.

I was psychologically tortured in solitary confinement for 165 days in two of Libya’s most notorious prisons, Maktab al-Nasser and Abu Salim.

Staring at the wall in silence for 5 1/2 months gave me a lot of time for reflection.  These are some of the thoughts that went through my mind:

My life is over.  I have thrown it all away.

I will never see my mother again.  I am an only child and she has no other family.  I have selfishly left her all alone.  She will never be able to move on and will spend the rest of her life trying to get me freed.  If they ever release me I will be 50 or 60 years old and just starting my life when others are retiring.  Hopefully I will still have at least a couple of years left with my mother.

I will never see my girlfriend again.  Six years of true love that most people only know of through books and movies.  If I do get to see her again it will be in 30 years.  I will meet her husband and her children, and wish they were my children, and think of what could have been.

Gaddafi’s regime believes I am a spy.  They will torture me.  They will rip out my fingernails one by one until I confess.

And then they will execute me.  Perhaps in public.  Maybe Gaddafi himself will preside over the execution, as they hang me by the neck in Green Square.  That would not be the worse that could happen.  At least a public execution would limit my suffering to a few moments before it all goes dark.  A secret execution might be slow and painful.  Or angry guards might break into my cell, stack tires up to my neck, douse me with gasoline and light me on fire.

Maybe I am better off dead, so that my mother and girlfriend can have some closure.

Maybe I should take my own life.

I hope that the men I was captured with are ok.  Are they still alive or were they executed?  How did I get this wound on the left side of my head and why can’t I remember what happened?

I know nothing except the confines of my cell.  And it is likely that this cell is all I will know for the rest of my life.

Is it wrong to fight for freedom?  Is freedom worth fighting, killing, dying for?  Have I committed a sin and is God punishing me for it?  Or has God saved me from committing sin by taking away my mortal life to save my immortal soul?

Was the freedom of others worth this sacrifice, worth spending the rest of my life in solitary confinement staring at gray walls and thinking of what my life could have been like if I hadn’t gotten on that plane and gone to Libya?

These are a fraction of the thoughts that ran through my head for 5 ½ months.  165 days.  Nearly 4,000 hours.  Sitting in a wretched Libyan prison, staring at scratches on the wall marking the days of the prisoners before me and watching in horror as my own scratches became double and triple the number of theirs.

My story is only unique because I am an American freedom fighter, an American prisoner of war in the Arab Spring.  As you read this there are thousands of others in prisons who are tortured by the same thoughts, the same questions, the same doubts.  Some of them have been in prison for many years; others were imprisoned for protesting in the street or fighting for freedom on the battlefield in countries like Syria.  Many others suffer in these dungeons merely for something they wrote or an off-hand remark they made that was overheard by a regime informer.

I was fortunate.  On August 24, 2011 escaping prisoners came to my cell, broke the lock, opened the door, and took me with them as we ran for our lives.  It is time that we begin doing the same for the hundreds of thousands of political prisoners and freedom fighters around the world who have sacrificed their personal liberty in the pursuit of liberty for all.

In the words of George Orwell:

“Either we all live in a decent world, or nobody does.”