Morsi Out, Military In, Can Democracy Slip Too In Egypt

When Mubarak was ousted in Spring 2011 I concluded following scenario in my article Days of Rage on the Arab street : ”Egypt’s society is diverse enough to withstand a despotic theocracy and if in doubt so the army is the final guarantor.”
 
Now it seems to came true as Egyptian military chief Gen. Abdel Fattah al-Sisi announced July 3 that the country's president, Mohammed Morsi, had been removed from office in the wake of popular unrest. In a short media statement, al-Sisi, who was flanked by the three armed services chiefs, opposition leaders, the sheikh of al-Azhar Mosque and the pope of the Coptic Church, announced that Adly Mansour, chief justice of the Constitutional Court, has replaced Morsi as interim president. He also announced that the constitution had been suspended. Mansour's appointment is notable in that one of the key demands of the Tamarod protest movement was that he become president. The provisional government will be holding fresh parliamentary and presidential elections. 

Army troops backed by armor and including commandos have deployed across much of the Egyptian capital, surrounding protests by the president's supporters, and at key facilities and major intersections. But Morsi's backers denounced the army's intervention as a "coup". At least 16 people, mostly supporters of the president, were killed and about 200 wounded when gunmen opened fire on pro-Morsi demonstrators at Cairo University campus. The Muslim Brotherhood accused uniformed police of the shooting. The Interior Ministry said it was investigating. Al Jazeera reports that several members of the Muslim Brotherhood have reportedly been arrested.
Deposed Egyptian President Mohammed Morsi said on the official Facebook page of the presidency that the July 3 announcement made by military amounts to a coup and that he rejects it, Al-Ahram reported. Egypt's Salafist al-Nour Party announced its support for the military's "roadmap" for the country's political future and transition to new presidential elections, Al Arabiya reported July 3. 

Door is open for reforms or even revolution as the coup and demonstrators might force elections in which ElBaradei or someone like him could be elected and Egypt might proceed on the path of democracy.

Final hours

In an emotional, rambling midnight television address before ultimatum deadline, the president said he was democratically elected and would stay in office to uphold the constitutional order. Morsi acknowledged having made mistakes and said he was still willing to form a national unity government ahead of parliamentary elections and let a new parliament amend the constitution. But he offered no new initiative and rejected calls to step aside, saying it was his sacred duty to uphold legitimacy - a word he repeated dozens of times. The president accused remnants of Mubarak's former regime and corrupt big money families of seeking to restore their privileges and lead the country into a dark tunnel. The official spokesman of his Muslim Brotherhood movement said his supporters were willing to become martyrs to defend Morsi."We will not allow the will of the Egyptian people to be bullied again by the military machine."

Liberal opposition leaders, who have vowed not to negotiate with Morsi since the ultimatum was issued, immediately denounced his refusal to go as a declaration of "civil war". The opposition Dustour (constitution) party led former U.N. nuclear agency chief Mohamed ElBaradei appealed for military intervention to save Egyptian lives, saying Morsi's speech showed he had "lost his mind" and incited bloodshed. "We ask the army to protect the souls of Egyptians after Morsi lost his mind and incited bloodshed of Egyptians," the Dustour Party said in a statement. 

The youth movement that organised the mass protests urged the Republican Guard to arrest Morsi immediately and present him for trial.

April 6 movement shows the way again
I have been following events in Egypt mostly in April 6 movement's facebook group. The movement was founded in 2008 and e.g New York Times has identified the movement as the political Facebook group in Egypt with the most dynamic debates. As of January 2009, it had 70,000 predominantly young and educated members. The April 6 Youth Movement helped organize the protests in 2011 that eventually toppled fomer dictator Mubarak out from power. Some signs that new wide revolts are coming was clear latest early this Spring.

April 6 founder, Ahmed Maher, had announced his support for the Islamist president, against his rival who was associated with the former regime, during last year's presidential election. However on March 25, 2013 The movement compared a speech given by Mursi a day earlier to ones given by the former regime, describing it as "disappointing, especially from a leader who had claimed to have come to fulfill the goals of the uprising." (Source: Aswat Masriya )

April 6 movement called for a “rage day” against President Mohamed Morsi on the fifth anniversary of its establishment. “The time has come to say to Mursi, 'enough, you have broken all your promises; there are no programs to reform anything and every day we see destruction in Egypt. April 6, 2013, will be a day of anger; wait for us. Our strength is in our peaceful methods”.

On June 15th 2013 April 6 movement,assured that the movement began in preparing the groups around the state , to go down on June 30, explaining that the demonstrations will have one and clear demand ,early presidential elections after the failure of the president to fulfill any promise of his campaign promises and failing to achieve stability and prosperity,which he and his clan promised , beside breaking all the promises he promised to the National Front, which supported him in the presidential elections.

The opposition National Salvation Front, an umbrella group of liberal, secular and leftist parties, and the "Tamarud - Rebel!" youth movement leading the street protests have both nominated ElBaradei to negotiate with army leaders on a post-Morsi transition.

Tamarod-Rebel

"We ask the army to intervene to prevent the bloodshed of the Egyptian people ...This is a people's coup against a dictator and tyrant president and the army of the Egyptian people has to respond to the people's demands and act upon them." (Mahmoud Badr/ Tamarud)

The petition form

Tamarod is a new grassroots protest movement in Egypt that has been behind the recent nationwide protests against President Mohammed Morsi, a year after he took office. The group, whose name means "rebel" or better rebellion in Arabic, Tamarod was founded in late April 2013 by members of the Egyptian Movement for Change - better known by its slogan Kefaya (Enough) and it claims it has collected more than 22 million signatures for a petition demanding Mr Morsi step down and allow fresh presidential elections to be held. Mainstream opposition groups soon put their weight behind the campaign, providing logistical support and office space. Exactly Tamarod gave the president an ultimatum to resign by 17:00 (15:00 GMT) on Tuesday or face a campaign of "complete civil disobedience". It urged "state institutions including the army, the police and the judiciary, to clearly side with the popular will as represented by the crowds".

Rebel Campaign (For the destitution of Mohamed Mursi Al Ayat)

• We reject you … Because Security has not been recovered so far
• We reject you… Because the deprived one has still no place to fit
• We reject you … Because we are still begging loans from the outside
• We reject you … Because no justice has been brought to the martyrs
• We reject you. .. Because no dignity was left neither for me nor for my country
• We reject you… Because the economy has collapsed, and depends only on begging
• We reject you… Because Egypt is still following the footsteps of the USA

Since the arrival of Mohamed Mursi to power, the average citizen still has the feeling that nothing has been achieved so far from the revolution goals which were life in dignity, freedom, social justice and national independence. Mursi was a total failure in achieving every single goal, no security has been reestablished and no social security realized, thus and gave clear proof that he is not fit for the governance of such a country as Egypt.

The National Salvation Front

The National Salvation Front (NSF) is an opposition coalition formed amid the recent political crisis which has engulfed Egypt. It has successfully brought together the country's fractious and divided opposition factions, who are now united in their resistance and rejection of what they see as a power grab by the president and his Islamist allies.

On 24 November 2012, a number of political parties and leading figures formed a coalition to force the president to rescind his decree; form a new, more representative constituent assembly; and issue a transitional justice law that guaranteed fair retrials for those responsible for the deaths of protesters during the uprising that ousted Hosni Mubarak. The NSF includes a wide range of liberal, secular and leftist groups, such as the Egyptian Popular Current, al-Dustour, al-Tajammu, Free Egyptians, New Wafd, Democratic Front, the Egyptian Social Democratic Party, Nasserist Democratic Party and the Conference Party. The National Front for Salvation of the Revolution has more than 35 groups involved overall. Its three most prominent leaders are Mohammed ElBaradei, the former head of the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA); Amr Moussa, the former secretary general of the Arab League; and Hamdeen Sabahi, a Nasserist politician who came third in the presidential election.

Future road map (according opposition)

Egypt’s April 6 Youth Movement held a press conference on Tuesday 2nd July 2013 to announce their six-step political map leading to early presidential elections.

FUTURE ROAD MAP
In order to achieve the requests of the Egyptians gathering in a magnificent popular scene in the streets and squares of Egypt, and demanding the organization of an early presidential election, the 6th April Youth Movement asks everyone to assume their responsibilities toward the country and to work together for the realization of the justified popular demands in this historic moment according the following road map:
First:
Tomorrow before 15:00, Morsi shall declare the following:
1. The suspension of the current constitution;
2. The dissolution of the Shoura Council (the Second Chamber of the Egyptian Parliament);
3. The transfer of powers to the Head of the Constitutional court.
Second:
A committee of the highest caliber 20 Constitutional Jurists and Professors of Law in the Egyptian universities shall be established. It revises, assesses and modifies the constitution. The political currents shall provide the committee with their proposals of the articles requested to be modified. The constitution shall be presented to the people for a universal suffrage.
Third:
The head of the constitutional court shall set, within one week of assuming the presidential role, the date for starting the presidential elections candidacy period according to March referendum 2012 conditions, within a maximum of two weeks. The elections and its results shall be held within a maximum period of three months from assuming the role.
Fourth:
Establishing of a National Salvation Government of No-Party-Based Technocrats. All political currents shall propose names for the Prime Minister as well as for three Deputies with well defined duties. The head of the Constitutional Court shall select among the proposed names after consultation with the political currents. The nominated person shall establish the government with the commitment to nominate the three deputies among the names proposed ex-ante.
Fifth:
Establishing a council for the protection of the revolution including all the political currents and youth without excluding anyone. Its duty is to direct the State Public Policy for a period of three months and till the election of the magistrate councils, achieve a comprehensive national conciliation between all the parties and national currents without marginalization or exclusion in order to start a new chapter immuned against internal divisions and polarization of the nation, while activating a law for transitional justice upon which everyone shall agree.
Sixth:
The Parliamentary elections shall be held within a period of six months-one year from the date in which the Head of the Constitutional Court assumes power.
6th April Youth
Patriotism ahead of Politics
Principle ahead of Interests

My view

“After the first successful thrust every revolution differentiates into political and class currents. This is the moment of greatest danger. The moment when the future of the revolution is decided.” (John Rees)

In my article Egypt at crossroads – theocracy, democracy or something between I highlighted two possible scenarios:

Egypt has came to a crossroads – Egyptians may choose to embrace the model of a secular reformist state with a prominent role for the military as Turkey has done; there is a second possibility that the Islamists exploit the influence to gradually take the country into a reverse direction – not towards modernity and reform but backward, nearest example could be Iran.

In my article Days of Rage on the Arab street I was a bit skeptical about possibilities for real revolution:

Egypt’s senior generals are part of the ruling establishment and army is up to its helmets in big business: shopping centers, tourism, property, hotels, steel, telecoms. A real revolution would require a Marxist revolutionary leadership by Egyptian workers and youth and there is no signs that such a party is possible to build in near future. There is a deep divide in the opposition and thus far do not appear to have been able to generate the type of mass movement that toppled the Shah of Iran’s regime in 1979.

Sustainable significant change requires a new political structure, as well as a new process that ensures free and fair elections and adequate opportunities for popular participation. Real democracy must be substantive as well as procedural, bringing human security to the people, including basic needs, decent work, and a police that protects rather than harasses.
Many, particularly Morsi’s supporters within the still-vast Muslim Brotherhood, will likely see July 3 as a military coup, the return of decades of military rule that always loathed the Brotherhood. The oppositio will surely claim that the military stepped in only to safeguard the people’s will from Morsi himself. Anyway be it coup or revolution I think that now there is a window of opportunity open for democratization and reforms. Lets hope that next time the army is not needed to depose rulers.

Palestinians Put Jordanian Option on the Table

Article (short version) first published as Palestinians Put Jordanian Option on the Table on Technorati.

Farouk Kaddoumi, a veteran PLO official, dropped a political bomb (on 31st Oct. 2012) with a call for “returning” the West Bank to Jordan during an interview with the London-based Al- Quds Al-Arabi newspaper. Kaddoumi, who is based in Tunisia, said he supported the idea of a federation or confederation between the West Bank and Jordan. His remarks are the first of their kind to be voiced by a senior PLO figure in decades. 

Kaddoumi is one of the founders of Fatah, and for decades served as head of the PLO’s “political department.” He is one of the few PLO leaders who refused to move from Tunisia to the Palestinian territories after the signing of the Oslo Accords, which he had strongly opposed. Kaddoumi told the newspaper that giving the West Bank back to Jordan would be a “positive move.”; however he added that the Palestinians should not drop their demand for a right to return to Israel proper. He also said the Palestinians had lost hope of reaching an agreement with Israel that would ensure them their minimal rights. “Unfortunately, Israel has seized most of the lands of the West Bank and the only way left for us is the national resistance,” he said. “Regrettably, the Palestinian Authority and its president do not want any kind of resistance after they got rid of the fighters who say that resistance is the only want to liberate the land.” (Source: JPost ) 

Kaddoumi’s remarks about returning the West Bank to Jordan apparently came in response to recent statements made by Jordan’s Prince Hassan bin Talal, who served as crown prince between 1965 and 1999. Recently in a meeting with Palestinian citizens in Jordan, Prince Hassan bin Talal made an unusual statement, saying that the territories of the West Bank are actually part of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. He added that the two state solution is irrelevant in the current stage.

The Jordanian option has on occasion been raised as a promising approach. Given some of the facts from history this is not surprising, after all, most of Jordan's population is Palestinian. In 1948, Arab armies attacked the newborn State of Israel. Transjordan annexed the area intended for an Arab state, and renamed itself the Kingdom of Jordan, calling the annexed area the "West Bank". In 1967 West Bank came under Israeli control during the Six Day War of 1967. 

From Israeli point of view many Israelis view the involvement of the two Arab states that have signed peace treaties with Israel as central in providing security and stability in the territories from which Israel has departed. 

UN bid

Since we can't defeat Israel in war, we must do it in stages, we must take whatever area of Palestine we can get, establish sovereignty there, and then at the right time, we will have to convince the Arab nations to join us in dealing the final blow to Israel. (Yasser Arafat) 

Palestinians are now implementing a diplomatic offensive to get votes in favor of their partial statehood bid, or better say in favor of giving Palestinians non-member observer status, at the United Nations. Palestinians say they intend to ask the U.N.'s General Assembly to vote on the matter on either 15th or 29th Nov. 2012. 

Israel and the United States are opposed to the move, saying Palestinians should negotiate their statehood with Israel, not conduct unilateral moves. Also if a Palestinian state is established there, many fear that it would be taken over by Hamas. Last year Palestinians tried and failed to achieve status as a full member state at the U.N. Security Council. 

PLO had obtained membership in the international organization in 1974. Mr. Kaddoumi made quite good remark during his interview, mentioned above, that the UN had recognized the Palestinian state declared by Yasser Arafat in 1988, adding that 105 countries had since lent their own recognition. “By going back to the UN, Abbas is falsely creating the impression that he is making achievements that were already achieved,” he said. 

My view
 
As possible solutions for Israeli-Palestinian conflict there has been 3 (Israel, WB, Gaza), 2 (Israel, Palestine) and 1 (Isralestine) state scenarios, then of course allways easy option is a ”status quo” scenario. Here I connect three-state scenario (sometimes described also as nostate option) with Egyptian-Jordanian solution aka Jordan-Egypt option aka Shared Jordanian-Egyptian rule: Amman rules the West Bank and Cairo runs Gaza.

The three-state solution essentially replicates the situation that existed between the 1949 Armistice Agreements and the 1967 Six-Day War. Beginning in 1949, Egypt occupied the Gaza Strip, Jordan occupied the West Bank and East Jerusalem, and no Palestinian Arab state existed. In 1950, Jordan officially annexed the West Bank and granted the Arab residents Jordanian citizenship.

Land Gained and Returned

I have been advocating long Three State Option as the most pragmatic solution to Israeli-Palestinian conflict. For 19 years, Judea and Samaria were part of Jordan, its population Jordanian citizens, and the geographic juxtaposition between Israel and Jordan should make delineating the border between the two countries in an agreement considerably easier than reaching a deal on a border between Israel and a Palestinian state that might be established in the area. If three state solution will be implemented so Israel would receive security guarantees from Jordan's monarchy, which made peace with Israel in 1994, rather than from a politically enfeebled Palestinian president as well from Egypt, which has peace deal with Israel since 1978, rather than from outside supervised Hamas.

As Egypt now is opening Rafah border crossing and when its current leadership better cooperates with Hamas it would be easier than before logistically and politically annex Gaza with Egypt e.g. as autonomous province with cultural and economical independence. Annexing Palestinian West Bank areas similar way with Jordan could decrease Israeli security concerns and hence allow smaller buffer zones and less fragmented area for Palestinians. Once the three-state option is reality the work can begin of building infrastructure and maybe even freedom, democracy, and the rule of law in Egypt and Jordan. (More e.g. in The Three-State Option could solve Gaza Conflict )
An excerpt from historical background of disputed territories
I generally ignore Israel’s biblical rights (e.g that the borders of Israel in accordance with the divine promise in the Bible: from the Euphrates to the river of Egypt) related to Judea and Samaria aka Westbank but as they explain one part of Israeli's arguments today I would like to mention from historical rights the era of tribal periods when the Israelite tribes lived as a confederation. The Torah traces the Israelites to the patriarch Jacob, grandson of Abraham, who was later renamed Israel. Jacob's twelve sons "Israelites" (also the "Twelve Tribes" or "Children of Israel") means both the direct descendants of the patriarch Jacob/Israel as well as the historical populations of the United Kingdom of Israel.This united monarchy was established in around 1020 BCE when the tribes united.
 David, the second King of Israel, created a strong unified Israelite monarchy in c. 1006 BCE and also established Jerusalem as its national capital 3,000 years ago. Beginning in the 5th century BCE, the remnants of the Israelite tribes came to be referred to as Jews.

Contemporary history gives more relevant view to present conflict. From Israeli point of view the legal rights to the land are based to the Balfour Declaration of 1917 and the League of Nations San Remo Conference of 1920. The geographical area called Palestine was to become a homeland for the Jewish Homeland. The land was administered as British mandate. Britain split off 75% of Palestine to establish the Emirate of Transjordan split off 75% of Palestine to establish the Emirate of Transjordan on the eastern bank of the Jordan river. This part is now known as the modern Kingdom of Jordan. The Peel Commission of the late 1930’s endeavored to partition the western portion of the original Jewish Homeland into Jewish and Arab mini-states, the latter to mollify Arab rioters fomented by the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al Husseini, an close ally with Hitler during WWII.
 
In 1948, Arab armies and volunteers - from Egypt, Jordan, Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Yemen and Morocco - attacked the newborn State of Israel. Transjordan annexed the area intended for an Arab state, and renamed itself the Kingdom of Jordan, calling the annexed area the "West Bank". Egypt took over Gaza. These areas controlled by Jordan and Egypt from 1948 to 1967 came under Israeli control during the Six Day War of 1967.
 
As a result of the 1978 Camp David accords - in which Egypt recognized the right of Israel to exist and normal relations were established and Sinai was returned to Egypt. A peace treaty was also made with Jordan and which officially renounced its claim to the West Bank in 1988 when the late King Hussein announced his kingdom was cutting off its administrative and legal ties to the area.

Some of my related articles:

• PaliLeaks, land swaps and desperate search of peace
• Israeli Vs Palestine Refugees – In, Out and No Return
• US Giving a “Yellow Light” to an Israeli Strike
• Saudi-Israeli cooperation for attacking Iran
• Cyber war has became a tool between political and military options
• Fragments of the Middle East peace efforts
• The Three-State Option could solve Gaza Conflict

R2P vs Facades of Interventions

The Responsibility to Protect (R2P) is a relatively new international security and human rights norm to address international community's failure to prevent and stop genocides, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity.  When and where to intervene has came more and more actual question during last decades in western foreign policy.  The wars in Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya have been claimed to be justified attacks in name of humanitarian intervention or recently due the R2P norm. On the other hand there is questions why the same nor has not been applied in Syria, Somalia, Burma, Sudan etc.  Official high-flown statements are normally dealing R2P issue from perspective of humanitarian need or to build a democratic state in intervention region. In my opinion an opposite approach is more dominating on the ground – approach where intervention logic is traced from needs and motivations of intervener not from those in mission theatre.

From my point of view the key question is whom the interventions are protecting. The answer may be related to three issues:

1. Does the implementing power have economical, military and/or political interests in the intervention region?
2. Is the possible intervention region on border zone of sphere of economical, military and/or political influence?
3. Is some party in possible intervention region enough rich or skilful to manipulate public opinion in intervener countries to get them on their side?

Looking interventions during last twenty years most of the mentioned three issues have been driving force for attacks. Balkans draw new lines in sphere of influence between great powers, same with Afghanistan in addition that country has also raw materials, in Libya and Iraq oil and gas fields were good motivation as they are also with possible attack to Iran in near future. In all cases the biggest beneficiary has been U.S. military-industrial complex. One could estimate that humanitarian interventions in Africa will start immediately when enough big oilfield will be discovered in conflict region.

Excerpt

R2P - Responsibility To Protect The term Responsibility To Protect ("RtoP" or "R2P") was first presented in the report of the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS) in December 2001. As the UN debated major reforms of its human rights system, the idea of committing to an international R2P gained support from many governments and civil society organizations from all regions. UN Security Council's Resolution 1674 on the Protection of Civilians in Armed Conflict includes the first official Security Council reference to the Responsibility to Protect. On January 2009, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon issued a report entitled Implementing the Responsibility to Protect (RtoP). The report outlines measures and actors involved in implementing the three-pillar approach as follows: - Pillar One stresses that States have the primary responsibility to protect their populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. - Pillar Two addresses the commitment of the international community to provide assistance to States in building capacity to protect their populations related to issues mentioned in 1st pillar. - Pillar Three focuses on the responsibility of international community to take timely and decisive action to prevent and halt issues mentioned in 1st pillar.

Creating the facade

Manipulation of public opinion is effective way to get wider support for wars – and their huge costs – abroad. Terrorist and criminal organizations transform without delay into allies and/or freedom fighters (al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and Bosnia, KLA in Kosovo, Saddam Hussein in Iraq, al-Qaedea figures now power in Tripoli) while the enemy will be demonized (Serbs, Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda). Number game with deaths is easy way to get attention in nearby regions. So in Bosnia the numbers needed were planned already some two years before Srebrenica, in case of Kosovo U.S. officials claimed that from 100,000 up to 500,000 Albanians had been massacred. When the figure later was near 10.000 from all ethnic groups together the bombings were already over. 

With cases more far away from western civilization other fabrications - than number game - have been useful such as WMD's in case of Iraq, safe haven for terrorists in Afghanistan and probably possible bombings against Iran will be justified with nuclear thread. One should also note that interventions can (secretly) begin before any public decisions (e.g. in Bosnia with operation “Storm” and in Libya special forces operated months before UN decisions).

The used operational chart with last big conflicts has been following:
1^st creating imaginary thread (Iraq/WMD, Afghanistan/Taliban, Balkan Wars/ethnic cleansing…),
2^nd destroying the enemy by cluster bombs, depleted uranium war heads, contract killing, torture etc.,
3^rd bringing democracy and stability in form of puppet governments and ousting local more or less selected authorities.
Official high flown statement of course are speaking humanitarian intervention, R2P, peace enforcement, defending democracy etc to hide real motivations. 

Not even the foggiest idea what's next

One problem is that intervention plans cover only the first stage concentrating to get justification for attack and to get fast tactical military win and forgetting what to do after military success (or especially without it). In my opinion most of the problems in Balkans, Iraq and Afghanistan are based to poor planning before intervention. For example in Bosnia despite international community’s state building efforts the country is splitting parts. Since war 15 years ago foreign aid has exceed USD 80 bn for artificial creature designed in Dayton agreement aiming multi-ethnic state with EU perspective. As a result Bosnia is now even more divided, with less national identity, 20 percent of population living under the poverty line, with a nightmare triple administration plus international supervising governor. 

In Kosovo since intervention international community has worked over ten years with capacity building of Kosovo administration. First idea was to develop standards (of democratic state) before status (after being UN protectorate), then after couple of years the slogan transformed to “standards and status” and again after a couple of years “status before standards”; now after unilateral declaration of independence the standards have not been any significant issue in Kosovo and the outcome I have summarized as follows:

“as Serbian province, occupied and now international protectorate administrated by UN Kosovo mission; as quasi-independent pseudo-state has good change to become next “failed” or “captured” state; today’s Kosovo is already safe-heaven for war criminals, drug traffickers, international money laundry and radical Wahhabists – unfortunately all are also allies of western powers”.

What will be the result with last intervention to Libya remains to seen but something tells the situation now in Tripoli where members of the Al Qaeda-linked Libyan Islamic Fighting Group – LIFG, are now in control. Their commander Abd Al-Hakim Belhadj, an al Qaeda veteran from Afghanistan, now calls himself "Commander of the Tripoli Military Council." So when U.S in the name of “war on terror” just killed al-Qaeda leader OBL it now helps radical Islam groups gain power In Libya in the name of humanitarian intervention. 

One reason for failures of R2P might be poor situation analysis due lack of reliable information or as an intentional practice to avoid unwanted deductions.

Intervener problem

My conclusion is that the great powers implement interventions whenever and wherever they see it beneficial for their military, economical and/or political interests with or without UN approval while humanitarian and legal aspects are serving only nothing but a facade. One of the main problems with implementation of R2P is – in my opinion – that so far U.S and NATO have been the main actors with or without UN authorization. Public missions included e.g. the Implementation Force (IFOR) and Stabilization Force (SFOR) in Bosnia from 1995 to 2004, Operation Allied Force in Kosovo from March to June 1999 , the Kosovo Force (KFOR) from June 1999, and the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan since 2001 and the latest one is Operation Unified Protector in Libya which began on 27 March 2011. In this framework R2P has reduced to one extension of U.S foreign policy and its needs and interests.

For increasing credibility of R2P principle the role of NATO should be minimized by strengthening capabilities of some wider organizations. The most important actor should be UN with its related bodies. 

From European perspective the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) forms good base to develop R2P capacity; OSCE is the world’s largest regional security organization and the most inclusive playing an essential non-military role in promoting peace and stability and advancing democracy and human rights in Europe. The OSCE offers a forum for political negotiations and decision-making in the fields of early warning, conflict prevention, crisis management and post-conflict rehabilitation. 

It is sad that EU has outsourced its foreign policy to U.S., it is blindly following U.S. military suspicious strategies and cowboy policy only to have good transatlantic relations - this keeps EU always as bystander in international politics. However despite this the fact is that the EU already belongs to the world’s largest providers of international assistance so it could have a great role to play in responding more effectively to protect civilians from mass atrocities and in assisting other states and institutions to develop the capacity to do so. 

Intervention logic should be applied

 From my perspective developing R2P from slogan to practice an intervention logic should be obligatory and it should be transparent as only through outside critics it can be justified as meaningful tool. I have some doubts if intervention logic even exists related (humanitarian) interventions during last decades.

In my opinion R2P is similar like other development programs or projects. There is identified crisis, problem that should be solved; objectives are defined, outputs, activities, resources (inputs) are planned to achieve immediate and finally overall objectives. This both ways vertical logic should be checked at each level by the horizontal logic specifying result indicators, control methods for achieving results, and the assumptions and risks which will affect outcomes. This procedure and its further developed forms – called as Logical Framework matrix or LogFrame – is normal practice e.g. while channeling international aid into field.

The core problem from my perspective with R2P is that the slogan is serving as facade of interventions not as principle supposed applied on the ground. The logic will be thrown away when real aims of activities are hidden. When the implementing power has economical, military and/or political interests in the intervention region – in the operational theatre – the problems and needs of supposed beneficiaries are minor points similar way than collateral damages are only regrettable side-effects during main mission. By applying logical framework approach to R2P it is possible achieve more comprehensive approach to conflicts including not only immediate intervention but also life after that.  

LogFrame for R2P figure can be found from LogFrameR2P

¤ ¤ ¤

LogFrame for R2P figure can be found below and from LogFrameR2P

Intervention Logic for R2P by Ari Rusila Ari Rusila's BalkanBlog http://arirusila.wordpress.com
Intervention Logic		Horizontal logic	▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ F e e d b a c k ∆ ╜
Vertical levels
↑↓	Overall objective: wider goal, a project is steered to its attainment.	At all levels ►►►► 1. Narrative description 2. Indicators of achievement 3. Verification methods 4. Assumptions and risks
	Immediate objective: a desired situation after completion of a project. It should be SMART (specific, measurable, accurate, realistic and time related)
	Outputs are items of value developed by the project for the beneficiaries. With the aid of output resources, the beneficiaries should to achieve their immediate objectives.
	Activities: to produce the outputs it is necessary to implement a number of certain activities ( tasks and actions)
	Inputs are the material, human or financial resources for the completion of the activities

More e.g. in my related articles:

Interventions in general: Multifaceted Intervention Practices , Is Peace more than absence of the War? and Peacemaking – How about solving Conflicts too?
U.S. practising intervention first in the Bosnian War 1992-95 and selecting terrorist/OC-groups to U.S. allies (More e.g. Srebrenica again – Hoax or Massacre? and Krajina – Victory with Ethnic Cleansing and the outcome Bosnia on the road to the EU, sorry to Dissolution )
Racak fabrication and “humanitarian intervention” aka since WWII first ever full scale bombing operation in center of Europe 1999 ( High pressure to fabricate Racak reports and 10th anniversary of Nato’s attack on Serbia)
About U.S. strategy in Afghanistan: Will COIN work in Afghanistan?
Other related articles: Libya Intervention is creating problems instead of solving them and Some framework to Syrian crisis