The General's In Charge..
...and he's making sense, but it still makes me nervous.
"The general credited with orchestrating the departure of Tunisia’s former president, Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali, told a crowd of protesters on Monday that he would uphold “the revolution” that brought down the government, and he promised that the military would guarantee stability until the interim government held elections, witnesses said.Could there not be a role for "the international community", whoever they are, to organize the elections and keep the peace in the interim? Maybe La Francophonie or the UN. As much as I hate that organization, they might as well do something right, once in a while.
They were the first public statements by the general, Rachid Ammar, since Mr. Ben Ali fled the country 10 days ago. General Ammar and Tunisia’s military — an unusually apolitical and professional force compared with others in the region — paved the way for Mr. Ben Ali’s ouster by refusing to fire on civilian protestors and then restored order by restraining both civilian rioters and Mr. Ben Ali’s brutal police force.
As a result, many political leaders here consider him the unofficial power behind Tunisia’s fragile interim government. But whether he was directing that government from behind the scenes or taking order from it had been impossible to determine.
But after a week of silence he appeared Monday evening on the pavement outside the Defense Ministry to address a crowd of several hundred protestors using a bullhorn. They had gathered to demand the dissolution of the interim government because it is dominated by former members of Mr. Ben Ali’s ruling party.
“Our revolution, your revolution, the revolution of the young risks being lost,” General Amarr said, according to Agence France-Presse. “There are forces that are calling for a void, a power vacuum. The void brings terror, which brings dictatorship.”"
Labels: democracy, dictatorships, Tunisia
posted by Louise at 4:09 pm
4 Comments:
"..."Could there not be a role for "the international community"...or the UN. As much as I hate that organization, they might as well do something right, once in a while."
My, you're in an optimistic mood this evening, Louise. :-)
The "international community", like the Arab League? The African Union? The UN? Between those organizations' incompetence and factions with fascist agendas, it's a rare occasion when something good for humanity is done.
(e.g. the UN Human Rights Council, chaired by Iran; the UN's IAEA, determined to never see what they don't want to see or the UN General Assembly,refusing to acknowledge the genocide in Rwanda or Sudan, because they've always lacked the integrity and the balls to do something about it).
I think the phrase "international community" is like the words "equator" or "North Pole", indicating a mental abstraction, not a tangible, effectual reality.
Even getting something done via NATO, the least worst of the Western "international community", is like herding a bunch of kittens.
Whenever things get done in the world it's usually one country, the US, doing all or most of the lifting and paying for it, or maybe a very small group of countries, like Australia and the US, which were the real relief forces in South Asia and the Indian Ocean after the Asian Tsunami. UN talking heads were on hand for that, giving meaningless speeches and otherwise not doing much of anything except driving around like grandees in nice shiny new white SUVs, paid for out of money given to the UN to help tsunami victims. Or the US and Britain liberating Iraq, to the outrage of Saddam's bought-and-paid-for allies and The West's Usual Lefty Morons.
(Sorry about the rant, it's my disappointment and disgust at the UN, Sodom and Gomorrah on the East River. The UN was worth something from when it was founded in the 1940s until about the mid-late 1950s, when it was swamped by third world former colonies-dictatorships and kleptocracies that envy/hate the nations of Western Civilization.)
No, I'm pessimistic. I was thinking of something along these lines.
In the Franophonie, there are only two countries that could handle it: France and Canada.
Now that's very interesting and probably something like that would be a far better choice than allowing any of the current interest groups or nascent parties or the rump government now running things to organize and supervise a general election. Thanks for that link.
I wonder how much the ruling regimes of Tunisia's neighbors, i.e. Libya, Algeria, Egypt, would like the dangerous example of real and free elections next door in Tunisia after the dictatorship has been given the boot. That'd seem to hit very close to home and give some dangerous (to the dictators) ideas to people in those neighboring countries.
They've managed to hold three free elections in Iraq and one in Af-stan, against bigger obstacles, so with a reasonably effective and neutral overseer, such as the org. you linked to, a free election is do-able in Tunisia.
Maybe, just maybe, we're seeing the beginning of momentum build-up to democracy in the M.E., thanks to the liberation of Iraq and Af-stan. The peoples of that region are starting to see that there is something possible that's far better, a real alternative to the secular or theocratic dictatorships. Years or a few decades from now, hopefully the Middle East, maybe most of the entire Muslim world, will be very different. Ya think?
I'm thinking Egypt might be next.
I'm not sure about the "bigger obstacles" bit though. It seems to me there will be just as many in Tunisia, considering that the neighbourhood is having a collective "shitting in their pants" fit.
I was thinking after my last comment here that there are a few more democracies in Europe that belong to La Francophonie. Belgium, Switzerland and Luxemburg for examples. There are many in the rest of the world, too, but they ain't exactly shining examples of democracy.
But the way things are going right now in Tunisia, it looks like the army is in charge and so far is its sympathies lie with the people, but there is a power vacuum and the need for some authority to keep things moving and on track. The army might decide to do that, then God knows where it will lead. Usually when the army takes over, it's military dictatorship in the future...for a long, long time. And I'm sure the neighbours will be encouraging something along those lines.
Of course, Arab dictators have touted the "colonialism"/imperialism" meme for so many decades, that any sort of hand up offered by Europe or North America will be seen as suspect.
As far as I can tell, the revolt seems to be leaderless. The only group(s) living in exile I've read about are Islamists. God help us all if they take charge.
And then there's The One in charge in Washington, which is basically a big ZERO on the Middle Eastern/North African file.
You can see why I'm pessimistic.
Post a Comment
<< Home