13 March 2017
Better Explanation of Conflicts
By: Karsten Riise
There is no point in public security analyses, if they are unhelpful for policy makers, citizens and companies. Better explanation of conflicts is needed.
Western
analysts sometimes serve the public with nearly cartoon-like explanations of
complicated conflicts - read for example this:
The
Middle East will in the long-term be marked by instability and conflict.
"Repressive
regimes cannot solve the fundamental political and economic problems".
It
almost resembles an ideologic statement - very Western.
The citation above is from Denmark's Military Intelligence Service (Forsvarets Efterretningstjeneste, FE) latest yearly risk assessment, issued 20 December 2016. I will here contend, that Western countries need a much, much better understanding of security issues - especially in other cultures.
The citation above is from Denmark's Military Intelligence Service (Forsvarets Efterretningstjeneste, FE) latest yearly risk assessment, issued 20 December 2016. I will here contend, that Western countries need a much, much better understanding of security issues - especially in other cultures.
To
illustrate my point, I will add new and missing aspects to the understanding
four well-known examples of "instability and conflict" in the Middle
East. I will demonstrate, that contrary to the opinions of well-paid Western
military intelligence analysts, the four so-called "repressive
regimes" were actually quite successful in solving some
fundamental political and economic problems.
Because
the term "repressive regime" is too often just used in official
statements as a trick to blacklist countries which are not favored by the West
at the moment (but maybe tomorrow, if they obey), I will simply use the neutral
term "government" for the countries, I take a look at.
The
countries of this study are the four countries of the upheavals of the
"Arab Spring" which began late 2010 in Tunisia, and then spread to
Egypt, Libya and Syria.
Success
solving fundamental economic problems
Contrary
to the description by Western analysts (ref. above) ALL of the four governments
of Tunisia, Egypt, Libya and Syria were not just "failures", but had
remarkable success in solving fundamental economic problems of
creating a higher standard of living for their inhabitants - see figure 1
below:
Figure
1
In
the preceding 8 years from 2002 up to the year where upheaveals started in
2010, the living standard (purchase-power per person) had increased immensely
in all four countries: By 68% in Libya - by 59% in Tunisia - by 52% in Egypt -
and by 37% in Syria.
In
Libya and Syria, terrible wars now continue. In Syria, this has turned about 5
million people, (nearly 25% of the population) into international refugees - to
this must be added internal refugees. I will therefore give an additional
informative comparison between Syria and a comparable country, which (at least
so far) has continued very peacefully, namely Morocco - see figure 2:
Figure 2
It
is thought-provoking, and difficult to give a simple explanation, why Syria has
become a chaos, and Morocco has continued on a stable path up. Both countries
have had centralized, less-than-fully-"Democratic", governments, and
both countries had (Syria until 2010) successfully solved very
"fundamental economic problems". The flat and simplified explanation
given by Western security analysts (ref. introduction above) goes against
facts.
Before
his overturn, Ben Ali had for more than 20 years led Tunisia far ahead in
economic development. Maybe not equally for all, but probably Tunisia never was
egalitarian. Before Mubarak was overthrown in Egypt, he also had for 30 years
been at in leadership of remarkable economic development. After sanctions were
lifted against Libya, Gaddafi had great economic progress for 8 years before
his fall. Libya had under Gaddafi established Africa's highest standard of
living, with widespread school system and health. This is smashed to ruins now.
Instead, three governments plus violent extremists are
now "cooperating" with their fighting to tear Libya further
apart, see green line in figure 1 after 2010. Few Libyans are probably much
happier today than before.
I
have seen economic literature from before 2010, which at the time showcased
exactly Tunisia under Ben Ali and Syria under al-Assad, as two examples of
successful economic development. Western security analysts maybe know very
little about economics.
Success
solving fundamental social problems
All
the four governments also had been remarkable in reducing fundamental social problems
- see figure 3 below:
Figure 3:
Social
facts leading to the "Arab Spring"
Popul. Mill.
|
Share of Muslims in pct.
|
Max. Fertility
|
Year of max. Fertility
|
Fertility 2005
|
Change in fertility pct.pts.
|
Child mortality
|
Literacy
|
Urban popul. in pct.
|
||||||||||
MEN
|
WOMEN
|
|||||||||||||||||
20-24 yr
|
20-24 yr
|
|||||||||||||||||
Egypt
|
76.9
|
94%
|
7.1
|
1962
|
3.4
|
-3.7
|
33
|
90%
|
79%
|
43%
|
||||||||
Libya
|
6.1
|
97%
|
7.6
|
1982
|
2.9
|
-4.8
|
24
|
98%
|
97%
|
86%
|
||||||||
Syria
|
20.0
|
94%
|
7.8
|
1982
|
3.5
|
-4.3
|
18
|
94%
|
90%
|
50%
|
||||||||
Tunisia
|
10.3
|
98%
|
7.3
|
1962
|
2.0
|
-5.2
|
20
|
96%
|
92%
|
65%
|
||||||||
Source:
Youssef Courbage & Emmanuel Todd: A Convergence of Civilizations,
Columbia University Press, NY 2007
|
||||||||||||||||||
For comparison:
|
Fertility in
|
Year 2011
|
||||||||||||||||
Denmark
|
1.8
|
|||||||||||||||||
Faroe Islands
|
2.3
|
|||||||||||||||||
Greenland
|
2.1
|
|||||||||||||||||
Source of
comparison Denmark, Faroes and Greenland: UN Demographic Yearbook 2015
|
||||||||||||||||||
Population
fertility transition - achieved
In
figure 3 (columns 4-7) we see how fertility (number of births per woman) had
fallen dramatically by year 2005 in all four countries. The birth rates
(fertility) for Denmark have been included for comparison. Fertility rates (and
hence population increase) in Gaddafi's Libya and Ben Ali's Tunisia were on
comparable levels with Greenland and the Faroe Islands, which are both part of
Denmark.
Health
- up
The
besieged leaders Ben Ali in Tunisia, Gaddafi in Libya and al-Assad in Syria had
also achieved results in general health, as indicated by child mortality
figures (fig.3, column 8) on level with comparable countries.
Education
- up
Figure
3 documents (columns 9-10), that in 2005 (only five years before the
upheaveals) all four governments in Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, and
Syria had achieved great results by increasing reading skills
(literacy) of the young generation in the direction of 100% - against all
western prejudice about "Islam" and "Arabs", reading skills
are also high for women. And compared to the history of Europe, the
introduction of reading skills for women comes up fewer years
later than for men.
Urbanization
- up
The
social-economic development of Ben Ali's Tunisia, Gaddafi's
Libya, and al-Assad's Syria had all reached a crucial point where 50% or
more of all residents live in cities - ref. figure 3, column right. These
countries are no longer rural societies. They have become "modern". I
put the word "modern" in quotation marks, because it may be discussed
by some, what it means to be "modern", and whether it is
"good" or "not-so-good" to be "modern".
Taken
together, hard data demonstrate, that the countries first affected by
"Arab Spring" were not simply victims of "regimes" or of
"Islamic extremism".
These
societies and political-economic systems have reached some difficult phases of
development, which Europe itself has also experienced, in the transition from a
traditional agricultural society to a "modern" society.
=> I
do not here take position for or against any government - I merely supply
information missing in the debate
Western
security analysts maybe know very little about sociology.
The
West - unsuccessful role in conflicts
When
Western military analysts point their fingers and without reservations blame legal
governments of countries harmed by conflicts, they disguise their own military
responsibility. The meddling of the "Liberal" and
"Democratic" West into countries under pressure may sometimes be the
very thing, which turns internal tensions into violent conflicts or
unnecessarily increases the amount of suffering. For documentation of this
point, I will just point to one article by Allan J. Kuperman in Harvard
Kennedy's School's Belfer Center, Quarterly Policy Brief, September 2013:
"Lessons from Libya - how NOT to intervene".
The
avoidance by Western military of a critical appraisal of their own actions is
self-harming. The Western intervention in Libya probably spread terrorism and
refugees across the Sahara to Mali, and from there down to the Ivory Coast -
3,500 km away. Refugees now flow from Libya to the EU. In Tunisia, after Ben
Ali, the people elected a new government, friendly to Western ideas and
influence, and transition could continue. In Egypt, however, Democracy elected
a "wrong" government, a more Muslim government, and the West
supported a reversal and continuation of the previous political system. Change
will again come to Egypt, and it may be very big next time. In Libya and Syria,
Western intervention (directly or through its partners in the Region) does not
seem to have achieved anything but more extremism and violence.
Better
understanding the conflicts
When
people learn to read - when traditional family ties and social ties come under
stress, also because families due to fewer births become smaller in size - when
more people (men and women) achieve an economic level, education and status
which give them more autonomy, opportunities, incl. movement and travel - when
fewer people live isolated in villages, but start to live in big communities
(cities) where communication is more intense - and they get internet, mobile.
and TV - then new expectations increase.
The
youth revolts in USA and Europe of 1968 were also the consequence of economic
and social success - and of learning. Exactly like the more recent
demonstrations in Turkey, Egypt and Brazil. Many countries may today be
experiencing greater risks of conflict, not due to failure, but because they
successfully have arrived at critical development-points. Due to this, some
countries, which West security "experts" believe are stable, may in fact
be at risk of conflict.
New
public expectations and aspirations in other countries are not necessarily a
copy of the boastful definitions of "Democracy" or
"Freedom" - in the form in which the West evangelizes them today.
Looking back at Europe's own history, the ideals and aspirations of people in
the West have also changed - very much, actually. Some wanted (or want)
"religion" like Reformation or Catholicism - very often the names of
old religions are actually used for projecting new ideas back into an
"historic past". In Europe, many public aspirations arising
from difficult transitions (before WW II) wanted authoritarian rule in Italy,
France, Spain, Poland and Hungary. In countries of transition, popular voices
may turn national, tribe or clan identities into a "semi-religion"
(Ersatz-Religion). Some become "Feminists", imposing their
evangelical ideals into an often hypocritical "universal equality",
to be forced on everybody. In reaction to Western imposed versions of
"Feminism", public sentiments in some other countries may even seek
its contradiction. Connected with the development of higher
education, conflicts appeared again in the 60'ies in the USA and
Europe. Peaceful protests against racism broke-out in the USA, but were
violently subdued, when that country developed. As the West developed,
many started to worship "Communist revolution" (with its Atheism), or
hippie-anarchy with peace-now and even drugs. Recently, we have seen
developments in Istanbul and Rio de Janeiro, which may be compared to the USA
or Europe in the 60'ies. They are results of successful societal change - not
of failure. Even Israel has had upheaveals from immigrant rights and settlers
movement. When regions develop, other groups in other places, will want
something tenth or eleventh, things not yet seen (at least in that form) in the
West. When the West sees something which they don't easily recognize, they may
become antipathetic to it.
Western
tradition (Liberal and Communist) has become materialistic - often attributing
most (or nearly all) of human development to physical conditions. But much
physical change (including growth - or conflict) is due to a development of the
collective mind - learning, smaller families etc. Thanks to work of Emmanuel
Todd and Youssef Courbage (2007) for demonstrating that. Often, conflict
is by the West unfairly "explained" with this-or-that
"religion". I want to caution against that. In Ireland and
Poland, "Catholicism", instead of "just" being a religion,
became the facilitator for resistance to external forces (from England and
Russia, respetively). The same can also happen within Islam. A religion
which the West may speak negatively of today, may well be a religion with a
widely constructive role.
In
Zbigniew Brzezinski's words, we live in times when there are more politically
active people on Earth than ever before. This is due to a lot of successful
social change - not just a sign of failure. The kind of government has
importance, but simply to explain away violent conflicts as due to
"regimes" misses fatally the point, why some governments after
decades of stable development suddenly come under pressure.
We
need better political-social-economic-philosophic-security models to understand
what drives physical and mental human development (successes and
less-so-successful) - and conflicts.
Partner & Editor
CHANGE NEWS &
CHANGE MANAGEMENT
