By Steve Hynd
Today's big foreign news comes from Tunisia, where thousands of protesters had been taking to the streets after the president there had refused to step down. Now President Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali has sacked the government, declared a state of emergency and said new parliamentary elections will be held within six months.
The BBC is liveblogging events as they happen and there are indications on Twitter that the Army may have staged an actual coup against the president. There are reports the Army has surrounded the main international airport and one source is even saying the Army has demanded the president's resignation. Meanwhile, the police are still firing tear gas and sniping at protesters.
My colleague John foreshadowed all this at the end of last month. There are possibly profound implications for U.S. foreign policy, which has tended to favor stability over democracy in the Middle East and North Africa, with some early signs that a Tunisian revolt could lead to a domino effect among other dicatorships in the region which have been backed by the U.S. for decades.
Update: Al Jazeera says "A major announcement to the Tunisian people is expected soon" from the president.
Update: Over at Democracy Arsenal, Shadi Hamid advises the US government to get involved on the side of democracy if it doesn't want to experience negative fallout down the road:
The West would be well-advised to show that, while it may not necessarily be on the side of the protestors (somewhat incredibly, Hillary Clinton already said the US won't take sides - talk about pre-emption), it will vigorously support their right to protest, assembly, and that it will not stand by while those fighting for freedom are shot to death. The protestors, who are, in fact, risking their lives, need to know that the world is watching. And that the world cares. This, presumably, is US policy, or maybe it used to be US policy. I'm not entirely sure. I do know, however, that President Bush said the following in his 2003 speech to the National Endowment for Democracy: "Militarism and rule by the capricious and corrupt are the relics of a passing era. We will stand with these oppressed peoples until the day of their freedom finally arrives.� I suppose this is the time to stand?
Of course, when Bush said this he put himself in a difficult position. How does one go about supporting both a regime and its opposition simultaneously? How does one take sides in such a fight? Morally speaking, there is a right side and a wrong side. Practically speaking, Ben Ali, however brutal, has been an "ally" for a considerable amount of time. This is why US policy in the Arab world has always struck me as fundamentally untenable in the long-run. Autocracies, to my knowledge, do not last forever. But we never took even preliminary steps of distancing ourselves from them, to prepare ourselves for the eventuality that they might fall. So now when tens of thousands of Arabs all across the region are stating, with unmistakable clarity, that they will no longer accept the authoritarian status quo, they are forcing us to take sides, testing our so-called "moral clarity." What they are really doing, I suspect, is forcing us to fall on the wrong side of history. This is not a good place to be.
Shadi Hamid's twitter feed is one of the best sources of up-to-date information on what is happening in Tunisia.
Update: Doug Sanders retweets Euronews journalist Jose Miguel Sardo: " President Ben Ali quits Tunisia. Army takes control under state of emergency. Reports that general Habib Ammar will b in charge." However, others are saying that "Tunisian Parliament Speaker Fuad Mbazaa has taken power". Still, it seems most probable the Army are the real power at the moment.
Update: US military aid to Tunisian president Ben Ali totals at least $631 million, 1987-2010.
No comments:
Post a Comment