Geopolitics Q2 Babette Leonard PDF

Geopolitics Q2 Babette Léonard Part 8. The Age of terror, 2001-12 9/11 Coordinated attacks: 19 terrorists on 4 planes leaving from Boston, Newark and Washington Dulles o 8:46 am: plane hits the north tower of WTC...

Geopolitics Q2 Babette Léonard Part 8. The Age of terror, 2001-12 9/11 Coordinated attacks: 19 terrorists on 4 planes leaving from Boston, Newark and Washington Dulles o 8:46 am: plane hits the north tower of WTC o 9:03 am: second plane hits the south tower o 9:37 am: third plane hits pentagon o 10:03 am: crash of flight 93 in field in PA 3000 deaths 19 terrorists from different nationalities, though most were Saudi born, hijack 4 planes 2 leaving from Boston, one from Washington and one from Newark. On 8.46 am a first plane from Boston is hijacked and flown into the North Tower of the World Trade Centre. 17 minutes later, people watched with unbelief as a second plane struck the other tower, the South tower, both towers were now in flames and at this moment it became clear that this was no accident, but that the US was under attack. And so, police and firemen were rushed to the towers who were constructed to resist being accidentally hit by a plane. So, at this point, no one really thought the towers could ever collapse. About half an hour later, a third plan hit the pentagon, the American ministry of Defense. And at 10:03 am a fourth plane crashed in a field in Pennsylvania. All in all, it is surprising that not more than approximately 3000 people died from the attacks. Al-Qaeda Islamic terrorism in Context ¡ From hijacking to coordinated (suicide) attacks Al-Qaeda created by Osama Bin Laden in 1988 Opposed to US policies in the Middle East and its presence in Saudi Arabia Expulsion from SA, move to Sudan Move to Afghanistan in 1996 under protection of Taliban Simultaneous attacks on US embassies in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam (August 1998) +200 deaths (12 US) Attack on USS Cole (October 2000) Very soon after the events of 9/11, it will become clear that the attacks were perpetrated by Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda was an extremist terrorist group. Now, it is important to know that Islamic terrorism was certainly not a new phenomenon and had become more prominent through Palestinian groups since the 1960s. While some groups explicitly started targeting civilians to hurt the Israeli or put them under pressure, others aimed to draw attention and to defend the Palestinian cause. So not all terrorist attacks were aimed at making as much casualties as possible, and throughout the 1980s, for example, several planes were being hijacked by terrorists, not necessarily with the intention to kill all the passengers. During that period, most terrorism was not Muslim, but nationalist or ideological extremist terrorism. In the UK, there were attacks due to the conflict between Catholics and protestants in Northern Ireland, in France, there were also attacks from the independence movement in Corsica, in Spain many people died of violence from the Basque independence movement and in Italy, Belgium and Germany, there were prominent attacks 122  Geopolitics Q2 Babette Léonard from ideological extremists like the communist Red Brigades, Communists Combatant Cells and the Red Army Faction.  Extremist violence or terrorism is not an inclination that is exclusive to any one religion, nationality or ideology. Al Qaeda means ‘the base’ in Arab and was created somewhere around 1988 by Osama Bin Laden. Born in Saudi Arabia to a very wealthy family; his father was a very successful owner of a construction company – his family is believed to be the 5th wealthiest family of Saudi Arabia today. When he was young, Bin Laden had joined the mujahedeen to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan. Later, he strongly opposed the American intervention, and especially the presence, of American troops in Saudi Arabia. He believed that the Arabs could and should have fought against Saddam Hussein themselves, as the mujahedeen had done against the Soviets years before. Somewhere around 1991, his opposition against the Saudi regime and its alliance with the US forced him to move to Sudan in 1992 where kept meddling in the politics of Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan and Sudan. In 1998, two simultaneous attacks were carried out against American embassies in Nairobi, Kenya and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. In total, there were more than 200 casualties among which only 12 Americans. So, this is basically the signature of Al Qaeda; simultaneous attacks to make more impact, attack symbols, the US embassies stand for attacking the US as a country, and total disregard for human lives; the more people die, the more successful the attack. After the attacks, Osama Bin Laden became a target for the US and was forced, in part also by the Sudanese government, to relocate to Afghanistan, again. The War on terror Initial response: retaliate against perpetrators and those who harbour them o Use of hard power only, not understanding/addressing root causes o Focus on specific selection of countries: Axis of evil ▪ Afghanistan, Iraq, North Korea, Iran, Cuba, Libya and Syria Tripartite threat: o combined threat by terrorist groups, o the malign influence of ‘rogue’ states that supported them, o and the dangers of an uncontrolled spread of WMDs ‘New’ enemy after communism Bush Doctrine: o pre-emptive strikes o Unilateral actions when necessary The initial American response was to go after those who attacked the US and hit them hard. It became clear that the Afghan government, the extremist Taliban had harboured and helped Al Qaeda in its activities, training terrorists. The problem with this, is that it only focused on hard power; the American government did not try to come up with a broad solution on how to prevent this in the future and try to find out why these people had attacked them and find a response to that. To put it very, very, simply; if some people try to attack the US, it makes sense for the US to try to get rid of those people, but as long as you don’t think about why these people are willing to throw away their own lives and kill others, and as long as you do not try to understand what motivates these people, why they do what they do, you are probably not removing the real threat. If you simply kill one terrorist, then another one will just take his place. 123  Geopolitics Q2 Babette Léonard The US will claim that Islamic terrorists have a problem with our Western way of life. That some people hate the West for their liberal freedoms that do not fit with their conservative Islamic beliefs. But many experts have argued that this makes absolutely no sense. People do not kill themselves and others for something that does not affect them directly. Instead, several experts have pointed to the damaging policies of the US, especially in the Middle East. Arguing that it is American Foreign policies of supporting dictators, dictators that are among the richest people in the world, while there is great poverty in the region. Several experts have also pointed to the unconditional support of the US to Israel while this country does not respect the basic human rights of the Arab populations living in its land. And if the US does not actively work on improving its policies and image in the Middle East, there will be people trying to change it, with violence if necessary. And so, the US, and their allies focused on getting rid of terrorism around the world, concentrating on several countries that were deemed to support terrorist groups or activities, including Iraq, North Korea, Iran, Cuba, Libya and Syria. The US saw this as a triple threat from terrorist groups, the rogue countries that supported them and the dangers of the combination of these two if terrorist would get their hands on Weapons of Mass Destruction, also known as ABC weapons; atomic, biological and chemical weapons. And so, Terrorism became the new communism, the new concept that gave sense to global politics and that justified actions in different areas in the World. And so, countries like the US used the fight against terrorism to justify actions in the Middle East, but countries like Russia and China also used it fight internal contestation and regionalist and religious groups that had nothing to do with terrorism. President Bush also introduced the notion of pre-emptive strikes, meaning that he would not take a chance and wait until they would get attacked and would remove a potential threat by attacking a potential enemy before they could attack the US – What happened in Iraq. The second part of the Bush doctrine was that the US would seek allies and go through the UN, if possible, but they would act alone, unilaterally, if it was necessary  And so, the Bush administration made relations between their traditional European allies very difficult. Operation Enduring Freedom 9/11 attacks provided US with much sympathy and ‘political credit’ o Article 5 of NATO charter o Focus on ‘terrorism’ fits the political agenda of certain countries o Ultimatum to Taliban to surrender Bin Laden Air strikes begin on 7 October o Ground support from Northern Alliance → avoid significant US ground troops o Rapid Initial success: control over Kabul and Kandahar by early December o Easy victory? Dec 2001: UN Res 1386: ISAF (International Security Assistance Force) o Led by NATO after 2003 Bin Laden and al-Qaeda escape to Pakistan through Tora Bora 124  Geopolitics Q2 Babette Léonard For the first time in NATO’s history, article V of the charter was activated. Article V stipulates that an attack against one member is an attack against all members Certain countries would take advantage of this focus on terrorism to justify a crackdown on regionalist groups and groups that contested the government and some of its policies, notably in China and Russia. As a first measure, the Taliban was given an ultimatum to surrender Bin Laden. The Taliban was the radical Islamic government of Afghanistan that was only recognized by a few other countries as the legitimate government, for example by Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. As the Taliban refused, air strikes began on 7 October 2001. The American strategy was to use the Afghan opposition, the Northern alliance to carry out the ground operations with the air support from coalition planes to avoid American boots on the ground This strategy was initially very successful, as the coalition quickly overtook the capital and Kandahar by December, and so, it seemed as though this operation would be a quick and easy victory. By December, United Nations Resolution 1386 allowed for the ISAF operation led by NATO. Bin Laden and Al Qaeda escaped to Pakistan through the mountains of Bora Bora where it was nearly impossible for the Americans to track him down. Bin Laden was only found in Pakistan in May of 2011 and killed by American special forces. Taliban revival End of operations in March 2002: only 30 US soldiers killed by 2003 US Focus in Iraq o Only about 20.000+ ISAF troops for peacekeeping, mainly in Kabul o Lack of Peacekeeping, reconstruction and nation-building efforts o Pull back special forces and CIA agents Administering Afghan tribal areas by central government o Weak Afghan state o Democracy and freedom not solution in (Pashtun) Afghanistan Taliban resurgence, supplemented by foreign fighters, by 2006 The ambiguous role of Pakistan All seemed well by early 2002, and by 2003, only very few American soldiers had been killed and the Americans were installing a transition government led by Hamid Karzai. The situation in Afghanistan only started to deteriorate when the US decided to focus on Iraq instead of rebuilding Afghanistan. One of the problems was that the Bush administration was more interested in the hard side of war, the attack operations, and much much less in the ensuing soft side, the peacekeeping, reconstruction and nation- building, which are needed to maintain and strengthen stability and peace. So as the US started to focus on its operations in Iraq, they pulled back their valuable special forces and CIA operatives to put them to work in Iraq. The second main problem was that the US and its allies believed that Afghanistan could be ruled like any other country, not considering its extremely traditional, conservative and tribal nature. Afghanistan is a country where many remote parts are barely ruled by the central government in Kabul but are ruled by the tribes according to tribal rules. So, the central Afghan government was weak and had little to no control over tribes where al Qaeda could hide. And so, it was nearly impossible to install democracy in a country that had its own rules 125  Geopolitics Q2 Babette Léonard On top of that, the war in Afghanistan was perceived by some as a war against Muslims, and so it attracted many Islamic jihadi fighters from different Arab countries, as well as regions like Chechnya providing new troops and fighters to the Taliban, allowing them to grow and regain strength by 2006. Finally, Pakistan played a very ambiguous role; it presented itself as a useful ally to the Americans and they received much military aid from the US. However, for Pakistan, the real enemy was India, certainly not Afghanistan with whom its secret services, for example kept great relations. In fact, Muslim fighters on the Pakistani borders were extremely useful for Pakistan in their fight against the Hindu Indians in the contested Kashmir region. So, the Pakistani played a double role of playing allies with the Americans, accepting their aid to fight India instead of al Qaeda and by letting al Qaeda fighters stay in their border regions. Afghanization of the War under Obama Obama (2009) o Allies choose to leave: Dutch in 2010, French in 2012 o “Afghanization” of the war ¡ Temporary and conditional increase of 30,000 troops to 100,000 o Osama Bin Laden killed in residential compound on 2 May 2011 in Abbottabad, Pakistan o End of NATO mission in Dec 2014 and ISIS-K presence o US-Taliban negotiations (2018) and agreement (2020) o Taliban Insurgency, US withdrawal and Taliban Takeover (2021)  Longest war in US history  Afghanistan unsuited to impose modern, centralized Nation-State The situation in Afghanistan had become so desperate that many early allies had decided to reduce their troops and remove them altogether. Afghanistan had now become a bigger problem than Iraq where a surge in troops had gradually stabilized the situation. And so, Vice-President Biden advocated for a modest increase in troops with a specific mission to train Afghan forces to counter the Taliban themselves. Initially, troops were raised by 30,000, later up to 100.000. In 2011, Obama could claim a great success as he would be the one to oversee the operation that would finally get rid of Osama Bin Laden. By 2017, the US had only about 8400 troops left in Afghanistan and finally, the US had no other option but to start negotiations with the Taliban. By now Donald Trump had become President. As you can imagine, these talks are very difficult, but Trump has an interest in closing them and allowing the complete removal of American troops before the Presidential elections of late 2020.  The War in Afghanistan would be the longest war in American history. It is clear – though many people still do not understand this – that it is not possible to impose a form of rule – even democracy on people. This needs to be a natural evolution with the broad support of the people Focus on Iraq A solution looking for a problem. Disarmament measures and UNSCOM inspections (UNSC Res 687 – 1991) o Iraqi withdrawal from inspections in 1998 (UNSCOM crises) D. Rumsfeld looking to link Iraq to terrorism and 9/11 Refusal to cooperate with inspections as excuse and justification for planned invasion Goal was always regime change Successful public and political campaign mixing terrorism and WMD’s Many in the Bush administration had served in previous Republican administrations, and during the two terms of Democratic President Clinton, they had disapproved of his policies towards Iraq, claiming that he had been too soft on Saddam and Iraq, despite the harsh sanctions regime against the country. Many republicans wanted to get rid of Saddam Hussein and have a more friendly regime in this oil rich country. 126  Geopolitics Q2 Babette Léonard Part of this sanction’s regime was the compliance with disarmament measures and inspections that would control if certain types of weapons had been destroyed or not been built. In 1998, Iraq had removed the USNCOM inspectors, causing different crises and, eventually an American intervention called operation desert Fox. So, America and Iraq have a very difficult and tense relationship. Now, almost immediately after the attacks of 9/11, the person who oversees terrorism, Richard Clarke, is asked by Donald Rumsfeld to look for a link between the attacks and Saddam Hussein and Iraq – even though every expert on the middle east knew that there was no link between Saddam Hussein and Bin Laden, who pretty much hated each other. What happens next is that first, the American administration will try to convince the public that Saddam Hussein and Iraq are somehow involved in 9/11, and when that does not work, the Bush administration will try to use the Iraqi refusal to comply to the weapons inspections as an excuse to attack and invade Iraq. However, the goal has always been to get rid of Saddam Hussein and install a regime that is friendly to the US. Even though the other, mostly European, countries were not convinced of the link between 9/11 and Iraq, most of the American public had been successfully convinced that Saddam Hussein was involved in 9/11 – which was evidently not the case. Moreover, American policymakers had also succeeded in convincing the public that Saddam Hussein was working on nuclear weapons and other weapons that could hit the United States. This was not true and, as we have seen, only very few countries have the technology to send missiles over such a long distance, let alone place a nuclear warhead on it. But amid the accusations and lies, the American public, and quite a lot of European were now convinced that Iraq was a danger to World peace, and something needed to be done. The Road to war Looking for UN Support o Re-introduction of weapons inspections (UNSC res 1441 – 7 Nov 2002) and ultimatum Overall good Iraqi cooperation (Hans Blix) – 27 Jan. & 7 March 2003 o Remaining questions regarding chemical and biological weapons and missile capabilities →Definitive answers within months Looking for a second UN resolution o Mounting pressure to mobilize US deployments before March o Powell’s unconvincing speech to UN (5 Feb) o Joint statement from Chirac, Putin, Schroeder that war was not justified o 12 March: US failure to secure a second UNSC resolution Initially, the Bush administration wanted to intervene with support from the United Nations, especially because of State Secretary Powel. And so, UN weapons inspections were re-introduced, led by the famous Swedish Hans Blix. Blix reported that progress was good and that the cooperation with the Iraqis went well. He stated that they would only need a couple of months to be able to answer a few remaining questions regarding certain chemical and biological weapons, as well as about the destruction of certain missiles. But there was no evidence of any nuclear program (you cannot prove what you have destroyed) The US, however, was not convinced, and was now looking for a UN resolution that would allow the US and its allies to use force. One of the reasons for this sense of urgency was that the American military leadership had urged that if an operation would take place, March would be the best time, before it get too hot. State Secretary Powell then gave a presentation in the Security Council on 5 February 2003 to convince 127  Geopolitics Q2 Babette Léonard everyone that Iraq had a hidden nuclear weapons program. This was, however, not a very convincing presentation and it tarnished the image of the greatly respected Colin Powell. In early February, shortly after the French President, Jacques Chirac, had called Bush to tell him war was not inevitable, Chirac, Putin, and German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder issued a joint statement that nothing at present justified war and that the three countries wanted everything possible to be done to disarm Iraq peacefully. This warning, intentionally or not, served as a riposte to Secretary of State Powell’s dramatic speech, of 5 February, to the UN. And the US was unable to obtain a resolution from the USNC on 12 March 2003 As it now became clear that the US was intent on going to war against Iraq, several international leaders insisted with President Bush that there were still options that did not involve war, including French President Chirac, German Chancellor Schroder and Vladimir Putin. Powell’s UN speech & not convicted “My generation learned you must make a case […], and excuse me, I am not convinced. This is my problem. And I cannot go to the public and say, ‘let’s go to war because there are reasons’, and I don't believe in them.” Joschka Fischer, Feb 2003 This is the images that were shown to convince the other members of the UN security council that Iraq was hiding nuclear weapons facilities. In this image, it is shown that a truck or a railroad container could hold material to build biological or chemical weapons. Not convinced: This did not convince many of the European allies, including France, Germany and Belgium. Operation Iraqi Freedom 20 March 2003 ± 250,000 US troops, 41000 UK, 2000 Polish and Australian o Removal of Ba’athist officials and ensuing power vacuum o ± half a million people lost their jobs o No WMD found o 4.7 million refugees Insurgency and increasing activity of Al–Qaeda in Iraq by 2006 o Al-Zarqawi: targeting of Shia Muslims o De facto government in Western Iraq On 20 March 2003 the United States attacked Iraq with a coalition of the willing, as it was called. Most of the troops were American and British. Many mistakes, some like the ones in Afghanistan were made. Most importantly, the US got rid of everyone who was a member of the ruling Baath party. This meant that Iraq suddenly fell without an administration to rule the country. About half a million people lost their jobs, including many military officers and policemen – men with weapons and military training. In the end, no weapons of mass destruction were found, and the American administration now argued that the operation served to liberate the Iraqi people from the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein and bring democracy to Iraq. The attacks, and especially the chaos that will follow will cause 4,7 million people to flee their homes. 128  Geopolitics Q2 Babette Léonard Iraq mostly consists of Shia Muslims who live in the centre and the South at the border with Iran, in the West at the border with Syria, you have a mostly Sunni Muslim population and then in the North you have a large Kurdish population – also Sunni - at the border with Turkey and Iran. Saddam was a Sunni Muslim and the Sunni’s had a privileged position during his rule. This would now all come to an end as the majority of Shia Muslims would take power. And so, many of the disgruntled Sunni Muslims organized and started attacking Shia Muslims and joined Al Qaeda to hurt the Shia and try to get rid of the Americans. Colin Powell had tried to link Saddam to Al Qaeda by claiming that Al-Zarqawi had received shelter and support, which he had not. Al-Zarqawi was a Jordanian high-profile member of Al Qaeda. Ironically, it is the chaos of the War in Iraq that would bring Al-Zarqawi to Iraq and allow him to set up a large movement of Al Qaeda inside Iraq. At some point, Al Qaeda had become so prominent that it had effectively become the government in Western Iraq, laying the seeds for what would later become IS. Surge and withdrawal Local tribal attacks on Al-Qaeda New US strategy to gain confidence from local population Surge in American troops by 30,000 ¡ Building up Iraqi security forces Withdrawal of US forces in 2009, completed by 2011  ± 100,000 Iraqi dead, 4500 US soldiers dead Þ Financial burden over +1 trillion $ -> U$ 1,000,000,000,000  Tarnished US prestige and reputation By 2006, the situation in Iraq had become truly dramatic, with many people dying because of the religious violence daily. And so, the tribes started organizing themselves to bring back order and get rid of Al Qaeda. The Americans also realized that if they wanted to improve the situation, they needed to find local allies and reach out to the local population and try to find common ground on how they could improve the daily lives of local people. The American military leadership now also started receiving the extra troops (30 000) it desperately needed and the Americans started training fresh Iraqi security forces so that the Iraqis would soon be able to take charge of their own security and fight Al Qaeda themselves. By 2009, Obama fulfilled his electoral pledge as the US started to remove troops from Iraq, which was completed by 2011. The result of the War in Iraq is that over 100.000 Iraqis died, over 4500 American soldiers The financial cost of the Iraq war was immense, as it cost the Americans 1 trillion dollar This operation and its motives really hurt the image of the US The exact reasons why the war on Iraq was embarked upon remain unclear. Bush’s personal convictions linked to faith, gut feelings, and the Iraqi assassination attempt of 1993 on his father; the twin aims of the Bush Doctrine to act against those supporting terrorism or possessing WMDs—linked to faulty intelligence over Iraqi weapons and the absurd idea that Saddam and bin Laden were allies; a US desire to secure supplies of Middle East oil; and ideological hopes of democratizing the Middle East through the exercise of US power—all of these possible reasons have to be considered. Consequences of the War on Terror US standing in the World o Erosion of US principles and agreements, like the rule of law and Geneva convention (Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib), threat to American values and standing in the world (torture as interrogation method, non-respect of International Law) 129  Geopolitics Q2 Babette Léonard Internal opposition (Patriot Act) ¡ Financial Burden War on terror for other countries: o March 2004: attacks in Madrid – 191 deaths o July 2005: attacks in London – 52 deaths While the world was initially very supportive of the Americans when they decided to attack Afghanistan after 9/11, the US’ traditional allies felt more and more estranged as operations in Iraq proceeded. The prestige and image of the United Stated as leader of the free world was incredibly tarnished and took a really charm offensive from Barack Obama after 8 years of Bush’ neo-conservative policies. During the 8 years of Bush, one of the important threats was the erosion of America’s own principles, like the respect for the rule of law and the Geneva convention. During the Bush years and even during Obama’s Presidency, prisoners who were suspected of having ties to Al Qaeda were held captive in a special prison in Guantanamo Bay, a small naval base on a piece of land on the Island of Cuba that was still held by the Americans. The fact that the prisoners did not have the right to a trial or even an attorney was a clear violation of the rule of law. The torture and humiliation were a manifest violation of the Geneva Convention on the basic rights of war prisoners. Opposition also grew domestically, as Americans had given up a lot of their freedoms for their security after 9/11 with the Patriot Ac. The government could now investigate all types of personal data, which caused increasing resistance from ordinary Americans. The two long wars had also drained American finances, and the Americans had accumulated a lot of debt, just before the financial crisis would require the American government to bail out numerous banks, financial institutions and large companies. Participation in the War on terror was also hurting other countries, like Spain and the UK, who suffered from attacks in 2004 and 2005 in retaliation to their participation in the War in Iraq. The Arab Sprig The Arab Spring Wave of popular unrest across Middle East and North Africa at the beginning of 2011 Mixture of the demographic, political and economic situation: o Many young men o High unemployment o Little political and individual freedom Use of internet and social media Confused and hesitant response from the West o Fear of Islamic takeover The Arab spring is a wave of popular unrest across almost every country in the Middle East and North Africa at the beginning of 2011. It generated great hope but ended in disillusion for most. The root causes for the Arab spring and why it burst when it did can be summarized in three types of reasons, demographic the description of the population, political the nature of the form of rule, and economic. Although no one would minimize the quintessential role of women in the Arab Spring, or in numerous revolutions or world history, one of the factors that contributed to the Ara Spring is the presence of a lot of young citizens and especially of young men (contrary to Western Europe). 130  Geopolitics Q2 Babette Léonard And these young men were in a bad position, as many were unable to find a job even when they held a university degree. So, the pressure really started to rise On top of that, these youngsters were frustrated with the lack of civil and political liberties that were considered normal in many other countries. And Most Arab countries had been ruled by the same leader and the same political class for several decades. And the political and economic situation had only deteriorated Another important factor is that new, social media, were difficult for governments to track and, so it allowed protesters to convene while avoiding police Finally, the West was not prepared to this at all, and struggled to respond, as the people were protesting governments that had been supported by the West for decades. A second factor that complicated things was that governments wanted to support the demands of the people, but what would happen if the popular uprisings failed, then countries in the West would find themselves at odds with their former friends. The West also feared that popular uprising might be hijacked by extreme Islamists, as had happened in Iran. Especially in countries like Egypt, they feared the Muslim Brotherhood would take over. And so, they feared that the corrupt dictator Mubarak who was an ally would be replaced by another, Islamic, dictator who would not be an ally and might jeopardize the little stability there was in this explosive region. Tunisia Ben Ali regime in place since 1987 Mid-December 2010: a Tunisian street vendor burnt himself to death out of frustration/despair Widespread protests ¡ Offer of political reforms 14 Jan: Ben Ali flees to Saudi Arabia Trigger for widespread protests across several countries Tunisia is the country where it all started. In mid-December a Tunisian street vendor who tried to sell fruit in the streets to make some money and survive was harassed and chased by the police. Out of plain despair, he decided to burn himself to death. This shows you just how desperate some of these people were to simply not see a positive outcome to their situation. This event sparked outrage and protests across Tunisia, given how many others were in a similar, dire situation. Ben Ali had been President of Tunisia since 1987, for over 23 years and he had not been able to improve the economic situation of his people – even though he had been able to considerably improve his personal economic situation. Tunisia was the first country where protesters used the new media to organize their protests without being prevented or caught by security forces. By Mid-January, the Ben Ali regime felt the pressure and in a last bid to save his regime, Ben Ali offered to bring about reforms and promised to retire in three years. This was too little too late and by January 14 he his forced to flee. As he is not able to take all his riches with him, he tried to take as much cash money and gold as he could, stacks of money and gold are found in several of the houses he leaves behind. This confirms the decadence of the Ben Ali regime. Ben Ali will seek refuge in Saudi Arabia. Western reactions were cautious if not inappropriate. The French foreign minister even proposed to send French security forces to help Ben Ali. Egypt Under military rule since 1952, since 1981 under Hosni Mubarak Simultaneous protests on 25 January 2011 Occupation of Tahrir square 131  Geopolitics Q2 Babette Léonard Key role for the army: Military Council after Mubarak’s resignation on 11 February Cautious Western reactions o Mubarak as loyal ally o Fear of Islamic revolution (Muslim Brotherhood) Election of Morsi on 30 June 2012, deposed on 3 July 2013 by general El-Sisi o Morsi issues constitutional decree granting more powers to Presidency (Nov. 2012) o Mass protests and military 48h ultimatum on 1 July o Sentenced to death for the arrest and torture of protesters Conditions in Egypt were very similar to those in Tunisia. In Egypt, Mubarak had been in power since 1981 after Sadat was assassinated – so almost 30 years. The ousting of Ben Ali in Tunisia inspired many Egyptians to demand profound reform or even the resignation of Mubarak. Massive protests started on 25 January 2011 and the protesters used Tahrir square as the symbolic place that they would occupy. As events unfolded, experts and observers noted that the army would play a determining role. Would the army defend Mubarak and try to squash the protests, or would they side with the people? When the army arrived, they were welcomed by the protesters as savers to protect them from Mubarak’s police and security forces. Once Mubarak was forced to leave on 11 February 2011, the country a military Council took over control of the country. Here too, Western reactions were cautious, as Mubarak had been a loyal ally of the West, he had faithfully respected the Camp David agreements, which had brought some stability in the relations between Israel and its neighbours. And the West feared that the Muslim Brotherhood, which is very popular in Egypt, would seize power. The first democratic elections in Egypt after Mubarak had left, confirmed the popularity of the Muslim Brotherhood, which won parliamentary elections in January and presidential elections in June 2012. And so, Morsi was elected President. When Morsi and the Brotherhood sought to expand the power of the President, mass protests erupted, and the military gave Morsi an ultimatum on July 1st, 2013. When he refused to cave in, he was imprisoned and sentenced to death for the arrest and torture of protesters. The military effectively took over and ruled – as they had done since they had toppled the Monarchy in 1952 and general El-Sisi took over. So even though the protests and the removal of Mubarak gave hope, this was thwarted when Morsi sought to expand his own power and the military reversed the small democratic achievements of the protesters, leaving the country in worse shape than before. Arab dictators, thus, seemed preferential to the possible alternatives, who might include radical Islamists and regimes anxious to support the Palestinians’ cause. Unrest in North Africa also created a refugee problem, with many trying to flee across the Mediterranean to Italy or France. The US was in a particularly difficult position where Egypt was concerned: the Obama administration wanted to see a transition to liberal democracy, but it also saw Mubarak as a loyal ally and one who had assisted the US in its support of Israel. Libya Gaddafi in power since 1969 (42 years) Crackdown on protesters (18 Feb 2011) strengthened their resolve Divided country o Eastern Libya o Defections from army and government officials UNSC res. 1973 to protect civilians by “all necessary means”, as army approached Benghazi (17 March 2011) 132  Geopolitics Q2 Babette Léonard o No-fly zone o From protection of civilians to aim of regime change o Tensions within coalition (US-EUR) and beyond (China, Russia) After initial stalemate, Tripoli falls in August 2011, the National Transitional Council (NTC) then moved to the capital Gaddafi killed and end of NATO operation in October 2011 Escalation into civil War until 2020 ceasefire While Ben Ali and Mubarak had tried to save themselves by prohibiting manifestations and by trying to make some concessions, Gaddafi violently cracked down on the protesters. This, in turn, made the protesters even more determined. Now, it is important to know that protests in Libya were not only a public manifestation of demands for greater individual and political freedom and better economic conditions, but also had a tribal dimension. Protesters were mainly located in the eastern regions of Libya, and parts of the Libyan government and units of the army defected to the Libyan opposition. The West, and specifically certain European countries wanted to actively intervene to prevent Gaddafi from causing a massacre on his own population. And so, the UNSC voted resolution 1973 to protect civilians, as Gaddafi’s army approached the city of Benghazi and Misrata. The argument was that the international community needed to intervene to protect the Libyan population. This argument, the Responsibility to protect, is not commonly used and is not a principle in international law. Here, the UN SC had allowed an operation that would protect citizens, and initially, a no-fly zone was imposed above Libya for Libyan air forces. But NATO was divided on the goals of the intervention and the measures that should be taken. While Germany and Turkey only wanted to protect civilian populations, France and Great Britain wanted to attack Gaddafi’s forces and, eventually, bring down Gaddafi. The Americans, who were just slowly recovering from their adventures in Iraq and Afghanistan did not want to commit themselves to taking on a very active role – this was an operation that the Europeans had demanded and advocated, so they had to take the lead. Also, the US did not want to attack yet another Muslim country, as it did not want to create the image that they attack one Muslim country after the other. So, there were tensions within the coalition, but also between the coalition and the other permanent members of the UN SC who felt betrayed by NATO who was overstepping the boundaries of the UN Resolution; NATO was no longer just protecting civilians, but they were actively trying to topple the Gaddafi regime. Because of the faint efforts and enthusiasm of the Europeans – and because the Americans refused to do the dirty work for them, it lasted several months before Tripoli, the capital, fell in August of 2011 and the National Transitional Council, the newly recognized government moved to Tripoli. Gaddafi was finally killed in a shameless way, which brought an end to the NATO operation in October of 2011. While this was the end for the NATO members, it was only the beginning of chaos that ensued, as different rebel factions fought overpower and Islamic fighters found shelter in the vast terrains of Libya. Some described Libya as the new playground for both Al Qaeda and the Islamic State. Syria Al-Assad rule since 1971, Bashar al-Assad since 2000 Protests started on 26 Jan 2011; failure to fulfil promised reforms Religious element to opposition o Sunni majority ruled by Shia Alawites Army remained loyal 133  Geopolitics Q2 Babette Léonard (Military) support from Russia and Iran Fertile ground for religiously inspired rebels (Free Syrian Army, Jabhat al-Nusrah): o 1. People ready to take to the streets o 2. Islamic rule can only be achieved by military takeover o 3. International community cannot be counted on Syria has been ruled by the Al-Assad family since 1971, first by Hafez- al-Assad and when he died in 2000, he was succeeded by his son Bashar al-Assad. Protests in Syria started soon after the successful protests in Tunisia in January 2011. Assad had promised reform but had failed to enact them and improve the situation of the population. Here too, protests had an additional dimension, in this case religious. Assad is part of the Alawite Shia minority who rule in a country with a Sunni majority. A very important difference with Egypt is that the army decided to remain loyal to Assad and did not side with the protesters. Moreover, Assad had strong allies who were determined to support the country against the rebels – Iran and Russia would support Assad both politically and militarily. Syria would soon become the focus of religiously inspired rebels – remember that al Qaeda had already been fighting Shia Muslims in Iraq and had attracted many Sunni jihadis who would now eagerly fight against a Shia dictator in Syria. And so, different rebel groups, many of which had a radical vision on Islam, were now active in Syria fighting the Assad regime as well as each other. Syria is also a great example of fertile ground for radical Islamic organizations to exploit the frustrations of citizens. In this case, people were already taking to the streets to express their anger against the regime. These groups are convinced that Islamic rule can only be achieved by a military takeover, Egypt provided them with an example where a President of the Muslim Brotherhood was elected and just as easily put aside by the secular military and while all this happened, the international community did nothing, it did not even express any outrage. And so, the international community cannot be counted on, also not in Syria where the West is not intervening to help the population who is suffering at the hands of Assad. This provides motivation for many conservative Muslims to believe that violence is the only way to achieve their goals and explains, in part, why so many joined radical and violent Islamic groups. ISIS Group founded in 1999 by al-Zarqawi Al Qaeda in Iraq: attacks on Shia Muslims in Iraq (ISI after 2006) o Almost disappeared around 2008 Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi takes over leadership (2010) Syrian civil war o Creation and later “absorption” of Al- Nusrah front o Creation of ISIL in April 2013 o Establishment of the Caliphate in Mosul on 29 June 2014 Expansion of IS Attraction to foreign (terrorist) fighters Defeat by 2020 134  Geopolitics Q2 Babette Léonard The situation in Syria and Iraq will seriously deteriorate because of the presence of Muslim jihadi fighters who did not come to Syria to liberate or help the Syrian people, but who came to fight for the establishment of an Islamic state. It all starts with a man we have mentioned in previous slides, Al Zarqawi, a high profile al Qaeda member who will found the Islamic State of Iraq (ISI), also known as al-Qaeda in Iraq who perpetrate extremely violent attacks against Shia Muslims in Iraq. He will get killed in 2006 and after the American surge in Iraq, his group will fade and almost disappear by 2008. By 2010, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi takes over the leadership of what remains of al Qaeda in Iraq, and he will allow the group to grow again. Now, as we have seen, the Syrian conflict will attract many disgruntled Islamists and several rebel groups will fight the Syrian government and each other One of these newly created groups is the Al Nusrah front, which will later be largely absorbed by Al Qaeda in Iraq with the creation in 2013 of ISIL – Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant – the latter part referring to Syria. Then, on 29 June 2014, Al Baghdadi establishes the Caliphate in Mosul and electing himself as Caliph. Islamic State will grow in Syria and Iraq and at their height reach scarily close to Bagdad. IS will massacre and torture many people who cross their path. With Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, IS has a charismatic leader that attracts many young Islamic fighters, not only from traditional conservative Muslim countries, but all throughout the West as well. MAP2 (January 2021) Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi is killed in October of 2019 and today IS is almost completely obliterated. In the South, the Syrian army has taken back almost all their southern territory with the help of the Russians and the Iranians In the North, the Free Syrian Army, FSA – in green was backed by Turkey In yellow, you see the Syrian Democratic Forces SDF, mostly Kurdish, who were backed by the Americans until the completely withdrew last year This also shows that many actors and countries are active, and they are all fighting for their own interests, as the Turkish are there to protect their borders as well as to fight the Kurdish forces. The Russians are there to help their ally and safeguard their naval base in the Mediterranean and increase their power in the region. 135