World News Briefs

Here's a quick look at a few of the things that have been happening around the world. The Arab revolution is continuing with varying success. I haven't seen much news on Bahrain lately, so I'm not sure what's happening there, though I think the US should be speaking out much more forcefully against its ally's crackdown (with Saudi help) on the protesters. Though a few critical statements were made, they weren't really enough, which opens the US up to charges of hypocrisy considering its stronger statements and even direct actions elsewhere. The same applies in Yemen, where US ally Saleh is still hanging on, despite many defections, including by a leading general and the head of his tribe. The US only recently finally suggested Saleh should step down, and it hasn't seemed inclined to pressure him much. True, there is reason to worry about who (if anyone) will take his place, but helping him cling to power when so much of the country is against him seems as much a recipe for chaos as pushing him to leave could be.

Syria has gotten a fair amount of attention, as protests there have been large and there has been large amount of violence. Unfortunately the Assad regime doesn't seem inclined to give much ground, and it's hard to say whether the protesters will be able to keep up the pressure in the face of a government crackdown and attacks by pro-Assad demonstrators. In this case the US has limited influence, though if the crackdown became a lot more murderous, people might start asking why Syria shouldn't be treated like Libya (though there are quite a few differences between the two).

Unfortunately the Libyan situation seems to be deteriorating into a stalemate (as I feared). The question of whether the military actions taken by the Obama administration and its European and Arab allies were legitimate and appropriate continue to be debated, with some saying it is too little too late and others saying it is far too much. I don't want to get into all the various issues here, but I will say I'm inclined to say what has been done has been for the most part appropriate, though there are still a number of points I have problems with.

The key issue here is that, at least as things appeared, immediate action was necessary to avert a massacre of Gaddafi opponents in the east. I agree with the view taken by Obama (and stated by him even in his Nobel acceptance speech) and members of his administration such as Samantha Power that international intervention for humanitarian reasons is justified in some situations. The problem of what situations is a bit trickier. It's easy to say after a horrendous massacre such as the one in Rwanda that international community could have done something (guilt at failure to act there seems to have driven Susan Rice and Hillary Clinton to also urge Obama to act in Libya), but it's harder to be sure when the massacre hasn't taken place yet and you want to prevent it. And how big a massacre calls for intervention? Perhaps I will attempt to address these questions at another time, but I do think there is at least a fair argument that Libya fit the criteria for intervention. Certainly it did so far more than Iraq, where the time to intervene was when Saddam Hussein was slaughtering Kurds or Shiite rebels in the south, not years afterward. There was no urgent need to act in the case of Iraq, and the failure to convince a majority of the international community to support action was another reason Bush's invasion of Iraq was much less justified than Obama's attack on Libya.

Perhaps a better reason for questioning Obama's actions is the lack of congressional approval (though it's worth remembering that the Senate passed a resolution calling for establishment of a no fly zone, which meant they were calling for US military action). The problem here, again, was the urgent nature of the situation. There really may not have been time to get congressional approval, as the rebels were collapsing faster than anyone expected. Of course if the administration had made its decision to act earlier, then approval could have been obtained in time. Acting without explicit approval does look bad, as Obama himself once said the president should only act without approval in the case of a direct threat to the nation. However, I would say this should be revised to include emergency actions in a humanitarian cause, whether or not a threat to the US is involved (though again there is the tricky question of defining what situations this applies to).

Speaking of such things, there is some hope that the situation in the Ivory Coast will be resolved soon, though it doesn't look as certain as it did a few days ago. Ouattara's forces have driven Gbagbo out of most of the country, though in the capital Abidjan itself Gbagbo seems to have regained some ground, and he is still refusing to give up power. The UN and the French have both taken action against Gbagbo's forces, which as some have noted may reflect a new trend toward more forceful action by the UN in the wake of Libya. Unfortunately, Gbagbo's intransigence may create another stalemate in Abidjan, which will cause an even greater humanitarian disaster than has already taken place. Also, Ouattara's forces may have committed a few massacres of their own. Ouattara's pledge to cooperate with investigations is at least reassuring, and regardless it is clearly Gbagbo who is most responsible for the problems, though of course any on either side who massacred civilians should be prosecuted.

China continues its efforts to silence anyone who dares speak out against the government, with its arrest of the artist Ai Weiwei, who had been the most outspoken critic of the government to remain free. The government had held back from arresting him before because of his prominence in his own right (he helped design the stadium used in the 2008 Olympics, among other things) and because he is the son of a respected poet. But I had previously wondered how long he could get away with his often strong statements on the dictatorial nature of the government and the lack of free speech in China, so in some ways I'm not surprised to hear he was arrested. Still, it's yet more evidence that China's government remains one of the most oppressive in the world, and it is all the more dangerous because of its growing economic and military power. Other countries should consider the latter a reason to stand up more strongly to China, as it will just get more difficult to do so in the future. Unfortunately, few governments seem to have the nerve to do much more than issue the occasional critical statement, and many don't even do that; some even seem to go along with some of China's more outrageous arguments on human rights (as we saw with the Nobel Peace Prize ceremony recently).

In the US, a government shutdown was averted, which is a good thing, as was the fact that Obama and the Democrats seem to have blocked some of the Republican's more extreme efforts, such as weakening the EPA or cutting funding for Planned Parenthood. I haven't had the opportunity to look in any detail at the final budget, though, so I'm not sure what outrageous cuts did get through. I can at least be sure that the more sensible steps toward cutting the deficit (eliminating corporate tax breaks, cutting military spending, and so forth) were not taken. Also, Obama regrettably caved to his opponents on another issue, namely what kind of trial to give accused 9/11 plotter Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. Why this was a mistake is pointed out in a piece from the Daily Beast and another from Slate (the latter writer, incidentally, also wrote an article on an absurd decision from a Supreme Court majority led by Thomas and Scalia).