THE

ARAB
Not that rainbow SPRIN
ORIGINS AND PROSPECTS
• One of the great ironies of the art of political and economic
forecasting is that forecasters virtually never anticipate the timing of
major events.
• The recent events at the start of 2011 in North Africa seem to fall
within this category of unpredictability; most observers knew that
change of some kind was inevitable but nobody knew when it would
happen, nor were they aware of the events that would spark the
process off.
• In the wake of such events, policy makers often seek to attribute
blame for the failure to anticipate the Black Swans that have occurred
In the wake of such events, policy makers often
seek to attribute blame for the failure to
anticipate the Black Swans that have occurred;
pointlessly since, by their very nature they are
unpredictable, except for the fact that the
dominant purpose of policy

The black swan theory or theory of black swan events is a metaphor that

describes an event that comes as a surprise, has a major effect, and is often
inappropriately rationalized after the fact with the benefit of hindsight.
 The ‘Spark’ That Started it All
• On January 4, 2011, Mohamed Bouazizi, a street
vendor in the central Tunisian town of Sidi Bouzid,
set himself on fire and died. Bouazizi was the bread­
winner of his family and well known in his modest
neighborhood for distributing food from his cart to
the poor.
• Harassment by the Tunisian police over his inability
to pay their bribes or purchase their permits dogged
Bouazizi through his life. When the dejection got too
much for him, he poured gasoline on his body in
front of the governor’s office, set himself alight and
yelled, "how do you expect me to make a living?”
• had an electric effect. It galvanized the people of
Tunisia against their suave and ruthless leader, Zein
el-Abidine Ben Ali, sending him to his Saudi exile.
Spreading the torch
This event create a awakening in all
the neighbors Arab countries which
population was facing the same
political and economical problems:
• Egypt
• Yemen
• Syria
• Libya
Libya winter
• Despite the fact that the basic economic needs of the Libyan
people were met, the political situation was far from being stable.
Gaddafi wanted to create economic welfare but also maintain its
traditional political-cultural structure that has been entrenched
throughout the centuries.
• Gaddafi ruled the country as the dictator on top of an alliance of
tribes.
Libya winter
• The Libyan revolution began, as did most revolutions in the Arab
world, with protests against a cruel dictator.
• By early March the democratic protest movement had transformed
into a civil war. Exactly how and why this happened is still not entirely
clear. Muammar Qaddafi’s repression was deadlier than that of Syria’s
Assad, or Yemen’s Saleh.
• The decision to launch a territorial battle with the regime does not
appear to be made by anyone.
NATO INTERVENTION IN
LYBIA
Quick Facts:
• NATO is an Acronym for : North Atlantic Treaty Organization.
• Intergovernmental military alliance between 29 North American and
European countries
• Established at the signing of the North Atlantic Treaty on 4 April 1949
• If an armed attack occurs against one of the member states, it should
be considered an attack against all members
Responsability to Protect (R2P)
• Global political commitment.
• Endorsed by all member states of the United Nations at the 2005
World Summit.
• Role is to address its four key concerns to prevent genocide, war
crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity.
• The principle is based on a respect for the norms and principles of
international law.
• Sovereignty, peace and security, human rights, and armed conflict
NATO INTERVENTION, GOOD OR BAD?
• In February 2011, The regime responded to the nascent protest movement
with lethal force, killing more than 100 people in the first few days
• There were two options for military action: a no-fly zone or a broader
resolution that would allow the U.S. and its allies to take further measures,
including establishing what amounted to a floating no-drive zone around
rebel forces.
• The NATO operation lasted about seven months, with an estimated death toll
of around 8,000, apparently most of them combatants on both side
• A Human Rights Watch investigation found that at least 72 civilians were
killed as a result of the NATO air campaign
• Critics charge that the NATO intervention was responsible for or somehow
caused Libya’s current state of chaos and instability
NATO INTERVENTION, GOOD OR BAD?
• Philip Gordon, the most senior U.S. official on the Middle East in
2013-’15, wrote:
• “In Iraq, the U.S. intervened and occupied, and the result was a costly
disaster. In Libya, the U.S. intervened and did not occupy, and the
result was a costly disaster. In Syria, the U.S. neither intervened nor
occupied, and the result is a costly disaster.”
• The NATO operation ended in October 2011. The current civil war in
Libya began in May 2014—a full two and a half years later.
• If the U.S had decided against intervention, Libya would have likely
reverted to some noxious combination of dictatorship and insurgency
NATO INTERVENTION, GOOD OR BAD?
• Qaddafi had made sure, well in advance, that a Libya without him
would be woefully unprepared to reconstruct itself.
• For more than four decades, he did everything in his power to
preempt any civil society organizations or real, autonomous
institutions from emerging. Paranoid about competing centers of
influence, Qaddafi reduced the Libyan army to a personal fiefdom.
Unlike other Arab autocracies, the state and the leader were
inseparable
WHAT LIBYA WOULD LOOK LIKE
TODAY IF NATO HADN’T INTERVENED
• There was no end in sight.
• Any Libyan who had opted to take up arms was liable to be captured,
arrested, or killed if Qaddafi “won,” so the incentives to accept defeat
were nonexistent,
NATO INTERVENTION, GOOD OR BAD?
• “I can’t recall any specific decision that said, ‘Well, let’s just take him
out,’” Mr. Gates said.
• On March 20, 2011, just hours into the intervention, Tomahawk cruise
missiles launched from a British submarine struck an administrative
building in Qaddafi’s compound, less than 50 yards away from the
dictator’s residence.
• Just as the dictator somehow survived the attack on his personal
residence in 1986, he also did in 2011.
NATO INTERVENTION, GOOD OR BAD?
• On April 19, 2011, a brigadier general stated, “No violation of the
arms embargo has been reported.”
• Three weeks later, on May 13, a wing commander admitted, “I have
no information about arms being moved across any of the borders
around Libya.”
• In fact, Egypt and Qatar were shipping advanced weapons to rebel
groups the whole time, with the blessing of the Obama
administration, while Western intelligence and military forces
provided battlefield intelligence, logistics, and training support.
NATO INTERVENTION, GOOD OR BAD?
• “NATO decides not to impede the rebels and to let the tugboat
proceed.” In other words, a NATO surface vessel stationed in the
Mediterranean to enforce an arms embargo did exactly the opposite,
and NATO was comfortable posting a video demonstrating its
hypocrisy.
• The Libyan intervention was about regime change from the very start.
The threat posed by the Libyan regime’s military and paramilitary
forces to civilian-populated areas was diminished by NATO airstrikes
and rebel ground movements within the first 10 days.
• Afterward, NATO began providing direct close-air support for
advancing rebel forces by attacking government troops that were
actually in retreat and had abandoned their vehicles.
NATO INTERVENTION, GOOD OR BAD?
• Oct. 20, 2011, it was a U.S. Predator drone and French fighter aircraft
that attacked a convoy of regime loyalists trying to flee Qaddafi’s
hometown of Sirte.
• The dictator was injured in the attack, captured alive, and then
extrajudicially murdered by rebel forces.
Conclusion

To be concluded by
you!
What do you think?