King Abdullah of Suadi Arabia dead:
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-30945324
Yemen's government falls to Houthi rebels backed by Iran:
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories...01-22-12-54-05
I smell fresh Syrian air...
Printable View
King Abdullah of Suadi Arabia dead:
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-30945324
Yemen's government falls to Houthi rebels backed by Iran:
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories...01-22-12-54-05
I smell fresh Syrian air...
Yemen is a devastated state that faces serious problems regarding the lack of drinkable water. However, th Houthi's success makes me slightly more optimist about the future of the country.
I am conflicted about the first. On the one hand the death of a patriarch of a highly extended family would indicate that any successor will be both a step down in comepetence and will have to fight to inherit his throne; best case scenario: the succession becomes violent enough to trigger a rebellion that would destablise the biggest supporter of the new century's crop of terrorist organisations, if not convert the nation to a democratic form of government.
On the other hand, saudi arabia for all it's faults is the least openly antagonistic nation in the area to the west, save for israel of course, and chances are abdullah's kids will figure something out that doesnt end up kicking them off the throne, and there's no guarentee they would be as accomidating to our interests as thier father. There's even the possibility they will be outright hostile.
Either way, I cant see this being a good thing for the average saudi in the short term, abdullah kept his nation stable and safe as his neighbours were ripped apart, the chances of the next leader being as competent as he was would be slim in a democracy let alone the notoriously unreliable succession method that is a hereditary monarchy. Whatever happens in the next 5-10 years will doubtlessly be a step down compared to the previous decade.
I now await the complete dismantling of my assessment that will inevitably come when a member more familiar with saudi arabia comes online. 5 pence says it's hooahguy.
Can't claim a deep awareness of what was and is going on in Saudi Arabia, yet logics tells me that when a modern ruling monarch approaches the advanced age of 90 he tends to hand his duties to someone else (presumably "deep in the counsels" of the king) from within the family. So I think that the deceased king has stopped to be an active player (perhaps even the real ruler of the state) for quite a time. So I don't expect any jerky movements that will influence the policies of the said state, at least not in the nearest future.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
Aren't the Emirates also quite open to the West and at the same time also quite a bit less restrictive on the people who live there?
Not that any of them are beacons of liberal openness, but at least women can drive there and westerners and easterners can work there far more openly than in Saudi Arabia.
I'd hope the new guy is a liberal reformer like Kim Jong Un, but he seems a bit old for that unfortunately. Heard he has dementia though, so maybe he'll go crazy and drop all restrictions while noone can stop him.
hah!Quote:
I'd hope the new guy is a liberal reformer like Kim Jong Un.
What was funny, there was hope in the West due to Kim Jong Un attending Western schools, he might lead the country into a new direction. The problem is, he was forced to be isolated in classes and North Korean security escorted him everywhere.
There was however talk about agricultural reforms, talk with American sports persons and lately I heard that there is talk about economic zones for foreign investments or so. My impression is that he may actually want to reform a bit but it's not like the several dozen conservative generals around him have no say on these matters at all. The ones who get executed probably had a falling out with everyone around them and not just the great leader. If he went completely against the will of all the military leader, the great leader might just "been seen flying away into the heavens on a unicorn" while one of his loyal followers - who was appointed by the unicorn of course - takes his place. Otherwise I wonder why these rumors about reforms surfaced from the country in the first place. It's not like I remember such rumors from when his father was still the great leader.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
Either way, the personal freedoms as a citizen of North Korea might actually be greater than those of a woman in Saudi Arabia. Although I'm sure one could have a long argument about that.
Any kind of Democracy in Saudi Arabia is the last thing anyone wants. You do know who would be elected in any kind of vote? People of the same ideology as the IS and Al-Qaeda.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
I was surprised to hear that the king didn't die from beheading. I thought that was the way everyone died in Saudi Arabia.
Aww, how thoughtful! :2thumbsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
Anyways, I wouldnt say the Saudi throne is in too much danger from outside forces. The royal family is large and in no shortage of people who can pick up the throne. But anyone familiar with feudal systems (or Crusader Kings 2 for that matter) knows that this kinda breeds jealousy and stuff from the other contenders. Now then, the elderly King Salman, isnt in great health. Im expecting his reign to be short. Even so, I would expect that the family has contingency plans so I dont expect any big coups any time soon. Though I would like a change how Saudi Arabia is run, as they do fund terror so thats obviously a bad thing. Same goes for most of the Arab states in the Arabian peninsula who the West loves to cozy up with. Also the whole "let's flog bloggers" thing I really dont like. So yeah, interesting times ahead for Saudi Arabia.
The entire Saudi elite are all way above minimal pension age anyway, so they're gonna die off in rapid succession.
Well ehm, the Saudi royal family and the Islamic clergy in Saudi-Arabia are quite tightly-knit and are in a symbiotic relationship withQuote:
Though I would like a change how Saudi Arabia is run, as they do fund terror so thats obviously a bad thing
midichlorianseachother. The state can't really just really sever that connection as it would seriously affect their legitimacy (to stay in Paradox terminology).
This very thing happened to the USSR in 1982-85 and we all know how it ended. So it's likely that soon we will see Gorb ibn Saud on the throne.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hax
Soon to be followed by a drunkard who will be replaced by Vlad-Emir of the Saudi Federation of Arasia?
And then mysterious masked men show up in Iraq, I mean the caliphate. Wait no, they are already masked... :shrug:
North Yemen has historically always been part of Saudi-Arabia.
Wrong!! Traditionally they are to appear on some peninsula. Qatar?Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
As long as we are honest about our hollow values.Quote:
Originally Posted by lars573
Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
King Hussain of Jordan tried a bit of democracy - the people turned out to be idiots.
Western culture is the worst kind - except for all the others?
I'm fine with that. I'll be completely up front and honest about it, too. See Egypt for an example of well democracy worked after years of authoritarian rule.Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
I agree, the arab and the african are not ready for democracy yet and need the guidance of a strong leader.
It may be sad, but some people just have a lower IQ and can't have democracy, no way to deny it.
Some arabs are africans (e.g. Egyptians), so they are twice as much not ready.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
The West has a fairytale of Democracy and how it solves all ills, heals all cultures and is the answer to all the problems in the world.
In fact, it is the last trapping on a state.
First you need the rule of law to be some way codified and separate to the whims of an individual - and ideally viewed as fair by all. In the UK we started this in the 1200s and the first steps were very small and universal voting rights didn't come in for a further 700 years. Was it a bloodless process? Hell no! It was very slow with many dying along the way with "progress" often only occurring when the Sovereign needed more cash.
Europeans generally took these values with them and so the colonies that had most of the indigenous people slaughtered continued this democratic tradition.
Others there isn't this history and it shows. China views itself as a democracy, as does Russia, as do many countries in Africa and the middle east. But merely that everyone can vote isn't by itself going to make a stable, balanced country with different groups out to get each other or merely all they can whilst they have power.
Western democracies have a massive Civil Service to ensure that things change really slowly (may be not their written brief but that tends to be the case).
We should stop trying to get democracy to "work" in places with no traditions of it and if anything sort out the more basic things like a searchable land registry and a vaguely efficient banking system and a justice system that serves all not itself or the elite - so they know what they own and it is not at the point of a gun.
That would take long enough frankly. And until we have everything sorted out, perhaps we need to drop the "holier than thou" attitude and sort ourselves out.
~:smoking:
I fully agree, it's better if we just deliver weapons to a warlord of our choice who can then kill off all the opposition and subdue the population for us, then lets us build a bas there on top of it. Because that's totally better than daydreaming about how nice it would be if these people had a choice.
Strawman, much? I mentioned nothing about intelligence being the principal reason.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
I didn't say that you did.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ice
Purging corruption is pretty much essential to get somewhere and for that you'll need a working tax system, basic meritocracy, a functional education system and more gender equality.
The problem with ingrained corruption is that it's dangerous to not be corrupt, since the corruptors in power sees you as a threat.
See Tunisia for a place it totally worked - they even voted out the Islamists for more moderate centrists. In Afghanistan they are having serious arguments about how to tackle corruption - e.g. should ministers be allowed dual nationality.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ice
Also - see Japan for a country where democracy was instituted successful, or Germany.
Many of the countries now seen as bastions of liberalism and democracy, such a Scandinavia, went through very rapid democratization in the mid-late 19th Century, going from near-absolute monarchy to universal suffrage in a matter of decades with significantly less civil and educational infrastructure than much of Africa or the Middle East has today.
That's not to say that it's possible to institute democracy in any given country today but it's totally possible to do in almost any given country within our lifetimes.
I'd just like to point out that even though a democratic project goes wrong, that doesn't mean it couldn't have pushed the country towards a 'functioning democracy' (however you'd like to define that term). It's a pretty complex topic in general.
Take Iraq, for example: did the US invasion make the country take a step backwards? That's kind of impossible to figure out. Just like in Libya and Syria, a civil war could have broken out - and leave the country in no better shape than it is today; possibly even much worse.
And that's just one alternative scenario, the list is endless.
It is neither the presence nor lack of intelligence that turns the corner on this.
It boils down to legitimacy. Until your culture accepts that such things as the rule of law ARE the guiding principles for the social contract -- even where honored in the breach -- such ideas have not been institutionalized. Unless they are thought of as basic to the social contract, individuals tend to revert to Hobbesian approaches -- might makes right.