Strife

The Academic Blog of the Department of War Studies, King's College London

Archive

23F or ‘The Coup that Never Was’

by

by Laura Hamilton

23-f

Last month marks the 32nd anniversary of 23F, the failed military coup in Spain, which threatened to challenge the state’s transition to democracy.

On the 23rd February 1981, the military governors in the various regions around Spain planned a coup d’etat. Although Franco had nominated the King as his successor, military leaders, led by General Milans del Bosch, were not happy with the changes that were taking place as Spain transitioned from a repressive dictatorship to a fully-fledged democracy.

The coup began when Antonio Tejero stormed congress with the Guardia Civil (Spanish military police) and held the Parliament hostage. This was meant to be the signal to mobilise the rest of the country. However, they were hesitant and it was only in Valencia that tanks rolled in the streets.

My parents were living in Spain at the time, having moved to Madrid only a month earlier.  Having come from England, where a military coup is an unfamiliar concept, they weren’t really sure what was going on. My father was in a meeting, which was overrunning. One of his Spanish colleagues left to call his wife and tell her he would be late. Hurrying back in a few minutes later, he agitatedly informed the room “¡Hay un golpe!” (There’s a coup!) before all the Spaniards rushed home to check on their families.

Spain’s history is marred with coups – it was this lack of stability, which provoked the army to rise up under Franco.  We recently discussed, in one of my classes, the way that your culture influences the way you view a situation. The Spaniards had grown up in a country that had been under 40 years of military dictatorship. Although the majority of the population supported the transition to democracy, the constant threat of a military takeover existed since a sizeable minority still believed that life under Franco was better: there were low crime rates; goods were cheap; ‘immoral’ behaviour wasn’t rife.

No one explained the seriousness to my father and his colleague, who were the only expats in the room, so they didn’t fully grasp the concept of what was going on. Instead, they decided to continue working, travelling across Madrid to another meeting. My father recalls how this meeting was located in the same building as the Spanish press and TV headquarters. On their arrival, they found that the whole area was closed off and the seriousness of the situation began to set in.

At the same time, my mother, in a foreign country where she didn’t speak the language, had no idea what was going on.  She had no television or radio, since they were still in the process of being shipped across, and it was prior to the widespread use of the Internet or mobile phones. She first found out what was happening when my father’s colleague called, excitedly informing her “have you heard the news? There’s been a coup!”  Having no way of contacting my father, she was worried, mainly because of the fear of the unknown. As aforementioned, if you do not have any experience of a situation, you have no idea what to expect or how to prepare.

The whole country was on tenterhooks and there was only one person who was able to change the situation – the King. Having been ‘trained’ and chosen by Franco, he was seen by the majority of Spaniards as Franco’s puppet. However, his actions on the night of 23rd February turned him into the nation’s saviour, affirming his leadership of the country. As Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces, the military governors had sworn allegiance and loyalty to the King. It was this promise that he used to assert his authority and bring Spain back on the path to democracy. He appeared on the national television channel, TVE, throughout the night. Dressed in his military uniform, he broadcast the message that he did not support the coup and reaffirmed the need for democracy in Spain. It was this message that managed to convince the military governors to step down and not continue with their planned coup.

Spain’s future hung in the balance on that date. Yet, through the strong leadership of the head of state, he was able to save it and proceed with the transition that was taking place. There is a strong belief that, had the King supported it, the coup would have been successful and Spain would be a very different place today. Although Spain has recently been marred by many problems, there is no doubt that things would have been worse had the King not fully supported the path to democracy and used his leadership to save the country from returning to a military dictatorship.

Wanted: Great thinkers for Europe!

by

by Mareike Kuerschner

Why follow moderate ideas, when you have a great one? Why give up on it, even you know, it can’t be reached? Churchill spoke in 1946 about the ‘United States of Europe’, which I consider as a great, but unfortunately unattainable idea. But that should not mean that we can’t pursue this idea as an ideal. We honestly have to question, what do we want Europe to be and what we are willing to contribute to a European community?

I attended a speech at the London School of Economics held by Professor Norbert Lammert, President of the German Bundestag, who promoted Churchill’s idea and does well to spread it especially among young people, the future leaders of Europe. His remarks were mainly focused around the statement that there is no crisis that can’t be overcome as the European Union is the product of the crises of two World Wars. We are experiencing a period of stability and prosperity – and, according to Lammert, we are overusing the term ‘crisis’ compared to what Europe has already gone through.

Europe’s (financial) crisis can be solved, when we disengage us from the assumption that today’s problems can be tackled on a national level. Like a mantra, the President of the German Bundestag repeats that – and he is right. If we want to regain control over the economic integration we pursued, European states need to integrate politically. There was a wish for a European market right at the beginning (implemented with the Treaty of Rome), we created it and now – better late than never – we need to cope with the consequences, which indicate a political community to get hold of the problems. Giving up sovereignty is not a new issue, but the tremendous challenges we are facing now give us new reasons to do so.

We should not be afraid of utopian ideas, if we can see them as ideals to lead us through turbulent times. Therefore, the ‘United States of Europe’ should be seen as an ideal on the way to an efficient European community, because economic integration demands a mutual approach on the political level. But it is neither the current institutional structure nor the fundamental differences between the 27 member states of the European Union, which worry me the most. It is the lack of capable individuals with a clear idea for the future of Europe, people who believe in Europe as a political, not only economic entity and are willing to contribute to it.

Syria: A Proxy Battleground

by

By Pezhman Mohammadi

Syria

Almost two years after unrest began in Syria, not only has the ‘popular revolution’ not borne fruit, but also many of the ‘freedom fighters’ have turned out to be non-Syrian, foreign-funded terrorists. What made Syria a target of a foreign-backed insurgency? And what could be the solution to the crisis?

Since 2011, Syria has become a target of indirect foreign intervention to topple the Assad’s regime. Various motives have been suggested for such aggression against the secular state. First, Syria is strategically important for many countries, including the United States, Israel, Iran and Russia. Second, Syria is Iran’s strongest ally, Israel’s long-time adversary, and a channel for Iranian arms transport to resistance organisations in Palestine and Lebanon.

Has a new ‘Cold War’ emerged in the Middle East? Putting Russia aside for the moment, Syria can be argued to have become a battlefield for a clash between Iran and the United States. The US, assisted by Saudi Arabia and Qatar, is arming the Free Syrian Army (FSA) terrorists against Assad. Meanwhile, Iran is providing financial assistance and military know-how to the Syrian President through its Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps’ (IRGC) shadowy Quds Force, hence the reason the Syrian President is still standing.

To some analysts, the current Syrian turmoil is as part of a US plan to contain and further isolate Iran by removing Islamic Republic’s only Arab ally in an era of increasing Arab-Iranian regional rivalry. Assad’s regime is considered as a fundamental pillar in Tehran’s policy approach towards Israel and hostile Arab states. Clearly, in his absence, Iran loses significant influence in that arena. In this context, Michael Hanna of Century Foundation in New York stated that “Syria is a central player in Iranian power projection”. Nevertheless, this would be an attempt to correct an earlier American miscalculation, namely the invasion of Iraq in 2003, which significantly strengthened Iran’s position in the region. This is a textbook proxy conflict scenario in which the laws of war appear to be absent, causing mass civilian casualties.

Some believe that Syria without Assad would be an ideal state, a liberated society. But this is wrong. Syria is currently witnessing a sectarian clash, thanks to the emergence of extremist Wahhabi ideology in the Free Syrian Army. According to this ideology, other religious sects, whether Jewish, Christian, or Islamic factions such as Shiites, are all considered as ‘infidels’ and must either accept the fanatic organisation’s ideology or be persecuted and killed. In the absence of Assad, a once secular country is likely to disintegrate as sectarian conflicts intensify. This provides an explanation for the loyalty of the Alawite-dominated Syrian army to President Assad: they prefer his rule to that of the FSA.

The solution to the Syrian crisis is far from straightforward. I would suggest that bilateral talks between Iran and the US would be a step in the right direction. Improved US-Iranian relations would contribute to improved regional stability.

Moreover, in late-2012, Iran proposed a ‘Six-Point Plan’ to solve the Syrian Crisis. The Plan’s steps include immediate cease-fire; initiation of a ‘national dialogue’; establishment of a united government which; humanitarian assistance to the citizens of Syria; freedom for all prisoners who have not committed a crime against the country; and full and unbiased media access to Syria. Although this has been widely rejected by the ‘anti-Syrian coalition’ for obvious reasons, Russia and China may be able to enforce the Plan using their influence in the United Nations Security Council (UNSC).

Further, states must stop arming the terrorists in Syria. In this context, the United Nations (UN) is obliged to issue a firm resolution against the terror-sponsoring bodies. After all, these are the same gang of radicals that the West is fighting against in different corners of the world. A related practical, but extremely difficult, measure would be to place punitive economic sanctions on countries such as Saudi Arabia and Qatar that financially and militarily sponsor such groups.

Italian Elections stalemate: Berlusca Bunga Bunga, Rigor Mortis, A Retired Priest, the Communist and a Clown. An Analysis.

by

By Pablo De Orellana

SenatoreMarioMonti@Bocconi

This is not a joke. These are the nicknames of the principal politicians participating in the election, except for the priest and the clown. The latter cannot participate in person, but has been the underestimated wildcard in this this shuffle of Italian fortunes.

On Sunday, three women hurled themselves naked at Silvio Berlusconi howling “Basta Berlusconi” [“Enough Berlusconi”], in one of many and desperate signs of the overdrawn exhaustion of the Italian political class and the loathing that it has garnered among voters. Berlusconi is still politically alive and kicking in yet another election campaign. This is because of the incredible challenges facing Italy and especially the deep unpopularity of the Monti technocrat government. The difficulties and brutal cuts of Italy’s latest austerity drive cannot be overstated. The trouncing of Monti’s hopes in this election is proof of this clearly expressed resentment.

This is not a common election. At first sight the results (see below for detailed breakdown) appear to reflect the old right-left divide, with reincarnations of the old DC (Christian Democratic Party) and PS (Socialist Party) –the originals died drowned in the embezzled funds of the Tangentopoli scandal in the 1990s. There are, however, a number of new wildcards complicating the equation. Most importantly, Italy has not seen circumstances so dire for a generation with a stagnant economy, record unemployment and rapidly falling living standards.

Mario “Rigor Mortis” Monti is the loathed bogeyman of this election. Most political discourse in this campaign has been written and spoken in reference Italy’s financial credibility, which Monti has promised to fix with increasing doses of austerity bloodletting. The proverbial straw was the IMU tax, a levy on the value of a household’s primary property. This has caused exasperation in a country where low and middle earners are already very heavily taxed, with horror stories of bankrupt families due to the IMU. In some regards, Monti too has been an unconventional saviour of Italian finances. In Italy’s past debt scares (they happen every decade) una tantum (‘once only’) taxes were levied on luxury properties such as second and third homes, luxury cars, capital gains, bonuses. Monti, on the other hand, can be credited with importing European Neo-Conservative economics, with the resulting faith in public service cuts and increased taxation of the most numerous part of the population – who on average make little more than 900 per month (INSEE data) – rather than higher earners or corporations such as Berlusconi’s own Mediaset Group. Not unlike George Osborne, Monti’s entire programme is ostensibly designed to uphold the credibility of Italy’s credit ratings. Monti has run in this election as leader of a coalition of small centrist parties, although their parliamentary weight is negligible at just over 10% of the vote. This is clear proof of the great resentment that austerity measures have elicited in Italy.

Italy’s centre-left party grouping, the Partito Democratico (PD) led by Pier Luigi (aka “ex-Communist”) Bersani, has been a great disappointment both in campaign and in today’s results. PD promised to keep the course and spirit of Monti’s reforms – albeit with a few concessions to the need for growth measures – and indeed looked likely to form a coalition with Monti. This unexciting passive acceptance of the austerity dogma has alienated many supporters and  has allowed other protest candidates to trounce its advantage in polls over the last few weeks. In last night’s results, PD  is basically tied in voting percentages with Berlusconi’s alliance of conservative parties and only just ahead of Beppe Grillo’s 5-Star Movement. Italy’s puzzlingly complex voting laws give the PD bloc extra bonus seats, which should make the lower house just about governable.

Then come the rogues: the ones defined by opposition to the Monti administration and austerity policies. The most puzzling aspect of this election, and one that foreign analysts seem to miss, is that Silvio “Bunga Bunga” Berlusconi has, in an incredible piece of high-speed historical reframing, recast himself as a rebel, a transgressor to the Merkel-imposed austerity dogma and calling into question Euro membership, the EU, Mario Monti’s reforms and budget cuts. Most spectacularly, only a few days ago Berlusconi made the extraordinary promise of returning paid IMU tax to taxpayers if elected. He is now at the head of the second biggest group in the Lower House.

Machiavelli was right in decrying his indignation at Italy being saddled with the Papal Curia, and the Vatican has had varying policies in its involvement with Italian democracy, from sometimes banning the faithful from voting, to sanctioning specific parties. Yet another unusual factor, one that might be overlooked is the Pope’s resignation. Whilst in recent years the Church has not attempted to excommunicate stray voters and has adopted subtler means, its influence cannot be underestimated. It is likely that the Vatican’s temporary distraction has been to the disadvantage of conservatives and especially Mario Monti’s group.

Finally, the greatest surprise to those not accustomed to Italy’s political volatility and unfamiliar with recent economic woes is the success of the party led by comedian Beppe “Clown” Grillo, the 5-Star Movement. It has exceeded all projections, and is now the single largest party in the lower house (although it is outdone by the centre right and centre left alliances). It stood on a simple basis: reforming the overpaid, corrupt, rentier, clientelist and mafia-tainted nature of Italian politics by “sending the old [politicians] home”; reforming Italy’s economic course towards fairer taxation, limiting the rampant tax evasion of the richest individuals and corporations, removing austerity policies and encouraging higher employment and stemming Italy’s tragic graduate brain drain.

Considering Monti’s very poor showing, this Movement’s surprise showing is all the more important: The 5-Star Movement now holds the balance of power in the lower house. Grillo has declared that he wants no alliance with the old parties, and this is further complicated by the Movement’s staunch anti-austerity policy. I suspect that, barring fresh elections to resolve this stalemate, PD will have to make concessions to the Movement to be able to govern; but considering Bersani’s strongly-worded disapproval of the comedian’s protest party and its policies, this seems unlikely.

This election is not only a stalemate, but speaks of the worldwide dilemmas of democracy, finance, debt and the economic future of Europe. Sadly, the stalemate is fodder for market instability, political instability and stagnation. It is not clear who has won this election; what is clear is that there is one loser: Italy.

Dante Alighieri put it better than I ever could. Reader, I will let you translate these sad verses.

Italia, poi che se’ sì grande
che per mare e per terra batti l’ali,
e per lo ‘nferno tuo nome si spande!
Tra li ladron trovai cinque cotali
tuoi cittadini onde mi ven vergogna,
e tu in grande orranza non ne sali.

Dante, Inferno, XXVI, 1-6

—

Detailed election results in full as well as the fine detail of Italy’s complex electoral laws can be found on <http://elezioni.interno.it/camera/scrutini/20130224/C000000000.htm> [last accessed 26 February 2013]

Defence undermined?

by

By Hal Wilson
800px-Gulf_of_Aden_-_disabled_pirate_boat

One of the greatest threats to global stability is US defence policy – but not for the reasons we usually hear. Typical allusions to sinister neo-cons or ‘American imperialism’ are both misleading and prejudiced. But current policy – specifically the cuts of January’s Defence Strategic Guidance – reflects a dangerous ignorance of history.

That this came about is no great surprise. Consider trends in US politics and discourse. The final US presidential debate saw a highly symbolic illustration of this. Mitt Romney’s remark on numerical decline in the US fleet was instantly met by Barack Obama’s scornful quip about “horses and bayonets.” Alternatively, observe the opening scene of Aaron Sorkin’s The Newsroom. The protagonist decries the idea of America as the world’s greatest nation, snapping that one of the few areas it leads in is defence spending – surpassing the next twenty-six countries combined. (The clear implication being ‘how pointless!’) Similar observations abound, sharing a similar theme: US military spending is bloated and useless; opponents of cuts are old-fashioned or dangerous.

A deeper investigation quickly highlights the problems. Obama’s quip emboldened liberal allies – but it also highlighted simplistic, worrying thinking about defence in the modern era. Equally, Sorkin’s piece in The Newsroom strikes me as childishly trite – reeling off numbers sounds convincing until you put them in context. Namely, US defence spending reigns supreme largely because so many have relied so long on America for cheap defence: the results are self-evident.

Note that Operation Ocean Shield, NATO’s anti-piracy operation off the coast of Somalia, rests primarily on American naval power. Even so, too few ships are committed to adequately patrol the area. Likewise, while France and Britain provided major impetus toward a NATO mission against Colonel Gadaffi, the US again bore the brunt of the effort. Conversely, many European states made risible contributions to that mission – or in Germany’s case, none at all. Britain’s recent Strategic Defence and Security Review neatly underlines this: the Royal Navy is now too small to properly patrol the Somalian coast. Accordingly, when UK Defence Secretary Philip Hammond urged a stronger German approach to defence, it was hard to take him seriously, but his stance was valid. Europe has largely grown complacent behind an American shield that now threatens to disappear.

This takes us back to the contentious statement beginning this article. The risk to global stability comes from the fact that the cuts threaten to hamstring the most meaningful force behind its maintenance: American power. Already, US planners find it a “struggle to preserve the necessary forces in CENTCOM to address all the possible conflicts and crises.” In 2011, a bipartisan commission found the US Navy “would need 346 ships to meet its global commitments. But, as a result of budget cuts, the fleet is going to decline from 282 ships today to fewer than 250…”. Indeed, declining numbers “means longer cruises with less time… [for] maintenance and for sailors to recuperate” – a deceptively simple yet crucial point.

Suddenly, Obama’s scornful comment to Romney seems rather ill-considered.

History warns us against such a policy as that in January’s Strategic Guidance. When European war loomed due to a Middle East crisis in 1832, overwhelming British naval power underscored Palmerston’s effort to prevent it. Likewise, it was the Royal Navy’s strength that helped it overcome terrible attrition in suppressing the slave trade. It was a strategic reserve in both cases that allowed Britain to deliver on key policies – a crucial reserve that bolstered diplomacy in the former; that absorbed losses in the latter. And it is just such a military reserve that would be compromised by January’s outlines: a dangerous prospect in the face of a challenging international outlook.