RSS

Now that the Arab world has witnessed unprecedented political changes that culminated in a series of historic revolutions, the so-called “Arab Spring,” what can one say at this point about the upheavals? There is no doubt that an assessment should take into account the results that could be realized in the long run and not merely those that have been achieved in the awake of the revolutions, because significant outcomes do not appear out of the blue, especially in countries where underdevelopment is an essential part of society structure.

One main scenario is the emergence of Islamic parties. Islamists realize that democracy is a tool to achieve two aspects essential to their mission: access to power, something unprecedented in modern history. Another is the legitimization of their stance, both nationally and internationally, which could help them establish a stronger base in the midst of internal divisions. To that end, Islamists may find no harm in adopting the practice of democracy as long as it serves their agendas.

There are no indications that they will abandon their religious ideals, and if that were to take place, it would be the result of domestic and foreign pressure and not of their own desire. Foreign pressure, mainly from the West, would change very little. For one, Westerners undeniably have faith in democracy, freedom and individual liberty. For another, they prefer and wisely so, to act in a manner that is not contradictory to their mantras; otherwise they lose their credibility.

The West also recognizes the risks associated with support for any change, which could potentially lead to the arrival of “radicals”. Case on point is Iran in 1979. At the same time, the West also appreciates that the “damage” caused by “radicals’” in power might be less of a risk than them not having them in authority. State actors are more likely than non-state actors to act in a rational way that accommodates international obligations. Frankly, it is less of a challenge dealing with Iran today than Muqtada al Sadr in 2004, before partnering with Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al Maliki, when he had no representation that one could have a dialogue with and no clear language but that of violence. 

The second scenario is the emergence of democratic systems, slightly flavored with Islam, similar to the one found today in Iraq due to the presence of other political minorities that do not favor establishing absolute Islamic states. Now, whether this kind of democratization is sustainable or not is questionable as traditional values, heavily embraced by Middle Eastern governments, continue to clash with the norms and practices of democracy. For example, Iraq’s Ministry of Interior labeled the emo subculture as “Satanism” and ordered the police to wipe it out.

The third and final scenario is internal divisions and chaotic conditions, where ethnic and religious groups, mainly Islamic, in “Arab Spring” countries contend with each other after being unable to find consensus. Here however, although religious groups are more organized and have greater potential in the event of confrontation, the odds of a victory over other forces remains uncertain primarily due to external influences.

While the best prospect for this scenario is a spilt of “Arab Spring” countries into small states according to the population groups that comprise them, the worst prospect is a civil war that would drain resources, waste energies and reinstate dictatorships under the banner of restoring security and stability. Case in point: the ruling military council in Egypt (formally known as the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces). As Egyptian blogger Kareem Amar said in October 2011: “Egypt’s Arab Spring has led not to democracy, but to another cruel dictatorship.”

It is imperative for the forces in the region to realize the dangers, which await their countries if and when they choose to follow their political desires at the expense of their fellow citizens. The Arab Spring could bring a positive change; nevertheless, it could also bring destruction and devastation depending on which path politicians choose to take, which is yet to be fully seen.

Unquestionably, the United States and its allies have supported the right of the Arab people to protest from Tunisia to Egypt to Libya to Yemen. Nonetheless, more still needs to be done in terms of overseeing how transitional governments rule and preventing a a return to square one. Furthermore, let democracy takes its course: if Islam-oriented groups, as in al Nahda party in Tunisia, win elections, then so be it; so long as they are the product of democracy and as long as they respect others’ values. In addition, more needs to be done in Syria today. The positive image that NATO countries created for themselves as supporters of freedom has the potential to be distorted, unless they act on an imminent solution that would bring an end to the murder scene in Syria. After running out of diplomatic options in dealing with Bashar al Assad, who continues murdering women and children while his wife shops online, it is about time for a Libyan-style operation similar in context to the historic one that ousted the regime of Mummer al Gadhafi.

Yasir Kuoti is an Iraqi freelance writer based in Washington, DC.

May 31, 2012

Dmitry Stefanovich, The Institute of World Economy and International Relations (IMEMO) , Silver Contributor (65)

• 2
•  
•  
• 
• 

I like this comment! What's this?

Dear Yasir,
You've written a very interesting article.

Still, there are a number of rather debatable points.
I was especially atonished with the statement that for the third scenario:
"While the best prospect for this scenario is a spilt of “Arab Spring” countries into small states according to the population groups that comprise them, the worst prospect is a civil war that would drain resources, waster energies and reinstate dictatorships under the banner of restoring security and stability." I am absolutely not sure that 'small states" will live peacefully. On the contrary, I do believe that such fractalization leading to all-out wars throughout the region is much more probable.

And calling the "no-fly-zone-operation" leading to an overthrough of legitimate government with foreign bayonets "the historic one" sounds extremely light-minded. Of course, it has some historical meaning, but not a positive one for sure.

May 31, 2012

Yasir Kuoti

• 2
•  
•  
• 
• 

I like this comment! What's this?

Dear Dmitry:

Many thanks for your thoughtful comments. I sincerely appreciate you taking the time. Few points to clear:

First, for the record, I am not suggesting that “spilt countries” will live ever peacefully just because they become small states. My projection, based on analysis of events, was that they might split because ethnic and religious groups refuse to accommodate and accept the other... Whether they will live peacefully or violently afterwards is another debate.

But since you mentioned the point, in fact, and if history is of any lesson, take the Irish example as a historical comparative case study:
Even though the circumstances that governed the breakup of Ireland might not be identical to the ones governing the “Arab Spring” countries, nonetheless, in the end Ireland broke up primarily due to RELIGION and GOVERNMENT. As we know, in part, they fought over which religion “denomination” should rule, i.e. Catholics vs. Protestants. In the other part, some felt that they should control and have a say in how their country is run: some wanted a British style government while others did not. And if we look at Arab countries from Iraq to Egypt to Libya today, relatively this is what is taking place. Rivalries are fighting over which sect should dominate, and what type of government: Religious vs. secular.

Second, as per the “no fly operation” and its legitimacy, I don’t think there is any “light-mindedness” involved. For me, the only illegitimate thing here was Mummer al Gadhafi brutalizing his people and abusing human rights since 1969. Most importantly, we should not forget the early days of Libyans LEGITMATE protests. They went to the streets, like the Tunisians, protesting and demanding reforms only to be crushed by IL LEGITMATE deadly means including air fighters. We certainly remember the brave Libyan military pilot who was ordered by al Gadhafi to fire on a peaceful protest in Bengasi, instead he was a humane enough to flew his fighter to Cyprus and ask for an asylum.

I totally agree with you that under no circumstances a legitimate government should be ousted. But, we have to keep in mind that the regimes of Saddam, Mubarak, Gadhafi, Zen al Abedeen bin Ali, Assad, to name but few, are legally and humanly illegitimate regimes. They have been in power each, on average, for three decades against the will of their people. I lived in Iraq for over 20 years and never voted. Saddam’s people voted for the rest of us. A legitimate government is any government that governs and derives its power and legitimacy from the consensus of the governed.

Again, I agree with you, we should not use violence to end violence because we know from numerous historical experiences that violence only generates more violence, but what is the alternative? In regard to al Gadhafi, he was given many options: lead a reform, respond to your people legitimate demands, or leave the government in a peaceful way. Unsurprisingly, he said NO NO and NO for all of those alternatives. And believe me, without taking him by force, he would have remained in power and then retaliated brutally. Remember when Iraqis peacefully protested Saddam in 1991 because they though it is illegitimate for him to invade neighbors, and when they did not receive actual military support from outside, he remained in power for extra 20 years and retaliated brutally, including the use of biological and chemical weapons , killing and imprisoning millions of Iraqis. And I think this is history repeating itself now with al Assad. The international community, including Arab league and UN representative, has been telling him for over a year now to stop killing civilians, including 32 children under the age of 10 few days ago, and provided him with similar options to those presented to al Gadhafi. His response was only more killing of people. Those authoritarian regimes have relatively similar way of thinking and of dealing with crisis that threaten their status. Gadhafi said NO NO NO and I expect al Asad to say the same until his end.

Again, it was so nice to read your comments

Tags: | Middle East conflict |

June 1, 2012

Mawloud Ould Daddah, none, Bronze Contributor (25)

• 0
•  
•  
• 
• 

I like this comment! What's this?

The future of "arab spring",a subversive islamist operation,is Al Qaeda,if that "spring" succeeds

June 1, 2012

Mawloud Ould Daddah, none, Bronze Contributor (25)

• 0
•  
•  
• 
• 

I like this comment! What's this?

Behind the mask of "arab spring" lies ijhadism

June 2, 2012

Yasir Kuoti, Freelance Writer, Silver Contributor (33)

• 3
•  
•  
• 
• 

I like this comment! What's this?

Dear Mawloud:
Thanks for your comments …
In the light of the recent successes of Islamic parties in Tunisia and Egypt, it is easy to see the type of governments such states will be having. Nonetheless, I do not think that the world would allow another al Qaida or jihadists. The environment that allowed al Qaida to thrive no longer exists. September 11 alerted the world to think and act pre-emptively.

June 4, 2012

Kevin

• 1
•  
•  
• 
• 

I like this comment! What's this?

In light of Sept 11, this was not the awakening for 'terrorism' - UK, Germany, Spain etc has been battling terrorism for decades, it was the first time the US public 'understood' its destruction and impact. What has happened since, is the dilution of al Qaida. This is more problematic since this has now spread, and has a larger footprint with sufficient conflicts (Regional) to make it 'Business'.

The 'Arab spring' has given power to one ideology for a large region, increased Islamic radical groups, created religious segregation - not exactly freedom or the much shouted 'Democracy' that most don't even understand the concept or foundations as its alien to the culture.

The irony, and this being 'seen' as some sort of victory, was conducted and funded externally - how is this 'Whatever it is' supposed to be sustainable, 'whatever it is supposed to sustain'? - Moronic.

I just don't get the Arab spring or the downfall of the second most proactive and developed Country on the continent of 'Africa' ; Libya (Not Arab by geographical definition), as scored by UNDP weeks before the uprising, now a melting pot of non-African and radical Arabs with sectarian divides, and no future other than selling off its Oil to the 'Buy-in' bidders. It's arms and fighters now spread to cause instability under a religious context.

One could equally call the 'Arab spring' a sectarian genocide paid for by mineral/commodity 'Buy-in' given the facts.

Tags: | sectarian genocide |

June 6, 2012

Dmitry Stefanovich, The Institute of World Economy and International Relations (IMEMO) , Silver Contributor (65)

• 0
•  
•  
• 
• 

I like this comment! What's this?

Dear Yasir, thank you very much for clarifying your position.
I like your example of Ireland. By the way, how would you judge intervention from, for example "United forces of the Comintern" back in the days of Irish Civil War?

June 7, 2012

Yasir Kuoti, Freelance Writer, Silver Contributor (33)

• 2
•  
•  
• 
• 

I like this comment! What's this?

Dear Kevin:

Thanks for your comments…

I have to say that my views on the Arab Spring are slightly different from yours, possibly because I am an Arab with little bias  . To say that it was carried out by outsiders is unfair to those who went to the streets and demonstrated jeopardizing their very lives. It is similar to saying that Arabs are not capable of producing such revolutions, where in fact history shows us that Arabs and people of the Middle East pioneered the concepts of democracy and law: the first ever democratic system the world ever seen was outlined in Hammurabi Code in Babylon dating back to 1772 BC, well before many countries even existed. Therefore, the idea that democracy is an “alien” concept to their culture is factually not accurate.

You are right in suggesting that the US became aware of the impact of terrorism primarily after Sep 11, and this is mainly due to its scale. There were few terror incidences, as you correctly cited, in Spain and Britain and other western countries, but never of Sep 11 scale. People thought that those incidences were the acts of separatists, but when it became a vivid ideological war, it is then a different story. Just for the record, Spain, for example, suffered from the terror of its own people, Basque nationalists, more than any others.

You are also right in suggesting that the Arab Spring “given power to one ideology.” And as I mentioned in the article Islamists would have no problem in promoting democracy and participating in it as along as it serves them, which is the case here.

Ironically enough, you may find that those who were earlier seen as enemies of democracy, aka Islamists, would be the ones who will make sure that it succeeds simply because it served them and got them to where they are now, in power. Thanks to the ballots/democracy.

I could be wrong, but I do not think that we will see extremists of al Qaida caliber. After all, it was the seclusion of Islamists in Egypt, for example, that produced al Zawahiri and other religious extremists. We do not know for certain, but possibly hard core Islamists, as other humans, would become more moderate if they don’t get secluded and oppressed.

June 8, 2012

Joshua Clapp, Atlantic Community, Platinum Contributor (158)

• 1
•  
•  
• 
• 

I like this comment! What's this?

Thanks to everyone for the stimulating discussion.

Yasir, I certainly hope that you are right when you say that certain groups can become more moderate if they are included in authority and actually have to govern. I wanted to ask you: How likely do think the third scenario is, where some countries actually split up? For example, the recent events in Libya show many different groups playing off against one another. You wrote "Whether they [split up states] will live peacefully or violently afterwards is another debate." Do you see a future where any type of split up might actually work out better in the long run?

June 9, 2012

Yasir Kuoti, Freelance Writer, Silver Contributor (33)

• 1
•  
•  
• 
• 

I like this comment! What's this?

Dear Joshua:

So nice to hear from you and thanks for your thoughtful comments

The short answer to your question is: it remains a valid possibility. Even if we attempt to overlook the disputes over key domestic policies and/or religious differences among the competing groups, there would be other sources of “irreconcilable differences.” Such sources include the relations with the West and policy towards Israel. Last year in Egypt, there was a heated debate among the ruling elites who were divided for and against keeping the peace treaty with Israel. This is only one example

Whether they will live better if they did break up, the answer is not necessarily. After all, this is what everyone has been saying for the last 20 years about Sudan. Experts thought that a break up would put an end to killings and disputes. The reality is that violence still dominates the lives of Sudanese on both sides. This is partially due to the inherent traumas and complexities found in Arab societies.

Commenting has been deactivated in the archive. We appreciate your comments on our more recent articles at atlantic-community.org