The narrative of this article is to highlight impact of current turmoil in the Arab world, more specifically the three important countries of Egypt, Libya and Syria. A detailed analysis of various ramifications on Asia, apart from spread of radical Islam, has also been discussed. As Richard K. Betts, an academic with close contacts with US intelligence agencies puts it, “the priority [right now] is collection and analysis about what’s going on”.
President Obama’s Middle East speech of 19 May 2011 focused on supporting reforms in Tunisia and Egypt and called upon Syria, Bahrain and Yemen to listen to the popular voices and reorient their strategies towards establishing democratic dispensations. On the Palestine Israel Conflict, the US stance called for a political boundary for Palestine and a secure environment for Israel based on pre 1967 boundary. Netanyahu expressed his reservations over the US stand and commented that the 1967 lines were indefensible. The future of this quagmire called the Middle East Peace Process will thus have to be redefined by US as there is neither “peace” nor a “process” operating between the Arabs and Israel. President Obama said that promoting democratic reform in Arab nations is “a top priority” of the United States. How, is the big question!
An Overview
The upheaval that toppled the government in Tunisia spread across the Region, with unprecedented street demonstrations in Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Algeria, Bahrain and Yemen. The movements may have appeared leaderless but they shared a common thread – the rising expectations of a younger generation that sees global change on the internet and has momentarily lost its fear of corrupt, autocratic leaders. If there is a single spark that has ignited the protests, from Rabat to Cairo to Sanaa, it is unemployment. The jobless rate for young Arabs is 25 per cent, compared with a world average of 14 per cent, according to the Brookings Institution. The other important contributing factors were disenfranchisement over decades and a growing desire for self determination
As per David Ignatius, a commentator with the Washington Post, the unrests follow a series of American failures in the Region. President Obama promised change. But he couldn’t bring Israel and the Palestinians to a peace agreement, and he couldn’t counter the Hezbollah in Lebanon or its patron, Iran. America is not the stopper in the bottle anymore, and the Arab man in the street knows it.
Tunisia which started it all may end up being more secular keeping its past in mind. But what of the Arabs in Algeria, Egypt, Yemen, Syria, Lebanon, Bahrain and Jordan who have all watched the protests on electronic media, and have seen how easy it is to topple a strongman. None of the countries have political freedom, all have economic difficulties. Where will they end up?
In Algeria tensions had risen in the last two years as Bouteflika wanted to run for a third term. Meanwhile Islamists gained support in resistance to his attempts to retain power. His unwillingness to let free expression and pluralism rise against him had been his undoing despite his attempts to free the society from Islamic clutches. As a result Islamists are gaining the upper hand. Despite a good economy, tensions with rapidly rising food prices and dissatisfaction with corruption and suppression of dissent flared up protests. This was aggravated by Islamist backing for a revolution.
The trouble in Yemen is from a combination of disenchantment with the near continuous rule by one President since 1978 combined with an economy which has performed poorly. The great fear is that protests in Aden will be taken advantage of by Al Qaeda and its associated Islamist rebels, particularly as Yemen is in a strategic position on the approach to Suez.
Ignatius further articulates that Tunisia, Egypt, Yemen and Jordan are “unviable countries,” whose economies can’t seem to grow fast enough to meet the demands of their rising young populations.
Lebanon is another step into the unknown, with Prime Minister Najib Mikati heading a new government dominated by Hezbollah, the Shiite militia. Mikati may seek a middle path, in the classic Lebanese fashion. But one Arab foreign minister is said to have voiced privately what many suspect: The standoff between Hezbollah and its enemies will be resolved only by another war.
Christopher Dickey has this to say of Lebanon, “If Hezbollah weren’t so smart, it wouldn’t be so dangerous. This Shiite militia, created by Iran and backed by Syria, has never had a problem using force, naturally. And now that Hezbollah is in a position to govern—a position it got to through constitutional maneuvering—it’s not acting like the overbearing Party of God so much as an éminence grise preferring to rule from the shadows.”
“What is needed now are concrete steps that advance the rights of the Egyptian people,” was Obama’s quote to the reporters at the White House. Whether the US will let all US friendly governments in the Arab world march towards radical Islam is the question.
Robert D Kaplan articulated that “right now all these uprisings look somewhat the same, as they did in Eastern Europe in 1989. But like in Eastern Europe, each country will end up a bit differently, with politics reflecting its particular constituency and state of institutional and educational development. Poland and Hungary had relatively easy paths to capitalism and democracy; Romania and Bulgaria were sunk in abject poverty for years; Albania suffered occasional bouts of anarchy; and Yugoslavia descended into civil war that killed hundreds of thousands of people. The Arab world is in some ways more diverse than Eastern Europe, and we should therefore heed the uniqueness of each country’s political and historical situation in caliberating U.S. policy”.
Ignatius quoted an Arab Journalist on the ramifications, “Long term, it’s good; short term, it’s bad.” But even that is a piece of optimism about an Arab future that’s up for grabs. As they say, “Arabs stand up, but where will they walk?” Probably the Iran way, with its attendant ramifications on the Asian world. Hopeful that the protests sweeping Arab lands may create an opening for hard-line Islamic forces, conservatives in Iran are taking deep satisfaction in the events in the Arab countries, where secular leaders are facing large-scale uprisings. The new rallying point for these countries may be the theocracy of Iran.
The Egyptian Intrigue
Until 25 January 2010 the world gave little attention to Egypt while attempting to see through the events in Tunisia and then Yemen. While we gauged the general drift of the “revolutions” against the established petro led autonomous monarchies, there was a lot the World did not know.
Quick Recap. Established in 3100 B.C., Egypt today has a population of approximately 79 million. Its people speak Arabic and 99% are Egyptian. The country staged its first modern revolution in 1919 and established independence in 1922. Continued instability due to remaining British influence led to a second revolution in 1952 and the creation of the Egyptian Republic in 1953.
The Current Facts. First off, Egypt is the most populous Arab country with the strong financial and political backing of the U.S. On its own accord, courtesy its powerful influence, Egypt is a major power broker in the Middle East. As the Economist puts it, “With its strategic situation, its cultural influence and a population double that of any other Arab country, Egypt has for three decades now been the linchpin of a precarious but enduring regional Pax Americana.” If Egypt were to fall into chaos, not only the nation, but also the region, would be deeply affected.
Secondly, Egypt has been a key ally of the U.S. in the Region since the 1970′s, and is currently the second highest recipient of U.S. foreign aid (after Israel). The Obama administration — from Joe Biden, who refused to call Mubarak a dictator, to Obama himself, who emphasized Egypt’s role as an ally — had been loath to fully distance itself from Mubarak, and found itself in a difficult position in the present turmoil.
Third, Egypt has served as a key arbitrator in the Israel-Palestine peace process. As one of the few Arab interlocutors in the Region, the Mubarak regime has been a powerful go between. According to the Voice of America, “Israel was extremely concerned about the situation in Egypt because President Hosni Mubarak had preserved the peace treaty between the two countries for 30 years. Israel considers the treaty a strategic asset, and it fears that a regime change in Egypt could put the peace agreement in danger.”
Fourth, the protests were not being organized or dominated by the Muslim Brotherhood, Egypt’s powerful Islamist opposition group. However, the BBC reported that there were fears that given a power vacuum created by the removal of Mubarak, these forces could try to step in and exert control. According to the BBC, “[The Muslin Brotherhood] are not in front. They are trying to catch up. But the situation is volatile. New leaders – nationalist or Islamist, civilian or military – could emerge if the country is engulfed in chaos.”
Fifth, the Egyptian armed forces finally moved in to ease out Mubarak with a promise to reframe the Constitution and allow elections at the earliest. The armed forces which were at the centre of all power equations in Egypt have a tough task at hand as they do not want to let go of the American aid.
Will Change in Egypt Change the Region? This is a pivotal moment in the current history of the Arab World. If Egypt is transformed, it will transform the Region. Egypt is the moral and intellectual leader of the Arab World. It sets the cultural and political standards in the Region. When Anwar Sadat made peace with Israel, the Arab wars against Israel ended. When Egypt decided to suppress its Islamic movement, the rest of the Region followed suit and the Muslim brotherhood, in spite of its popularity and institutional reach into Arab civil society, remained marginal and powerless. When Egypt decided that Iran was the new enemy of the Arab people, most of the regimes in the area embraced this posture.
Egypt is the key to the Arab world. Its enduring authoritarian regime had been the biggest hurdle to democracy and freedom in the Region. Saudi Arabia has long been a rival to Egyptian hegemony in the Arab world. But a country that has never fought a war for its people does not truly inspire Arab imagination. Whatever influence Saudi Arabia has, it has been bought with petro dollars. Egypt on the contrary has been the engine of Arab imagination, its intellectual and political centre. If Egypt becomes democratic, democracy will become the norm in the Arab World.
In the past hundred and fifty years, we have witnessed four major political trends in the Arab world – Arab socialism, political Islam, Islamic modernism and Wahabism. Except Wahabism – an anti-reason, anti-science, anti-democracy, anti-freedom, anti-tolerance, anti-pluralism ideology that originated in Saudi Arabia, the other three Arab intellectual trends have thrived in Egypt. Arab socialism was a pan-Arab movement that sought to create a unified Arab nation, based on some of the values borrowed from the progressive movements of the 19th Century. A combination of populist nationalism and socialism, it eventually degenerated into authoritarianism, as Arab nations failed to unite, failed to defeat their greatest enemy – Zionism – and gradually stagnated on the cultural and economic fronts. Their nominal achievements include the creation of nationalist identities and a rather weak and toothless Arab League. Egypt’s second President Jamaal Abdul Nasser (d. 1970) was the key luminary of this movement.
Political Islam or the Muslim Brotherhood, a movement that aspires to create Islamic States, hopes it will be the panacea to all Muslim problems; the magic formula that will replace tyranny with harmony and restore Arab glory, is perhaps the biggest and the most institutionally ready alternative to Arab socialism in Egypt today. It will be the biggest player in a democratic Egypt unless all other factions form a coalition to balance it. However their anti-West rhetoric may alienate Egypt from the West and undermine its economic prospects and tourism industry and effectively fail to resolve the problems that triggered the current uprising in the first place. If they focus on symbolic goals then they will tear Egypt apart, but if they moderate their rhetoric and focus more on substantive changes – economy, corruption, job creation — they could become a positive force in Egypt and the region.
There are other groups in Egypt, which are less organized and less influential. Christianity is a minority religion in Egypt. Egyptian Christians known as Coptics account for about 5-10% of the population. The Christians are largely spread out along Alexandria. There are progressives, old-fashioned Marxists and neo liberals who all desire regime change in Egypt. It is possible that the Egyptian elite that benefitted from the Mubarak Regime and his current party, The National Democratic Party (NDP) may reconstitute itself as a nationalist alliance and compete with the Muslim Brotherhood for power. This group may be more acceptable to the West but it will be tainted by the corruption of the current regime and may not be acceptable to the Egyptian people.
Islamic modernism is an important facet of Egyptian intellectual heritage which experienced its peak during the time of Muhammed Abduh an Egyptian jurist, religious scholar and liberal reformer, regarded as the founder of Islamic Modernism. It combines Islamic values, specially its focus on justice and personal virtue with equality. Islamic modernism seeks to find a path compatible with Islam and democracy, faith and reason, religion and science. Its institutional form in Egyptian politics is the Al Wasat Party. It is a bridge between the secularist and the pro-democracy Islamists.
In a free and democratic Egypt, where the youth are aspiring for openness, for global connectivity and for opportunities to fulfill their potential; where the pious still dream of living in a virtuous Republic, and the traditionalist hope to find accommodation with the modern and the postmodern, Al Wasat will thrive. It is an option that none will reject outright. The only question remains, can they deliver if given the opportunity?
The author is not sure if Egypt will transform into a democratic and open society. The possibility that a new strongman will replace the old along with some cosmetic changes is a more likely outcome. There is also a strong possibility of a Pakistan like arrangement where Military rules from behind the curtains. But nevertheless, Egypt and the Arab World have been presented with a historic opportunity; an opportunity that they must not allow to be wasted away.
Systematic change does not come from mere regime changes. Egyptians will have to change their political outlook to bring about an enduring and beneficial change. Those of us, who wish them well, hope that they will indeed rise to the occasion.
Ramifications for India. India and Egypt share a centuries old diplomatic relationship. In post Independence India, the Nehru – Nasser relations were instrumental in creating the Non Alignment Movement. Through decades the two countries have worked to improve the South South relations. In 2007, in recognition of India’s growing role as an industrial and economic power, Egypt allowed India to set up an “India Zone” along the Suez Canal development area. This was to create an India-specific industrial corridor for collaboration with Egyptian companies to capture the European and African markets. The Indo Egyptian trade then stood at $30 billion, including investments in the oil and gas sectors, automobiles, and major presence in the IT sector. Expansion of economic engagement and partnership and work on greater synergy in third world initiatives, were part of the bilateral agenda for sustaining mutual growth.
Egypt exports to India primarily include oil and gas. Both countries however seem inclined towards renewable energy sources. India at present produces 8% of its energy from renewable sources and hopefully, in the future it’s aspiring to achieve 20%. Egypt too shares the same vision as India. Going forward, the two countries might work together in the energy domain. Both countries are even looking forward to work together on Egypt’s nuclear aspirations. There are no confirmed figures available to the author but the trade between the two countries is pegged at $ 3 billion as of 2010 figures.
Cultural ties between the two nations have always been on a high. Egypt has always stood for the Indian cause to the Arab world. India has to balance its act by supporting the pro democracy movement in keeping with the aspirations of the people of the Region and count on a positive change sweeping the Arab world rather than sitting on the fence. It is time to support the call of, ““Bread, Freedom and Social Justice.”
Libya
Moving to Libya, it has a population of 6.5 million, crude oil production of 1.79 million barrels a day (18th) and oil reserves of 47 billion barrels (9th) after Russia (74 billion) but ahead of Nigeria (37.5 billion). Some observers in the West have started arguing that Gaddafi might succeed in recapturing the area not under his control or that he might retain “Tripoli plus”, with a civil war raging for a long time. Other observers have maintained that the question is not whether Gaddafi will go but when and after killing how many. Militarily it is a dynamic situation. It is indeed difficult to see how Gaddafi can remain in power for long after all that has happened. A number of his senior diplomats have resigned making their assessment of the final outcome reasonably clear.
The Libyan mystery deepened with Colonel Muammar Gaddafi making a televised rhetorical speech threatening the country of consequences of a civil war. His speech from an under construction building compared the situation to that of Tiananmen Square. He reaffirmed that he was not leaving the country and that he would die as a martyr in Libya.
Gaddafi came to power in a military coup more than four decades ago as a junior officer in the army. He has been bred and brought up through all upheavals in Libya where he has stood his own amidst intense international pressure against his Regime and has managed to steer his country till the present expediency. He is no Ben Ali and he is not likely to flee the country in a hurry. In fact to the uninitiated Libya was known to the world only because of the North African Campaign of the World War II, oil and Gaddafi.
As brutal assaults continued against the population and the oil endowed East appeared to be falling to the protestors there were growing concerns that the army was splintering. Simultaneously a number of tribes had apparently turned against the Regime. Under such conditions will Gadhafi be able to hold onto power? Without the support of the tribes, army and without control of the East it’s well nigh impossible for Gaddafi to regain East by using the military to save his Regime. There were reports which indicate that a group of Army officers were planning to oust Gaddafi and reinvent a Revolutionary Command Council to take authority over the country.
As per Stratfor, this group also lobbied for the U.N. Security Council which was in session then to approve a no-fly zone that can be enforced by the United States. The army officers trying to lead this coup wanted to ensure that Gaddafi couldn’t rely on the remaining loyal air force units to bombard them as they made their way into Tripoli. The No Fly Zone was implemented by the UN and its affects are still being analysed as Gadaffi holds on to power at great losses in the East including Misrata.
The Time reported a disconcerting piece of information that the already terrible situation in Libya will get much worse. Among other things, Gaddafi had ordered security services to start sabotaging oil facilities. They started by blowing up several oil pipelines, cutting off flow to Mediterranean ports. The sabotage is meant to serve as a message to Libya’s rebellious tribes: It’s either me or chaos.
“Gaddafi has told people around him that he knows he cannot retake Libya with the forces he has. But what he can do is make the rebellious tribes and army officers regret their disloyalty, turning Libya into another Somalia. “I have the money and arms to fight for a long time.”
Libya is No Egypt. How does this situation differ from Egypt’s revolution? In Egypt the military was the Regime and helped Mubarak’s dethroning. In Libya the military (45,000 only) is divided and splintered. The Gaddafi loyalists are merciless in their approach towards the rebellion and there are more machine gun sounds crackling from Tripoli than anywhere else. The military in Libya does not enjoy the public support Egyptian military enjoyed.
The next critical component which may result in this revolution turning Libya into another Somalia is the opacity of the events due to a blanket ban on media reporting. There are very few reports emanating from Libya, with Gaddafi swearing to take strong action against Al Jazeera. This has compounded correct assessment and action at the local and global levels.
For revolutions to remain bloodless, transparency in situational awareness is a must so that violence can be contained and dialogue opened. The hard, “Either me or Chaos”, line taken by Gaddafi has further worsened the situation.
What after Gaddafi. Gaddafi has vowed to carry on despite protests – but if his regime were to fall there is no obvious power structure to take its place. The military, drawn from various tribes and is splintered. The ruling family comes from the Qadhadfa Tribe loyal to Gaddafi. Among the rest of the tribes, biggest is the Warfalla Tribe, which has already said to have turned against the regime. After tribal members attempted a coup in 1993, Gaddafi ensured that the Warfalla were excluded from the air force. He knew that in-extremis he might be able to rely on the Republican Guard to defend his palace whilst using the air force to bomb those rising against him. As well as ensuring his children were taken care of within the system, Gaddafi has also doled out positions of authority to many Qadhadfa’s. If he goes down, so do they, so many are prepared to fight to the end. The Warfalla, for example, are stronger in the Eastern areas of the country and especially in Benghazi. Somehow all the tribes would have to work out their differences and decide how to run the oil industry, the armed forces, and the country, and share out Libya’s wealth in an equitable manner. Gaddafi’s Jamahiriya (republic of the people) and his pretence of devolving power to local revolutionary peoples committees would be unlikely to hold together without its architect.
After decades of crippling trade sanctions under an aging and increasingly idiosyncratic dictator, and with no tourism industry to speak of, Libya’s economy is a shambles. In their latest Index of Economic Freedom, the Heritage Foundation and The Wall Street Journal rank the country 171st out of 179, only slightly edging out the Union of the Comoros and the Democratic Republic of Congo.
What system would follow Gaddafi is a mystery.
Indian Stakes. India and Libya have enjoyed a healthy relationship over the years. Trade and commerce balance was largely in India’s favour before the present expediency. Indian investments in Libyan oil have also been significant. It is for a collection of these factors that India voiced its objection along with China and Russia against the “No Fly Zone” at the UN. Indian response to Libya has to take into account the requirements of its economic cooperation and balance it with its objective of achieving a democratic dispensation – a tough ask in the current imbroglio.
Syria
Syria witnessed its largest anti regime demonstrations across the country in Mid May since the popular uprising for greater freedoms began in March 2011.
While the uprising has not yet reached the critical mass necessary to pose a serious threat to the regime of President Bashar al-Assad, it is evident that the protests are spreading and intensifying. Anti regime demonstrations have become a daily occurrence, instead of being confined to Fridays. And they are no longer limited each day to the southern city of Deraa, where the rallies first began and which has become the epicenter of dissent. Thus far, Syria has followed its Iranian ally, seeking assistance from Tehran in the tactics of suppression
Although the Regime has offered some concessions, such as releasing detainees, forming a new government, and examining alternatives to the draconian state of emergency law, they have fallen far short of the demands of the protesters. Furthermore, the harsh suppression of the demonstrations by Syrian security forces, in which over 800 people have died as of May 2011 according to human rights agencies, has served only to galvanize fresh protests.
The Baath Party has ruled Syria for the last 40 years in an autocratic manner. President Assad has used excessive force to quell the demonstrations which have been under serious condemnation by the Human Rights Watch groups. The world has been a silent witness to the Assad government’s use of force to restore “order”. Facebook campaigns have called upon President Assad to replace dictatorship with democracy. An interesting post articulates the hopes and aspirations of the people as,
“The solution is simple: Stop shooting at demonstrators, allow peaceful demonstrations, remove all your photos and those of your father, release all political prisoners, and allow political pluralism and free elections in six months.”
The proposal was the first issued by detractors of the Regime to spell out demands in seven weeks of protests in which more than 800 people have been killed, according to the Committee of the Martyrs of the 15 March Revolution.
Damascus must be shocked from what it hears and sees from its former regional allies. Turkey has not ceased its denouncement of Syria’s security practices, and public criticism of the Syrian leadership. Qatar has also dealt with Damascus negatively, with regard to what is happening there. In an unprecedented move, Hamas turned on Damascus, flew to Cairo and reconciled with the Palestinian Authority, in the absence of the Syrian leadership that is busy putting out fires in Daraa, Duma, and the rest of its burning cities.
The Syrian regime must now see the failure of its foreign policies not only because of the positions of these three parties, but more importantly because it overlooked local factors in its foreign dealings. What is the point of Syria’s alliance with Iran, which has become a burden, and where are the allies of the good days? The three Syrian disappointments; Turkey, Qatar and Hamas, reflect the realism that exists in the management of Arab politics. No state wants to be seen alongside a regime that is in conflict with its own people, unless it is going through the same thing. After the fall of the regime in Egypt, the myth of the iron regime was dispelled, and states learned to delay the disclosure of their real positions for a while. In addition, the horror of repression in Syria makes Arab governments an embarrassment to their citizens. No government could provide open support unless it was engaging in similar practices itself.
Israel has been upset deeply with the crisis in Lebanon and Syria which have strengthened the hands of Hezbollah and dealt a possible blow to Arab Israel relations. The U.S. has imposed sanctions on six Syrian leaders including Bashar al-Assad. The new sanctions will have little impact in any case, since the existing ones ban almost all economic contact between the two countries. Germany, France, and Britain are working on getting the European Union to enforce targeted sanctions as well, which could include asset freezes and travel bans. Essentially, the U.S. and Israel are walking a tightrope. They want Syria’s regional role weakened, but they don’t want the collapse of Bashar Al-Assad. The Syrian Regime has guaranteed a de facto peace with Israel along the Golan Heights since 1973. Syria, although formally opposed to U.S. interests in the Region, has been susceptible to U.S. pressure (through Saudi Arabian financial support) and is a cornerstone of the Middle East power structure. In 1991, it supported the U.S. invasion of Iraq and was rewarded with a green light for its own continued occupation of Lebanon, which remained under Syrian tutelage until massive protests ousted them in 2005.
The United States prefers a predictable and stable dictatorship or even if it is an occasional obstacle to U.S. hegemony. It fears a successful Syrian revolution that it has no control over. Such a revolution would provide new momentum to the unfolding Arab revolutions and seriously challenge U.S. client regimes in the area.
This is why the U.S. has had a relatively meek response to the events in Syria. The U.S. has a history of strong-arming other countries to pass resolutions in the UN Security Council if it wants to. But the real purpose behind the UN Security Council meeting on Syria appears to be a political show to buy time.
Supporters of the Syrian revolution cannot support any foreign intervention. Even when it is wrapped in “humanitarian” language, the actions of international powers are dictated by their own interests and regional aims. We have seen, time and again, that air strikes and military operations never have the wellbeing of the population, nor the movements’ democratic demands, at heart.
Any foreign intervention will give the Regime more legitimacy. Furthermore, any opposition force that is seen as an ally of the U.S. will automatically lose any credibility it has with the Syrian people. In fact, when the U.S. State Department had a secret program to fund Syrian opposition groups–spending about $6 million since 2006–no dissidents inside Syria accepted any funds, according to the Washington Post.
The world is watching helplessly as Assad mows down revolutionaries who cannot get any outside support. With the current state of events it is apparent that a solution is not in sight in the short term.
Ramifications on India. India and Syria have always maintained good trade relations. India has been a key provider of technology, tools and agricultural produce to Syria with a favourable balance of trade equation. In addition India has been supportive of the Syrian claims on the Golan Heights and has exhorted Israel to return the same to Syria. India has also been the third largest investor in Syria and the stakes are comparatively high for India to maintain a stoic silence at a time when President al Assad’s Government is under threat. A future dispensation must take into account Indian interests in Syria irrespective of the flavor of the new regime
Conclusion
Ambassador KP Fabian, in an IDSA brief articulates that India needs to see the direction of changing winds and set its sail accordingly. According to him India’s reaction to the Arab protests was measured and rational. While India believes that democracy is good in itself for all people, she does understand that democracy to be sustainable should have firm roots in the soil. It cannot be transplanted from another soil. The media have reported that the Islamic Brotherhood has sought assistance of the Indian Election Commission. It will be appropriate to render such assistance when asked for. It is reasonably clear that India will have no particular difficulties in her relations with Arab democracies. It is a false idea that it is easier to deal with strong men rather than with democracies. In fact, there are good prospects that Arab democracies will be even keener to strengthen relations with India. As regards the use of force to stop a dictator from killing his own people, India, keeping in mind its own successful intervention in East Pakistan, cannot but support it provided that the region, the OIC, and others are taking the initiative in asking for it. Use of force is always specific to a situation. Its use in one case cannot necessarily establish a precedent valid in all future situations.
US led NATO alliance finds itself mired in the Arab conundrum without finding face saving methods of exit from Iraq and Afghanistan. Now after months of implementing No Fly Zone and induction of drones to separate the Gaddafi forces from the peaceful civilians, mission creep seems to be setting in Libya. The common theme amongst all of these states is resistance to political power, to absolute rule, to those who have used the state to enrich themselves and not ever been accountable for what they have done. In short, Arabs in these states have wanted political freedom. Iraq is another thorn on US’s side as it has sought for extension of its military presence in Iraq beyond December 2011. As per Stratfor, the Shiite uprising in Bahrain and the Saudi intervention in Bahrain, along with events in Yemen, have created an extremely unstable situation in the region, and the United States is afraid that completing the withdrawal would increase the instability.
When drawing up various scenarios for Libya, the author emphasises that Libya may not be as simple as Slovakia or Czech dispensation and has the portends of converting the region into an Islamic inferno which shall burn all that the West considers sacred.
Axiomatically US may get lost in Afghanistan in the run up to the 2012 elections and seek permanent deployment in Afghanistan where once again mission creep seems to be setting in. This belligerent US led stance has already soaked half the world in wars. We can’t afford more of the same. The Arab uprisings are beyond the control of Western Military intervention. They need proactive diplomacy. The UN needs to take lead to resolve these uprisings rather than open other fronts of war which would submerge a major portion of humanity in a West versus Islamist struggle.
Yet more than a few have seen it as a chance not just to throw off the shackles of existing regimes, but to introduce a new order. Akin to how Iranians threw off the authoritarian corrupt Shah, and supported the most well organised alternative – which has since proven to be more authoritarian and despicable. The Western support for the likes of Hosni Mubarak had been because the apparent alternative would be far worse – yet the truth is nobody knows what will happen, and maintaining dictatorship and one man rule simply provides fodder for the Islamists, promotes hatred of Western values and civilisation as Islamists can say that the West supports political freedom for all, except Arabs.
Irrespective of the Arabs rising up against dictatorial rules the big question still remains, “Where are they headed”? One thing is sure whatever the future dispensation of these twitter revolutions, the Arab world will change drastically. This calls for a new set of public diplomacy initiatives by all countries to remain relevant in the New Arab World Order.
photos jasmine revolution
jasmine revolution countries
jasmine revolution pdf
why is it called jasmine revolution
jasmine revolution arab spring
jasmine revolution meaning
jasmine revolution in middle east
tunisian revolution called jasmine revolution
Regards,
Er Neha Godbole
HR Executive
www.AeroSoftCorp.com
www.AeroSoft.in
www.AeroSoft.co.in
www.AeroSoftseo.com
On Line Assistence :
Gtalk : nehag.aerosoft@gmail.com
Y! Messenger : nb.aerosoft@yahoo.com
Rediff Bol : nb.aerosoft@rediffmail.com
MSN : nb.aerosoft@hotmail.com
KPC Systems & Power Solutions, the most prestigious and progressive trader of reliable and the batteries for all automobiles, UPS, Inverters, Industrial and other .
NEW FLIGHT SERVICES ISO 9001:2000 CERTIFIED AVIATION ORGANIZATION . Best Pilot training in Philippines with Us
AeroJobMark , Best Pilot Jobs ,Airplane,Aviation, jobs, Airline, Pilot, employment
Everybody has dreamt once of becoming a pilot during their childhood and few are able to make it possible. Becoming a Pilot takes lot of pain and labour, as it is one
AeroSoft Corp, Aviation Company, AeroSoft Aviation SEO Company, information of aerosoft seo company, information of aerosoft aviation seo company
No comments:
Post a Comment