May 21, 2012
By Saeed Qureshi
Exclusive Article

The Arab Spring has gone into a mode of hibernation for the present. The advance of the much promising Arab Spring has been halted in Bahrain by Saudi Arabia and in Syria by Iran. Paradoxically in Bahrain it is the Sunni minority that is ruling and in Syria conversely it’s the Shia majority that is in power. So the underlying motive behind undercutting these patently watershed revolutionary movments directed at removing the authoritarian and hereditary dispensations, carry religious undercurrents.

The Saudi Royal government has put her entire weight behind Bahrain’s ruling family of Khalifah, so much so that the Saudi armed forces and their huge military hardware and weaponry has been placed at the disposal of the Bahrain’s dynastic rulers. In March last year Saudi Arabian troops entered Bahrain and opened fire on the protesters, killing an unspecified number of protesters.

Both Bahrain and Saudi governments have been united in brutally suppressing the mammoth protest crowds mostly staged and carried out by the Shia community. It is indeed an historic chance for the marginalized majority population to capture power in Bahrain was done in Tunisia and Egypt and even in Libya and Yemen. The Shia community is undauntedly determined to continue their protests despite soaring count of casualties and deaths, resulting from ferocious crackdown by the security forces.

In March this year, about 100000 protesters staged another rally at Bahrain’s demolished Pearl Roundabout but were tear-gassed and dispersed by the security forces. In order to create a regional bulwark against the burgeoning influence of Iran in Bahrain, the six members of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) announced to forge themselves into a confederation. The practical application of this proposal, however, is still in the making.

While In Bahrain it is Saudi Arabia and other Arab hereditary states to join hands for warding off the Iranian influence, in Syria it is Iran that is straining her to salvage and buoy-up the tottering and fast weakening regime of Bashar-al-Assad belonging to the fanatic Shia branch of Alovites. The Saudis and Iranians are not vying with each other for emancipation of the oppressed communities or the removal of the brutal autocratic regimes. Their principle objective is to keep the ruling cabals in power and not for upholding the rights of the majority to rule.

If it should be the Shia majority to fight for their rights in Bahrain and get a share in power through a democratic process the same benchmark should also apply to Syria. In Syria, it is a Shia minority that Iran wants to remain at the helm and Sunni minority regime keep ruling the country by unleashing a reign of tyranny on the people demanding change.

As such the flame of emancipation for the centuries enslaved people that was so bright and dazzling two years ago in the aftermath of the Tunisian historic uprising against despotic rule of Ben Ali in Bahrain and Syria is losing its glow. There was a trail of such defining and epoch making developments in Egypt, Libya and Yemen. The autocratic regimes fell like house of cards one after another. Bu all of a sudden there seems to be a halt for the Arab Spring to further flower and wash away the left over scourge of totalitarian regimes.

This set back or lurch has come about because of the unpalatable fact that two regional adversarial powers with a backlog of unbridgeable historical discord in faith are determined to outdo each other. The Saudi royal regime is in agreement with both Israel and United states to destroy the ongoing Iranian nascent nuclear enrichment program geared towards developing a nuclear weapons capability. Ironically both profess Islam.

In Syria whereas the protestors are supported by the Sunni Muslim states, the government is publicly supported by the Shia clerical regime of Iran and Lebanese Hezbollah. The protests and widespread anti-government demonstrations across Syria began in January 2011 and expanded into a countrywide uprising. In one year’s violent clashes between the anti-government armed combatants and government security forces and army, thousands of people have been killed. The violent civil war still continues entailing causalities on daily basis.

The Arab Spring is a gift of the modern age with autocratic regimes taking to democratic course and shedding family rules. But there are countries that keep their national interests in view and disregard these monumental and spectacular changes moving the world towards becoming an abode of justice, equality, rule of law and responsible elected popular governments.

While China and Russia claim to be the supporters of the oppressed classes, they are averse to the change of the system in Syria. This kind of hypocrisy reflects the narrow interests of the respective states in face of the popular desire for change in their countries. That change is for accountable and elected governments, political emancipation, diversity of opinion, economic empowerment and the end of dynasties that deserve to be thrown into the dustbin of history.

Now there would be a lull in the encompassing expansion of the Arab spring but finally the unpopular family medieval dynasties will have to vacate for the democratic dispensations. The world is now united and integrated via the information technology and no country can remain an island of isolation and darkness and shut off and block the onset of information traveling across the globe through twitter and face book and Google and other devices.

If the traditional rulers in the Middle Eastern states occupying power through succession or by force do not see the inexorable change in the offing, they would sooner or later, be swept away by the currents of global emancipation and pulsating urge for liberty and pluralism. The strong man in Yemen the former president Abdullah Saleh finally perceived that unavoidable and irresistible change after brutalizing their people. He finally gave in to the people’s demand for change and there is a representative form of government gradually firming itself.

Thus Abdullah Saleh too saved his life. It offers a pragmatic cue that should be taken by unbending rulers and myopic heads of states in Jordan, Oman, UAE, Qatar, Bahrain, Syria and Kuwait. They cannot stop the march of history and the history declares these dynasties irrelevant in the modern times.

The writer is a senior journalist and a former diplomat. He is also a regular contributor to pkarticleshub.com

May 23, 2012
Abdullah Gul

Turkey has recently been at the forefront of international economic and political debates. On the one hand, despite the economic crisis engulfing neighbouring Europe, Turkey remains the world’s second-fastest growing economy, after China.

On the other hand, there is almost no issue on the global agenda – from Iraq and Afghanistan to Somalia, Iran, and the Arab Spring, and from sustainable development to a dialogue among civilisations – on which Turkey is not playing a visible role.

This is a rather new phenomenon. Until a decade ago, Turkey was regarded as no more than a staunch NATO ally. That began to change in 2002, when an era of political stability dawned, giving rise to a vision for a stronger Turkey – and a firm commitment to realising that vision.

To this end, Turkey’s governments since 2002 implemented bold economic reforms that paved the way for sustainable growth and provided a firewall against the financial crisis that hit in 2008. As a result, in less than a decade, GDP has tripled, making Turkey the world’s 16th largest economy. Moreover, the country benefits from strong public finances, prudent monetary policy, sustainable debt dynamics, a sound banking system, and well-functioning credit markets.

At the same time, we expanded the scope of individual rights, which had long been subordinated to security concerns. We streamlined civil-military relations, guaranteed social and cultural rights, and attended to the problems of ethnic and religious minorities. These reforms transformed Turkey into a vibrant democracy and a more stable society, at peace with itself and able to view its external environment in a different light.

Quite simply, we stopped viewing our geography and history as a curse or disadvantage. On the contrary, we began to regard our location at the crossroads of Europe, Asia, and the Middle East as an opportunity to interact simultaneously with multiple players. As a result, we began to reach out to countries in our neighbourhood and beyond. We tried to expand political dialogue, enhance economic interdependence, and strengthen cultural and social understanding. And, while 10 years is too short for a definitive assessment of such an ambitious policy, we have undoubtedly covered considerable ground. For example, we have quadrupled our trade volume just with our neighbours.

On several occasions, we have also been instrumental in facilitating peace and reconciliation. But, what is more important, Turkey has become a model of success that many countries around us now seek to emulate.

And yet, until a year or two ago, some political pundits were asking, “Who lost Turkey?” or “Whither Turkey?” – the assumption being that Turkey had shifted its foreign-policy axis away from the West. In fact, Turkey’s external orientation has remained constant, because it rests on the values that we share with the free world. What has changed is our increased assertiveness in our efforts to ensure greater stability and human welfare in our region, evident in our advocacy of freedom, democracy, and accountability not only for ourselves, but also for others.

This approach has been reflected in the Arab Spring, which Turkey ardently supported from the outset. We have not hesitated in siding with those fighting for their rights and dignity. Indeed, in countries like Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, and Yemen, which are now attempting to institutionalise change, Turkey is their most active partner, sharing our own experience and providing tangible assistance in the form of economic cooperation and political capacity building.

In Syria, on the other hand, the revolution has not yet come to fruition, owing to the regime’s brutal repression of its opponents. Every day, scores of people there die in pursuit of dignity. Turkey is doing all that it can to alleviate the Syrian people’s suffering. Unfortunately, the international community as a whole has so far performed poorly in providing an effective response to the crisis. Turkey’s position on Iran’s nuclear programme has been similarly clear: we are categorically opposed to the presence of weapons of mass destruction in our region. Attempts to develop or acquire WMDs might well trigger a regional arms race, leading to further instability and threatening international peace and security. That is why we have always called for the establishment of a WMD-free zone in the Middle East, including both Iran and Israel.

We support Iran’s right to use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. But Iran’s programme must be transparent, and its leaders must assure the international community of its non-military nature. The key is to close the confidence gap and pave the way for meaningful dialogue. In April, we hosted the inaugural round of revived talks between the international community and Iran.

Let us be clear: there is no military solution to this problem. Military intervention would merely further complicate the issue, while creating new layers of conflict in our region and beyond. In this and other matters, Turkey strives to act as a “virtuous power,” which requires us to align our national interests with values such as justice, democracy, and human dignity, and to achieve our foreign-policy goals through mutual cooperation rather than coercion.

Effective multilateralism is a key facet of this vision. Turkey served as a member of the United Nations Security Council in 2009-2010, and is now seeking another term in 2015-2016. Given the crucial importance of developments in our part of the world, Turkey’s contribution to the Council’s work promises to be highly valuable.

In 2015, moreover, we will assume the presidency of the G-20, and we are committed to using our means and capabilities to make it a more effective organ of global governance.

Turkey’s internal transformation over the past decade has placed it in an ideal position to benefit the region – and thus the global community. While we have accomplished much already, more is required of us. Given the challenges of our neighbourhood, and the region’s central role in global affairs, Turkey will not refrain from taking on new responsibilities.
Abdullah Gul is President of Turkey

© Project Syndicate

May 23, 2012
By Wadah Khanfar

Earlier this month, millions of people throughout the Arab world viewed, for the first time, a tele-vised debate between two Egyptian presidential candidates when secularist Amr Mousa took on Islamist Abdul Moneim Abu Al Fotouh.

The debate, which lasted more than four hours, was unique in itself. This is because for many decades the Arab masses were accustomed to hearing one leader and one candidate. Today, they feel democracy has indeed been attained. They also feel that their next president, whoever he may be, will not be a gift from a merciful providence, or a leader for whom the nation must sacrifice its blood and soul.

Instead, they believe he will be an ordinary human being like them. He will be grilled and interrogated, and he may choose to give straight answers sometimes and be evasive on other occasions. In the end, they will choose him by their own free will and according to their own convictions.

From the standpoint of substance, the debate examined at length the vision of the two candidates on how to revive Egypt’s economy, health and education. More importantly, it also dealt with the relationship between religion and the state. While Mousa spoke about Islamic values such as justice and equality as the basis of legislation, Abu Al Fotouh spoke about the implementation of Sharia that would assure national harmony and freedom of religion.

As for their positions towards Israel, that part of the debate was controversial, to say the least. Whereas Mousa referred to Israel as an adversary, Abu Al Fotouh regarded it as an enemy.

Naturally, it is important to assess these positions within the context of the election campaigns. So even though Abu Al Fotouh described Israel as an enemy, that does not mean he would prepare for war if elected. It is certain that the priorities of the next president will not be ideological. Instead, he will be preoccupied by the economic needs of the state and its political interests.

Mousa, 76, presents himself as the experienced statesman who will deliver stability in the midst of an uncertain economic climate. Having worked as foreign minister under Hosni Mubarak and been secretary-general of the Arab League, he would be the preferred choice of the ruling military council, the intelligence agencies and large sections of the Egyptian bureaucracy.

Indeed, sizeable sections of the population see in him a guardian of economic stability. On the other hand, many others view him as an extension of the defunct regime and, therefore, he contradicts the spirit of the people’s revolution.

Abu Al Fotouh, 62, is renowned for his opposition to the Anwar Sadat and Hosni Mubarak regimes, for which he was imprisoned. He presents himself as the candidate of the revolution, who is able to reach out to the youth and various political forces.

He promises not to take unilateral decisions, but instead work with a team of experts. This contrasts with Mousa, who appeared in the debate to be notably self-centred. It should be noted, though, that the latter has some Islamic credentials and enjoys reasonable support among the Salafists. In fact, key figures among the secularists, leftists and liberals have declared their support for him; a precedent not offered to any other. On this basis, Mousa could qualify for the second round.

The third candidate is Mohammad Mursi, 61, leader of the Freedom and Justice party and the Muslim Brotherhood’s candidate. The Brotherhood is, without doubt, the largest political force in Egypt. Although Mursi entered the race for the presidency late, the numbers that attended his rallies in provinces throughout Egypt were astounding. Mursi’s supporters argue that Egypt needs a leader who has a strong party backing that would secure the stability of the country; and that his links to the Brotherhood will ensure a synergy between the presidency and the parliament.

On the other hand, his opponents point out that the Brotherhood’s control of the presidency, the government and the parliament would alienate the other parties at a time when the country needs a broad national base.

Ultimately, Mousa may win more votes than any other candidate in the first round; but he is not expected to win in the second round. It is highly unlikely that those who vote for Abu Al Fotouh and Mursi in the first round will vote for Mousa in the second. Instead, the Islamists voters would unite behind a single candidate who is recognisably Islamist, whether he is Mursi or Abu Al Fotouh.

Thus, it appears the next president of Egypt would be an Islamist. That will ensure a break from the past. Moreover, it will safeguard the transition toward democracy. However, if Mousa were to be elected, the revolutionary forces would suffer a huge setback. Not only this, the army would continue to predominate in one form or another. That may embroil Egypt in disputes and divert it from the transition toward democracy.

Wadah Khanfar is a former director-general of Al Jazeera network.
Courtesy: Guardian News & Media Ltd

May 27, 2012
By:Arif Ansar

Tit-for-tat events have started to unfold in Pak-US relations, and if they are allowed to escalate unchecked, both nations will end up on the losing side. Since the Chicago stalemate, the US has restarted drone strikes and has curtailed Pakistan’s aid while the country has persisted in blocking Nato’s Afghan supply lines. At this juncture, third party intervention may be needed to salvage the relation.

Many think Turkey may be one of those countries that not only can play a role but also serve as an example. According to media reports, Pakistan’s invitation to the Nato summit came at the behest of Turkey. While the meetings were going on in Chicago, PM Erdogan was in Pakistan meeting with the nation’s civilian leadership. Several reasons have been mentioned for his visit at this critical time.

Firstly, PM Gilani wanted to demonstrate that despite the contempt ruling against him, foreign leaders do not consider the matter serious enough to not visit the country, or meet with him. Secondly, his visit showed that like Turkey, Pakistan aspires to democratic principles and civilian control of military. Thirdly, news in the media indicated Erdogan’s mission included friendly advice on the role of opposition.

However, the visit also dealt with other difficult issues. For example, the Turkish demand of an Israeli apology for the May 2010 peace flotilla incident is similar to Pakistan’s insistence on US admission of guilt for the Salala tragedy.

Consider the Turkish actions vis-à-vis Israel for not rendering an apology. According to Turkish media sources, the country prevented Israel from attending the Nato summit in Chicago, despite pressure from US and other European powers.

Additionally, Turkey has vetoed Israeli attempts to deepen its relations with Nato and to open an office in Brussels. Turkey’s foreign minister had earlier stated, “The army of a country which you call a partner killed our citizens upon a political order given by its administration. We do not call this kind of country a partner.”

On the other hand, there is also something to be learned from US-Turkey ties. The potential deal on drones between the two countries presents an interesting model for the resolution of drone issue between US and Pakistan i.e. if the trust deficit can be tackled.

The Turkish President Abdullah Gul met President Obama on the sidelines of the Chicago summit to discuss the supply of armed drones, which Turkey has wanted to fight Kurdish rebels. The US administration is trying to convince Congress to allow the sale of these drones to Turkey. One would think that with Turkey allowing the placement of radars for the Nato missiles defense system on its ground, at the expense of alienating Iran and Russia, this matter would have been a no brainer. Turkey’s policy on Syria, and earlier in case of Libya, is also closely aligned with NATO. However, Congress is likely to oppose the move due to Turkey’s tense relations with Israel.

The issue has been complicated by a recent article in The Wall Street Journal. The article revealed that American drones provided the original intelligence to Turkey that subsequently led to the death of 34 Kurdish smugglers. These smugglers were mistaken as the insurgents belonging to the outlawed Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK). The incident has caused an intense debate inside Turkey about the level of American involvement in Ankara’s fight against PKK.

US drones have supported Turkish military efforts since 2007, the time when the US established a Combined Intelligence Fusion Cell to jointly monitor live drone feeds. The cooperation was stepped up over the last year as US moved a squadron of Predators from a base in Iraq to Turkey’s Incirlik airbase.

Aside from friction with Israel and matters of trust, Turkey also has a tense relation with France. While Turkey and France have an important and lucrative trading relationship, estimated to be in the region of $14 billion, it has not been smooth sailing all along for the two nations. The latest souring of ties with regards the Armenian genocide bill is a dramatic shift, but one which was not without predecessor. Warning signs of a difficult time between the two countries first emerged from French President Nicolas Sarkozy’s strong objection to Turkey entering the European Union (EU), and building strong bonds with two nations with which Turkey is in conflict: Cyprus and Armenia.

Sarkozy’s opposition to the Turkish bid for EU membership is thought to stem from the fear that Turkey’s entry into the organisation would weaken French influence. There is also the question over how the largely Muslim country would fit into the EU, especially given the rise in Islamaphobia that has been seen in the last few years in many EU countries, not the least France.

Turkey is at somewhat of a crossroads, and while it is not as simple as choosing to look to the Middle East or the EU, the prospects in the Middle East (despite the turmoil) are perhaps better for Turkey to take advantage of. It is with this complete context that one needs to view the Turkish role and experience.

Even after being a staunch Nato ally, Turkey is still struggling to be accepted and trusted by the West. This does not present a remarkably optimistic picture for Pakistan at this point. And, at the same time, it raises serious questions for the West to ponder over.

The writer is the chief analyst for PoliTact (www.PoliTact.com and http:twitter.com/politact) and can be reached at aansar@politact.com
-Pakistan Today

May 30, 2012
Mahir Ali

It is not particularly surprising that thousands of Egyptians took the streets yet again at the weekend, in the wake of final tabulations from last week’s presidential election and the announcement that the run-off poll on June 16-17 would be a contest between a pair of conservatives, albeit of different stripes.

Front-runner Mohammed Morsi of the Freedom and Justice Party was the Muslim Brotherhood’s second-choice candidate, propelled into the position after Khairat Al Shater, a businessman with a little more charisma, was disqualified on the seemingly spurious basis of having faced politically motivated criminal charges under Hosni Mubarak’s regime. Morsi will face Ahmed Shafiq, who loyally served Mubarak as civil aviation minister for about a decade before being briefly elevated to the post of prime minister last year. The former air force general has been unrepentant about his past, and is now able to project himself as the only credible bulwark against an Islamist takeover, after the Brotherhood and the more extreme Salafists together obtained two-thirds of parliamentary seats in last year’s legislative elections.

It is widely assumed that Shafiq is decidedly the preferred candidate for the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (Scaf), which assumed power after a revolutionary upsurge early last year led to Mubarak’s ouster. However, the Brotherhood too has been remarkably conciliatory towards the armed forces, offering no indication that it would challenge military’s economic ascendancy.

Scaf is supposed to hand over power to whoever wins the run-off. Egypt does not, however, as yet have a new constitution, so the question of how much power the next president will have vis-a-vis parliament (and, perhaps more crucially, the army) remains unresolved.

Given that last week’s election was the first genuine contest of its kind in Egyptian history, what is one to read into the appalling turnout of 46 per cent? Apathy? Cynicism? Fear? A cocktail of all three?

A lack of acquaintance with the democratic process may have had something to do with it — in previous elections, after all, the overwhelming winner was predetermined. However, it did not require a great deal of political nous to realise that something different was afoot this time around. And even sceptics who suspected the outcome may still be manipulated surely ought to have considered giving democracy a chance.

After all, the roster of candidates may have been uninspiring, but the political spectrum it represented wasn’t exactly narrow. Elements of the old regime were in evidence not only in the shape of Shafiq but also the rather higher-profile Amr Moussa, a former foreign minister able to distance himself from the Mubarak legacy on account of the decade he spent as secretary-general of the Arab League.

There was even an alternative Islamist, Abdel Moneim Abul Fotouh, a former Muslim Brotherhood leader who appeared to be attracting a considerably wider range of interest than Morsi, with supporters who ranged from members of the left-wing intelligentsia (his political adviser, Rabab Al Mahdi, is described as a Marxist professor) and anti-Islamist Copts to Salafists.

Until a few weeks ago, Abul Fotouh and Moussa were considered the front-runners. In the event, they were both outpolled by Hamdeen Sabbahi of Al Karamah party, an independent Nasserist who polled more than 20 per cent of the vote. After unsuccessfully demanding a recount, he declared his party would boycott the run-off vote as it could support neither the Brotherhood nor remnants of Mubarak’s regime.

With its neoliberal economic agenda and ambivalence on a variety of other issues, the Brotherhood has been hinting that neither Scaf nor Washington has much to fear from its ascendancy. It is difficult not to empathise, meanwhile, with Al Ahram commentator Hani Shukrallah’s conclusion that: “Having stunned themselves and the world by staging a great revolution, at enormous sacrifice, many Egyptians felt they were back in square one, the very square from which their despised deposed president used to taunt them for 30 years: ‘It’s me or the Muslim Brotherhood’.”

That’s a very different square, no doubt, from Tahrir Square and all that it continues to symbolise. It would, however, be premature to abandon all hope. Uncertainties abound, in the region as much as in Egypt, and even the most disconsolate Egyptians must surely realise that they are at this point considerably better off than the Syrians — their partners long ago in the short-lived United Arab Republic.

They may also be inclined to wonder why some of the forces that were distraught at Mubarak’s removal are so keen to topple Bashar Al Assad’s government. It’s a monstrous regime, no doubt, but some of its opponents — including the local Muslim Brotherhood — have hardly distinguished themselves as great humanitarians, amid growing evidence that it may not have been Damascus alone that was responsible for the horrific bloodshed of the past few days.

Many seasons have come and gone since Tunisia kicked off the Arab Spring of 2011. The transition in Tunis was the smoothest. Libya arguably fared the worst, with a civil war supplemented by foreign intervention. The status quo has been sustained in Bahrain and the complexities compounded in Yemen. Smouldering Syria explodes every now and then, and Kofi Annan’s efforts to stave off an all-out conflagration seem doomed.

Egypt isn’t, by any stretch, the worst off. But what happens there perhaps matters the most. Egypt is also a reminder that a revolution isn’t an event but a process. To Egyptians depressed by the choice they face in the short-term, one could do worse than repeat American labour activist Joe Hill’s advice from nearly a century ago: ‘Don’t waste any time in mourning. Organise.’
Mahir Ali is a former assistant editor of Khaleej Times
Source:Khaleej Times

May 31, 2012
By Joseph A. Kechichian

The erudite Robert Fisk lamented in his latest Independent column that President Bashar Al Assad will get away with Al Houla because “the Middle East is littered with a hundred Al Houlas, their dead children piled among the statistics, with knives and ropes as well as guns among the murder weapons”.

This may indeed be the case, though making excuses for mass murder — no matter how politically convenient — indicates a lack of choice that, presumably, human beings have. Time will tell whether Al Houla will be relegated to our past even if few ought to stop grieving for the innocent souls.

At the height of what is a full-fledged civil war, fresh atrocities are revealed on a daily basis, and no matter how unpalatable the proposition may be, the majestic Syria of yesteryear is literally lost.

Beyond its hapless population, which is paying the ultimate price for its leaders’ shortsightedness, it may be fair to ask who lost Syria and how?

Admittedly, the greatest geo-political loser is Iran, whose strategic investments in the Levant concentrated on Damascus. Notwithstanding its non-Arab credentials, Tehran managed to abscond the single most valuable issue that mobilised the Arab nation during the past few decades — Palestine — asserting that its Muslim qualifications authorised it to defend the cause.

Against the weak Arab record on the matter, any Iranian argument carried the day, even if few doubted that revolutionary leaders would sacrifice Shiraz or Mashhad for Haifa or Jericho. Iranian leaders banked on Syria to act as a bridge towards a cause but failed to notice that Damascus was mired in internecine conflicts.

As the Baath regime withered, Tehran faced an existential dilemma, though it was powerless to salvage a moribund institution that turned against its own.

Israel also lost Syria and no matter how confused Israeli officials appear in public, with a few standing by the Baath regime while others are making preparations to welcome Alawite refugees, what stood out was their utter irrelevance. If Arab countries once factored in their calculations putative Israeli moves, few bother today, looking to Turkey instead.

Israeli leaders huff and puff about the Iranian bomb, accepting its inevitability, which means that their regional calculations will all need to be reassessed. A potential Islamist government in Damascus, perhaps coming on the heels of similar developments in Tunisia, Libya as well as Egypt, will mean that Israel’s might is now declining. Ironically, the ramshackle is occurring on the one border—Golan Heights—where Israel and Syria truly honoured a ceasefire, preferring to engage each other in Lebanon.

Paradoxically, Syria’s allies in Lebanon also lost, led by Hezbollah and its committed political allies. The latter assumed that the regime in Damascus was an unflinching rock that nothing would shudder. The ongoing uprising that literally shook existing arrangements was a rude awakening, one that threatened to spillover into Lebanon, though such an outcome further endangered Hezbollah’s hold on the Beirut government. A catch-22 dilemma emerged throughout Lebanon that exposed Sunni-Shiite tensions, distanced economically dependent classes from their challenged leaders, persuaded wealthy tourists to stay away and otherwise upset the fragile internal balance of power among various communities. Many, including among die-hard nationalist Shiite Hezbollah members, are now privately asking themselves whether saving the Baath regime in Damascus is worth all the trouble. Why should Lebanon, they seem to have concluded, pay the price of what is a lost cause?

Beyond regional actors, Washington and Moscow have also lost Damascus though both Barack Obama and Vladimir Putin may yet find a common cause to ease Bashar Al Assad out of power. Irrespective of their unbecoming offer to defuse the rebellion against the Baath regime by creating a golden parachute for the Syrian president (in a so-called Yemen option that saw Ali Abdullah Saleh relinquish power in Sana’a), Russia’s political credibility among Arabs now scrapes the bottom of the barrel, inches away from the US position. Simply stated, Moscow’s UN Security Council vetoes shocked alert decision-makers, many of whom concluded that Russia failed to factor in its calculations long-term socio-economic interests.

Arabs reluctantly accepted the Annan peace plan, which was championed by Russia and its Chinese acolyte, even if most were persuaded that neither the affable former UN secretary-general nor his plan stood the remotest chance. Mobilised Arab officials were equally wary of Washington’s bewildered responses to the entire Arab Spring phenomenon, caught as usual by surprise for misreading what actually occurred on the ground and, equally troubling, for uttering perplexing declarations. Obama called on Al Assad to step down several months ago, but conceded to the Medvedev/Putin duopoly that befuddled much more than it reassured.

To be sure, neither Syria nor any of the other Arab Spring states are the most important items on either Obama’s or Putin’s international agendas. Both men have more pressing concerns, the first to secure his reelection, and the second to steady himself in the exclusive club of leaders that pretend to govern. Still, both have lost Syria, as well as the rapidly evolving Arab Spring advances — yes advances — that changed the game of nations and that baffled regional and international actors alike.

Dr Joseph A. Kechichian is the author of the forthcoming Legal and Political Reforms in Saudi Arabia (Routledge, 2012).
Source: Gulf News

June 2, 2012
Mustafa Abdelhalim

Last week, Egyptians went to the polls to participate in the first presidential election since Hosni Mubarak’s downfall in February 2011. Going forward, the new president, who will be elected in the second phase of elections in June, should look to examples from other countries that have undergone successful democratic transitions.

When asked what leader outside their own country they most admired, a recent poll from the University of Maryland found that 63 per cent of Egyptians answered Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, indicating that Egyptians may be interested in learning from Turkey. Turkey can serve as a relevant model because it has successfully dealt with three key challenges facing Egypt – the relationship of the army to a civilian government, economic growth and fostering positive international relations.

In terms of the first of these issues, Egypt is currently struggling with what role the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF) should play in the new government, and how much power it should hold. While the situations of Egypt and Turkey are different, Turkey provides a useful model when it comes to checking the army’s power through the rule of law, rather than violence.

Turkey’s ability to curtail the army’s influence has generally been judged to be a success. The army in Turkey appointed itself the guardian of Turkish secularism and has ousted four governments since 1960 when military leaders said that the government was failing to uphold secular values.

However, when a plot was disclosed that army generals were attempting to topple current Prime Minister Erdogan’s government in 2008, everyone (including members of the army) was held accountable to the law. The police are investigating the case, detaining suspects, including army officials such as former Chief of General Staff General Ilker Baºbug, while the courts and Parliament monitor the process to ensure fairness.

Even in this time of transition, Egypt has demonstrated the importance of upholding the rule of law. The Administrative Court’s recent decision to suspend the newly formed constituent assembly because of the lack of diversity demonstrates that there are indeed checks and balances in Egypt’s system.

The country can build on this foundation going forward.

The second key challenge is the economy. Turkey’s Justice and Development Party (AKP), an Islamic political party, has managed to maintain power primarily through its economic policies, rather than religious ideology. Although the Reuters news agency calls it “Islamic-leaning” and media often focus on this aspect of its identity, AKP leaders insist that the party should be judged by policies and not ideology.

This approach has proved to be a recipe for economic development. Rather than focusing on creating an Islamic state – like the Al Nour party in Egypt, which calls for Islamic law to serve as the guiding principles for political, social and economic issues – AKP leaders’ main focus has been raising standards of living.

This interest is not altruistic, but based on practical political goals. The AKP is aware that people will only re-elect the party if it can prove its value. This decision will not be made based on religious arguments, but economic achievement. Turkey’s GDP grew nine per cent in 2010, suggestive of this model’s success.

Egypt, whose GDP increased by approximately one per cent in the past year, can adopt the same attitude. Some leaders, such as Muslim Brotherhood presidential candidate Khairat el-Shater, have made strides in this direction by emphasising the need to increase private investment in development. What is needed now is to move past rhetoric and implement such proposals.

When it comes to the third challenge, fostering positive international relations, Egypt can learn by following Turkey’s lead on “middle ground” policies. Turkey is a member of the Council of Europe, but is also a leading member of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference, evidence of its “middle ground” policy between Europe and the Middle East.

Egypt is well-situated to take similar actions. Geographically, Egypt’s Suez Canal links Africa and Asia, making it ideally situated for exports. Egypt has the potential workforce for manufacturing, as one of the world’s youngest countries with two-thirds of its population under 30. Just as Turkey exports appliances to Europe, Egypt has enormous potential to reach African and Middle Eastern markets.

Egypt and Turkey share many things in common, and it would benefit Egypt to take the best lessons from its neighbour’s success story, creating its own.

Mustafa Abdelhalim is award-winning journalist working for several newspapers and broadcasters such as Al-Ahram and the BBC

© Common Ground News Service

June 3, 2012
By Mohammad Alrumaihi

In less than two weeks, Egyptians will have a new president of what they call their second republic. But the political upheaval in the country and beyond will not be over at that time; it would have barley begun.

After 80 years in the political diaspora and prisons of the first republic, the Muslim Brotherhood will be in charge of Egypt, if what is widely expected happens: if Mohammad Mursi is elected as president. This would be the first time in history that the movement will have a majority in parliament and hold the presidency too.

The Muslim Brotherhood was formed in the late 1920s to revive Islamic glory, after the fall of the Ottoman Empire in the aftermath of First World War. The founder of the movement, Hassan Al Banna, was a school teacher.

He was a brilliant organiser, who built his organisation from scratch in the town of Ismailia situated on the west bank of the Suez Canal, which was the military headquarters of the British at the time. He possessed little knowledge of Fiqh (Islamic jurisprudence).

He borrowed some tactics of fascist organisations in Europe. Soon after, he was in trouble with Egyptian authorities under King Farouq, and later with the military officers led by Jamal Abdul Nasser, who came to power in a coup in 1952.

Since then the Muslim Brotherhood has played cat and mouse with the authorities in Egypt and beyond. The clash with the military ended in many Brotherhood members moving to Gulf countries, in many cases fleeing oppression at home.

At the same time, Gulf governments were eager to expand the education services. And many Egyptian Muslim Bothers with their new ideology of defending Islam found a safe haven, and spread their ideas of political Islam almost everywhere in the Gulf.

Many young Gulf students in the late 1940s knew about the movement, and some of them even met with Al Banna when they went to Egypt to study. Upon returning home they started preaching his ideology, that Islam was undermined by the western power and that Muslims have adopted western behaviour and will not be powerful until they go back to real Islam.

The movement in the Gulf started to have its own premises, organisation, and ran its own media units, especially a famous weekly magazine called Al Mojtama — The Society — which had the same name in Kuwait and UAE. In fact, the one published in Kuwait was distributed all over the Gulf and beyond, even as far as Algeria.

The movement in the Gulf got a shot in the arm when the Soviet Union invaded and occupied Afghanistan: this led to money flowing from the Gulf and people going to fight the Soviets. Their spokesmen where either Muslim Brotherhood members or individuals who had a connection to the movement.

At this stage the movement became strong, and spread over a large area in the Arab world. Its offshoots include Hamas and the Syrian branch of the Brotherhood. And all have personnel in Gulf states, and that allows expanding of organisation in the Gulf. Some members even managed to get into the Kuwaiti parliament since early 1980s and have become members of cabinet in certain Gulf states.

The Kuwaiti branch ran into difficulty when the larger branch of the Muslim Brotherhood took the side of Saddam Hussain when he invaded Kuwait. Hence, in order to save face with local people, the Kuwaiti branch cut its ties with the international organisation of the Brotherhood, and changed its name to Hadas — the Islamic democratic movement.

It continued to play a role in local politics. Some observers think that the Kuwait branch’s departure from the mother organisation was only cosmetic, meaning they still have some organisational links. In the other Gulf States, the Muslim Brotherhood is strong too. They are very active in schools and universities, and in the media as well.

In the aftermath of the Egyptian parliamentary elections, we have seen the success of the movement, as they bagged with their Salafist allies around 75 per cent of the seats. And if they have the Presidency in two weeks’ time, it would mean that they will possess the might of the Egyptian state. This will have an effect on Gulf society for two reasons.

First, we have learned from modern history that whatever happens in Egypt has a great impact on the rest of the Arab world, including the Gulf. Second, that there are organisational ties between the Muslim Brotherhood and its branches in the Gulf, as well as its allies in the Salafist movement.

In fact, the Salafists have a number of their leaders living and working in the Gulf, exactly like some of the spiritual leaders of Muslim Brothers.

Keeping that in mind, it’s clear that the ideological wave in Egypt today will reach the believers in Gulf states, either by strengthening the existing network or through widening them for greater political participation and distribution of wealth.

If we add the probability that the Libyan Muslim Brotherhood and its Tunisian branch will get join the political alignment across the region, we will soon see a pact between those governments spreading a new movement that is different in attitude but similar in kind to that tried by the Iranians. And this will increase the tension in the Gulf states internally.

Mohammad Alrumaihi is a professor of political sociology at Kuwait university.
source: Gulf News

June 4, 2012
Ibrahim Sharqieh

During a recent visit to Yemen, I was sitting in a cafe in Sana when we suddenly experienced a power outage.

I asked the waiter what happened, and he replied: “Saleh’s men keep attacking the main power plant in Mareb to disrupt life in Sana. Saleh is still working against the revolution. He won’t give up.” Regardless of the real causes of the outage, the waiter’s explanation reflected a general sense that the uprising against former president Ali Abdullah Saleh and his aides is far from over.

Officially, the uprising, which was inspired by the Arab Spring and led to hundreds of deaths, ended last February when the former vice president, Abed Rabbu Mansour Hadi, was installed as president. But many Yemenis do not believe that Saleh has entirely exited the political scene after 33 years of authoritarian rule over the poor, deeply divided country.

Some progress has been made under the new president. By and large, change and uprising in Yemen are proceeding on parallel tracks, and unless the international community provides Yemen with serious support these tracks may collide — with dire domestic and regional consequences.

Some Yemenis have blamed the opposition for signing the power transfer deal that removed Saleh from power without insisting on making his immunity conditional on his retirement from political activity. The terms of immunity allow Saleh to exercise politics in any capacity he wishes other than the presidency, while also completely shielding him from prosecution. Saleh still serves as president of his General People’s Congress party, which makes many Yemenis nervous about his plans. “He is like a ghost,” my waiter said. “You don’t see him but you certainly feel his presence.”

Young revolutionaries fear their uprising has not yet achieved its goals. Six months since the signing of the power transfer deal, there are still thousands of tents in Sana’s Change Square. Protesters continue pressing their demands as they have for months.

A revolutionary culture permeates the area, with political slogans, leaflets, music and youths discussing politics around the clock. Almost all political parties are represented at information centers in the square — liberals, Islamists, socialists and secularists. Even the Houthis, a militant rebel group that has fought six wars against the central government, still operate an information center tent called “Shabab Al-Somoud” (Steadfast Youth).

Preparing for what seems to be a long stay in Change Square, the Nobel Prize laureate Tawakkol Karman upgraded her tent to accommodate her family, a secretary and a space to meet visitors. The “Nobel Tent” makes a blunt statement: The Yemeni uprising is no longer a fully domestic affair but has a global dimension and will continue until the uprising’s objectives have been fully met.

Yemen’s transition, unlike others in the region, was met with unanimous support from the international community, which has positioned Hadi strongly to deal with the multiple challenges he faces. Indeed, President Barack Obama’s recent threat to freeze the assets of “those trying to disrupt the political transition” sent a clear message to Hadi’s rivals about the strong American stance on Yemen.

Hadi has used this robust international support to change the balance of power in his country. He succeeded in sidelining General Mohammed Saleh Al-Ahmar, the air force chief and Saleh’s half brother, as well as Tareq Saleh, a commander of a powerful brigade in Sana and Saleh’s nephew, significantly boosting the president’s power and popularity. The partnership between Hadi and the US administration undoubtedly extends to the fight against Al Qaeda. For Hadi, defeating the group is crucial for several reasons. He needs to distance himself from his predecessor by proving his sincerity about routing Al Qaeda. This will earn him the trust of the international community. Furthermore, winning the war against Al Qaeda will pave the way for restoring security and stability in Yemen.

Although these successes are important, they will not transform Yemen into a stable, functioning nation. It will take more than defeating Al Qaeda and sidelining Saleh’s allies for Hadi to win the hearts and minds of Yemenis.

Above all, Hadi must quickly deliver desperately needed services to the people. Yemen is on the verge of a humanitarian crisis, exacerbated by recent clashes, and aid must be delivered before it is too late. In my discussions with tribal members, “looming starvation” was mentioned several times.

In addition, power outages happen many times a day, complicating attempts at economic recovery and stalling efforts to resume normal daily life. Frustrated by the frequency of power outages, it is no surprise that the waiter I spoke to believes that Saleh’s men are behind these disruptions. Yemen’s problems can be solved, but the international aid community must step in immediately if the country is to stave off a looming disaster.

Ibrahim Sharqieh is a foreign policy fellow at the Brookings Institution and deputy director of the Brookings Doha Center

Source: Khaleej Times

June 4, 2012
By Saeed Qureshi
Exclusive Article

Insensitive and unmindful like a psychopath of the ongoing unflagging uprising and citizens’ beastly massacres, the Syrian President Bashar al-Assad exudes in public appearances a smile and a cheerful countenance that reflect as if all was fine in Syria.

The incumbent Syrian president is the son of that heatless predator who preyed upon his own dissident citizens and killed them without batting eyes. Mostly they were from Sunnis groups including the Muslim brotherhood. Perfectly fitting into the proverb “like father like son”, the incumbent Syrian tyrant is brazenly treading on the footprints of his fiendish father Hafiz Al Assad who was rightly nicknamed as the Butcher of Damascus.

With the mammoth liberation movement against the Bashar al-Assad’s repressive regime picking up momentum, the casualties at the hand of the security forces are correspondingly soaring. The latest spine- chilling orgy of blood carried out in the Houla city on May 25, makes one speechless and traumatized as to how callous the regime in Syria tends to be. According to the United Nations’ handout, some 108 people were killed including 49 children and 34 women.

An eye witness injured woman narrated the carnage in a video released by activists in these words “They entered our homes … men wearing fatigues, herding us like sheep in the room and started spraying bullets at us”

During his barbaric rule of 30 years, Hafiz al Assad ordered at least six brutal massacres in which several thousand Syrians were killed. In some of these massacres, the people were not only shot point blank but were buried under the debris when they were still alive. One of such gruesome massacres was carried out in Hama village where the entire population was massacred, their houses bulldozed and the ground leveled with dead or alive bodies underneath.

The Hama massacre occurred in February 1982, when the Syrian army, undertook a scorched- earth operation against the town of Hama in order to quell revolt by the Sunni Muslim community against the regime of al-Assad. Reportedly 10 thousand to 40 thousand citizens perished. In the 13 October 1990 massacre executed during the closing times of the Lebanese Civil War, hundreds of Lebanese soldiers were executed after they surrendered to the Syrian forces

The Syrian fierce uprising against the incumbent regime that began in January 2011 is fast turning into a civil war. According to a rough reckoning, thus far it has swallowed over 12000 human lives while around 35000 are reported to be injured or maimed. All the initiatives, efforts and appeals to the Syrian government to stop the use of unhindered violent means and heavy artillery and weaponry, has fallen on deaf ears.

A United Nations Security Council’s resolution to end the violence in Syria was torpedoed by a double veto of Russia and China on February 4, hours after the Syrian military launched a deadliest attack on the city of Homs.

The Arab League suspended Syria’s membership over the government’s response to the crisis, and sent an observer mission in December 2011 without any tangible progress. It failed to persuade the Syrian authorities for ending the escalating violence and appalling brutalities being indiscriminately inflicted on the demonstrators. Kofi Annan, the special envoy for the United Nations and the Arab League, was in Damascus trying to keep alive a peace plan under which Mr. Assad promised six weeks ago to end the violence. He as usual defied that pledge

The strong condemnation by United States, the European Union states and Gulf Cooperation Council states (GCC), had remained futile in impelling Bashar to desist from the bloodletting of Syrian people who want to change the dictatorial regime run by a minority religious section and bring a populist democratic government.

Besides imposing a surfeit of sanctions lately, the United States, Britain, France and at least five other major nations expelled senior Syrian diplomats that could lead to a similar action by other states that realize it was time to force the oppressive and betraying Alawite regime to initiate talks with the opposition groups for restoring peace and transfer of power.

But this time the situation presents drastically different scenario. The revolution is to say is part of the sweeping Arab spring that would not dissipate or relapse notwithstanding the temporary setbacks till the repressive tyrants merciless despots, and bloodsucking dynastic sovereigns are obliterated.

The regime in Syria is engaged in an insane, callous and frenzied witch-hunt of the agitators by attacking and besieging the cities wherever the anti-regime demonstrations take place. Yusef Khalil in his masterpiece article, “A Turning Point in Syria” published by socialist worker.org. tells us that “The Syrian military has used heavy weapons, tanks, bombs and artillery to destroy entire civilian neighborhoods…….. Tens of thousands have been detained or disappeared, and hundreds of thousands displaced”.

According to Yusef Khalil, “what began as mostly unarmed demonstrations has, in response to the intense government repression, turned to arms to defend the protests from the military and the regime’s thugs. with large demonstrations in every part of the country, and entire cities falling out of the regime’s control, only to be attacked and taken back by the armed forces with reckless slaughtering of those who come n their way.”

If the Syrian dynastic regime is under the illusion that finally it would be able to overpower the unrelenting countrywide upsurge then it should be taken for granted that that day would never dawn in beleaguered Syria. The overriding reason for such forecast is that the disaffected and brutally suppressed people of Syria never imagined that they could rebel against a callous tyrant in such a defiant manner. They would not lose this historic chance by backtracking from a revolutionary struggle.

The Alawite regime has been keeping itself in the power saddle by dint of terrorizing her own citizens for almost 42 years. The insurgency or liberation movement is like water which one finds way flows out. The distressed and oppressed Syrian people being killed and brutalized incessantly by regime would not sit back after huge sacrifices ranging from countless deaths to destruction of their houses and displacement from their own land.

There are two potent groups braced against the Syrian regime. One is the Free Syrian Army (FSA) backed by Turkey that is battling in the streets and markets of Syrian towns and cities against the Syrian regular army. It consists of independent groups and individual brigades that believe in the armed struggle as was done by the Libyan armed groups.

The second is the pro west Syrian National Council (SNC) set up by the Syrian exiles that supports the foreign intervention even armed as was done by the NATO in Libya to protect the Syrian people from the pogroms and mass killings by the Syrian army. This entity wants harsh sanctions againt the Bashar regime and its functionaries besides creation of no fly zones.

The Syrian revolution pits two regional powers against each other for achieving their coveted goals of leadership. Saudi Arabia and its protégé Qatar would want the Shia minority regime of Alawite to be dismantled and defeated via the Syrian armed groups and by the foreign interventions powers.

On the contrary Iran would not like its partner in faith and a close ally and neighbor to be destabilized and overthrown. If Alawite regime is removed like that of Libya then Iran’s influence in Arab world would considerably whittle down. The Lebanese based Hezbollah also harbors and supports the incumbent Syrian regime because of common faith and for showing their solidarity with a patronizing regime.

Although foreign support is indispensible in this historic movement, yet essentially it is neither the colliding powers trying to fish in the troubled Syrian waters nor the external invention that could bring the regime’s downfall.

It would be the people themselves most notably the working classes, the suffering downtrodden, the suppressed religious and ethnic groups, the farmers, the intellectuals and all those sections of society who would herald this colossal change. It is only the Syrian masses who would replace a dictatorial dynastic regime with a system of government where the power belongs to the people and not to a coterie of blood sucking, rapacious and diabolic usurpers.

Why don’t the isolated tyrants realize that they can no more hold on to their tyrannical regimes any longer in the present liberating times? The supreme sacrifices of the Syrian people for ending the reign of incessant terror let loose on them for decades would not go in vain.

If a gubernatorial change can come in Egypt with deliverance from a rogue, pharaoh like tyrant, it can as well be brought about in Syria no matter what the sacrifices of the people or the stakes of the foreign stake holders are. The Arab spring would eventually also make its enchanting advent in Syria with all its fragrance, charm, glory and magnificence and as a harbinger of the national liberation and the establishment of a popular government. That blessed day is not far off.

The writer is a senior journalist and a former diplomat.