March 29, 2012
By the Monitor’s Editorial Board

Muslims living in democracies of the West and Asia already know their practice of Islam can best flourish where religious freedom is protected and women’s rights are honored. Now two Muslim countries liberated from dictators in last year’s Arab Spring are trying to define their own line between mosque and state.

In Egypt and Tunisia, the Islamist parties that won postrevolution elections are leading efforts to write new constitutions. Their choices could reshape the Middle East if they decide that Islam must be compatible with democracy rather than the other way around.

On Monday, the leading Islamist party in Tunisia, Al Nahda, announced that sharia (Islamic law) should not be the source for all laws. It said the constitution should simply acknowledge that Islam is the state religion, as the old constitution did.

The party prefers to unite all Tunisians and set an example for other Arab states in transition. A woman, in fact, is heading up the panel to define rights and liberties.

Egypt, however, is home to the Muslim Brotherhood, once the modern source of radical Islamic ideas that inspired groups like Al Qaeda. While the Brotherhood has become pragmatic during six decades of military rule, it decided last week to use its majority in the new parliament to dominate the constitution-writing process. And it is also pushing for a candidate in the coming presidential election who has “an Islamic background.”

Still, much can happen in Egypt’s ongoing political flux between the Muslim Brotherhood, the military, and pro-democracy youth who led last year’s protests against Hosni Mubarak.

Most Egyptians, who are largely rural, care more about clean government and a growing economy than democracy. Any party or person who becomes president later this year will have a difficult time delivering on those hopes.

The possibility of failing to fix the economy restrains the Brotherhood from being out front in leading Egypt for now. And recent dissent within the group reveals a healthy clash of ideas over Islam’s role in defining a new identity for Egypt, where 10 percent of the population is Coptic Christian.

Both Tunisia and Egypt have two models in the region that illustrate Islam’s long and difficult encounter with Western ideas of freedom and plurality.

Since 1979, Iran’s ruling Muslim clerics have botched the country’s minimalist democracy, while in Turkey the ruling Islamic party has ruled since 2002 with mostly liberal policies.

In fact, Turkey, once the seat of the Islamic Ottoman caliphate, has praised the virtues of democratic secular rule to Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood. It has also scolded Iraq’s Shiite-led government for not easing tensions with minority Sunnis. And it has told Iran, Iraq, and Lebanon to raise their voices against the violence in Syria or else “remove the word ‘Islam’ from their names.”

It took centuries and many wars for Christians in Europe to come to terms with democracy. Muslims in the Middle East are on a faster track to reconcile their religion with representative government and rule of law. And they have plenty of models to help them see that democracy gives Islam its best protection from sectarian strife.
Source: Christian Science Monitor

May 2, 2012
By Graham E. Fuller

Islamist politics in the Middle East cracked wide open with the Arab awakening: Islamists have emerged on top in Tunisia, Libya, Iraq, and Egypt. Western publics, lulled by the sight of iPhones and other social media at work, assumed that the demonstrations, rebellions, and regime changes were all driven by Muslim wannabe Westerners and that Islamist politics were relics of the past.But when dictators started to fall, it shouldn’t have been any surprise that Islamists quickly came out on top. This wasn’t a conspiracy. Islamists have paid their dues many times over for decades as the only group with a clear regional identity, a vision, a courage, and a willingness to suffer the harsh responses of dictators.

OPINION: Political Islam is here to stay – US must accept and adjust

They spoke out, went to prison, and sometimes died. Brave doesn’t always mean correct, but it means they garnered the respect of the public. Western-style liberals couldn’t really fill up the main square on a good day, although the participation of a new generation of youth with idealism and drive is evidence of an exciting new generation of activists.

Islamists make Westerners nervous, sometimes with good reason. We have seen what the most fanatic and worst of them can do – 9/11, primitive Taliban forces, and backwards views toward women. But Islamists have also been driven by a Muslim nationalist zeal, fueled by hostility to past Western political domination and wars brought to their own lands.

Islamists were in a way lucky for a while. Excluded from the system, they could only deliver Islamist critiques but never had to shoulder the burden of office, the responsibility to make things work.

That has all changed. Islamists are being elected into office and will be assuming the daunting policy problems of their neglected societies. The voting public is excited at the change and will give them a grace period to start improving things. But that period will be limited. Islamists can’t go on winning elections on the basis of pious religious slogans or even anti-Westernism (assuming the West is no longer there with boots on the ground).

Islamists, too, will eventually be chucked out of office if they can’t deliver the goods. And they know it. They will have to make hard policy decisions on complex issues – or they too will soon lose their hard-acquired luster.

In the exhilarating new field of more open Middle Eastern politics, the once oppressed and cornered Islamist spectrum is now opening out, expanding into new space: liberal or conservative, pragmatic or rigid, cautious or bold, skilled or unskilled, politically savvy or not.

We see this spectrum in Tunisia and Egypt today: ultra-conservative Salafis, more moderate Muslim Brothers, a smaller segment of liberal Islamists – all in competition. What’s more, the field is not static. Islamists, now free to play, are evolving rapidly, gaining experience in the face of the hard political and policy decisions ahead of them.

The process has brought some heartening developments. Ultra-orthodox Salafis in Egypt have now surprisingly backed for president the most liberal Islamist candidate in the pack. But should we be surprised? Salafis, too, want to win elections, to back the candidate most likely to win.

Islamists, united by shared years in the dungeons, now differ with each other in the atmosphere of greater political freedom. They are not rejecting, but playing in, the political game. If a pious, well-meaning but isolated bearded sheikh can’t play in the political arena and manage the country, Islamists don’t want to go down with the ideological ship.

In Turkey 10 years ago, a secularized public voted for a party with Islamist roots, the ruling Justice and Development Party, not because it was pious but because it proved it could run municipalities, and it went on to major successes at the national level. It wasn’t about Islam, it was about the economy, services, smart politics. And it has prospered now for over a decade to become a model of what an Islamist party can become.

There are smart and stupid Islamists, competent and incompetent, popular and unpopular. Some will come to office and quickly flail and fail; others will demonstrate vision and management skills. Public demand and expectations will soon sort them out.

Above all, the West must allow these processes to unfold unhindered inside each country. Past Western support to Middle East dictators to “keep the lid on” have cost the West dearly, stirred up deep hostility against it, and have severely retarded the political learning curve of Middle East societies. Will some of them prove failures? For sure.

As the spectrum of Islamist politics widens, there will be periods of chaos, learning, and uncertainty. Look at the excesses of numerous Western countries during the 20th century – Spain, Portugal, Germany, Italy, Russia, Greece, or Japan – and the massive institutional corruption that characterizes so much of Western politics today.

Muslim political behavior in the end is just like that of other groups of people: similar hopes and aspirations, similar angers against oppression, similar hatred of invaders, similar resistance to hegemonic powers. There are no mysteries here. The daily tumultuous unfolding of events shows that Muslim politics are slowly crawling back on the road from the frozen tundra of the autocrats.

Graham E. Fuller is the former vice chairman of the National Intelligence Council at the CIA; his most recent book is “A World Without Islam.”
Source: Christian Science Monitor

Sultan Sooud Al Qassemi



The Arab world has lately been experiencing monumental changes including the realignment of political alliances, but one possible long-term outcome of the Arab uprisings may be a game of musical chairs involving the Arab monarchies, republics and Western powers.

By the end of the next decade it is not unreasonable to predict a stronger relationship between certain Arab republics and the West than that which existed between Arab monarchies and the West over the past few decades.

The politically stagnant Arab monarchies are also precipitating this possible realignment as they enact increasingly restrictive political and social laws. Kuwait's parliament, for instance, has recently passed a law that imposes the death penalty on anyone who insults God, Prophet Mohammed or any of his wives on social media. This regression is taking place in a country whose half a century old constitution is probably the most advanced in the Arab world and guaranteed freedom of speech (Article 36) as early as the 1960s.
The UAE, Jordan, Saudi and Morocco have also seen a stringent clampdown on social media expression, with each imposing lengthy prison sentences on anyone seen breaking vague and loosely defined boundaries, including spreading rumours or insulting the monarch. Although the Islamist governments in the Arab republics may attempt to impose restrictions on freedom of speech under the guise of preventing religious blasphemy, such restrictions will be challenged by extremely active civil society movements.
Contrary to the Arab monarchies, the republican regime restrictions on freedom of expression are unlikely to include criticising political figures.

The reliance of Arab monarchies on the West is vital for perpetuating the status quo, especially in the absence of popular participation in high levels of decision making. There have been many examples of Arab monarchies threatening to sever ties with the US, even in recent months, which ultimately have turned out to be mere exercises in sabre rattling.
Presently, the outwardly conservative Islamist parties that are coming to power in the region appear to be more politically liberal than the Arab monarchies. They are expected to allow some sort of a rotation of power, independent courts and freedom of assembly in their new constitutions, even though the Arab monarchies that perpetually delays serious reforms seem to have survived the Arab uprisings. As the Arab republics enter the post-uprisings era Western powers may slowly adjust their foreign policies and move closer towards some Arab republics that are more aligned with the Western political model. It would therefore be advisable for Gulf States to start the long delayed political, social and media reforms that they lack while they still enjoy varying degrees of popularity.

This geo-strategic realignment is not improbable. After all, not all Arab monarchies are wealthy, and not all Arab republics are poor. Libya, Algeria and Iraq have considerable mineral resources. Should they find their way beyond their current political impasse, they may challenge the Arab monarchies dominant role in the purchase of US and European weapons and military equipment. In ten years' time Libyan oil production is expected to surpass that of the UAE and Kuwait while Iraq's continued oil discoveries may lead it to challenge Saudi Arabia's current role as the world's "swing producer" of oil. In 2006 gas-rich Algeria announced a massive purchase worth $7.5bn of Russia arms that undoubtedly attracted the attention of Western arms producers and governments.

Couple that with what is expected to be significantly higher levels of freedom of expression in Arab republics, a functioning parliament, freedom of assembly, some sort of rotation of power and perhaps a strong desire to strengthen ties with the West and this scenario appears more likely. Relations with Arab republics will be, to borrow from Prince Turki's lingo, less "toxic" to many Western powers than those with the Arab monarchies that do not tolerate many of the aforementioned freedoms. Case in point: last March a Swedish defence minister had to resign over mere allegations that his country is helping the Saudi government build a weapons factory.

If Arab republics follow similar foreign policies to those of their monarchical counterparts while maintaining at least a minimum level of political freedom within their nations, it will be tricky for Western powers to treat both sets of countries with the same level of "friendship". Implementing urgent and serious political reform in the Arab monarchies to maintain strategic ties with the West is the right thing, even if it is being done for the wrong reasons.

-cuttingedge

May 4, 2012
Itamar Rabinovich

The failure of the Obama administration, its Western allies, and several Middle East regional powers to take bolder action to stop the carnage in Syria is often explained by their fear of anarchy. Given the Syrian opposition’s manifest ineffectiveness and disunity, so the argument goes, President Bashar Al Assad’s fall, when it finally comes, will incite civil war, massacres, and chaos, which is likely to spill over Syria’s borders, further destabilising weak neighbors like Iraq and Lebanon, and leading, perhaps, to a regional crisis.

What is actually happening in Syria refutes this argument. In fact, the lingering crisis is corroding the fabric of Syrian society and government. Anarchy is setting in now: it is preceding – and precipitating – the regime’s eventual fall.

The United States and others are substituting high rhetoric and symbolic punitive action for real action on Syria. Sanctions on those involved in electronic warfare against the opposition’s social media are not the answer to the shelling of civilian neighbourhoods in Homs and Deraa.

For several months, Russian and Chinese obstruction in the United Nations Security Council was both a real obstacle to more effective sanctions and a convenient veil for inaction. More recently, former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan’s mission on behalf of the UN and the Arab League has come to play a similar role.

Annan prepared a six-point plan for ending the violence and launching political negotiations. He dispatched a group of monitors to Syria in order to supervise the plan’s implementation, and the UN is about to beef up that mission. But, predictably, the Annan plan is not working, as Annan himself, in a report to a closed-door session of the Security Council on April 25, came close to admitting.

Annan did not proclaim failure, but he did describe the situation in Syria as “bleak.” Clearly, the Annan mission gave the regime some breathing space and created a temporary illusion of political and diplomatic progress. But, according to reports too numerous and too credible to discount, Assad’s regime (and to some extent his opponents) has not complied with the plan after signing on to it: troops were withdrawn from urban areas prior to inspection and returned when the monitors left. Whole neighbourhoods and individuals were brutally punished for complaining to or cooperating with the monitors.

But the breathing space provided to the regime does not offer it salvation. At first sight, the regime appears to be almost intact. The army and the security apparatus remain loyal, the cabinet has suffered few defections, and the key population centers of Damascus and Aleppo have not joined the rebellion.

But, in the country as a whole, government is collapsing. Whole areas are now beyond its control, public services are unavailable, and the economy is in free fall.

Assad’s fall does not yet seem imminent, but it has become inevitable. The regime has lost all legitimacy, and its effectiveness is weakening. When it finally crumbles, the powerful state built by Bashar’s father, Hafez Al Assad, will hardly exist.

A cliché has been heard throughout the Syrian crisis: “Syria is not Libya.” But another analogy may be more suitable. Syria may well become a second Iraq, not by design but as an unintended consequence of current policy.

The American occupiers of Iraq, through their policy of “de-Baathification,” left Iraq without an army or a government, which proved to be fertile ground for insurgents, Al Qaeda, and violent groups. In Syria, the ground is being prepared for a similar outcome, with a growing number of radicals crossing into Syria and joining the opposition.

In this context, it is important to appreciate the difference between the “political” opposition and the local opposition groups waging the fight against the regime on the ground. Groups like the Syrian National Council are loose associations of individuals and groups, many of them outside Syria.

These are the groups criticised by the Obama administration and others for their failure to present a united front, formulate a credible agenda, or be seen as a viable alternative to the current regime. But these groups have limited influence over the local opposition groups inside Syria, which are equally diverse and divided.

It is among these groups that radical Islamists have gained a foothold. Fear of another Islamist takeover is a second main argument against toppling Assad, but the longer he stays in power, the greater the gains made by Islamists on the ground.

The Obama administration, focused on the November presidential election, is not interested in having to deal with a major crisis in Syria in the coming months, and is preoccupied with the risk of being drawn into another military entanglement. Other actors, too, seem to prefer the apparently limited current crisis to the unknown alternatives.

But the compelling moral case for a humanitarian intervention is increasingly being reinforced by sound raisons d’état. Furthermore, military or semi-military intervention is not the only option on the table. As the sanctions imposed on Iran outside the Security Council clearly show, effective action can be taken to tilt the balance and end the deadly stalemate in Syria. The current preference for inaction, while perhaps understandable, threatens to lead to precisely the outcomes that its advocates want to avoid.
Itamar Rabinovich is currently based at New York University and the Brookings Institution

© Project Syndicate

May 7, 2012
By Tanvir Ahmad Khan

Some recent developments in the Gulf region, which is of immense geostrategic importance for Pakistan, deserve to be studied more closely in Pakistan than is being done. Pakistan has traditionally been a friend of Iran and bilateral relations are on an upward trajectory after a somewhat chequered patch. Pakistan routinely describes its relations with the GCC countries as “an essential pillar” of its foreign policy. The six member states of the GCC have achieved phenomenal progress in the last two decades and represent a major focal point of international trade and transit services. They possess crude oil reserves of more than 478 billion barrels and natural gas reserves of over 29,323 billion cubic metres. This unprecedented economic power alone provides a sufficient rationale for seeking a strategic partnership with them though, for Pakistan; there are much deeper reasons for doing so. In recent years, there has been a polarised debate about Afghanistan providing strategic depth to Pakistan. In reality, under truly stressed conditions, it is the region comprising Iran and the Arab states of the GCC that has been a zone of relief for Pakistan. It is not difficult to understand the reasons for this. Pakistan’s Makran coast is an extension of the Gulf. Its land mass, particularly its two trans-Indus provinces bordering Iran and Afghanistan, figured also in the rise and fall of great empires in Western Asia.

The change that Pakistan’s diplomacy should be particularly sensitive to is in the tone and tenor in which issues between the Arab states of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) and Iran are being articulated. There has been a tacit understanding since the Iranian Revolution that both sides would endeavour to avoid the semantics of hostility. The Arab neighbours have been wary of Iran projecting power and influence, including that of its own revolutionary precepts in the region; on its part, Iran has been apprehensive of its Arab neighbours signing on to the US-led Western project to isolate Iran and bring about a regime change there. Be it as it may, there were always efforts to ensure that misperceptions are contained if not allayed. In Iran, the era of Khatami’s presidency was notable for promoting an entente with the Arab neighbours of the Gulf. The recent spat over the tiny Abu Musa island (area 10 square kilometres; population 2,000) seems to be emblematic of a deeper crisis than the known contention between Iran and the UAE over Abu Musa, and the even smaller islands of Greater and Lesser Tunbs. Iran’s preoccupation with the ever-increasing tightening of the siege around it and with incrementally stringent economic sanctions imposed upon it is understood. But what was the present and precipitous reason for Iran to dispatch first President Ahmadenejad and then a parliamentary delegation to Abu Musa in April this year is not clear. Media projection of both the visits in Iran points to perceived threats to Iran’s territorial integrity and sovereignty.

Where Arab and Iranian diplomacy would, however, be tested much more severely is in promoting a better perception of the moves towards greater integration of the GCC countries. A summit being held in Riyadh soon would probably see a formal initiative by Saudi Arabia to work towards a “Union” through a “federal format”. Saudi Arabia’s leading statesman Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal has recently stressed the need for it to meet “existing and coming challenges”. There is some speculation that its cornerstone may be a bilateral union between Saudi Arabia and Bahrain. The danger lies in Iran interpreting it too narrowly as a Western design to create a hostile Arab bloc. The Arab fear of Iranian “hegemony” may well be a reason but there are several other purposes intrinsic to the peace and prosperity of the GCC states that provide a powerful dynamic for closer integration. These reasons would have to be explained and believed.

In better times, Pakistan could have played its traditional role of bridging occasional differences between Iran and the GCC states. Its Foreign Office has the capability to craft such assistance but lacks the confidence to embark upon it. The political leadership does not even aspire to innovative enterprises in the Islamic world; it is exhausted by a botched war against terrorism and, even more significantly, by the inability to work out a sustainable relationship with the United States. One can only hope that it is mindful of the negative fall-out on Pakistan of deterioration of Iran-Arab relations.

-The Express Tribune

May 14, 2012
By Abdullah Al Shayji

A year and a half after the outbreak of the most remarkable transformational movements in the Arab world, mainly in its republics, it is time to make an assessment of the progress so far and the impediments and challenges facing the transformational movements. For starters, these movements are neither revolutions nor a ‘spring’. For the lack of a more catchy description, I call it the Arab uprisings against decades of oppression, authoritarian rule and marginalisation of the masses. These movements have been started by the emboldened masses and organised by intrepid youth; empowered by the soft power of technological advances and social media in a struggle for dignity, justice, accountability and freedom.

2011 was a turning point and will go down as the epic transformational year in Arab politics. It ushered in fundamental and monumental changes. Provided these uprisings come to fruition without adverse and unintended consequences that could degenerate these movements into a winter of discontent. The odds are stacked against such endeavours; if history and past experiences are used as a yardstick. But still, what lies ahead in terms of achieving the intended objectives is formidable and challenging.

2011 has witnessed the toppling and weakening of the most entrenched and oppressive regimes in many Arab republics. These movements have been compared with what happened in Europe in 1848 and 1989.

The major question is will these unique Arab uprisings be the democratic “fourth wave” if we want to use the late Samuel Huntington’s jargon, who spoke of three previous democratic waves that swept the world in the past few decades but failed to impact the Arab world? What is ironic about this wave is the flourishing of these movements in the Arab world, while the rest of the world has been experiencing a lull and slowing down of what Huntington had labelled “the Third Wave”.

The inexorable march of democracy in the Arab world disproved the old argument that Arab regimes and masses are immune and shielded from the democratic waves. The Arab awakenings for the first time in generations made Arabs believe in themselves and their power of change. For the first time in a millennium Arabs have become an inspirational force not only for themselves but also for the rest of the world — from Russians to Chinese and from “Occupy Wall Street” movement to Malaysia and Myanmar’s opposition. That is the new Arab soft power.

Shifting landscape

What is alarming thus far, in these transformational movements in Arab republics like Egypt, Libya, Tunisia and Yemen, as Lucan Way has argued in his piece Comparing Arab Revolts: The Lesson of 1989, is “there is scant reason to think that new leaders will have an easier time solving the problems of corruption, inflation, and unemployment that helped to spark the protests … As in much of the former Soviet Union, democracy is likely to be seen by many as synonymous with chaos.” A sign of the time is the unfolding shift in the Arab landscape. Major entrenched, authoritarian Arab regimes have been toppled — Zine Al Abidine Bin Ali in Tunisia, Hosni Mubarak in Egypt, Muammar Gaddafi in Libya and Ali Abdullah Saleh in Yemen. Bashar Al Assad’s regime in Syria has been rattled by the uprising. But there is a lingering fear, notwithstanding these remarkable achievements of the Arab uprisings, that these changes in the Arab world could ultimately produce new authoritarian regimes in the future or lead to unintended consequences.

From what has unfolded in Egypt, Libya, and Yemen and more worryingly in Syria, one has to ask where these uprisings are taking these countries and societies. Tunisia was the exception. Thomas L. Friedman argued convincingly in his New York Times column, “There be Dragon: Tough Second Year for the Arab Spring”: “… one has to conclude that the prospects for stable transitions to democracy anytime soon are dimming. It is too early to give up hope, but it is not too early to start worrying.”

The real challenge for these states undergoing fundamental changes is the fear of failure, derailing of the revolutionary movements and replacing of order by chaos. At the geo-strategic level, there is fear that these sweeping changes in many Arab countries could have unintended consequences. These sweeping changes could open traditional sectarian and tribal fault lines and transform regional and international rivalries and even spark a kind of cold war as we are witnessing in the course of the Syrian uprising. It is being played out between the West on one side and Russia and China on the other. And through the alliance between the GCC states and Turkey on one hand, and Iran and its proxies, mainly Iraq and Hezbollah, on the other hand.

Moreover, the huge wins by the Islamists who have emerged as the leading political and social force from Morocco to Kuwait is pushing the region towards a clear showdown. It is pitting a resurgent Sunni Islamic movement augmented by ambitious Sunni Turkey and a weakened Shiite Islamic crescent led by Iran and its proxies in the region. Another fault line that is emerging is the tribal infighting in Libya and Yemen.

These dangerous sectarian alignments over Syria and other fault lines are heightening tensions.

The consequences of these developments could cast a shadow over the region. Some Arab writers and analysts have recently “warned of a possibility of a sectarian war in the region …” If that comes to pass, it could reverse the gains made by these uprisings and push the region into treacherous terrain and uncharted territory, where no one will come out winner.

Professor Abdullah Al Shayji is the Chairman of the Political Science Department, Kuwait University. You can follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/docshayji
Source: Gulf News

May 16, 2012
Mahboob A. Khawaja, PhD
Exclusive Article

“It is highly probable that but for the Arabs modern European civilization would never have arisen at all; it is absolutely certain that but for them, it would not have assumed that character which has enabled it to transcend all previous phases of evolution. For although there is not a single aspect of European growth in which the decisive influence of Islamic culture is not traceable, nowhere is it so clear and momentous as in the genesis of that power which constitutes the paramount distinctive force of the modern world and the supreme source of its victory-natural science and the scientific spirit.”
Robert Briffault (The Making of Humanity, Cambridge University, UK).

Future is not something that happens out of the nowhere but visionary and proactive thinkers, intellectuals and those responsible and equipped with leadership assets create it to serve the interests of the people. For eight hundred years, the longest period in any known civilizations, the Arab civilization flourished in Al-Andalusia – Spain and enriched the dark-aged European world with knowledge, Renaissance and Industrial Revolution. The Divine knowledge of Islam spirited the desert born simple Arabs to pursue Islam as a movement of life and to influence the world for the evolution of an Islamic civilization while the Europeans lived in barbarianism, Muslims were the most creative, progressive and successful people on earth. Numerous Christian authors describe the 8th – 16th century Muslims in Al-Andulus (Spain), as most tolerant, knowledgeable and pioneer of scientifically advanced civilization that facilitated European Renaissance and Industrial Revolution. One factor among the many, distinctively noted by reputable Christian authors is that when they describe the excellence of Muslim civilization and its achievements, it is referred to as “people of the Quranic Generation.” Today, most of the Arab leaders avoid using the concept of the “Quranic Generation” – Muslim Ummah, and prefer to call themselves – an “Arab Ummah” – negating the intellectual magnificence and glorious contributions of the Islamic civilization.
What went wrong with the Arab pioneers of the Islamic civilization across the European continent? Among many of the reasons, one may cite few important ones:
1. Change in Islamic Thinking: absence of a proactive vision for the humanity as chosen people for the good of humanity.
2. Conscious neglect of the universal mission of Islam and resulting discard of Islamic movement across the globe.
3. Non-conformance to the principles of Islamic movement for change, development and human success.
4. Systematic decadence in intellectual, moral and political leadership.
5. Dismantling of Islamic institutions for the development of One Ummah, and to avoid the role of reasoning and accountability.
6. Increasing adaptability to western thinking, behaviors, educational system and social norms that drained out the Islamic THINKING for unity, creativity and movement.
7. Conspiracy “Fitna” of the transitory economic prosperity – discovery of the oil and aftermath of the oil export revenues being used to propagate “modernity”.
8. Incurable illusions of the neo-colonialist elite that oil revenues are forever their exclusive property.

9. Overwhelming materialism and consumerism negating spiritualism: training of body desperately needed training of Faith (Eman) and a committed mind.
Leadership in Muslim societies is occupied by those who have no educational upbringing or interest in living Islam and lead nobody, mostly seen as being ignorant, corrupt, and subservient to the neo-colonialism and committed to secularism as a system of life.
The Western strategic elite justify wars against the Muslim world as dating back to the Crusades. They know through patronage that Muslims have no leader like Sultan Salahuddin Ayoubi to challenge the Christian Crusaders and defeat them. European imperialism viewed Islamic civilization as an unacceptable entity to their goal of global domination and feared Islamic movement as a force with considerable challenge. In scientific discoveries, technology development, educational advancement and political emancipation, European colonial masters drifted the Muslim masses to a subhuman level below the pets. A former Arab and presently Canadian educated journalist contend that Arabs love dog and entitles his recent article “Arabs and dog”. One wonders is it an accumulated disgust or considered failure of the contemporary Arab leadership? Generation after generation, Muslims have been defeated and submerged into other entities or punished by the Western masters. So-called liberal democracy had no listing of Muslim as suitable creatures for progressive role-play in international community. Humanity in the West shrinked from intelligence to stupidity, whereas, Charles Darwin (Origin of the Species), was uplifted and honored, man (“Insaan”- human being) was degraded from all the entries of making a human civilization. Whereas, Islam focused on man (“insaan”) as the primary aim of comprehensive development.

Pioneers of scientifically progressive civilization, those Arabs and other Muslims became prisoners of foreign ideas – from freedom to human exploitation, all affixed on paper – phenomenon of exalted humanity – Al-Hambra palace to Taj Mahal, all transformed into digits and numbers to become an abstract reference in tourist guide, interpretive history full of material civilization and nothing else. The folly of deliberate aim of the pedagogy to conceal and distort the entire moral and spiritual progressive evolution of the mankind; left to be interpreted in questionable terminology. While arrogance and stupidity rules, true knowledge and divine wisdom live in denials.
Most Western mythologist would prefer silence when their interests and hegemonic goals come into intellectual and political conflicts with the oil producing Arab world. Islam and its followers believe in change as a precept of the faith. Since “Islamic terrorism” phenomenon has emerged as a new data in American dictated global propaganda vocabulary and pre-conceived graphics of the Muslim images, little tangible and constrictive change can be imagined except resulting in clear failure of the Muslim leadership, from intellectual sphere to practically all value oriented domains. The political language of progress is distortion of reality, supremacy of American technology-based culture, capitalism and ultimate integration of Muslim countries into the fold of American – Zionist dominated economic block. The World Bank and IMF are the true rulers of the global politics. America controls all.

Arab leaders dream normalcy that Saddam Hussein is no longer around them and was hanged by the Americans on video. American first colonial occupation of Iraq pleases the Zionist strategists in short and long terms success: availability of cheap Arab oil, fresh water, access to lands, immediate trade links and political recognition, open body culture of the west, and diminishing role of the Islamic values across the board. American and specially hired Brits – former PM and currently a candidate for war crimes against humanity, Tony Blair’s war protagonists do believe that it was a real war fought against Saddam Hussein (their former faithful client), and it ended up in American victory and success even though the WMD hoax was a staged drama nothing other than a planned deception and treachery to the collective conscience of humanity that demonstrated strong opposition against the American planned war.

The Western strategic planners have programmed the Arab elite to play a robotic role in real world human affairs. Incomparable to the Western higher standard of living as are the newly erected sky-hi towers, putting-up splendid fantasy towns on earth-filled sea resorts, shopping malls, race tracks and night clubs are the attractions of modern Arabian life, the expos of oil rich economies. For decades, the Arabs leaders have been doing this to please the Masters. Arab leaders curtail political activism in the citizenry and forged national positions in-between when principles of Islamic justice, honor and valor warranted a bold stand. They love Anglo-Saxon beauty and salute the blond soul and body in totality. Western masters did not train the Arab armies to fight for any public cause. The mission of Arab armies is not the defense of Islam, they are solely meant to guard the palaces, lock up the intellectuals arguing for change and reformation of political governance, and open fire on the agitating masses. The Western materialistic development formula flourishes throughout the Arab oil-exporting culture whereas “Man” (“Insaan”) has been excluded in the planning and development scheme of priorities. The Arab masses painfully strive for intellectual leadership sense of security and futuristic safety and human growth.
What is next in the conflict making and conflicts keeping domain? Nobody can predict in an unpredictable and fearful American dominated militarism era. The Arab culture and civilization is in decay and fast being replaced by the illusion of a modernity, borrowed prosperity of “big thinking” without moral and intellectual substance to live or flourish in the Arab traditional culture. Secularist Arabs rulers love Machiavellian image than being conformists to Islamic values. They live in a self-perpetuated conflict situation only to support America, no matter what happens. American leaders have declared a war against Islam, but not against Muslims. American Intelligence Networks claim all Muslim leaders are friends whereas; they view Islam as an enemy. They believe that Islam belongs to history; only American culture is living force for prosperity. To humiliate the already victimized half living bodies of Palestinians, American neo-cons have offered a “roadmap” for peace in Palestine. It is a map that has no road, and illusion of a road that goes nowhere. Arabs leaders have missed many opportunities to show courage and conviction in history and appear fearful to face the mirror, but subscribe to the bandmaster’s tune being played again to appease the American-Israeli interest lobby in Washington. What futuristic culture would the young Arab generations inherit from the contemporary authoritarian leadership? Nobody wants to care about it while the America run wars are raging across the Muslim world and important celebrities are too busy to THINK! The deprived Arab masses are kept happy with the illusion of fake petro-dollars prosperity and that business is as usual. Not so, realistically if you see the real world, Arab rulers are operating from a position of extreme weakness, not of strength to influence the outcome of political conflicts and particularly the Palestine problem. They NEED UNITY in their ranks and it does not seem to be forthcoming as nobody is aspiring to think of it. They desperately NEED educated, intelligent and proactive policy makers in global security, peace and conflict management, whereas, they have none and mostly rely on obsolete foreign opinions and experts. The influential Arab rulers are not listening to the VOICES of REASON and educated and innovative proactive visions of intellectual Muslim scholars. For sixty years, they have been a complete failure and not willing to change their thinking outlook. If the future is to be visualized as promising, the current Arabian leaders MUST listen and learn from the educated Muslims. But the Arab leaders continue to live in PALACES, not with PEOPLE.
The West exploits the oil producing Arab nations under varied perceptions and political images. They view Arabs as backward people entangled in tribalism and not up to the value indicators of their standard of modernity. The Arabs got the economic prosperity without working for it. The West knows well that Arabs are often emotional and disunited lacking intellectual foresights and persuasive political activism in global affairs. The contemporary Arab leaders operate from a position of weakness and not of strength in global political arena. Yes, Arabs lack proactive leadership but they are rich in human values, culture and civilization. What is needed is to straighten out the Western policy makers with moral and intellectual challenge, not to take the Arabs for granted as John Perkins (Confession of an Economic Hitman) describes ‘to milk the cows until sunset.’ If the contemporary Arab leaders wanted to change the direction of their outlook and were good listeners and learners to educated Muslims and intellectuals, they could articulate moral and political challenges to America and Israel, and the political games and outcomes will be different and favorable to the Arabs. American and Israeli politicians do respond to challenges. It is the leadership art to challenge that Arabs failed to perceive in creative politics.
Some of the Arabs leaders celebrate the American military success in Iraq, Afghanistan and across the Middle East but prey at their own people under the disguise of terrorism to dispel any sign of public resentment against the American-British intransigence and aggression in Iraq and Afghanistan. So far an estimated 3 millions civilians have been killed in Iraq war and millions of habitats have been destroyed in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Even the paper-based abstract Arab League and OIC could not dare to name America and Britain as the aggressors in Iraq and Afghanistan; as they describe them “men in uniforms.” They pretend to be moderate. Deception and treachery knows no bound.

Most of the oil producing Arab states are governed by authoritarian rulers who are allied to the Western oil importing nations and in return support these tribal chiefs with arms, ammunition and secret police networks to keep the young Arab new thinking and aspirations for change under strict check of the brutality of the military and secret police operatives. But people are determined to break the solid barriers of “fear” and cruelty and make ways for change as it is happening in Syria, Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, Yemen and other parts of the Middle East. The Western policy planners never imagined that the Arab world and its people could rise against their installed military dictators and ruthless rulers and create a new world of change and people-oriented governance based on the rights and dignity of common citizens. Western politician used to fill the blanks and claim to advance human rights and democracy in the Arab world but they were all lies and political deceptions for convenient business deals and oil trading. When there was no oil, the Arab people were the most enlightened and peaceful and advanced in knowledge and global co-existence. It is probable that most of the Arab dictators will fall from authoritarian rule and run away taking their stolen wealth to the Western world. The prosperity bubble is fast becoming to an end but the end appears dreadful and disastrous and has ruin all the sectors of the Arab societies. The armed forces who were supposed to protect and defend the people are actively engaged to destroy their lives, bomb the habitats under false accusations of terrorism against the state, and to keep the military dictators in power. The Western world is watching and waiting to see when would the Arab saga will come to a close chapter so that they could move-in to take over the oil filed and other natural resources much needed for continued industrialization and its operations. The Arab leaders lacking education and moral and intellectual foresights are interdependent on the European-American political masters and will do, what they are dictated for their own survival. The Arab rulers have not evolved any public institutions, intellectual think-tanks or Islamic system of governance to enhance Islam as a way of life. They view Islam as their enemy. This is what is commonly shared between the Arab rulers and the Western dominated policies carried out in the Arab Middle East. But if the Arabs wanted to reclaim honor and success, the formula is well defined by the Al-Qura’an: “You are the best people raised for the good of mankind, to invite to the righteousness and forbid evil and you believe in Allah.” If they had practiced it, whether they pumped the God-given oil out of the earth or no oil, they would have been honorable and successful. Imagine, with all the wealth and splendid palaces and borrowed time and space, not one is a leader, not one has the moral and intellectual capacity to play any rational character or can do anything for the good of the Muslims or the Arab culture. The Arab people once again are being morally and intellectually coming under planned subjugation of the Western ways of thinking, knowledge and system of exploitation and governance. There are too many Western secular educational institutions bombarding the minds and souls of the Arab people day and night. The Arab leaders are happy, people are busy in doing something and there is no herd moving around to disturb their palaces or to question them. The Arab rulers and armies are killing their own people and destroying the traditional ways of life under false pretexts of modernization, linked to oil pumping and nothing else. Syria, Iraq and Yemen appear to be the reckoning models in this context. The Arabs killing the Arabs, their own life and diminishing human dignity for what purpose – nobody can rationally tell the end purpose, nobody can THINK out of the imposed box of triviality and viciousness. They appear to have lost the power of rational thinking that Islam furnished them for ages and helped to facilitate a new world of honor and success. Was the discovery of the “oil” a “fitna” – a conspiracy to destroy the Arab people, their natural thinking – love for freedom, timeless space and the universe, human dignity and their culture?

(Dr. Mahboob A. Khawaja specializes in Global Peace. Security and Conflict Management and Comparative Islamic-Western cultures and civilization.)

The article is contributed to pkarticleshub.com

May 18, 2012
By Patrick Seale

Both Algeria and Syria held elections this month – in Syria on May 7 and in Algeria on 10 May. Did these elections change the configuration of power in either country? There was evidently no such intention. If anything, the elections confirmed the continued political dominance of the National Liberation Front (FLN) in Algeria and the Baath Party in Syria. Alone or in coalition with lesser partners, the FLN has ruled Algeria in the half century since independence in 1962, while the Baath in Syria has enjoyed a virtual political monopoly since seizing power in 1963.

Algeria has, however, moved towards something like a multi-party system over the past decade, while Syria has recently changed its Constitution, ending the Baath’s political monopoly and opening the way for the licensing of 11 new parties. These reforms have been widely criticised as too little, too late. The United States dismissed this month’s Syrian elections as ‘ludicrous’.

Both the Algerian and Syrian regimes are, of course, fully aware that anything like a genuine process of political reform would eventually lead to the dismantling of the existing power structures, something neither is yet prepared to tolerate.
In both countries, the turnout for the elections was low, either because of considerable apathy as in Algeria, or in Syria because of continued violence.

Nevertheless, 7,195 candidates in Syria from 12 parties competed for 250 parliamentary seats, while in Algeria – where 44 parties took part, as well as about 150 independents — the Ministry of Interior claimed that 44.38 per cent of the electorate cast their vote, a figure the opposition promptly denounced as fraudulent. As the Algerian proverb has it, ‘It is when the voting booth is empty that the ballot box is full.’

Both regimes share a fear of radical Islam. In Algeria, the Islamic Salvation Front (FIS) has been dissolved and any reincarnation of it forbidden. When it was poised to win the 1991 elections, the regime intervened forcibly, scrapping the second round. This precipitated a savage 10-year civil war in the 1990s, which resulted in the death of between 100,000 and 200,000 people. Memories of that cruel contest are still fresh, which perhaps accounts for a certain disillusion with parliamentary politics.

To neutralise extremists, the Algerian regime has in recent years encouraged a number of moderate Islamist parties to emerge. Members of these parties have been included in coalition governments. Three moderate Islamic parties have formed a so-called Alliance for a Green Algeria (‘Green’ for Islam rather than ecology), which was widely expected to do well at this month’s elections. But, contrary to all predictions, the Alliance did poorly: the number of its parliamentary seats slumped from 72 to 48. It did, however, come top in the capital Algiers – the country’s largest constituency — winning 15 out of the 37 seats. In contrast, the FLN won 220 seats, nearly doubling its representation. It will, as usual, dominate the 462-seat National People’s Assembly, as well as any future coalition government – if it decides to form one. Its potential partners are its sister party, the National Democratic Rally (68 seats) and the Alliance for a Green Algeria (48 seats). The premiership in the next government may even go to an Alliance member.

Some would argue that political Islam in Algeria has been tamed by inclusion in the system – unlike the situation in, say, Tunisia, Egypt and even Morocco where Islamists, repressed for decades, have emerged triumphant at elections. Algeria may indeed have broken the pattern of militant resurgence which has been such a striking feature of the Arab uprisings. Indeed, a remarkable result of the Algerian elections was the surge in women deputies. Women won 115 seats, some 30 per cent of the total – surely a first in any Arab country.

Much like the FIS in Algeria, the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood is also banned – indeed it has been outlawed since its armed uprising against president Hafez Al Assad in 1976-1982, which was brutally crushed at Hama in February 1982 with the loss of at least 10,000 lives, and possibly many more. Many Muslim Brothers fled abroad at that time, where they continued to harbour a virulent hatred of the Al Assad regime. The memory of these violent events still haunts the country. Fear of an Islamist movement bent on vengeance goes some way to explaining the Syrian regime’s ruthlessness in dealing with the uprising.

A revived Muslim Brotherhood is today the most powerful element in the opposition to Al Assad. The exiled Syrian National Council, the Turkey-based umbrella group under which the Muslim Brothers operate, has come out openly in favour of arming the opposition, while also calling for foreign military intervention. Extremist terrorism – such as the two massive blasts in Damascus on May 10 which killed 55 people and injured 372 – has become an ugly fact of life.

Syria has evidently been destabilised by the opposition’s hit-and-run guerrilla campaign, but it has not yet experienced a civil war on the Algerian model. That may well be what awaits the country if the opposition and its foreign backers continue their efforts to topple the regime — and thereby weaken its Iranian ally — whatever the cost in Syrian lives. These foreign backers include the United States (with Israel in the background), Qatar, Saudi Arabia and France (when Nicolas Sarkozy was president. François Hollande, France’s new President, is thought to be less hostile to Syria and Iran than his predecessor.)

Abdul Aziz Bouteflika in Algeria and Al Assad in Syria are incumbents of a powerful institution — the Presidency. They occupy the front of the political scene in their respective countries. But behind the presidency – and propping it up – are the intelligence services, both civilian and military. In Algeria, military intelligence is thought to be the place where all major decisions are taken and all senior appointments made. In Syria, the civilian intelligence services seem the more influential, but this is an opaque and changing scene.

Compared to Syria, which is now in torment, Algeria gives an image of relative stability, no doubt due to its massive oil revenues of some $60 billion last year. This has allowed the regime to buy off some of its critics. Syria can only dream of such wealth. Both countries, however, live in a dangerous environment: Algeria is flanked by Libya, still alarmingly awash with guns and gunmen; by Morocco, with which it is still at odds over the future of the Western Sahara; and further south by Mali, now in the grip of a Tawareq rebellion and of armed Islamist groups.

Syria’s situation is even more perilous. The armed uprising it is facing at home is only one of its problems. It also finds itself confronting powerful external enemies who are striving to bring down not only the Syrian regime itself but the whole Tehran-Damascus-Hezbollah ‘resistance axis’. Overshadowing Syria’s fortunes — as it has for the past six decades – is the menacing presence on its borders of an expansionist Israel, armed to the teeth, determined to impose its will on all its neighbours. Neither in Algiers nor Damascus is political life much of a holiday.

Patrick Seale is a commentator and author of several books on Middle East affairs, Asad of Syria: The Struggle for the Middle East; and Abu Nidal: A Gun for Hire

Source: Gulf News

May 20, 2012
By Murat Onur

When members of Nato gather at a summit in Chicago today, the issue of possible alliance intervention in Syria is bound to come up — with the Turkish prime minister perhaps pushing the discussion.

Turkey is considered a model of democracy for a mostly Muslim country. It has urged the president of its Syrian neighbour to step down and the Syrian opposition to unify. Tens of thousands of Syrians have taken refuge in Turkey and last month refugees there came under cross-border fire.

“We have strong armed forces. … and Syria must be aware that in the event of a repetition of border violations, Turkey’s stance will not be the same,” said Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan recently.

But is Turkey’s military really so strong, and is Turkey the democratic model that so many think it is? If a country’s democracy were measured by the number of generals arrested, Turkey would be, by far, the most advanced democracy. Arrests of military figures have been going on for years but a new wave began in early April after police stormed the houses of several retired generals.

This is part of the investigation into what is known as the military’s “post-modern coup” of February 28, 1997 — in which the precursor to Erdogan’s Justice and Development Party (AKP) was eventually banned on charges of anti-secular activity. Modern Turkey was founded on the principle of secularism; the AKP today describes itself as a conservative democratic party. It sprang from the Islamist movement.

The “February 28″ trial is the latest in a series of legal probes of the Turkish military by an AKP-friendly judicial branch.

‘Ergenekon’ trial

The infamous “Ergenekon” trial, which began in 2008, has turned into a massive legal undertaking consisting of several cases. More than 250 people — including generals, politicians, academics, rights activists, journalists, and even students — are being investigated on charges that they belong to a clandestine terror network intent on overthrowing the government of Erdogan’s ruling party.

“Sledgehammer” is another case in which hundreds of retired and active officers are being investigated over an alleged 2003 coup plot against the AKP government.

Hundreds of retired and active officers are being investigated as a part of these investigations. More than 180 of them are in pre-trial detention. More importantly, around 60 active generals and admirals are behind bars, making up more than 19 per cent of the Turkish military’s top brass.

Many aspects of these investigations contradict the principles of democratic governance and rule of law. Most of the suspects are behind bars without any verdict in their cases. The Council of Europe recently raised concerns about the withholding of evidence from defendants at the investigation stage (often extending into years) which deprives them of the opportunity to challenge their detentions.

The European Union’s 2010 progress report on Turkey says the Ergenekon case and “several” of the coup probes raise concerns about “judicial guarantees for all suspects”.

Independent forensic experts also discovered that a significant portion of the evidence used against the suspects is forged or their authenticity is questionable. Those who write about such irregularities often face a powerful defamation campaign by the dominant pro-AKP media.

True, the Turkish military did engineer politics and shape governments in the past — carrying out four coups since 1960. Yet many believe the coup trials have now become political mechanisms through which those who are in power are subduing the opposition and attacking presumed threats against the AKP’s growing dominance in the country.

Having the second largest military in Nato and the longest land border with Syria, Turkey’s support will be crucial if the so-called “Annan plan” and its UN cease-fire provision fail to resolve the Syrian crisis.

Yet Turkey’s democracy and its institutions, including the armed forces, are seriously undermined by irrelevant accusations against military members and others, lengthy imprisonment without verdicts, indefinite pre-trial detentions, and powerful defamation campaigns against the AKP’s opponents.

The arrests of hundreds of officers — including members of elite special forces — by police counter-terrorism units and the humiliation of top generals by the pro-AKP media may weaken the morale and discipline in the armed forces.

Moreover, a military that lacks a fifth of its top officers may face serious challenges in supporting an international military intervention on the border.

The AKP-led government must stop eroding the rule of law at home by ensuring the judiciary and police function within the limits of democratic governance and the courts are not used to target presumed opponents of its ideology.

And the government should match its deeds on democracy and human rights at home with its talk about them abroad. Otherwise, Turkey may descend into the league of the world’s quasi-democracies, and lose its democratic influence in the region.

Murat Onur is a foreign affairs analyst and political commentator on Turkey.

Courtesy: Christian Science Monitor

May 21, 2012
By Murat Onur

When members of NATO gather at a summit in Chicago this weekend, the issue of possible alliance intervention in Syria is bound to come up – with the Turkish prime minister perhaps pushing the discussion. Turkey is considered a model of democracy for a mostly Muslim country. It has urged the president of its Syrian neighbor to step down and the Syrian opposition to unify. Tens of thousands of Syrians have taken refuge in Turkey and last month refugees there came under cross-border fire.

“We have strong armed forces. …and Syria must be aware that in the event of a repetition of border violations, Turkey’s stance will not be the same,” said Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan recently.

But is Turkey’s military really so strong, and is Turkey the democratic model that so many think it is?

If a country’s democracy were measured by the number of generals arrested, Turkey would be, by far, the most advanced democracy. Arrests of military figures have been going on for years but a new wave began in early April after police stormed the houses of several retired generals.

This is part of the investigation into what is known as the military’s “post-modern coup” of Feb. 28, 1997 – in which the precursor to Mr. Erdogan’s Justice and Development Party (AKP) was eventually banned on charges of anti-secular activity. Modern Turkey was founded on the principle of secularism; the AKP today describes itself as a conservative democratic party. It sprang from the Islamist movement.

The “February 28” trial is the latest in a series of legal probes of the Turkish military by an AKP-friendly judicial branch.

The infamous “Ergenekon” trial, which began in 2008, has turned into a massive legal undertaking consisting of several cases. More than 250 people – including generals, politicians, academics, rights activists, journalists, and even students – are being investigated on charges that they belong to a clandestine terror network intent on overthrowing the government of Erdogan’s ruling party.

“Sledgehammer” is another case in which hundreds of retired and active officers are being investigated over an alleged 2003 coup plot against the AKP government.

Hundreds of retired and active officers are being investigated as a part of these investigations. More than 180 of them are in pre-trial detention, including the former chief of the Turkish armed forces, former chiefs of the Navy and Air Force, and several high-profile generals and admirals. More importantly, around 60 active generals and admirals are behind bars, making up more than 19 percent of the Turkish military’s top brass.

Many aspects of these investigations contradict the principles of democratic governance and rule of law. Most of the suspects are behind bars without any verdict in their cases. The Council of Europe recently raised concerns about the withholding of evidence from defendants at the investigation stage (often extending into years) which deprives them of the opportunity to challenge their detentions. The European Union’s 2010 progress report on Turkey says the Ergenekon case and “several” of the coup probes raise concerns about “judicial guarantees for all suspects.”

Independent forensic experts also discovered that a significant portion of the evidence used against the suspects is forged or their authenticity is questionable. Those who write about such irregularities often face a powerful defamation campaign by the dominant pro-AKP media.

True, the Turkish military did engineer politics and shape governments in the past – carrying out four coups since 1960. Yet many believe the coup trials have now become political mechanisms through which those who are in power are subduing the opposition and attacking presumed threats against the AKP’s growing dominance in the country.

Having the second largest military in NATO and the longest land border with Syria, Turkey’s support – diplomatic and, perhaps, military – will be crucial if the so-called “Annan plan” and its UN cease-fire provision fail to resolve the Syrian crisis.

Yet Turkey’s democracy and its institutions, including the armed forces, are seriously undermined by irrelevant accusations against military members and others, lengthy imprisonment without verdicts, indefinite pre-trial detentions, and powerful defamation campaigns against the AKP’s opponents.

The arrests of hundreds of officers – including members of elite special forces – by police counter-terrorism units and the humiliation of top generals by the pro-AKP media may weaken the morale and discipline in the armed forces.

Moreover, a military that lacks a fifth of its top officers may face serious challenges in supporting an international military intervention on the border.

The AKP-led government must stop eroding the rule of law at home by ensuring the judiciary and police function within the limits of democratic governance and the courts are not used to target presumed opponents of its ideology.

And the government should match its deeds on democracy and human rights at home with its talk about them abroad. Otherwise, Turkey may descend into the league of the world’s quasi-democracies, and lose its democratic influence in the region.

Murat Onur is a foreign affairs analyst and political commentator on Turkey.
Source: Christian Science Monitor