The Arab Revolt and New World Order

by Maloy Krishna Dhar

(March 17, New Delhi, Sri Lanka Guardian) America is a Pinocchio nation-a nation with long nose with which it sniffs around the trouble prone areas of the world and tries to impose itself as the military, political and moral guardian. It is the modern colonial power. America’s involvement in Korea, Vietnam etc have become a part of the Cold War history, when it donned the mantle of deliverer to save the world from communist contamination. The Vietnam ignominy had dwarfed the international status of the USA. The event gave rise to neo-nationalism in Southeast Asia. The Afghan adventure had hastened the fragmentation of the USSR and emergence of a new world order. Russia is now just a rusted old power with nuclear capability. History has proved that great wars bring about destruction and out of the debris arise new world orders. Though the USA has not faced war on its soil, the emerging conflict between Christian nations and the Islamist forces are likely to have severe impact on American outlook towards global problems.

America and Britain’s sexed up Iraq war was apparently aimed at destroying the non-existent WMD stockpiled by a rogue dictator Saddam Husain. When the hoax was caught The Bush-man touted loudly that he wanted a regime change and bring back democracy to that part of the world. This sordid war has cost thousands of lives and perched the soils of Iraq with hatred and sectarian division. Democracy is still a mirage. Justice would have been done to humanity if Bush and Blair were tried in the International Court for flagrant imposition of a devastating war on the people of Iraq.

History is now full of evidence that the USA and its staunchest Arab ally Saudi Arabia and part-time bed partner Pakistan had joined hands in supporting the Afghan Mujahideens, who had taken up arms against Soviet intervention. Establishment of communist regime in Afghanistan was not liked by Pakistan, Iran, and Turkmenistan, CAR countries as well as the USA and its allies. America sensed that Soviet expansion in Afghanistan would disturb the world order and the process of dismantling the USSR initiated by President Reagan. The hardcore Mullahs and avowedly Islamist Afghan people also did not like the atheist regime controlling their lives and destroying their opium production capability. In the process of supporting the Afghan Mujahideens, the three principal players created numbers of jihadi groups, popularized the concept of jihad amongst the Muslims, and as byproduct Pakistan created some terrorist groups to fight against India. Harkat-ul-Ansar, Harkat-ul-Mujahideen, Al Badr etc forces were created by the ISI with helps from hardcore Jamait-e-Islami and other Islamist forces. Later they created the HUJI and Lashkar-e-Taiba out of the remnants of Mujahideen groups originally created for Afghanistan.

That was the period of creation of al Qaeda and building up of Osama bin Laden as a jihadist. The story of Laden turning against the monarch of Saudi and America and its teaming up with the Taliban and the ISI have become a part of modern history on the growth of jihadist inferno in several parts of the world. In India’s immediate neighborhood Pakistan has become a factory for manufacturing jihadists and terrorists.

The USA had closed eyes and choked its long nose till the combined al Qaeda and Pakistani forces hit the heart of America on 9.11.2001. The world order changed again. The USA jumped into another war in Afghanistan and forced President Musharraf to join the new jihad against the Taliban, a force initially created by Benazir Bhutto and her political heirs. The Inter Services Intelligence was the chief architect in presenting the newest jihadi force to the world-the Talibans.

However, surprisingly the Pinocchio did not have any opportunity to poke nose in removing the dictators in Tunisia and Egypt. Rather Barack Obama helplessly watched the plight of America’s trusted ally Hosni Mubarak being thrown out of power by the people’s power with his loyal army standing neutral. Both the USA and Israel have lost a trusted friend. And the fear of Muslim Brotherhood emerging as the most prominent political force in Egypt haunts the West. That would mean likely strengthening of the Salafi Islamist forces, buttressed by the Wahhabi forces backed by Saudi Arabia.

The other dictator in northern Africa, Colonel Gaddafi is a determined stakeholder to the oil rich nation. He and his sons control the armed forces and they are making desperate attempts to stump out the Tunisian, Egyptian type popular upsurge. The rebels in the east and west are being supported with money, weapons and advisors by the USA and UK, the most important advocates for ouster of Gaddafi. They are trying to rope in likeminded nations, the NATO and the United Nations to enforce no fly zone and if necessary armed intervention. Why such itchiness in Washington and London? Libya supplies about 2% to the world oil market. Oil is not the reason behind edginess in Washington and London. It is doubtful if Washington and London can derive political advantage at home during forthcoming elections by imposing another war in Africa. This one may turn out to be messier and suck in other Arab forces in the conflict zone.

The USA is also not likely to get support from Russia and China for military action. India, South Africa and Brazil have already voiced opposition to use of force and even imposition of no fly zone. All the five nations happen to be the members of the UN Security Council. It would not be a cake walk for Obama to coax the UNSC to pass a resolution to his liking. That is why Washington has requested a neighboring tyrant, the king of Saudi Arabia to supply weapons and money to the Libyan rebels. That way the world cannot blame the USA for direct intervention. Saudi pipeline is now open and small and medium weapons are flowing to Benghazi etc rebel occupied territories.

The present trend of Arab revolt is unique. It is inspired from within, there has been no foreign input and the Arabs want their democratization to come naturally through their own struggle. That’s what has foxed the Pinocchio and the clawless British Lion.

What started with Tunisia against Ben Ali dictatorship over huge unemployment, high cost of living and rampant corruption was immediately echoed in Egypt. Hosni Mubarak, who ruled for 30 years, was planning to ensure his son’s succession after the next election. This was not acceptable to the opposition, a section of the clerics, the Christians and intellectuals. The thirst for democracy was self generated. Same is the story about Libya. Gaddafi had nominated his so-called westernized son as his successor. He wanted to set up a dynastic rule. Endless misrule, highhandedness, high cost of living and non-development of the interiors had irked the people. The waves of democracy had hit other Arab coasts as well. There was popular uprising in Bahrain, Yemen, Iran, Syria, Djibouti, and Iraq. Sporadic demonstrations have erupted in recent weeks in other Middle Eastern and northern African nations, such as Algeria, Djibouti, Mauritania, Jordan, Morocco, Oman, Kuwait, and Sudan, and in the Palestinian territories.

In Yemen protesters have called for the ouster of President Ali Abdullah Saleh, who has ruled Yemen since 1978. The country has been wracked by a Shiite Muslim uprising, a U.S.-aided crackdown on al Qaeda operatives and a looming shortage of water. High unemployment fuels much of the anger among a growing young population steeped in poverty. The protesters also cite government corruption and a lack of political freedom. Saleh has promised not to run for president in the next round of elections.

In Bahrain a large number of people protested outside the palace where Bahrain’s cabinet was meeting Sunday, the first time a protest had been allowed at the site. Protesters chanted slogans calling for the downfall of Prime Minister Sheikh Khalifa Bin Salman Al-Khalifa, many waving 1-dinar bills to criticize his purchase of the Bahrain Financial Harbour development for that amount in 2005. The protest, which lasted about 2 1/2 hours, was peaceful and broke up before the cabinet meeting ended.

Anti-government demonstrators continue to camp out in Bahrain’s Pearl Roundabout, where seven people died when security forces tried to clear the area. More than 500 people have been injured in Bahrain since the protest began in mid-February. A few dozen of those remain in the hospital, four of them in serious condition, said Nabeel Rajab, the president of the Bahrain Center for Human Rights.

Protesters initially took to the streets of Manama to demand reform and the introduction of a constitutional monarchy. But some are now calling for the removal of the royal family. Crown Prince Salman bin Hamad Al Khalifa addressed the nation on television, saying that a consensus has emerged around 70% to 80% of the people’s demands, according to a government statement.

Protesters initially took to the streets of Manama to demand reform and the introduction of a constitutional monarchy. But some are now calling for the removal of the royal family, which has led the Persian Gulf state since the 18th century. Young members of the country’s Shiite Muslim majority have staged protests in recent years to complain about discrimination, unemployment and corruption, issues they say the country’s Sunni rulers have done little to address. The Bahrain Center for Human Rights said authorities launched a clampdown on dissent in 2010. It accused the government of torturing some human rights activists.

Thousands of people have marched in protest through Djibouti. On February 18, riot police charged the crowd after the call to evening prayers, shooting canisters of tear gas at the demonstrators, according to Aly Verjee, director of the international election observation mission to Djibouti, who witnessed the event. Djibouti is home to Camp Lemonnier, the only U.S. military base on the African continent. Protesters have called for President Ismail Omar Guelleh — whose family has ruled the country since its independence from France in 1977 — to step down ahead of elections scheduled in April. Guelleh has held the post since 1999 and is seeking a third term. Economic stagnation is also a source of anger among the people.

Oil rich Kuwait is also facing spontaneous demonstration. Protesters in Kuwait have clashed with authorities on at least two occasions. Hundreds of protesters are demanding greater rights for longtime residents who are not citizens of the country. They also demanded the release of people arrested in demonstrations. On February 19, protesters attacked the security forces, which used tear gas on the demonstration involving between 200 and 400 protesters. Protesters are seeking greater rights for longtime residents, who are not Kuwaiti citizens, an issue the country has been grappling with for decades. According to the CIA World Factbook, Kuwait has 2.7 million people, with 1.3 million registered as “non-nationals.”

The Sudanese dictator Omar Al-Bashir is also facing public pressure. Under pressure he has decided not to run for another term in 2015, a senior member of Sudan’s ruling National Congress Party said. Al-Bashir has ruled since a military coup in 1989. He won another five-year term in a 2010 vote that opposition parties boycotted over complaints of fraud. He also faces an arrest warrant from the International Criminal Court on charges of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity in the region of Darfur. Demonstrators have clashed with authorities on recent occasions in Sudan. Human Rights Watch has said that “authorities used excessive force during largely peaceful protests on January 30 and 31 in Khartoum and other northern cities.” Witnesses said several people were arrested, including 20 who remain missing. Demonstrators seek an end to National Congress Party rule and government-imposed price increases, according to Human Rights Watch. It accuses the government of being heavy-handed in its response to demonstrations, and using pipes, sticks and tear gas to disperse protesters.

Protesters have taken to the streets in cities across Morocco to call for political reform. Labor unions, youth organizations and human rights groups demonstrated in at least six cities on February 27. Police stayed away from the demonstrations, most of which were peaceful, Human Rights Watch reported. Protesters in Morocco are calling for political reform. Government officials say such protests are not unusual and that the protesters’ demands are on the agenda of most political parties. The king, over a national broadcast, declared constitutional reforms, more power to the elected people and several other economic concessions. However, the Moroccan people are not convinced as the king had made similar promises in the past.

Saudi Arabia, a country named after the family of Saud, is facing threat from al Qaeda Arabs and the Shiite minorities in the east and north east. The most trusted dictator of USA and allies, the king of Saudi Arabia is not in any mood to relent. The USA, scrambling for likeminded groups’ operations and military intervention in Libya is silent about Saudi. The UK is also panicky about neighboring Bahrain and is ready to help the monarch (Sunni) with troops to suppress his Shia majority subjects.

Coming off two days of demonstrations, Saudi Arabia’s Interior Ministry warned Saturday, March 5, that it would crack down on protesters who continue to take their grievances to the streets. But Amnesty International on Monday Saudi Arabia to stop the “outrageous restriction” of peaceful protests Saudi security forces will be “authorized to take all measures against anyone who tries to break the law and cause disorder,” the ministry said, according to state-run news agency. An Interior Ministry spokesman said that kingdom law prevents all kinds of demonstrations, protests, strikes and even a call for them because they’re against Sharia law and Saudi values and traditions.

“The Saudi Arabian authorities have a duty to ensure freedom of assembly and are obliged under international law to allow peaceful protests to take place,” said Philip Luther, deputy director of the human rights group’s Middle East and North Africa program.”

“They must act immediately to end this outrageous restriction on the right to legitimate protest.”

The demonstrators have demanded the release of Shiite prisoners, they feel are being held without cause for over 17 years. Others have taken to the streets over the creation of a constitutional monarchy, more rights and other reforms.
Late last month, King Abdullah announced a series of sweeping measures aimed at relieving economic hardship and meeting with Bahrain’s beleaguered monarch.

Iran has its own trouble, though there has not been popular upsurge. Opposition to the ruling clerics has simmered since the 2009 election, when hundreds of thousands of people filled Tehran streets to denounce President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s re-election as fraudulent. Iranian authorities began rounding up many government opponents in February amid calls for protests like those that have swept across North Africa and the Middle East. However, Iran is not perturbed over the ouster of Sunni Arab leaders and it is reportedly encouraging the Shiite subjects in Oman, Bahrain, Kuwait, Yemen and Saudi Arabia to continue to struggle under cover of better deal to the entire populace. A weakened Arab world is likely to strengthen the geopolitical and strategic position of Iran, the only Shia majority nation in the world. It is also happy that America and its allies have diverted their attention to the oil rich Arab nations and their quest for destruction of the nuclear facilities of Iran has receded to the background.

Globally American intentions to intervene in Libya and impose another war in the deserts of Africa are being heatedly debated. Massacre of innocent people and use of lethal weapons against them, have been trampling human rights. But under the UN charter this is not the cardinal ground on which a super power, its allies and even the UN can sanction invasion of Libya. Richard Falk, an expert on International Law says, “The core legal obligation of the UN Charter requires member states to refrain from any use of force unless it can be justified as self-defence after a cross-border armed attack or mandated by a decision of the UN Security Council. Neither of these conditions authorising a legal use of force is remotely present, (in case of Libya) and yet the discussion proceeds in the media and Washington circles as if the only questions worth discussing pertain to feasibility, costs, risks, and a possible backlash in the Arab world.”

He is also of the view — “With respect to Libya, we need to take account of the fact that the Gaddafi government, however distasteful on humanitarian grounds, remains the lawful diplomatic representative of a sovereign state, and any international use of force even by the UN, much less a state or group of states, would constitute an unlawful intervention in the internal affairs of a sovereign state, prohibited by Article 2(7) of the UN Charter unless expressly authorised by the Security Council as essential for the sake of international peace and security.”

Then, of course, comes the politics of it all — “Gaddafi’s crimes against humanity were never a secret, and certainly widely known by European and American intelligence services. Even high profile liberal intellectuals in Britain and the US welcomed invitations to Tripoli during the last several years, apparently without a blink of conscience, accepting consulting fees and shamelessly writing positive assessments that praised the softening authoritarianism in Libya. Perhaps, that is what Joseph Nye, one of the most prominent of these recent good will visitors to Tripoli, would call a private use of ’smart power’, commending Gaddafi for renouncing his anti-West posture, for making deals for oil and weapons, and most of all for abandoning what some now say was at most a phantom nuclear weapons program. Some Beltway pundits are insisting on talk shows that the interventionists after faltering in the region want to get on the right side of history before it is too late. But what is the right side of history in Libya seems quite different than it is in Bahrain or Jordan, and for that matter throughout the region. History seems to flow according to the same river currents as does oil!”
Falk concludes: “What I am mainly decrying here in the Libyan debate are three kinds of policy failure: The exclusion of international law and the United Nations from relevance to national debates about international uses of force; The absence of respect for the dynamics of self-determination in societies of the South; The refusal to heed the ethics and politics appropriate for a post-colonial world order that is being de-Westernised and is becoming increasingly multi-polar.” (Source: Falk’s article in Al Jazeera).

Falk’s views are forthright as he even accused President Bush for war crimes in Iraq for invading that country. In his view Bush should have been tried in the International Court for war crimes. Hopefully, Barack Obama will learn from history and not commit the USA to another dirty war in Africa. Western intervention in the internal affairs of the Arab regimes has never been appreciated by the Arabs. They question the honesty of USA in its geopolitical approach. Washington is allowing the monarchies in Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Bahrain etc countries to thrive. The west has massively invested in these countries. Why are they now trying to intervene in the internal affairs of Libya? Can America not breathe easily without getting the country involved in unnecessary wars? There is an opinion that 40% of US economy thrive on armament industries, production and sale of war planes, tools of war—Land, Sea and Aerial wars. This vital industrial sectors and ancillaries keep on influencing the Congress and the Senate and the Jewish media over-blows the horn to create mass hysteria.

From present trends it appears that Obama is under heavy pressure to mobilize support in the UN and giving mandate to the NATO to plunge into the internal affairs of Libya. The USA has even managed a resolution passed by Arab League for imposition of no-fly zone in Libya. However, major NATO powers in Europe minus the UK are not inclined to commit their forces in another war theatre of USA, after their bitter experiences in Afghanistan. Intervention in Afghanistan has already vitiated Muslim opinion against the west and inside USA itself Islamic militants are gathering strength. By intervening in Libya the European partners of NATO do not want to invite more trouble at home. Moreover, the leaderless mass agitations are not likely to end in establishment of modern democracy. In Egypt the Ikhwan ul Musleemin (Muslim Brotherhood) is waiting in the wings to capture power. In Tunisia, Sudan, Oman, Yemen and Libya the al Qaeda (al Qaeda in Maghrib) is likely to gradually capture the popular movements and push the Arab world to Islamic fundamentalism. That will give rise to another new world order—which the west and other democratic countries might find difficult to live with. The present Arab uprising may change few dictators and monarchs here and there but will it make the Middle East and Northern Africa safer for the global peace and security?

Popular uprising may not automatically usher in western type democracy in the Arab countries. Arab countries like Syria and Egypt had equated secularism and democracy with army backed rule. In case of multiparty democracy the clerics, ulemas and Islamists are bound to amalgamate religion with democracy. Well! Democracy has different connotations and denominations in different parts of the globe.

Nader Hashemi, professor at the Joseph Corbel School of International Studies, USA says, “Westerners recoil from the thought of religion intersecting with government. Our backdrops are the Wars of Religion in the 16th and 17th centuries, abuses by the Catholic Church, and intense intellectual, political and social battles over religious toleration. By contrast, Muslim societies have been shaped by different experiences.

For them, religion was often not a source of conflict but a tool to limit political tyranny by forcing sultans and caliphs to recognize certain limits demarcated by religious texts and scholars, who had a virtual monopoly on legal affairs. Rulers, meanwhile, won political legitimacy by respecting religious authorities.

In some cases that meant bowing completely to those authorities: In May 1807, for example, the Ottoman Sultan Selim III was deposed after the chief mufti ruled that his modernization policies had violated Islamic principles.

Significant segments of the Muslim world today believe that religion is not the natural ally of despotism but a possible agent of stability, predictability and limited government. In many cases, modern Arab societies associate secularism with postcolonial authoritarian regimes that repressed their people in the name of secular Arab nationalism. Zine El Abidine Ben Ali’s Tunisia and Hosni Mubarak’s Egypt embodied this state of affairs. Thus for a generation of Arabs, secularism is linked to dictatorship, corruption and nepotism.

As a result, the turn to Islam by many Arabs as an alternative source for political inspiration and hope was both logical and natural. At the moment, reliable polling suggests that most Muslims oppose the idea that democracy requires Western-style secularism. Large majorities also support the idea that Shariah law should be a source of legislation (among others).

Most Arabs and Muslims have never lived in an open society in which they could publicly contest political and social norms. As such, these societies have not yet had the opportunity to negotiate the demarcation of mosque and state democratically.

Arabs and Muslims may now have this opportunity for the first time in history. While the coming debates will be divisive and may sometimes shock the liberal conscience, the future political stability of North Africa and the Middle East—and the democratic aspirations of entire peoples—depends on this process taking place.”

History has no final word. It is a making process. Let us watch how the ancient Arab world changes and how the new power equations are defined between the Islamic powers and the western powers? It is sure that Anglo-American axis will find it difficult to exploit the Arab world. New equations are likely to develop. India should be able to define its future relationship with these countries on the basis of its own geopolitical and geostrategic interests. India should not only oppose imposition of no fly zone in Libya, but should make its position clear to Washington and London that India is opposed to any kind of intervention in the internal affairs of Arab nations. The Arab peoples should be allowed to sort out their own internal political paradigm.