-
DOMINOS
Will the Arab Revolutions Spread?
-
SHARP EYE
Watching Egypt, But Not on Al Jazeera
-
TWITTER REVOLUTION?
The New Arab Media Space
Posted By Marc Lynch
Tuesday, January 11, 2011 - 4:34 PM
Share
It's very clear that most Arab regimes are on edge over the possibility of the spread of the protests in Tunisia and Algeria. Arab columnists and TV shows have been excitedly debating the real causes of the protests and what they might mean, while in country after country warnings are being sounded of a repeat of the "Tunisia scenario." It's not at all clear whether these protests actually will spread yet, as regimes on high alert will not be taken by surprise and local conditions vary dramatically.
The protests have already sparked a region-wide debate about the prospects for political change and the costs of political repression and economic stagnation. The discussion of the "Tunisia scenario" is everywhere. In Jordan, the Muslim Brotherhood warned today that the impending price rises planned by the new government will lead to an unprecedented explosion along the North African model -- which is the lead story in Lebanon's al-Akhbar. In Egypt, Trade and Industry Minister Rashid Mohammed Rashid ruled out a "Tunisia scenario" in his country over the economy, though many columnists and political activists disagree. Leading Saudi columnist Abd al-Rahman al-Rashed today seems worried, rather than excited, that protesters may have broken the psychological barrier against demonstrating and raises the specter of a "domino theory" by which even currently calm Arab states may soon be threatened.
The debate is being carried by social media and by satellite television, despite the outsized efforts by most of the regimes to silence whatever media falls under their control. From Kuwait and Tunisia's moves to ban al-Jazeera to traditional repression of local journalists to the escalating crackdown against Facebook, Twitter, and other social media, Arab regimes are trying to keep control of the narrative. But it doesn't seem to be working. Even status quo media outlets are being forced to discuss the events and to entertain unsettling questions.
It still is not at all obvious that these protests will sustain themselves, lead to revolutions, or even force major changes in the policies of their regimes. But they have already seared themselves into Arab political discourse. Defenders of the regimes generally try to define the events as food and price riots, or else as externally fomented terrorism. Few independent columnists or activists agree with the idea that these are simply food and price riots, or external terrorism. They point to the underlying political problems which have enabled the economic mismanagement and corruption and lack of opportunity. How the events are framed will have real significance for the response.
In the meantime, I'd like to throw out two interesting questions about the developing events. First, as I raised last week, as best I can tell the protests still lack any clear political direction or leadership -- primarily because the regimes have so thoroughly decimated the integrity of their political institutions that few citizens see any way to voice their grievances through formal political channels. Few political parties seem to be playing any significant role, even Islamists. Do the protests need to be channeled into an organized political or social movement in order to press clear political demands? If they did continue to escalate in the face of regime repression, without any clear leadership, what kind of change might they produce? The great hope here is that Arab regimes might respond as they did in the late 1980s, where economic protests in countries such as Jordan led to unprecedented democratic openings. But many of the regimes point instead to Algeria in the early 1990s, where such an opening led to Islamist advances, a military coup, and years of horrific bloodshed. Which will it be?
Second, it is striking how little role there has been for international actors such as the United States and the European Union in these protests. Where they have been involved at all, the United States and the EU have been cautious and reactive. While many will see this as a criticism, I'm not so sure. Americans tend to exaggerate the importance of U.S. rhetoric on Arab popular movements and governments. The Bush administration's "freedom and democracy" rhetoric from 2004 to 2006 may have had some marginal impact, but the real driver of contentious politics in those years came from internal factors: the protest momentum and networks shaped by demonstrations in support of the Palestinians (from 2000-2002) and against the Iraq war (2003); the novelty of al-Jazeera satellite TV and internet-based new media; the timing of political openings, from the series of elections scheduled for Egypt to the Hariri assassination.
That the rising wave of protest today comes in the near-complete absence of United States or international support presents an intriguing variable. Tunisians and Algerians didn't need an Obama speech to begin their protests, even if they anxiously watch Washington now for signs of support. I'd guess that the best way for the outside to have an impact now is by restraining violent repression by their allied autocratic regimes -- though, if they feel that their survival is threatened they won't likely listen.
The best thing Westerners can do for the protesters is to remind them that successful civil risings are just that: civil. Violence of any kind against the forces of law and order makes THEM riot, generating more violence and giving the regime every excuse it needs to crack down. They should want the police and army to begin to refuse to protect the regime, not give them reasons to protect themselves AND the regime.
Is this a new tipping point? The hashemites(sp) have so far just managed to skate through the carnage with considerable outside support. How long is this status quo to be maintained. The king(shah) should have his bags packed and the Egyptians should pay attention. Maybe not, but soon. Stooges always have a definite shelf life.
Hej! tumta
"Civil" uprisings, while commendable, will not work in these countries. The regimes will merely throw them a small bone to make the crowd go away for a while. I was living in Egypt when the blogger who spoke out against the government was beaten to death by police. The result? Some more benign protests (among the many) with no real change. Elections were held just recently, not much more than a year after this incident. Guess what? (Permanent) incumbent Mubarek, or more likely his son, will take the reigns with 95% of the vote despite the fact that no one likes him there. This will likely continue to happen as long the US and other countries condone it. This in turn will probably continue to happen as long as we maintain good relations with the head of state.
The US wasn't created upon "civil" unrest either. I am not advocating for violent change, however- I think much can be done through our foreign policy. But to think that any real change can come through "civil" unrest in the majority of this region is laughable.
On the first question I personally would prefer it if a clear political platform unified the protesters as opposed to this unconscious anger that we seem to be seeing. It's true it might result in another Iran but even so many of those countries need real reform. Of course the cynic in me feels that this is more likely to be just another failed attempt to change things like so many others before.
As for the tepid response of the U.S and the E.U, that's probably because I doubt they know what to do. They didn't seem to expect these protests and they certainly have no idea how much backing to give relatively unorganized protesters against states that are needed to deal with issues like Al Qaeda, exports and regional stability. Something needs to be done and yet American and European hands are tied.
The riots in Tunisia at the moment definitely stem from some anger at the government, but is there a single, unified reason why people are protesting? Probably not. People are fed up with the economy, especially young people who can't get jobs. People are fed up with the Tunisian government's repressive hold on the media as of late. People are just fed up, period, with a lot of things. They want change, but I don't think that the protesters could agree on a single vision for the future.
And there is some awkwardness, more than anything, in the EU's response to the crisis. I think that we are constantly trying to distance ourselves from our former colonies, because A) "it's not our problem anymore" and B) we don't want to be seen as "intervening" by the government. It's essentially a massive avoidance of responsibility coupled with a see-no-evil approach. It's dumb.
Even if the U.S and Europe did act* to help the protesters it wouldn't be guaranteed to gain their goodwill and it would come at the cost of good relations with the governments. On the other hand if the U.S and Europe openly supported the leaders it would tie us to those leaders in the eyes of the people and we would have to explain this matter to a very skeptical public. I don't see how action would be advisable.
*To be honest I don't see what we could realistically do.
Not as clearcut a dichotomy (or a picture) as you portray it?
Marc, you say that the hope "here" (in Lynchistan? in Washington? where?) is that civil unrest would lead to democratic openings but the other option is "Islamist advances, a military coup, and years of horrific bloodshed". Firstly, most islamists in the Arab world are not nearly as violent and nihilistic as the GIA and other Islamists were in Algeria back in the day. In Egypt and elsewhere the MB are still (despite problems and some lack of clarity) the biggest Islamist movement, and also still dedicated to nonviolence. A democratic opening in opening in Egypt or anywhere in the Arab world these days would lead to Islamist advances.
Secondly, in a place like Tunisia (and to a lesser extent Egypt or Jordan) you already have a strongly military or securocratic regime that exercises pretty bad repression against its opponents. (All these regimes are strongly supported by the USG, by the way.) But absent a massively 'clear and present danger' like that posed by the GIA in Algeria, how much worse would these regimes actually behave than they have been until now? Of course, some of these regimes are already practised in the art of fielding agents provocateurs to muddy the political waters, and in the present situation of fairly inchoate mass activity this might (or might not) win them a bit of time. But still, the scenarios are not nearly as clearcut and diametrically opposed as you imply.
I also highly doubt whether the demonstrators in Tunisia or elsewhere are "anxiously watch[ing] Washington now for signs of support." Do you have any evidence for that? Why, at any point since 2006, would any Arab democrats have any reason to think Washington might support them?
. . to see which is more destabilized -- these US-friendly regimes or Iran due to the removal of fuel subsidies. So far, the Iranian protest movement seems to have been rather easily suppressed, a la Tienamen Square. No solid widespread suport for the rebels there.
By this time, I would think that the US is so discredited on the Arab "street" that keeping its mouth shut would be best, lest it tar the governments in question even more.
Anyway, the wounded global economy will non doubt work like carbon dioxide, doing what it does despite any illusions or hopes any "side" may have.
Lack of Perspective from FPsters
Tunisian police units are already using snipers to suppress "protesters".
Al Jazeera and Press TV reported that Tunisian youth were gunned down by military style snipers.
The Algerian special forces have been revealed to have engaged in major false flag operations which included brutally massacring villages while disguised as "Islamic militants". And targetted villages were known to sympathize with Islamic causes. That means they disembowelled, beheaded, killed women and children.
Moreover, America and Europe gave the proverbial green light for Algeria to undertake whichever measures needed to suppress the election and the subsequent unrest thereafter back in 1991.
Talk about "civil". Liars. Hypocrites. Diabolical plotters.
You in the West have to realize that you don't represent "Good".
America has been a BIG ally of the Algerian regime which massacred its own people to stay in power. America set up a new mlitary base in south central Algeria, called Tamanrasset. Bouteflika, Algerian president, first claimed to reject US military presence. But then a few "terrorist bombings' occurred that targetted the presidental palace, killing only a guard or two. Bouteflika miraculously changed his tone in favor of American military presence. Whether the Algerian military black op squad undertook the bombs to serve as a pretext for USM presence, or the US military carried out the bomb attack themselves (not unheard of), it provided the excuse for US military base and activity in Algeria.
Algeria has been a close ally of America in the War on Terror, which means that America does NOT GIVE A @#$% ABOUT THE FACT THAT ALGERIAN MILITARY REGIME MASSACRED ITS OWN PEOPLE, INCLUDING WITH KNIVES DISEMBOWELLING PREGNANT WOMEN AND BASHING THE BRAINS OF BABIES.
Take a good look at the CIA World Fact data on North African nations: Western Sahara (a colony of Morocco per America's permission) to Egypt. All of their primary trading partners are a European nation, followed by America.
Algeria's imports are as follows:
France 19.7%, China 11.72%, Italy 10.19%, Spain 8.13%, Germany 5.77%, Turkey 5.05% (2009) Capital goods, foodstuff, consumer goods.
Having visited Algeria, I can say that the price of imported products in Algeria are MORE than the price of the same product in America. A microwave, washing machine, A/C, or rental car is more expensive in Algers than in Chicago.
And Algeria's main export, 97%, is petroleum and petrol products to the USA.
US 23.2%, Italy 17.23%, Spain 10.83%, France 7.97%, Canada 7.65%, Netherlands 5.19%, Turkey 4.22% (2009).
See, folks?
You SUPPORT DICTATORSHIPS AND RUTHLESS BABY KILLERS.
BTW, the Muslim world is realizing that the only way they can be free of these heinous regimes which the West supports is by reverting to a level of extemism which will not compromise to any Western demand but which upholds high standards for itself.
Islam totally forbids targetting civilians. America has permitted regimes to target civilians in such false flag operations.
And while it's likely true that there is no strategy to street riots in Algeria, its being passed around the internet that rioters want an end to the Algerian mafia regime and a return of an Islamic state. Obviously, a bunch of unemployed youth rioting won't accomplish this. But Algeria has a large number of youth who are unemployed and disenfranchised by the mafia regime in power. And they and everyone knows without little discourse needed what people want in exchange for the regime.
BTW, here is what the first caliph of the first Islamic state said upon his acceptance of the position. Abu Bakr (rah), said:
O people, I swear by Allah that I never coveted the caliphate either by day or by night, nor had I any inclination towards it. I never prayed to God openly or in secrecy to confer the office on me. I merely accepted this office lest some mischief might arise at this critical juncture in the history of the Muslims and thereby adversely affect the interests of Islam. In fact a big task has been assigned to me which is beyond my power to fulfil except with the help of the Almighty Allah and your whole hearted cooperation. I wished to see the strongest of men in my place this day. Now, it is beyond doubt that I have been elected your Amir, although I am not better than you. Help me, if I am in the right; set me right if I am in the wrong. Truth is a trust; falsehood is a treason. The weak among you will be strong with me till, God willing, his rights have been vindicated; and the strong among you shall be weak with me till, if the Lord wills, I have taken what is due from him. Obey me as long as I obey Allah and His Prophet, when I disobey Him and His Prophet, then obey me not. And now rise for prayers; may God have mercy on you."
This is the standard by which Muslim people seek in governance according to Islam.
Arvay, America is not a benign observer in North Africa. Far from it.
It can be expected that America has offered or will offer any assistance to the various regimes to remain in power if it gets worse. It's likely French special forces would offer the same. Private contractors/ mercenaries experienced in suppressing insurgencies and popular unrest have offered their services as well.
Don't believe you are innocent or disconnected. You are deeply involved from the beginning.
Since I do not know much about France's relations with the African states I can't touch on that but I can definitely say that you have little understanding of the United States. Believe it or not American soldiers usually aren't sent anywhere to deal with protesters.
The reason the riots will continue, but achieve nothing, is that neither the rioters nor the government knows how to address the underlying problems in their society. This is the case in many Muslim countries, and apart from an appeal to "Islam," sometimes by the government, sometimes by the protesters, they have no ideas to offer. Iran presents itself as the model of what happens when "Islam" becomes the only solution, something that most Muslims don't want, so there appears to be no way out.
Islamists will deny this, but Arab and Muslim countries need to open their minds to new ways of thinking. These new ways will, in Tunisia, focus on what is in the best interests of Tunisians; in Jordan, on what is in the best interests of Jordanians, etc. In most cases, it will require the abandonment of pan-Arab and pan-Islamic causes, both of which have been a drain on the real resources of these countries. Then, informed by Islamic moral ideals, they need to focus on building their economies, infrastructures, and health and educational systems to world standards. In the realm of health care, that will require rethinking the place of women. In education, the madrassa model will have to give way to a school focused on skills relevant to the modern world. Corruption will have to be tamed and ideology will have to take a back seat to getting the job done.
None of the real problems can be fixed quickly, but I would hope that if a government looked like it was finally focusing on doing the right things that its people would give it the time to get the job done. Riots and defending the regime both come at a cost to the real resources of the state, so just getting calm is a step in the right direction.
Thanks for being really objective and understandable
I'm French, and thus, feel really concerned about Tunisia. And maybe, cause I was raised in the not well known parisian "active" suburbs, meaning, a lot of my childhood friends are immigrants from Maghreb or their parents are.
I read this particular article in French and then thought I'd like to know more of your work.
And finally, read all your articles on this website about what's happening in Tunisia. And your right, we can have hopes, but naturrally, all this situations, in arabian countries are different. But anyway, thanks for this great job you did, I think, I undestand the whole situation better.
While the Tunisian protests have already had an impact on neighboring states (protests followed in Algeria, Egypt, and Jordan), the real impact will come as a result of what happens next. If the political vacuum created by Ben Ali's ouster leads to turmoil, autocratic governments will highlight this as primary evidence of why their rule is necessary to maintain stability. But if something more positive emerges in Tunis, the wheels of reform (or perhaps revolution) will turn more quickly in the Arab world. Of course, the concern, at least from a Western standpoint, is that the alternative to the entrenched authoritarianism in Arab states is a radical Islamism. Think Iran's Islamic revolution.
I found a good overview and analysis of this topic on www.streetsmartpolitics.com
Marc Lynch is associate professor of political science and international affairs at George Washington University.
Read More
January/February 2011
-
Cover Story
-
Special Report
-
Feature
(16)
HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE