The unrest that continues to sweep through the Arab world is as wayward and unpredictable as the tsunami that hit Japan.
Many Arab analysts now admit that the popular ‘intifadas’ (uprisings) caught them by surprise and they, like the rest of the world, are still trying to work out the long—term consequences.
When the Tunisians first took to the streets, most Arabs saw their outpouring of popular anger as a purely local phenomenon that had nothing to do with the rest of the Arab world. The common refrain at the time was that this so—called Tunisian revolution would never spread to neighbouring Arab countries.
Within days, however, Tahrir Square in the centre of Cairo was filled with hundreds of thousands of Egyptians demanding regime change. In the end the sheer scale of the unrest in Cairo, as well as the number of casualties, dwarfed the Tunisian upheaval. The Egyptian regime was older and better entrenched than its Tunisian counterpart, so Mubarak’s downfall was an even bigger event.
Right to the bitter end, Mubarak’s closest advisers kept insisting that their man was not like Tunisia’s ousted dictator, Zine al-Abidine Bin Ali, who escaped with his personal hoard of gold bars to Saudi Arabia.
Mubarak himself was until the last minute quoted as saying he would never leave, although in the end he and his family members were helicoptered from their lavish Cairo palace to the Red Sea resort of Sharm el-Sheikh.
As they face the wrath of their people, Libya’s Colonel Muammar Gaddafi, Syria’s Bashar al-Assad and Yemen’s Ali Abdullah Saleh argued that they were not like Tunisia and Egypt. But if analysts are willing to put their reputations on line and make any predictions, the vast majority would today predict that it is only a matter of time before these three do minos also fall.
It does not need an analyst or a soothsayer to predict that this political tsunami can only grow and spread still further. The other regimes at risk include the many sheikhdoms of the Gulf, such as Bahrein, as well as Oman and Saudi Arabia.
Five million Indians, as well as other foreigners working in the Gulf, have good reason to worry for their future. All indications are that the uprisings due to hit their countries of residence will not be as ‘peaceful’ as the ones in Tunisia and Egypt. As events in Libya have shown, violence on city streets may easily turn into armed confrontation between pro—and anti—government forces. Tens of thousands of foreign workers, including many Indians, fled Libya, losing their livelihoods in the process.
It took many years for stability to return to America, following the war of independence, and France was unstable for a long period of time after the revolution. The Arab world faces a similar prospect. Civil war, anarchy and prolonged political instability are all on the cards where the Arabs are concerned.
In the short term, however, Arab families can lie back and enjoy the kickbacks that are being offered to them by their ever more desperate and collapsing regimes.
Weeks after Ben Ali and Mubarak stepped down, political uncertainty and fear of civil war are twin prospects that still growl on the street corners of their capital cities. Protests continue because, as far as the revolutionaries are concerned, their presidents have been brought down but the regimes till survive.
Some of the fault lies in the hands of the revolutionaries themselves. They have successfully ridden the crest of their respective tsunamis, but have been unable to produce their own leaders for the post revolutionary era. Those few candidates who tried to ride the next wave have been shouted down and dismissed as opportunists.
Egypt’s Nobel Prize winning Mohammed El-Baradei is a case in point. He had the guts to challenge Mubarak when the former President was still in office, and some saw in him an alternative to the 82-year-old ousted dictator. Yet, when Baradei arrived at a Cairo polling station to cast his vote in the recent national referendum, he was booed and pelted with shoes by a crowd that shouted, “Go home, American agent.”
Optimists underline how regime change has been facilitated by enthusiastic, largely Western educated, Internet users who belong to the so-called Tweet and Facebook generation. It is they who continue to lead and successfully expose the atrocities and human rights violations in their respective countries.
Similarly Internet users in Egypt played a parallel role in bringing to public attention the case of a young Egyptian, Khaled Saeed, who was tortured to death while in police custody in Alexandria.
Yet, for all the optimism generated by a combination of youth, high technology and liberal Western values, there is another side to the emerging new republics. They are not necessarily pro-West and they are certainly anti-Israel. When US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton recently visited Cairo, she was shunned by the ‘leaders of Tahrir Square’ who accused her administration of supporting for decades the discredited Mubarak regime.
The same sentiments are being echoed on the streets of other Arab capitals where anti-government demonstrators have been also chanting anti-Israel and anti-US slogans.
For New Delhi the regional uncertainty presents both a challenge and an opportunity. The challenge is linked to the upward trajectory of fuel prices. The opportunity arises from the popular perception of India as an independent country and not as the handmaiden of Washington, the so-called big ‘Satan’ interested only in supporting Israel at all costs and preserving privileged access to the region’s oil fields.
When India voted to abstain the recent United Nations Security Council authorising a ‘no-fly zone’ over Libya, this was seen on the Arab street as further evidence that New Delhi follows its own instincts where West Asia is concerned. The old cliché that one man’s misfortune could be another man’s blessing may well apply when it comes to assessing how India’s regional interests could be affected.
It is all about oil
Lt Gen Vijay Oberoi (retd)
In the last few days there has been a dramatic and explosive change in the events in Libya. The events, which have held centre—stage in the media and in most capitals of the world, have suddenly gained urgency on account of two reasons. The first is the UN Security Council resolution permitting the establishment of a ‘no fly zone’, so as to restrain the Libyan leader, Muammar Gadaffi from using military measures to subdue what the western media and the western governments are calling peaceful protests by a section of the populace of Libya. The second is the unleashing of massive military force to tame if not permanently neutralise both Gaddafi and his army. The two are obviously not compatible.
Let me rewind to place the events in Libya in the correct perspective. Following the Jasmine Revolution in Tunisia, the peoples of many countries in the Arab world commenced popular uprisings against the current authoritarian / monarchical governments demanding an end to rampant corruption, authoritarian / dynastic rule, human rights violations, curbs on civil liberties and ushering in the rule of law.
The countries that faced this unrest have responded differently to the emerging situation, with Egypt accepting the change after initial posturing by President Mubarak. However, the portents are that while the Egyptian people will eventually get a different regime, the Egyptian military will continue to call the shots!
In Libya, Colonel Gaddafi summarily rejected the uprising, obviously with the confidence of the support of his army, his tribal compatriots and a fairly large part of the population that he had apparently nurtured.
When the Libyan uprising, later called rebellion, commenced, everyone thought it was part of the domino effect that was sweeping that part of the world. However, it soon became apparent that there was more to it than what was projected by the Western media. Unlike Tunisia, Egypt, Bahrain, Yemen and other Arab countries, the rebels in Libya were acting in accordance with a plan. What was projected as a spontaneous movement of angry people, securing town after town while moving from the eastern part of Libya towards Tripoli to oust Gaddafi, was actually a well-planned move by an opposition group, with covert support from external powers. The façade was lifted when the Western nations saw the Libyan army rolling back all the gains made by the rebels and pushing them back to Benghazi.
A resolution of the UNSC was quickly moved and despite lack of consensus, as displayed by the abstentions by five important countries — India, China, Russia, Germany and Brazil — the military intervention was now well underway.
Many thought that having intervened in at least three countries in recent years — Kosovo, Iraq and Afghanistan — and having largely failed in achieving the aims they had set to achieve, the Western countries led by the US would refrain from getting involved militarily in yet another similar escapade. However, the three ingredients that have propelled them to do so once again are ‘oil’, ‘ego’ and the culture of dominating a country of the third world.
In this exercise, the UN was a convenient fig leaf and it has been used once again. Whether they are able to effect a regime change and foist a pliable alternative is at present a moot point, but they would certainly devastate a nation where the standard of living has been as high as any nation of the first world, including the sole super power!
Let me now briefly turn to the military aspects. The UN mandate, relating to the imposition of a no-fly zone, was ostensibly to prevent Gaddafi from using the Libyan Air Force to winkle out the rebels from Benghazi and areas around it. However, even in the operations so far, the superior Western air forces are bombing all types of targets, to include ammunition dumps, command posts, air defence units, tanks and artillery pieces, as well as what they perceive as Libyan troops.
It does not need a rocket scientist to understand that once again another third world nation will be devastated, large number of people will get killed or maimed, infrastructure will be destroyed and yet another prosperous country will join the ranks of the poor countries, despite its oil wealth.
The final outcome is hard to predict, especially when the Libyan military as well as important tribes continue to be loyal to Gaddafi. His personal wealth abroad may have been made inaccessible, but the dictators of his ilk always have numerous methods of keeping substantial amounts in places that may be inaccessible to the Western countries. Gaddafi is unlikely to succumb easily and hence a prolonged struggle is likely.
There is also a need to take a close look at oil that has brought wealth to the people of Libya and which the Western countries covet and usurp. Nearly all of Libya’s oil and natural gas are produced onshore. Libya’s 1.8 million barrels per day of oil output comes from two basins. The two are under the control of separate factions — Gaddafi and the rebels, backed by the Western powers. Libyan oil is largely exported to European countries; hence their unduly high interest in supporting the rebels! In terms of oil, which is the mainstay of Libyan economy, the battle lines seem to be set, but no one knows who will eventually prevail.
India has once again chosen to sit on the fence, even though the fence in this case is a barbed wire; it will poke us at every turn, but that is the way our diplomatic and security honchos are — follow the Buddha and adopt the ‘Middle Path’! The learned Buddha could manage it, but can our pundits?
No comments:
Post a Comment