The Arab Spring is dead. Long live Assad?

Freedom was their cry and freedom is what they demanded. Nation upon nation saw regimes fall across the Arab world as dynastic dictators left following a surging rally for democracy. Sweeping across North Africa and the Middle East, tyrants fell both peacefully and bloodily. Hosni Mubarak’s thirty-year reign fell following a long stand-off with young and old Egyptians, whilst Colonel Gadaffi’s 42-year-old rule ended bloodily after an intervention by NATO in Libya’s short, yet bitter civil war. The tide of democracy appeared to emerging across nations that for so long had suffered hardship and poverty. Young and educated Arabs wanted to be part of fledgling democracies with real futures. Not trapped in nations where human rights, basic amenities and jobs are hard to come by. Surely the next to fall would be the House of Assad?

Two years have passed since the Syrian uprising began and what has fast developed into the region’s bloodiest civil war. The death toll is estimated to be around 70,000. More than half a million refugees have escaped into neighbouring Jordan. More worryingly, following the alleged use of chemical weapons by the Syrian regime, President Assad appears to show no intent in relenting. The West appears hapless in deciding whether intervention would not only work, but whether it is desirable.

The city of Homs.

The problem for the West remains political, moral and straightforward realism. Politically, the inability for likely intervening nations like the US and UK have been blocked in the UN by Syria’s long term allies China and most notably Russia. The Chinese feel uncomfortable condoning any external upheaval when they have their own dissidents within Tibet and Xinjiang province, any support may simply lead to calls for greater autonomy within its own borders. Russia, on the other hand, has felt the full force of international criticism and indignation of supporting a murderous regime. Yet for Russia, it is far more complicated. Not only, like China, have they had difficulties with its own ethnic groups, most noticeably in the Caucuses, but more fundamentally, Syria has been one of the staunchest and longest serving allies in the region. As a client of Russian military hardware, as well as providing a Mediterranean port for the Russian fleet, why would President Putin feel obliged to cave into Western demands when it would seriously lose out?

Morally, the problem remains more painful. When I last wrote about Syria, the estimation of deaths was around 25,000 mark. Humanitarian reports remain bleak. Women and children are destitute. President Assad remains intent on powering through what he believes to be external forces intruding in Syria’s internal affairs. Two years into the war and it now appears that Assad is not looking for an escape route. If half a million or more die, it is cost he is willing to face. There the problem lies for the West. Within eight months, the death toll has almost quadrupled. It has already dithered since the fighting began and now it finds itself with a growing casualty list and a more radical Islamic opponent. With evidence of chemical weapons now emerging – the so-called red line before intervention, ordinary Syrians killed in the crossfire and the possibility of a less amenable successor to Bashar Al-Assad. They have seen that post-Gadaffi; Libya is dealing with external enemies both within and outside its borders in Mali and Algeria, most notably Al-Qaeda. An intervention in Syria may simply lead to a full-scale war across the whole Middle East.

Bashar al-Assad: Defiant

Finally, the straightforward realism is thus: if the rebels cannot be trusted and America has no real appetite to intervene then what is likely to happen to Syria? The two most important questions are whether Russia is willing to commit its support both diplomatically and militarily. If an intervention appears unlikely then, Vladimir Putin will simply continue with its support. Secondly, how far is Israel willing to sit on the sidelines? Only this weekend there were reports of attacks by the Israeli Defence Force within Syria following suggestions that Hezbollah had obtained chemical weapons. With the conflict on its doorstep and Al Qaeda operating freely within some of its towns and cities, it is hard to foresee the Israeli military standing down.

Politicians and diplomats are fully aware of the risks of non-intervention. The memory of Srebrenica and Rwanda remain particularly vivid within the UN and NATO. Yet, perhaps the time has passed for intervention. The Arab Spring is dead. As it stands, who knows what will happen.

2012: Arab Spring or Fall Back?

During 2011, the Arab political world was transformed as hard-line dictatorships were removed by a movement fronted by a new generation of well-educated, communicative and assertive citizens. Tired of inherent corruption, police brutality and economic mismanagement, thousands of demonstrators took to the streets with a will for change and democracy. In a matter of weeks, decades-old autocracies fell in both Egypt and Tunisia. Whilst across the border, a popular armed rebel movement, backed by NATO, dethroned a former Arab revolutionist turned tyrant, Colonel Muammar Gadaffi.

Yet a year after the start of these successful rebellions there is an increasing amount of uncertainty across the region, and worryingly beyond. New fault lines are developing within these new democracies and the avenues of new media are being stifled by the traditional realms of international diplomacy. In Bahrain, little support has been given to the oppressed Shia majority, whilst in Yemen, the West was reluctant to see President Ali Abdullah Saleh replaced. All the while in Syria, the death toll continues to rise as the international community struggles to deal with the brutal excesses of the Assad regime.

Assad: Belligerent

When the Berlin Wall came down in 1989, a youthful generation looked forward to a new set of ideals at home and abroad. Yet that generation, now part of the political elite, find themselves coupled with an economic crisis and an ever-mutating world.  The tide of the past two decades has made them increasingly fraught and reluctant to react. They have come to learn, with great expense and millions of deaths, that the succession of democracy and elections does not necessarily lead to economic growth or security. A decade of war in Afghanistan has caused no ends of trouble and still no long-term solution lies in place. Iraq, Pakistan and Syria are all issues that could easily explode beyond borders. Sclerotic institutions such as the UN hold legitimacy, but lack authority. Whereas regional bodies like the African Union (AU) and the Arab League remain divided by stasis and affliction.

The Arab Spring appeared different because the uprisings were led by an internal opposition. International voices highlighted their commitment to human rights, political reform and democracy, but nothing beyond. The memories of Algeria and Iraq meant that the West was reluctant to commit to anything other than rhetoric. Yet here were revolutions that were relatively bloodless and demanded change with so called ‘Western values’. The Libyan revolution required NATO help and incurred losses, but with an ultimate desire for freedom.

However, the flourishing hope appears to be diluting. Syria is fast turning into a cauldron. The UN ceasefire appears to exist purely as a memorandum. Russia and China indignantly reject any action towards President Assad, whereas other Western powers remain divided on whether to arm his opponents. Meanwhile; Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Qatar are concerned at the subversive role played by Iran and Hezbollah. In the past year alone, over 9,000 people have died due to the violence, if this turns into a regional war then who knows how big the death toll will become.

In Africa, unrest is dispersing across several countries. Guinea-Bissau suffered a coup d’état, Nigeria is dealing with a violent insurgency in the north. Tuareg mercenaries, armed by Colonel Gadaffi, have captured the northern half of Mali, including the town of Timbuktu, and have declared independence from Bamako. Whilst in the east, the bloodless secession of South Sudan from Sudan is fast turning ugly. Sudanese President Omar Al-Bashir recently called his former countrymen ‘the enemy’. Already factional fighting and bombing has occurred across this fragmented, yet, oil-rich region. The 2005 Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) ended over 50 years of civil war, a legacy that left over two million dead. Former South Africa President Thabo Mbeki has been unable to get the leaders of Khartoum and Juba to sit down for talks. As Mbeki says, both countries are trapped in the ‘logic of war’.

A year after independence are the Sudanese heading for war again?

As combat operations in Afghanistan wind down and the bite of defence cuts hits NATO nations, the prospect of future interventions remains doubtful. Unless organisations like the UN are willing to reform then who is to stop anything? The lessons after the Cold War have made industrial nations wary of change. If these countries lack the foundations and institutions of a democracy, then who’s not to say that it won’t fall apart in years to come?

2011 was a year that brought change for the Arab world, bringing hope and prospects for a new generation. We will see whether 2012 will continue to bring those fortunes or just the hangover from hell.

Russian elections: Putin in power.

It was the British Foreign Secretary William Hague who said that the democratic uprisings of 2011 are the most defining international events of the twenty-first century. All across North Africa and the Middle East, citizens, who had been shackled for generations by authoritarian rulers, protested in the streets to win the right to be free participants in a democratic nation. Absolute rulers in Egypt and Tunisia have been overthrown peacefully, Libya’s Colonel Muammar Gaddafi’s rule ended ignominiously after 42 years, whilst in Syria, Bashir al-Assad has resorted to turning on his own people. The great emancipator, Abraham Lincoln, once said of Russia that its people were deserving of a despot because they did not love liberty. Yet after dubious election results and a forthcoming Presidential campaign in 2012, the Russian people are looking to join a new struggle to prevent the current Prime Minister, Vladimir Putin, taking Presidential power for a third time. Two decades after the breakup of the USSR and the difficult transition to democracy what lies ahead for the Great Bear?

The elections in the State Duma (the lower house) last week can only be declared as a farce. An institution re-established by Tsar Nicholas II as a way of appeasing revolutionaries back in 1906 saw Putin’s United Russia party re-elected with 49.5% of the vote, down from 64.3%. The Opposition say between 20-25% of the vote was faked and if counted accurately the United Russia party would have polled just under 30%, a claim denied vehemently by election officials. Reports claim wide instances of ballot rigging including officials filling out ballots and parents of schoolchildren forced to vote in fear of cuts to school funding. Former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev has called for the results to be annulled, whilst many angry voters have taken their displeasure to the streets. Last weekend saw anti-Putin demonstrations in over 80 cities across Russia; they believe if they cannot stop him now then he is sure to be elected for another two terms (12 years), a costly mistake for the country. There were pro-Putin rallies accompanying the counterparts; however reports suggest that many of the demonstrators had been bussed in from cities, unaware of what they had been sent to.

President Medvedev’s decision to stand down after one term did not surprise anyone but it did ask questions of where Russia wanted to go. Critics claim that Putin was the man making all the decisions, yet there seemed to be a greater avenue of reform, along with the usual skulduggery associated in Russian politics. Diplomatic relations with the US were famously reset when Secretary of State Hillary Clinton met Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, key reforms began in the military and new measures were put in place to attract international investors. On the contrary, we saw the 2008 conflict against Georgia, energy wars with Ukraine and diminishing press and social freedoms. The difficulty for Russia is that it has struggled to secure a place in the world after the Soviet Union broke up. Many former satellite states like Lithuania and Estonia have rushed to join the EU and others would prefer protection from NATO rather than the Kremlin. With a decreasing population and waning influence in the world, Putin’s perception is that Russia must be united under a strong leader. Officials and oligarchs are happy to accept this as long as they retain their share of the spoils. Even Nicholas II moved to restrict the powers of the Duma.

For ordinary Russians, none of these situations are conducive. Political stagnation, corruption and the high cost of living has seen a poll show that around 20% of Russians consider emigrating. Despite a growing economy, many of the most talented scientists and graduates are moving to the US, Canada and the EU, Russia is suffering a brain drain, the prospects of Putin only exacerbate this situation.

Putin claimed the US was behind the protests and spent hundreds of millions of dollars to organise the unrest. Yet, outside interference and suspicion does not work on a growing technological and mobilising middle class. They want reforms and they don’t want Vladimir Putin to take any part of it. The concerning aspect of it all as the former chess grandmaster and pro-democracy activist Garry Kasparov says, if the peaceful protests fail then it may lead to bloodshed.

It's the economy, dumbass!

The political change taking place across the Middle East and North Africa has surprised most commentators and politicians in terms of its success and speed. Many of the countries that have changed during the ‘Arab Spring’ had been controlled by strongmen who had been in charge for decades. Hosni Mubarak, who stood down from Egypt after thirty years, was only the third president since the 1952 revolution. What has interested me most besides the timing, has been the reaction of the world’s major countries, particularly America. The US has been a major player in the region in the past sixty years, providing aid (and arming) Israel, placing sanctions on Iran and removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq. The US has a varying record across the world but it is always unanimous when it comes to promoting and pushing values of democracy and liberty.

These values are mentioned dozens of times in any presidential speech and evolve ultimately from America’s Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights. American troops are deployed all around the world to protect the love of their country and the values it evokes. Yet despite the vivid portrayals of flags and parades adjoined to the rhetoric from the likes of Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann, I wonder whether America is perhaps over-democratised and whether its ‘brand’ of politics is tarnishing the way the system works?

To many, 20 January 2009 was a historical day across the world, but particularly in America. Barack Obama was sworn in as the first black US President. It was a magical moment to watch and the banners for change were painted across cities and small towns in America through the ubiquitous ‘Hope’ posters that will come to define a generation. Yet since that day the obvious stalling of the American economy has defined Obama’s first term as President and with that an infectious antagonism has developed between the President’s Democrats and the Grand Old Party (GOP), the Republicans.

The passage of Obama’s healthcare bill that in essence extended insurance provision to the poorest in society caused fractions between both parties. Obama’s Presidential opponent, Senator John McCain called the bill ‘unconstitutional’ and the President was called a liar by Republican Joe Wilson during a joint session of Congress, a major disrespect in American conventions and in most democracies. The issues of late has been the nation’s high unemployment rate, around 9%, and the inability to agree on America’s deficit (currently America’s total debt stands at $14 trillion (and increasing)). The Democrats, who suffered defeats during the midterms, struggled to pass through the President’s budget until the last minute. Yet, the belligerent GOP who block every bill proposed by Mr Obama, have struggled to formulate their own deficit reduction plan. Congressman Paul Ryan who put forward a much tougher plan, compared to the Democrats, called the ‘Path to Prosperity’ wanted tighter reforms to healthcare and federal spending. This too was voted down. Politicians are embattled over the Treasury’s ceiling limit of American federal debt and the unrest is visible as states such as New Jersey, California and New York struggle to tackle their public spending, even the NFL nearly went on strike. Yet amongst all this, it appears we are yet again in election season.

Despite the US elections being over 18 months away, we have already descended into the hubbub of caucuses and campaigning. The Republicans candidates are still deciding whether 2014 is the best opportunity for them to run. Most headlines nationally and internationally focus on the glamorous, relentless yet fallible Sarah Palin. An ambassador of the Tea Party and a saviour to America’s right, Palin has taken herself on a tour of the US but has yet to confirm whether she will stand. The flamboyant property tycoon Donald Trump also ruled himself out after questioning Obama’s citizenship. Another unhealthy idea evolving from America’s Right is the re-emergence of Reagonomics, in honour of the Republican’s ideological God – Ronald Reagan. Yet Reagan’s policy of cutting taxes yet maintaining a large military capability through borrowing seems idiotic but plays with the patriots’ hearts, despite a horrendous deficit. There appears to be plenty of choice of candidates but no one outstanding.

American electioneering has revolutionised the way democracy and politics works and moves. From the advent of Presidential debates that saw the rookie John F, Kennedy defeat the experienced Richard Nixon to the sophisticated internet campaign that saw Obama steamroll Hilary Clinton as nominee then John McCain. Presidential campaigning is a billion dollar industry and has been used over the years to the Philippines, Venezuela, even the Scottish National Party (SNP) adopted the technology in the recent local elections in the UK.

Now here is the problem, expect utterances of ‘American exceptionalism’ and the usual musings of freedom, hope etc. Yet, it appears to deflect from the big elephant in the room. Bill Clinton’s infamous election phrase, ‘It’s the economy stupid!’ America is in a safer position compared to Britain because the dollar is the world’s reserve currency and developing nations are still prepared to buy US Treasury bonds. Yet the dynamics of American electioneering deflect from the intrinsic importance of policy making and sorting out the economy. The current UK coalition between the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats could of course collapse at any time, coalitions do, but the five year plan to wipe out the deficit, despite its critics, is backed and understood by most members of the British public. The British economy is of course entirely different to the American, but the flexibility of the Parliamentary system, which does have its flaws, has shown that the benefits over a codified and rigorous constitutional system. America’s love of democracy isn’t helping any recovery.

America should be proud of its values and persistence to promote and enhance the lives of others across the world. Its labour markets are flexible enough to create new jobs and adapt to the global economy, yet it the constant dogmatism and disorder, perhaps over-democratisation, mixed with the professional electioneers, has caused it to stall and lose focus on important matters. By no means, would any American lust for the Chinese political system or the over bureaucratic system of India but it would aspire for year on year high economic growth and end site to potential financial meltdown. The world could not afford the American economy to default, but you wish someone would stop talking about flags and just say ‘it’s the economy stupid!’

In the name of Osama.

So Osama is dead, hiding in a small provincial town in the heart of Pakistan, his last moments were dealt with by a team of US Navy Seals. The rapture across America is understandable and the vast majority of world leaders have welcomed the news of bin Laden’s death. There are a few things to take away with his passing. Firstly, one of the most iconic men of the twenty-first century is gone. The pictures and videos that followed 9/11 showed a man uttering strong hate and revenge, yet remaining calm and unflustered throughout. We have been led to believe that he has been residing within caves and the parochial uplands of Pakistan. Yet despite the infrequent nature of his media appearances this revolutionary became more iconic than the likes of Che Guevara. The world underestimated the man's reverence and his ability to unite under one organisation.

Previously, America had fought enemies within countries and regions. Even the Communist ideology could be sourced to the Kremlin in Moscow or Castro in Havana. Al Qaeda was an enemy confronting American interests all around the world and yet its leaders could not be sourced to one specific location (Bin Laden spent years in Sudan, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia and his final residence Pakistan). This distorted omnipresence fooled Pentagon hawks into believing all terrorist groups prescribed as ‘enemies of America’ were off shoots of Al Qaeda. Militant Islamic groups such as Hezbollah or Hamas were tarred with the same brush yet their cause was ingrained in a deeper nationalist cause much like the IRA. This made the ‘War on Terror’ became amorphous and tactically unwinnable.

September 11th and the casualties across the Eastern seaboard of American will always be remembered. The calculated and horrifying death toll will be etched in the minds of the people going to work on that Tuesday morning. This was only the awakening, attacks in Bali, Madrid and London spread the terror to other big metropolitan areas. It changed the relationship between citizens and governments and between faiths and neighbourhoods.

When the world comes to judge the legacy of bin Laden and his ideology, perhaps most people will forget the deaths inflicted not on infidels, but on ordinary Muslims. Al Qaeda saw itself as a liberator from Western decadence and puppet regimes in the Middle East, yet tens, possibly hundreds of thousands of people have been slain in Pakistan, Indonesia and ultimately Iraq in the name of Al Qaeda and Islam. Whether Bin Laden ceased to become a protagonist or figurehead in recent years is possibly true, but it is fair to assess that his impact was huge, in terms of lives, not successes.

The question no one can answer is whether his death will draw a line under the continuous violence in the name of ‘Islam’ or whether the Arab Spring will evolve into a bloc of freely democratic and legitimate Arab nations? The latter would perhaps be a worthy resolution for all those innocent men, women and children who died under his stewardship. It will certainly not be the end of Al-Qaeda.