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.

Tweeting in a war zone.

As the world adapts to new technologies and new communications, it is changing the way we interact with each other socially and is changing the way the world operates politically. Propaganda is nothing new and its proliferation has been used to amass armies and turn nations against each other. Repressed people are now able to voice their subversions through Twitter and broadcast the acts of violence by governments through YouTube. The internet has emancipated the voices to the West and to pressurise the governments of secretive and cruel regimes. Yet, how effective is it and are governments now catching up with this technological proliferation?

The ‘Green Revolution’ during the 2009 elections Iran was the inaugural example of a digital rebellion. After questionable results were returned and the incumbent President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad claimed electoral victory, young Iranians poured onto the streets of Tehran to protest at the result. With hundreds of thousands of opposition supporters amassing across the capital and the world’s attention heaping pressure on the Iranian Government, the Ministry of Information banned all foreign journalists. Their expulsion saw the Revolutionary Guard turn violent against its own people, without the world’s gaze scrutinising its every move. Yet, they didn’t account for mobile phones recording every move and the use of Twitter to organise public rallies. Although it did not force the government out, it highlighted their ability to turn violent on its own people and the disharmony among the Iranian population.

The recent uncertainty in Syria has been difficult to report due to the government in Damascus closing the borders to foreigners. Despite regime change in the region, with the help of new communications, the Syrian government has been effective in curbing the use of the internet. Not only has it switched off the network to prevent protests but more concerning it has forced protestors to deny unrest and promote the regime’s values online. What is also concerning is the inability of Western organisations to discern what is true and what might not be true. This week saw the press duped into the abduction of a lesbian Syrian blogger, it turned out it was a man from Scotland. Wars are now fought with public relations teams; the recent conflicts in Israel and Libya have been notorious through the role of government spokesmen. Journalists are driven around warzones like city tour buses and press releases are issued as prolifically as canon fire.

We may be unable to understand the truth fully and unfortunately more people may lose their lives before anything changes. The ability of the Chinese Government to control its firewall shows how effective these measures can be implemented. However, leaders can no longer prevent news of uprisings from escaping their borders. Long gone are the days of Glasnost and State TV monopolising the news channels, the BBC and CNN are simply a click away. Assassins come in the form of the sniper and blogosphere.

The risks they take - war reporting

Journalism can be a despised profession and the recent ‘phone hacking’ from the News of the World reflects why journalists are often deemed as likeable as politicians and lawyers. Yet, the death on Thursday of the British journalist Tim Hetherington in Misrata, Libya reflects a perspective and approach that many people neglect and take advantage of. Journalists, particularly those embedded with troops or reporting in war zones are often seen as adrenaline junkies and taking gambits to seize a story or a career opportunity, but most of the time this is not the case. Reporting in war zones to make ‘the first draft of history’ is enterprising but harrowing as its content can show people at a nadir in their lives. Violence, mortars and perpetual gunfire are all hazards of the job and it entails specialist survival training to deal with unexpected events like kidnapping or roadblocks.

There are some unhealthy aspects of journalism that have crept in of late. Sensationalism, pervasive press releases and dry stories. I remember dispatches from a journalist in Afghanistan reporting with the Parachute Regiment in the deathly heat of Helmand. The immense fire power from the Taliban and the near annihilation of a platoon not only showed the courage of the soldiers but the eloquence and intrepid reporting showed the risks the troops faced. Without journalism how would we know this? Tim Hetherington’s death is a tragedy and brings to the world’s attention what is happening to ordinary Libyans. His death has grabbed the headlines, which I’m sure he would never have wished, but it doesn’t highlight journalists being gagged, imprisoned or murdered for their profession.