Written by Muhammad Tahir
This week's events in Tunisia have reminded us that when it's time for change, no one can predict how rapidly events will unfold. Just like the collapse of the Soviet Union: even though there was general consensus that Soviet influence across Eastern Europe was on the wane, who would have imagined civilians with sledgehammers pulling down the Berlin Wall while East German soldiers impassively looked on? The way ahead will be perilous, but not entirely without precedent or prediction.
One of the more prescient predictions for 2011 and beyond was that as American power wanes, nation states would become increasingly bold in probing the edges of US control. The examples cited were China and North Korea, and possibly Iran as well. Perhaps less predictable was the realisation that the oppressed people of the world - and more specifically the Middle East - would also become increasingly emboldened to test the resolve of their oppressive rulers who depend entirely upon American support.
One of the realities of state force is that, by and large, it depends on the power of deterrence. Numerically, the people hold the balance of power, but totalitarian regimes maintain power through a combination of a complicit ruling elite and state power which swiftly and brutally puts down dissent at the first hint of trouble. The dire example of those who dissent is hopefully enough to keep everyone else in line. There is an implicit game of bluff involved: how much of its own people's blood is the state willing to shed to maintain its control?
The Middle Eastern answer in the 20th Century was: plenty. Hafiz Asad's destruction of the entire city of Hama resulted in estimates of up to 40,000 civilians massacred through a combination of heavy shelling, poison gas and urban warfare. None of this would have been possible without American or Soviet-supplied weaponry and logistical backup. Does anyone really believe that all those wonderful weapons bought by Arab governments serve any purpose other than the suppression of internal dissent?
Some of the more revealing discoveries of Wiki-gate related to the insecure dependency of Arab rulers on the US to preserve their power. From the Saudi's begging for the destruction of Iran's nuclear programme to the President of Yemen helpfully offering to take responsibility for any drone attacks over his own populace, Arab rulers know that without US support, their numbered days in powers could probably be counted on the fingers of their own hands.
And then there was Tunisia. After first thinking that the populace could be appeased with the reintroduction of food and fuel subsidies, Ben Ali ended the week in exile, ensconced in a secure palace in the leafy suburbs of Jeddah. After decades of ripping the hijabs off the daughters of Tunisia, Ben Ali faces the prospect of his own daughters having to wear hijab to leave their own house.
What does the future hold? Unlike Julian Assange and Wikileaks, who have been frozen out by every major Western financial institution, Tunisia’s Ben Ali can probably sleep easy knowing that the billions he has stolen from his country will be safe. The Swiss banking system is a reliable repository for the stolen treasure of dictators and financiers alike.
As for the survival of the Middle East's ruling elites, they will not roll over so easily. For a possible roadmap of what is to come over the next 6-12 months, we should look to the European revolutions of 1848:
"Both liberal reformers and radical politicians were reshaping national governments. Technological change was revolutionizing the life of the working classes. A popular press extended political awareness, and new values and ideas such as popular liberalism, nationalism and socialism began to spring up. A series of economic downturns and crop failures, particularly those in the year 1846, produced starvation among peasants and the working urban poor." (Wikipedia)
It is almost uncanny how the (technologically enabled) communication of ideas among the masses combined with growing economic disruption so accurately describe phenomena separated by over 160 years. Back then it was the printing press and crop failures, whereas in 2011 it's Twitter, Wikileaks and the global economic meltdown.
But it was not all change in 1848. Through a series of shrewd concessions, including political participation (which in most cases was mostly symbolic and extremely limited in scope) and limited financial reforms, the ruling elites were able to survive the popular revolts of their time with most of their power and privilege intact.
In the 2011 version, look for the proposals heralding "freer" elections, but for the selection of generally impotent political assemblies. Arab governments will also strain to extend economic subsidies - it is generally accepted that in Egypt, Hosni Mubarak's rule depends as much on US-funded fuel and bread subsidies as it does on the iron fist of the security services.
But there are differences as well. The two biggest unknowns are the ongoing instability of the global economic market (which is basically running on fumes as it is) and Israel. The ability of individual states to insulate themselves from global economic shocks is extremely limited. Egypt, Jordan and Syria are not in a position to bail themselves out of a real financial crisis. Any bailout that were to materialise would come from the East not the West. Could Qatar and Abu Dhabi be the new sugar daddies for the tottering dictatorships of the Middle East? Without any help, the trickling down of even more financial pain through shortages of already unaffordable food and fuel will result in uncontainable public anger. Any new government will either be genuinely less sympathetic to US interests in the Middle East, or will at least have to pretend.
Which brings us to Israel. While Arab tyrants can console themselves with their stashed billions should they be forced to relinquish power, Israel’s dependence on US muscle is more existential. Many Israelis believe that without the US shield of financial and military power, their very existence is threatened. Without this security, a desperate and insecure Israel becomes the greatest threat to stability in the Middle East. If it decides unilaterally to act against Iran or Pakistan, all bets are off. How fast can you say, "$500 for a barrel of oil?!"
This partly explains the increasingly shrill, anti-Islamic tone emanating from the pro-Israel lobby in the US. They are desperately pushing the canard that Islam and Muslims are the new enemy - not fundamentalists or "Islamists", just Islam and Muslims in general. They are hoping that this will be enough to ensure ongoing US support even while potentially new Arab governments may extend a hand of friendship to the West. It also helps to explain Israel’s irrationally belligerent attitude towards its closest regional ally, Turkey. Despite the recent lifting of a ban on hijab in certain public places, Turkey's bureaucracy remains safely in the hands of die-hard secularists, as evidenced by the promotion of hadith-deleting Gormez to the head of Turkey's state-run religious-affairs directorate (Diyanet) which we'll revisit later, insha'Allah. Despite this, Israel insists on an antagonistic stance with its old friend. It's almost difficult to decide who's more dismayed: the Israelis, or Turkey's beleaguered secularists. In its insecurity-fuelled hysteria, Israel risks alienating its friends as well as its foes.
The threat to world peace and stability is thus not the aspirations of the oppressed, but rather the desperation of the established elites to cling to their power and influence at all costs. We at UmmahPulse pray for the safety of our brothers and sisters as they shed the yolk of oppression, whilst hoping that they will finally have the freedom to realise their aspirations and express their faith without fear of repression or violence.
"If a wound has touched you, be sure a similar wound has touched the others. Such days (of varying fortunes) We give to men and men by turns: that Allah may know those that believe, and that He may take to Himself from your ranks witnesses (to Truth). And Allah loves not those that do wrong." (Al Imran, 3:140)
"O ye who believe! If any from among you turn back from his Faith, soon will Allah produce a people whom He will love as they will love Him - humble and kind with the believers, firm against those who reject, fighting in the way of Allah, and never afraid of the criticism of those that find fault. That is the grace of Allah, which He will bestow on whom He pleases. And Allah encompasses all, and He knows all things." (Al-Ma'idah, 5:54)
5 comments: