The West’s Management of Developments in the Middle East
Javid Ghorban-Oghli, Director General for Africa with the Iranian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, discusses the recent political developments in North Africa and the Middle East in the following article. He believes that due to the gaps among Muslims, the West has been able to manage the civil movements in the region.
On Dec. 17, 2010, Mohamed Bouazizi, a Tunisian street vendor, set himself on fire. That trend has since spread all over the Arab world, burning the tyrant rulers of the Arab countries. It looks like the region’s problems have accumulated in a gunpowder warehouse and this fire is not going to be extinguished very easily. In fact, it will lead to great changes in the entire region. In upcoming years it is expected to bring a completely new face to the Middle East.
The developments and transitions of Arab countries are definitely blissful and blessed occasions for its people. However, they have been a challenge to the legitimacy of the Arab regimes’ tyrants. It should be acknowledged, however, that not all of these political developments are homegrown. External forces have been highly influential: for example, NATO’s military intervention in Libya that is likely to follow in Syria. At the beginning, the Arab World’s political movements shocked the West. Nevertheless, they were later able to manage and affect these transitions by means of technological capabilities, soft power policies and international instruments. The West’s economic and strategic interests and the historic influence of some of the Northern Mediterranean countries in this region turned them into influential players in the recent political transitions.
Developments in Tunisia were a huge surprise not only to the West, but also to the rest of the world. Due to the dominance of the authoritarian, oppressive and strict security regimes in North Africa, a shadow of peace and tranquility had previously appeared to encompass the whole area. The Tunisian crisis was unpredictable for every player in the political arena, including domestic political groups, the elite, other countries in the region, and the Western world. So what happened in Tunisia was not led by the foreigners, but was a completely local and public movement, the outcome of the civilian demands of a nation that was on the verge of exploding. However, Ben Ali’s inexperience in confronting the revolutionary movements and the fact that he resigned and fled the country soon after the crisis began played an important role in Tunisia’s transitions.
Tunisia was an arrow already shot. This movement quickly spread to Egypt and brought about another shock to the West. Hosni Mubarak had been the West’s main ally in the region and the upset left the U.S. and the Europe in a state of confusion toward the Egyptian movement. The U.S. confusion about political transitions in Egypt was such that Hilary Clinton changed her official stance three times. At first, the United States emphasized the stability of Egypt and Mubarak’s managing capability. But at the end, the U.S. came to the conclusion that it was time for Mubarak to resign his seat of power quickly. The U.S. position toward Egypt disappointed Saudi Arabia as they did not think the Americans would withdraw their support for Mubarak so quickly. In fact, the experience from Tunisia made the West better acquainted with the political changes and developments in the Arab world. Thereafter, the Western world began to understand what was going on in the region and decided to manage it in its own way. Through its rich academic and strategic background, the West tried to reach an accurate analysis of the events in order to adjust Middle East policies based on the region’s developments.
The agreement reached between the West and the military forces in Egypt prevented the breakdown of the army and finally managed to handle the transition. In other words, the Egyptians’ movement had the potential to change not only Egypt, but all the other Arab countries. However, it was stopped from moving forward and accomplishing its true and likely objectives. It’s obvious that the current Egypt is different from what was when Mubarak was still in power, but it should be remembered that some significant and still intact factors bind Egypt with the West, including Egypt-Israel relations, the Camp David Accord, gas exports to Israel, the important role of the military in the politics, etc. These are important matters to Egypt in its relations with the outer world and with its position in the Arab and Muslim worlds.
In spite of some apparent deficiencies in its relationships, they still continue to survive on diplomatic grounds. Indeed, the U.S. and the rest of the Western world managed to ride the wave of change fast. The other side of these developments is the Muslim world’s newest awakening. Looking at it from the perspective of a competitive and neo-liberal world, it needs to be admitted that the West is the winner of this battle. The civil movements in the Arab world gave birth to a baby who is not and will not necessarily be what it is expected to be.
Due to Western military intervention in Libya, 50,000 people have been killed so far while nothing concrete has been achieved. The West will definitely have a strong presence in the future of this oil-rich country in North Africa and there is no promise that a democratic regime will replace Gadhafi. The opposition groups do not have much in common and only agree on the fact that Gadhafi must resign. There are also some serious disparities inside Libya’s National Transitional Council that will cause problems in the future. The moderate and extremist Salafis, the Nationalists, the Western-oriented intellectuals, and the military forces all count among Gadhafi’s opponents. All this adds up to hardly any hope for change in Libya’s future.
The West, with the help of Saudi Arabia, was also successful in controlling the political transition in Yemen. In fact, only 50 percent of the recent developments in Yemen are being taken care of by its own people; the United States and Saudi Arabia deserve credit for the other half.
The story is the same with Bahrain. The West gave the green light to Saudi Arabian forces, enabling them to stop the advancement of protests in Bahrain. Despite Iran’s official stance on the issue, the protest movement does not seek to overthrow the Al Khalifa regime. A majority of the opponents reached a mutual agreement with Al Khalifa to achieve more legal, civil and human rights. They do not know that they are not actually capable of overthrowing his dynasty. Even Bahraini’s Muslim intellectuals do not believe in the message Iran is trying to convey to them.
In addition, the situation in Syria is getting even worse for the Bashar al-Assad regime. It appears that the regime’s excessive misuse of power has led his government to an irreversible point. The West’s stance toward the political developments in Syria is fully and intelligently planned. Turkey has decided to support the West in regards to Syria’s recent political movement since it is looking forward to consolidating its own position in the international system. At the present time, Syria’s situation is very complex. An uncertain future awaits the country and it is unclear whether it will turn out in the favor of the Syrian nationals. The interesting point here is that Iranians constantly claim that an Islamic Awakening has happened in the Middle East, while if they actually start to look for proof of their claim in the recent Arab world’s movements, Syria would be the only true example of a nation experiencing intellectual and religious growth. The Syrian Civil movement, more than anywhere else in the region, has an Islamic texture. Bashar al-Assad’s opponents come from a totally religious background. However, the Iranian regime is supporting the Syrian government for personal reasons.
Therefore, it can be said that, at present, the Arab world and its developments are being managed by outsiders. I believe that it is unrealistic to be positive about the future of these countries or to believe that these movements are either genuine or Islamic.
However, there are two countries that adopted more rational ways of confronting such civil movements: Morocco and Jordan. King Mohammed VI of Morocco was able to control and manage the protests in his country. He found that he needed to be tolerant with his people while trying to understand them and their needs. By surrendering part of his authority, he has been able to satisfy some opponents. The problem in Jordan is a little more complicated because half of its population is Palestinian, a subset that has unique and different demands. This makes it harder for Abdullah II, the reigning king of Jordan, to satisfy everyone.
So now, the West’s management and the idea of an Islamic awakening in the Middle East have started to confront one another. The winner of this monumental confrontation will be the one who knows how to handle soft power instead of violence and who manages these critical situations and transitions with a high degree of intelligence and rationality. Interestingly enough, Iran is alone in this particular political position. There is no country by its side supporting its ideas about the current transition in the region. Furthermore, Iran’s awful relations with influential countries in the Muslim world impede it from applying its diplomatic influence to advance the objectives of the movements or to present an effective and coherent plan for the region’s change. While on the other hand, the West is deriving considerable benefit from this opportunity.
Iran, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Turkey are practically the most important and influential countries in the region. Each of them has a different ruling system. Aside from that, they have completely different viewpoints about the issues of the Middle East.
Turkey represents a modern example of an Islamic democracy and wants to introduce itself as an ideal among Islamic countries. Additionally, the West supports Turkey and its policies. It therefore appears that, to some extent, it has been successful in achieving its goal.
Saudi Arabia is a monarchy and seeks different goals in the region, such as supporting other Sunni-Arab countries and strengthening its economic and military powers. It has good relations with the West, especially the U.S.
Egypt had a totalitarian republic for years and was allied to the West. After the recent crisis, however, its future and objectives in the region remain unknown.
These four countries do not offer ideal examples of ruling systems or of interactions with the Western world. Each of them believes that they are setting a perfect example and wants to promote their way to others. This is an indication of a huge gap in the Muslim world. The West has been able to exert its power and manage the recent events of the Islamic-Arab countries. Despite different points of view, Western countries have all adopted a similar strategy toward the movements and developments of the Muslim world — a consequence of a completely pragmatic attitude.
On Dec. 17, 2010, Mohamed Bouazizi, a Tunisian street vendor, set himself on fire. That trend has since spread all over the Arab world, burning the tyrant rulers of the Arab countries. It looks like the region’s problems have accumulated in a gunpowder warehouse and this fire is not going to be extinguished very easily. In fact, it will lead to great changes in the entire region. In upcoming years it is expected to bring a completely new face to the Middle East.
The developments and transitions of Arab countries are definitely blissful and blessed occasions for its people. However, they have been a challenge to the legitimacy of the Arab regimes’ tyrants. It should be acknowledged, however, that not all of these political developments are homegrown. External forces have been highly influential: for example, NATO’s military intervention in Libya that is likely to follow in Syria. At the beginning, the Arab World’s political movements shocked the West. Nevertheless, they were later able to manage and affect these transitions by means of technological capabilities, soft power policies and international instruments. The West’s economic and strategic interests and the historic influence of some of the Northern Mediterranean countries in this region turned them into influential players in the recent political transitions.
Developments in Tunisia were a huge surprise not only to the West, but also to the rest of the world. Due to the dominance of the authoritarian, oppressive and strict security regimes in North Africa, a shadow of peace and tranquility had previously appeared to encompass the whole area. The Tunisian crisis was unpredictable for every player in the political arena, including domestic political groups, the elite, other countries in the region, and the Western world. So what happened in Tunisia was not led by the foreigners, but was a completely local and public movement, the outcome of the civilian demands of a nation that was on the verge of exploding. However, Ben Ali’s inexperience in confronting the revolutionary movements and the fact that he resigned and fled the country soon after the crisis began played an important role in Tunisia’s transitions.
Tunisia was an arrow already shot. This movement quickly spread to Egypt and brought about another shock to the West. Hosni Mubarak had been the West’s main ally in the region and the upset left the U.S. and the Europe in a state of confusion toward the Egyptian movement. The U.S. confusion about political transitions in Egypt was such that Hilary Clinton changed her official stance three times. At first, the United States emphasized the stability of Egypt and Mubarak’s managing capability. But at the end, the U.S. came to the conclusion that it was time for Mubarak to resign his seat of power quickly. The U.S. position toward Egypt disappointed Saudi Arabia as they did not think the Americans would withdraw their support for Mubarak so quickly. In fact, the experience from Tunisia made the West better acquainted with the political changes and developments in the Arab world. Thereafter, the Western world began to understand what was going on in the region and decided to manage it in its own way. Through its rich academic and strategic background, the West tried to reach an accurate analysis of the events in order to adjust Middle East policies based on the region’s developments.
The agreement reached between the West and the military forces in Egypt prevented the breakdown of the army and finally managed to handle the transition. In other words, the Egyptians’ movement had the potential to change not only Egypt, but all the other Arab countries. However, it was stopped from moving forward and accomplishing its true and likely objectives. It’s obvious that the current Egypt is different from what was when Mubarak was still in power, but it should be remembered that some significant and still intact factors bind Egypt with the West, including Egypt-Israel relations, the Camp David Accord, gas exports to Israel, the important role of the military in the politics, etc. These are important matters to Egypt in its relations with the outer world and with its position in the Arab and Muslim worlds.
In spite of some apparent deficiencies in its relationships, they still continue to survive on diplomatic grounds. Indeed, the U.S. and the rest of the Western world managed to ride the wave of change fast. The other side of these developments is the Muslim world’s newest awakening. Looking at it from the perspective of a competitive and neo-liberal world, it needs to be admitted that the West is the winner of this battle. The civil movements in the Arab world gave birth to a baby who is not and will not necessarily be what it is expected to be.
Due to Western military intervention in Libya, 50,000 people have been killed so far while nothing concrete has been achieved. The West will definitely have a strong presence in the future of this oil-rich country in North Africa and there is no promise that a democratic regime will replace Gadhafi. The opposition groups do not have much in common and only agree on the fact that Gadhafi must resign. There are also some serious disparities inside Libya’s National Transitional Council that will cause problems in the future. The moderate and extremist Salafis, the Nationalists, the Western-oriented intellectuals, and the military forces all count among Gadhafi’s opponents. All this adds up to hardly any hope for change in Libya’s future.
The West, with the help of Saudi Arabia, was also successful in controlling the political transition in Yemen. In fact, only 50 percent of the recent developments in Yemen are being taken care of by its own people; the United States and Saudi Arabia deserve credit for the other half.
The story is the same with Bahrain. The West gave the green light to Saudi Arabian forces, enabling them to stop the advancement of protests in Bahrain. Despite Iran’s official stance on the issue, the protest movement does not seek to overthrow the Al Khalifa regime. A majority of the opponents reached a mutual agreement with Al Khalifa to achieve more legal, civil and human rights. They do not know that they are not actually capable of overthrowing his dynasty. Even Bahraini’s Muslim intellectuals do not believe in the message Iran is trying to convey to them.
In addition, the situation in Syria is getting even worse for the Bashar al-Assad regime. It appears that the regime’s excessive misuse of power has led his government to an irreversible point. The West’s stance toward the political developments in Syria is fully and intelligently planned. Turkey has decided to support the West in regards to Syria’s recent political movement since it is looking forward to consolidating its own position in the international system. At the present time, Syria’s situation is very complex. An uncertain future awaits the country and it is unclear whether it will turn out in the favor of the Syrian nationals. The interesting point here is that Iranians constantly claim that an Islamic Awakening has happened in the Middle East, while if they actually start to look for proof of their claim in the recent Arab world’s movements, Syria would be the only true example of a nation experiencing intellectual and religious growth. The Syrian Civil movement, more than anywhere else in the region, has an Islamic texture. Bashar al-Assad’s opponents come from a totally religious background. However, the Iranian regime is supporting the Syrian government for personal reasons.
Therefore, it can be said that, at present, the Arab world and its developments are being managed by outsiders. I believe that it is unrealistic to be positive about the future of these countries or to believe that these movements are either genuine or Islamic.
However, there are two countries that adopted more rational ways of confronting such civil movements: Morocco and Jordan. King Mohammed VI of Morocco was able to control and manage the protests in his country. He found that he needed to be tolerant with his people while trying to understand them and their needs. By surrendering part of his authority, he has been able to satisfy some opponents. The problem in Jordan is a little more complicated because half of its population is Palestinian, a subset that has unique and different demands. This makes it harder for Abdullah II, the reigning king of Jordan, to satisfy everyone.
So now, the West’s management and the idea of an Islamic awakening in the Middle East have started to confront one another. The winner of this monumental confrontation will be the one who knows how to handle soft power instead of violence and who manages these critical situations and transitions with a high degree of intelligence and rationality. Interestingly enough, Iran is alone in this particular political position. There is no country by its side supporting its ideas about the current transition in the region. Furthermore, Iran’s awful relations with influential countries in the Muslim world impede it from applying its diplomatic influence to advance the objectives of the movements or to present an effective and coherent plan for the region’s change. While on the other hand, the West is deriving considerable benefit from this opportunity.
Iran, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Turkey are practically the most important and influential countries in the region. Each of them has a different ruling system. Aside from that, they have completely different viewpoints about the issues of the Middle East.
Turkey represents a modern example of an Islamic democracy and wants to introduce itself as an ideal among Islamic countries. Additionally, the West supports Turkey and its policies. It therefore appears that, to some extent, it has been successful in achieving its goal.
Saudi Arabia is a monarchy and seeks different goals in the region, such as supporting other Sunni-Arab countries and strengthening its economic and military powers. It has good relations with the West, especially the U.S.
Egypt had a totalitarian republic for years and was allied to the West. After the recent crisis, however, its future and objectives in the region remain unknown.
These four countries do not offer ideal examples of ruling systems or of interactions with the Western world. Each of them believes that they are setting a perfect example and wants to promote their way to others. This is an indication of a huge gap in the Muslim world. The West has been able to exert its power and manage the recent events of the Islamic-Arab countries. Despite different points of view, Western countries have all adopted a similar strategy toward the movements and developments of the Muslim world — a consequence of a completely pragmatic attitude.