Who Wins Out on Revolutions?

As with the financial crisis, the recent wave of change in North Africa seemingly came out of nowhere, and everyone subsequently tried to portray themselves as the saviors. The West, which not only appeared hypocritical by negotiating huge oil contracts and giving doctorates to dictator’s’ sons, ignored the sources of discontent among the aspiring societies. The West was more concerned with radical extremism, and yet, the protests are not faith based. It is only now that Washington and Brussels are trying to determine, who’s who in the new regimes and in the anti-Qaddafi movement.

Paradoxically, the lack of knowledge and reconnaissance might be useful to both sides. One of the reasons for the groundbreaking success is that none of the titans of global politics was involved. Everything happened seemingly by accident. The foreign “devils” had no chance to act, because they had no idea what was happening.

One could say that the U.S. and Europe are on the losing side, since they could not foresee anything, their intelligence forces couldn’t produce any information, and the leadership played no significant role in the revolutions themselves. As the revolutions progressed, President Obama began to regain his political aggressiveness and instincts and tried to transform himself from an outside observer into an architect of the democratic movement in the Arab world. America’s power motive was not a deciding factor in the key developments. Washington did not move the pieces on the geopolitical chess board.

Nevertheless, where there is democracy and freedom at stake, there is no better country to call on for help than the United States. As many leaders know, if in doubt call Washington. Wednesday’s appeal for American air support from the Libyan opposition movement shows that the only country that matters in the event of a military intervention is the U.S. This doesn’t mean that the U.S. regards the deployment of fighter jets as the most rational move at the present moment. President Obama has already demonstrated he can make patience into a virtue. But the U.S. will certainly not take intervention off the table.

Meanwhile, Europe, which is in the process of shrinking their military capabilities rather than expanding them, has less difficulty offering non-military assistance, such as assisting refugees, for starters. The time for Europe will come when the dust settles and the new reality will start to sink in in North Africa. There have been rumors, some more credible than others, about a European Union bid, or at least a “pact for freedom.” The E.U. has started looking to make funds available for the newly liberated countries. Increasingly, these funds have been taken out of the accounts which were meant for the Ukraine, Moldova and our other neighbors. The question remains as to what else the E.U. can offer, whether it be free market agreements or assistance in setting up government institutions. There is a large amount of territory to develop.

The events in Africa are causing the Chinese to become nervous. The authorities are more wary than ever and react vigorously to any sign of a protest. The chances that the discontent in China could manifest itself in the way it did in Africa are slim to none. Chinese human rights advocate agree. The reasons for the forceful reactions on the part of the authorities are manifold. The Chinese communist party is preparing for a change in leadership next year. The last thing that the party needs in conjunction with those events would be a revolution.

The question remains as to who stands to win the most in the long run. Is it Europe, due to the new sphere of influence forming around them and the already existing European proclivities among the population? Or is it the United States, for whom the democratization of the Middle East might present a chance to rebuild their image in the Arab world? It would be perhaps best, that the ones with the most to gain from these new democracies might be other democracies. The West should furnish an incentive package that will not be beaten by the checkbooks of autocratic rulers, which are already offering “assistance” to the new African governments.