Is It an “Arab” or a “US Spring?”

Many people feel disappointed that the Arab revolutions have not succeeded in bringing about the radical changes that the Arab peoples hoped for a year ago, especially since the influence of the U.S. is still evident, both in Arab politics and in the strength of their support for the Israeli agenda. Disappointment is understood, as the results have not come up to the popular expectations and aspirations.

But from a historical perspective, these revolutions are still at their beginning phase. They are not military coups but popular uprisings aiming to overthrow political regimes that have taken strong roots through the combination of a repressive security ascendancy and a linking of certain social categories with political power circles. However, the rent-seeking economy has been cracked by the impact of the invasion of the capitalist world order. It set the condition of reducing the state institutions capacity for employment and job creation, whether by a reduction of the number of cadre and expenses or by the process of privatization. Because of this, these regimes have lost large segments of their partisanship, which have revolted against them and called for overthrowing them.

The process of overthrowing these ailing regimes is proving to be difficult, which is evident from the ferocity of their resistance to change. However, it remains easier than setting up new democratic regimes, which rely on several factors. The first is the economic situation and, henceforth, the regional and international situations.

Revolutions and protests clashed with regional and international forces early. Though these forces had been surprised by the peoples’ uprisings, they were quickly able to adjust to them, to enter on the line of revolutions and to try to influence their course.

Let us say they tried and sometimes were successful. But it is inaccurate to conclude that regional and international powers are leading these uprisings, since external interference can not meet the population’s aspirations. They will face an angry population, for what is happening now is different from the coup d’états that were done in the fifties and sixties of the past century; those were engineered or infiltrated by the CIA, which masqueraded behind revolutionary or anti-colonial slogans.

Of course, you can not minimize the risk of outside interference in revolutions; you must be on alert for it and expose its various manifestations. But it has become more obvious. Therefore, it is a mistake to postulate that the Arab peoples were defeated; that amounts to a denial of the role played by these peoples in their uprisings.

The clash of revolutions with foreign intervention is not new to the region’s history or even the world, and the forms of this intervention are not surprising. They are not less dangerous than their predecessors in the course of history. However, they must be well understood to be faced, without being drawn to the conclusion that revolutions are ignited by U.S., thus ignoring sustained popular sacrifices.

The early external interventions were economically based, as most regimes were indebted to Western countries or global financial institutions. Representatives of the creditor parties, institutions and states immediately rushed to Tunisia and Egypt in an attempt not only to consolidate this debt, but also to create new financial links. They profited from the presence of some figures of the old regime (especially prior to the elections in Tunisia) and the continuing military junta in power.

The other reality that the Arab revolts clashed with is that no change occurred in the rich regimes allied with Washington. This has provided them an opportunity and a means to maintain themselves through “supporting revolutions,” which materially and politically exploit the poverty of the revolting countries and their need to be regionally and internationally recognized. The intervention of these countries (the oil-rich ones, I mean) has become an entry to protect their own regimes. Also, it conveys a message to the West about the importance of their influential role and effective ability to influence the formation of new regimes onto the path of old regimes, fearful of revolutions toppling them.

It remains that the news and indicators of the U.S. reaching an understanding with Islamic movements, whether those which have swept parliamentary elections or others, raises a lot of concerns. These concerns are understandable. But they should not be restricted to Islamic movements; they should extend to a number of secular movements that have sought and can possibly seek understandings harmful and detrimental to the United States.

After all, caution is required and necessary. The solution lies in the continuing revolutions and protests that are based on an awareness and understanding of the rights of citizenship and the requirements of national independence. They are not to be dragged into tribalism and sectarianism, which constitute the most important goals of outside interference. Also, it lies in maintaining our directed attention towards the position of the Palestinian cause, laying the foundation for political participation, accountability to the people and, most importantly, social justice, for Western intervention aims to impose or to strengthen normalization with Israel. Western intervention seeks to maintain economic policies, even though they have failed to achieve social security in the West. But Western countries do not want the people to abandon them, since they generate colossal profits to the 1 percent category that benefits from the riches of the world.