Those of us who rely on the 24 hour news channels – BBC News Channel, Sky, CNN, Al Jazeera etc – get irritated by the way they latch on to one subject and flog it to death. Most recently it has been the Japan earthquake and Tsunami and now of course it is Libya, just as the Japan story seems to be dying down (not enough deaths). They will be hoping Libya will be the gift that keeps on giving, but that Gadaffi is docile by the time of the royal wedding (I presume he hasn’t been invited, even as the guest of Prince Andrew). It makes you wonder whether some important news stories are underplayed because there is something mildly more telegenic going on elsewhere, or some unimportant ones are overplayed because of a lack of other interesting events. In fact both are true.
When the Arab World crisis was developing, in December-January, we thought it might turn into a widespread issue: I voiced this concern on 12th January. It might be interesting three months later to go a little deeper than our one topic news agencies and investigate how it is all going.
Tunisia
This is where it all started – and I expressed my surprise that it should be here. I know the country a little and it seemed well run, calm, prosperous, almost European in its levels of education, emancipation and tolerance. When Ben Ali left in mid January (some say his wife took the Treasury with her) I wrote ‘If Ben Ali can fall, so can the others’.
The constitution requires a new president to be sworn in within 2 months; the interim Prime Minister Gannouchi scheduled elections for June but himself had to resign at the end of February because the protesters thought he was too close to Ben Ali.
The risk in Tunisia is that the place descends into anarchy and that there is a subsequent unopposed takeover by militants. The protesters still cannot agree whether to have a new constitution, much less what it might say, but I am optimistic: if dictators tend to leave no deputy, at least they tend to neutralise extremist opposition.
Algeria
This is where I thought the revolution would come, but Boutelfika remains in power. There have been demonstrations, and some deaths, but the people don’t seem to have the reckless fervour of Tunisia and Egypt, perhaps remembering the civil war in the 1990s, where the Islamist factions, who had been thought to have won the election, were put down by the army. The main anti-Boutelfika movement was responsible for siding with the army and seems to have lost trust. I think Algeria will pause, and then it will all start again, but this time, with different regimes in its neighbours things, might be different.
Egypt
The most populous Arab country, with 80 million people, seemed also to have the most united and effective protest movement. After Mubarak handed over power to the military, elections on an amended constitution were held a couple of days ago, and the pro-amendment side seem to have won with a comfortable majority on a high turnout. Of course the military still have to hand over power, but we can be optimistic.
Libya
Readers of this blog may have noticed that I don’t agree with the recent action in Libya. It is sometimes described as being taken by ‘the international community’, a bogus concept at the best of times but in this case downright false: the abstentions, just among the 15 members of the security council, included China, India, Russia, Brazil and Germany, getting on for half the world’s population. There will be plenty of opposition in the 100 or so who have not been asked to vote, and already the Arab League is having second thoughts.
If I were Gaddafi I would play the long game. If he holds his recent ceasefire and withdraws to Tripoli, thus posing no threat to civilians, the Interference Force or whatever it is called would have no UN mandate to act. If it rearmed the protesters and they attacked Gaddafi it would be they putting the civilians of Tripoli at risk, so presumably we would have to fight on the opposing side, with Gaddafi. He then just waits for us to get bored – five years? ten? – before murdering his enemies.
I also have this question: having attacked another country with over a hundred high tech missiles, will Obama have to hand back his Nobel Prize for Peace?
Saudi Arabia
Easily the most strategically important of the Arab states, it provides some 9 million barrels of oil a day, some 10% of total world demand. There have been riots in Saudi, and the monarchy has so far bought them off, with some $60 billion of handouts.
Saudi has a succession crisis as both the King and the Crown Prince are old and infirm. The ruling family is of the Wahhabi sect of Sunni Muslims and the majority of the country is Sunni, but there is a sizeable minority of Shia in the east, the protection of which caused Saudi recently to send troops to Bahrain.
The riots could start again now, and they could stage a repeat with the succession crisis. If the country is destabilised oil will reach $200 a barrel.
Bahrain
The ruling family is Sunni, while two thirds of the Muslim population are Shia, a classic recipe for disaster. The Shia protests are supported by Iran (another recipe for disaster) and more than half the population are immigrant workers (another etc etc). Saudi will try to hold it together, as will the USA because it is the base of the Fifth Fleet. Still, it looks ripe for serious destabilisation.
Syria
Riots have broken out against President Assad, whose father was dictator before him. The Assads and most of the ruling elite are Alewite Shias, whereas most of the population is Sunni. In my view things don’t look too good for Bashar al-Assad, and nobody will shed any tears if he goes, perhaps to return to his original profession of being an optician in West London.
There has been unrest in Jordan, which looks containable, and in Iran (which of course is not Arab). Yemen looks about to break into two (it was two countries until 1990) and may be of strategic interest for its Port of Aden (built by the British), particularly if the USA are kicked out of Bahrain.
Conclusion
This series of uprisings has made for a fascinating study and for once a large part of the world looks as if it might change for the better. Communicating through modern networks the protesters have often seemed one step ahead of the governments. Each country in the Arab World is different, and things will move at different paces, but the common factor seems to be that the people suddenly feel they can do it: they feel empowered.
This has not been a good time for the United States, whose President dithered. The world’s superpower has looked ineffective.
It has not been a good time for Europe, which could not agree. The two driving forces of the continent, France and Germany, hold diametrically opposing views. The newly created Foreign Minister, Baroness Ashton, was too slow to jump one way or another and it became apparent that nobody in Europe, much less outside it, took her seriously.
It may have been a good time for the UK’s David Cameron, who at the moment is receiving plaudits for being decisive (and plaudits from me, too: decisive is a good thing, I just wish he had been decisive in the other direction). He is likely to be in power until 2014/15 and if we are still in Libya then things may go badly for him.
The person who has really gained has been France’s Nicolas Sarkozy. By jumping the gun, rashly recognising the Benghazi protesters and pushing for intervention, he has quite possibly ensured his re-election next year from an almost impossible position. Whether that is a good thing is another matter.
No comments:
Post a Comment