Is this Arab awakening or tempest in teapot?
Yuba Nath Lamsal
Almost 75 years ago, George Antinius wrote a book \' Arab Awakening" reflecting upon the rising Arab nationalism. The Pan-Arab sentiment then had been focused mainly against the Europeans especially the newly created Israeli state and its patron the United States of America. The creation of Israel rendered Palestinian people stateless that angered the Arab people, mainly the Muslims. The hatred that was instilled in the mind of Arab people was because of their blood relationship with the Palestines. During the height of Cold War when the world had been divided into two camps—US led group and Soviet bloc— most Arab countries and leaders developed sympathy towards the Soviet Union ( now Russia) simply because the United States backed and protected Israel against the hostile Arab neighbors. The Soviet Union had considerable influence in the Middle East. However, Americans and Western countries, too, used their power and resources to keep certain key Arab leaders and government under the ambit of their influence. Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan are some countries to name a few that remained under US ambit of influence. Later situation changed as the world turned into unipolar and the most Arab nations looked to the United States for their security and survival especially in the wake of growing Islamic resurrection. When the Soviet Union intervened in Muslim Afghanistan and installed pro-Soviet regime, the United States used this opportunity to bring the Muslim world into its fold. Although the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan was globally condemned, Muslim world especially Arab countries and groups sided with the Afghan people in the fight against the Soviet influence and occupation, which brought them closer with the United States and the Western world. It was a good diplomatic victory of the United States to win over Arab countries. But the tide turned against the United States itself when the Cold War rivalry ended following a democratic surge in the world in exactly the similar way Samuel Huntington has described as the third wave of democratic upsurge. The Arab dictators sought protection and patronage of the United States and the Western powers to keep safe their hold on power. Those countries that toed western line were considered the allies but those who opposed western hegemony were dubbed as dictator. Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, Tunisia, Algeria, Kuwait, Iraq, Qatar and Bahrain alike became US allies and got western backing even when none of them were democracies but notorious dictators. Until the Soviet invasion in Afghanistan, the Arab world joined hand with the western countries against the Russians. After the Russians pulled out from Afghanistan ending a decade-long Afghan war in 1989, situation began to change. The Iraqi invasion in Kuwait was yet another turning point in Arab politics and polarization. Until the invasion of Kuwait, Saddam Hussein was an ally of the west. Saddam Hussein soon became enemy of the west as interest clashed with him. This led to the attack on Iraq by a coalition force under the leadership of the United States, which forced Saddam Hussein\'s Iraq to pull out from Kuwait. Until then, the US and western strategy was acceptable as the western move was aimed at freeing a small and weaker Kuwait from a hawkish neighbor\'s invasion. But things did not stop there as the western countries were not satisfied until the regime change in Iraq. The West again attacked on Iraq accusing Saddam of harboring terrorists and developing weapons of mass destruction. Saddam was finally caught and hanged fully bringing Iraq under US control in the name of installing democratic regime. Iran is another case. Until king Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi was in cotrol of Teheran, Iran was a model for Islamic world as the western countries lauded the Shah regime as the first open society in the Arab world. The Shah regime fell in the wake of Islamic revolution in 1979, which turned Iran into an Islamic country with Islamic law in force. As the old regime was patronized by the US, the new regime turned against the Western countries especially the United States. The situation became worse when the Islamic students patronized by Iran\'s new regime made staff at the American embassy in Tehran hostage. The hostage issue was resolved only when America caved in to Iranian demand. This strained US-Iran relationship which continue even now. The United States and the western countries have classified some of the Arab countries as authoritarian regimes which include Iran, Yemen, Syria and Libya, among others. But the western countries never speak any word against other Arab governments that back western policies. None of the countries in the Arab and North Africa are democracies. But the Western countries have adopted duel policy vis-a-vis their relations hip with the countries in the Middle East. The current popular uprising in the Middle East and North Africa is yet another Arab awakening not against Israel or the United States but against their own authoritarian rulers. The Arab revolutions are home grown generated by the ordinary masses for freedom and liberation from the repressive rule. This is second Arab awakening. But attempts are being made from outside to abort the revolution of the people. A case in point is Egypt. When US ally Hosni Mubarak was almost in the position of being toppled by popular revolt, the western countries were quick to persuade Mubarak to step down and ensure the power to remain in the hand of pro-west people. Although regimes changed in Tunisia and Egypt in the wake of popular uprising, democracy has not yet dawned there and the revolution was aborted through conspiracy. Protests are building up in Yemen, Libya, Syria, Bahrain, Iran and Qatar. Other Arab countries are also started feeling the heat of protests. The fire of revolution is flaring up, which is expected to dump despotic regime and institute people\'s polity. However, it is not sure whether this heat would really change into a genuine democratic revolution in the Arab world or simply fizzle out. Now the latest developments have shown that Libyan dictator Qaddafi is counting his days. When the people rose against Qaddafi\'s iron rule, he used brutal force to suppress the protests. As a result, many people have been killed in the hands Qaddafi\'s troops. The world has expressed solidarity with the people of Libya as well as other countries of the Middle East and North Africa. The United Nations has urged the Libyan government not to use force against the peaceful protesters. But the Libyan regime has not listened to the international community. In response, the United Nations adopted a resolution to enforce no fly zone in Libya so that protesters could be saved from the aerial attack of Qaddafi\'s brutal troops. But in the name of enforcing no fly zone, some western countries mainly the United States, the United Kingdom and France have already launched their attack on Libya, which has already caused severe collateral damage in Libya and weakened Gaddafi\'s military power to certain degree. Although the US-led Western attack has emboldened and inspired the protestors who have been on the streets against Gaddafi\'s cruel regime, the attack has violated the international laws and practices. Revolt is people\'s right and Libyan people have the right to revolt against their dictatorial regime, which they are doing. If external forces launch military attack in another sovereign country in the name of supporting Libyan protesters, it can never be justified. Gaddafi\'s regime has waged a brutal war against the people of Libya but the western countries as well have started imperialist war with the objective of controlling Libya\'s oil and other resources in the post revolution era. It has been stated that the attack on Libya was to implement the no fly zone resolution of the United Nations. In the first place, the resolution of the United Nation itself is flawed as it has no right to implement no fly zone within a sovereign country. Secondly, the United Nation resolution 1973 has never given mandate to any country to attack on Libya in the name of implementation of the resolution. Maummar Gaddafi rose to power in 1969 through military coup and has imposed his brutal regime since then. In the beginning, Western capitalist countries expected him to raise the anti-communist banner in Africa and Arab world. With this assumption and expectation, the western countries thought that Gaddafi was worth protecting. However, things did not go in a way the Western countries mainly the United Stated had thought. Instead Gaddafi not only closed American and British bases in Libya but also introduced anti-capitalist policies including nationalization of foreign oil and commercial interests of the west. This infuriated the Western government and the relationship between Libya and the West became sour. This made Gaddafi closer to America\'s arch rival Soviet Union. Since the West was always trying to topple Giraffe\'s regime, they now have got a pretext to oust him from power by any means possible. The attack on Libya is not intended to help the revolution and democratization process but control Libya\'s rich resources including oil. These developments have indicated that the external forces are effortful to weaken and divert the genuine revolution of the people. Gaddafi\'s regime must end but the people Libya should be allowed to decide their own fate not by external forces. The regime change in support of the external forces would have bad precedent in the world. Already Iraq and Afghanistan are the worst example, Libya will now be added to this list of countries. This incident would embolden and encourage other countries to pursue their hegemonic policy towards the weaker countries especially their neighbor. As a country that has always been facing a threat from its hegemonic neighbor—India— Nepal has to come forward in protesting such an external meddling and attack on another sovereign country.
Almost 75 years ago, George Antinius wrote a book \' Arab Awakening" reflecting upon the rising Arab nationalism. The Pan-Arab sentiment then had been focused mainly against the Europeans especially the newly created Israeli state and its patron the United States of America. The creation of Israel rendered Palestinian people stateless that angered the Arab people, mainly the Muslims. The hatred that was instilled in the mind of Arab people was because of their blood relationship with the Palestines. During the height of Cold War when the world had been divided into two camps—US led group and Soviet bloc— most Arab countries and leaders developed sympathy towards the Soviet Union ( now Russia) simply because the United States backed and protected Israel against the hostile Arab neighbors. The Soviet Union had considerable influence in the Middle East. However, Americans and Western countries, too, used their power and resources to keep certain key Arab leaders and government under the ambit of their influence. Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan are some countries to name a few that remained under US ambit of influence. Later situation changed as the world turned into unipolar and the most Arab nations looked to the United States for their security and survival especially in the wake of growing Islamic resurrection. When the Soviet Union intervened in Muslim Afghanistan and installed pro-Soviet regime, the United States used this opportunity to bring the Muslim world into its fold. Although the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan was globally condemned, Muslim world especially Arab countries and groups sided with the Afghan people in the fight against the Soviet influence and occupation, which brought them closer with the United States and the Western world. It was a good diplomatic victory of the United States to win over Arab countries. But the tide turned against the United States itself when the Cold War rivalry ended following a democratic surge in the world in exactly the similar way Samuel Huntington has described as the third wave of democratic upsurge. The Arab dictators sought protection and patronage of the United States and the Western powers to keep safe their hold on power. Those countries that toed western line were considered the allies but those who opposed western hegemony were dubbed as dictator. Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, Tunisia, Algeria, Kuwait, Iraq, Qatar and Bahrain alike became US allies and got western backing even when none of them were democracies but notorious dictators. Until the Soviet invasion in Afghanistan, the Arab world joined hand with the western countries against the Russians. After the Russians pulled out from Afghanistan ending a decade-long Afghan war in 1989, situation began to change. The Iraqi invasion in Kuwait was yet another turning point in Arab politics and polarization. Until the invasion of Kuwait, Saddam Hussein was an ally of the west. Saddam Hussein soon became enemy of the west as interest clashed with him. This led to the attack on Iraq by a coalition force under the leadership of the United States, which forced Saddam Hussein\'s Iraq to pull out from Kuwait. Until then, the US and western strategy was acceptable as the western move was aimed at freeing a small and weaker Kuwait from a hawkish neighbor\'s invasion. But things did not stop there as the western countries were not satisfied until the regime change in Iraq. The West again attacked on Iraq accusing Saddam of harboring terrorists and developing weapons of mass destruction. Saddam was finally caught and hanged fully bringing Iraq under US control in the name of installing democratic regime. Iran is another case. Until king Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi was in cotrol of Teheran, Iran was a model for Islamic world as the western countries lauded the Shah regime as the first open society in the Arab world. The Shah regime fell in the wake of Islamic revolution in 1979, which turned Iran into an Islamic country with Islamic law in force. As the old regime was patronized by the US, the new regime turned against the Western countries especially the United States. The situation became worse when the Islamic students patronized by Iran\'s new regime made staff at the American embassy in Tehran hostage. The hostage issue was resolved only when America caved in to Iranian demand. This strained US-Iran relationship which continue even now. The United States and the western countries have classified some of the Arab countries as authoritarian regimes which include Iran, Yemen, Syria and Libya, among others. But the western countries never speak any word against other Arab governments that back western policies. None of the countries in the Arab and North Africa are democracies. But the Western countries have adopted duel policy vis-a-vis their relations hip with the countries in the Middle East. The current popular uprising in the Middle East and North Africa is yet another Arab awakening not against Israel or the United States but against their own authoritarian rulers. The Arab revolutions are home grown generated by the ordinary masses for freedom and liberation from the repressive rule. This is second Arab awakening. But attempts are being made from outside to abort the revolution of the people. A case in point is Egypt. When US ally Hosni Mubarak was almost in the position of being toppled by popular revolt, the western countries were quick to persuade Mubarak to step down and ensure the power to remain in the hand of pro-west people. Although regimes changed in Tunisia and Egypt in the wake of popular uprising, democracy has not yet dawned there and the revolution was aborted through conspiracy. Protests are building up in Yemen, Libya, Syria, Bahrain, Iran and Qatar. Other Arab countries are also started feeling the heat of protests. The fire of revolution is flaring up, which is expected to dump despotic regime and institute people\'s polity. However, it is not sure whether this heat would really change into a genuine democratic revolution in the Arab world or simply fizzle out. Now the latest developments have shown that Libyan dictator Qaddafi is counting his days. When the people rose against Qaddafi\'s iron rule, he used brutal force to suppress the protests. As a result, many people have been killed in the hands Qaddafi\'s troops. The world has expressed solidarity with the people of Libya as well as other countries of the Middle East and North Africa. The United Nations has urged the Libyan government not to use force against the peaceful protesters. But the Libyan regime has not listened to the international community. In response, the United Nations adopted a resolution to enforce no fly zone in Libya so that protesters could be saved from the aerial attack of Qaddafi\'s brutal troops. But in the name of enforcing no fly zone, some western countries mainly the United States, the United Kingdom and France have already launched their attack on Libya, which has already caused severe collateral damage in Libya and weakened Gaddafi\'s military power to certain degree. Although the US-led Western attack has emboldened and inspired the protestors who have been on the streets against Gaddafi\'s cruel regime, the attack has violated the international laws and practices. Revolt is people\'s right and Libyan people have the right to revolt against their dictatorial regime, which they are doing. If external forces launch military attack in another sovereign country in the name of supporting Libyan protesters, it can never be justified. Gaddafi\'s regime has waged a brutal war against the people of Libya but the western countries as well have started imperialist war with the objective of controlling Libya\'s oil and other resources in the post revolution era. It has been stated that the attack on Libya was to implement the no fly zone resolution of the United Nations. In the first place, the resolution of the United Nation itself is flawed as it has no right to implement no fly zone within a sovereign country. Secondly, the United Nation resolution 1973 has never given mandate to any country to attack on Libya in the name of implementation of the resolution. Maummar Gaddafi rose to power in 1969 through military coup and has imposed his brutal regime since then. In the beginning, Western capitalist countries expected him to raise the anti-communist banner in Africa and Arab world. With this assumption and expectation, the western countries thought that Gaddafi was worth protecting. However, things did not go in a way the Western countries mainly the United Stated had thought. Instead Gaddafi not only closed American and British bases in Libya but also introduced anti-capitalist policies including nationalization of foreign oil and commercial interests of the west. This infuriated the Western government and the relationship between Libya and the West became sour. This made Gaddafi closer to America\'s arch rival Soviet Union. Since the West was always trying to topple Giraffe\'s regime, they now have got a pretext to oust him from power by any means possible. The attack on Libya is not intended to help the revolution and democratization process but control Libya\'s rich resources including oil. These developments have indicated that the external forces are effortful to weaken and divert the genuine revolution of the people. Gaddafi\'s regime must end but the people Libya should be allowed to decide their own fate not by external forces. The regime change in support of the external forces would have bad precedent in the world. Already Iraq and Afghanistan are the worst example, Libya will now be added to this list of countries. This incident would embolden and encourage other countries to pursue their hegemonic policy towards the weaker countries especially their neighbor. As a country that has always been facing a threat from its hegemonic neighbor—India— Nepal has to come forward in protesting such an external meddling and attack on another sovereign country.
Comments
Post a Comment