The Future of the Arab World

This is not an Arab Spring, but an Arab Revolution. Four years after the revolutions of 2011, the Arab World seems to be fallen into chaos. Is this a reason for despair? Or are
there elements for a better future to come?
Top leaders of the Arab World discussed the
future of their countries

Zaman vandaag wrote: "Some prominent liberal figures from the Arab world came during the debate to the floor. It echoed a continued confidence in the efforts and commitment to the Arab revolutions were conducted. "This is not the end, just as little as the beginning of the end. This is the end of the beginning." As quoted Saudi Arabia scholar Koert Debeuf in his introduction, the former British Prime Minister Winston Churchill (1874-1965) about the fall of the Berlin Wall (1989). Churchill's verdict goes according Debeuf also perfect for the Arab Spring: "It is not fair to speak of an Arab Winter After the French Revolution [1789-1799] was also needed 80 years before there is a stable democratic regime in power. was. "Also the representatives of liberal tendencies in several Arab countries remained wholeheartedly support the project of the Arab Spring. "We have the end of the Arab Spring have not seen," said Awn Shawkat Al-Khasawneh, former vice president of the International Court of Justice and Prime Minister of Jordan between 2011 and 2012. For him, the Arab Spring had a lasting impact, not more to come is: "Things can not be returned as they were for the Arab Revolution." For Naguib Sawiris, Egyptian businessman and leader of the Free Egyptians Party, which was founded in 2011 and pursues liberal, secular and democratic values, is the positive impact of the revolutions of 2010, unmistakable eyes. "The Arab Spring changed the dogma that you dictatorial leaders afraakt., A signal was given that you will be evicted if you do not serve your country."Even the Syrian Fawaz Tello, one of the most prominent figures in the opposition to the regime of Bashar al-Assad, has hope. His country undoubtedly is in the most cruel and desperate situation following the Arab Spring. He believes that the international community share responsibility for. "The first two years were without extremism. People took to the streets and there were slain by the Assad regime. The world watched. Then extremism surfaced." Yet Tello sees a way out of the crisis: "It is as Jesus hung on the cross, he had to suffer before he could free humanity, we must now also suffer to be free then.."Mahmoud Jibril was president - read: 'Prime Minister' - of the Executive Committee of the Libyan National Transitional Council in 2011. Today he is chairman of the National Forces Alliances, a party that upholds liberal values, but also a promoter of the "modern Islam . Jibril expressed his confidence in the young generation. Which he described in a 2005 interview as ".com generation", which according to him, when the future in his hands. "These young people took to the streets because they did not work, because there was no economic development in their country because they were denied rights. We can not pass up their project. Young people should again take to the streets to defend their rights." Jibril also saw an important difference with the French Revolution, because society today is fundamentally different looks. "We as never before needed a government of diversity."A major problem was noted by the panel was to find a balance between security and respect for human rights. Often put in Arab countries human rights and democracy on hold in order to guarantee safety. That is clearly the case in Egypt, where the legal system handles extremely repressive government opponents and supporters of the Muslim Brotherhood. But in Lebanon there are problems. Since the elections were postponed on two occasions for security reasons. "But elections are important to develop a stable leadership," said Ahmad Hariri, president of the Lebanese Freedom Movement. "In elections we might lose seven or eight seats, but that the Parliament will be a much better reflection of the people."

In the wake of the unprecedented uprisings that brought to an end decades of repressive authoritarian rule, the Southern Mediterranean region has reached a turning point in its history, presenting many opportunities and challenges for the EU. Few in Brussels or member state capitals saw the Arab uprisings coming, yet ever since 2010 European foreign policy-makers have had to devote much time and attention to deciding what or what not to do in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, and the Middle East (where it has remained relatively quiet in Jordan). No list of foreign policy priorities for 2013 could possibly encompass all the challenges ahead, and the EU will certainly be called upon to deal with agenda items that no one had anticipated.

The present Arab leaders warned the West to think carefully how to deal with the problems in the Middle East. So Jibril pointed to the millions of refugees who are flooding Europe, fleeing the crisis in their own country. "Investing in stability in North Africa, is not a favor from Europe, but an investment in their own national security. Libya is a forest fire. The fire can go in any direction. Watch out."

At the economic level can the West in the Middle East, prevention is better than cure, said Naguib Sawiris: "The West will pay a high price if they should invest in stopping migrants. It is better to invest directly in the economy of Arabic countries".

editorial Steven Blockmans, senior research fellow, head of EU Foreign Policy CEPS

As the blood-soaked stalemate in Syria drags on, territorial divisions in the country are becoming more entrenched. Bashar al-Assad’s regime is tightening its grip on the western, most populous part of the country and rebel forces are consolidating their hold on the Euphrates valley. As al-Qaeda-linked groups mete out sharia law in their caliphates in the eastern desert areas of Syria, Kurdish groups are creating an autonomous region in the north-east of the country. As feared, Syria’s civil war is spreading to its neighbours, the most vulnerable of which is lebanon. A weak state of five million people, lebanon has already taken in more than 700,000 syrian refugees across its porous borders, most of them Sunnis. Vicious attacks across the Sunni-Shia divide are on the increase.
The long border between the eastern deserts of Syria and the western deserts of Iraq is also losing its physical reality as al- Qaeda fighters move freely back and forth. the fact is the syrian civil war has reignited a sectarian conflict that has never really died down since the US invasion of Iraq in 2003. In all three states, the power of central government is waning as ethnic and religious groups retreat to their own well-defended and near-autonomous enclaves. The heart of the Middle East now consists of porous, fragmented countries stretching from the Mediterranean to I.R. of Iran. The external borders of this bloc are not inviolable either. Syrian mortars have landed in the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights, and the violence in Syria has frequently spilled over the border with Turkey, across which insurgent groups advance and retreat at will. Turkey has so far taken in 460,000 syrian refugees; Jordan more than half a million. All this heralds the end of ‘Sykes-Picot’, the infamous 1916 agreement in which Britain and France dealt with the ‘Syria Question’. This agreement formed the basis for a treaty negotiated during and after the 1919 Versailles Peace Conference to carve up the Ottoman territories in and old-style imperialist land grab. France and Britain drew lines to divide their zones of influence in Mesopotamia and Palestine, without heeding the ethno-religious and geographical realities on the ground. Fear of instability in the Middle East is pushing the US, Russia, the EU and its member states to talk of a diplomatic solution to the syrian conflict. But a hard-and-fast agreement is unimaginable if world powers stick to Sykes-Picot and ignore the wider conflicts playing out in syria: a regional struggle between shia and sunni that is also a longstanding conflict between iranian-led Hezbollah and iran’s traditional enemies, notably saudi Arabia; territorial disputes between Israel and its Arab neighbours; and the independence drives of the Palestinians and the Kurds.

Sykes-Picot is dead and should be buried. It stands in the way of creating a durable peace in the Middle East. Any way out of the quagmire will require a grand bargain - one that establishes a new order in the whole region and draws borders accordingly. See longer CEPS Commentary by Steven Blockmans (forthcoming):“Vanishing lines in the sand – why a new map of the Middle East is necessary”.

__________________________________________________________________

So Much for the Arab Spring, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Posted: 08/19/2013 10:39 am. Huffington Post So much for the Arab Spring. In Cairo, Egyptian history appears to have completed a bloody full circle. First the crowds filled Tahrir Square to demand the end of a military-backed dictatorship. Then, just two years later, the crowds filled Tahrir Square again to demand the restoration of a military-backed dictatorship. Now, within weeks of the coup that overthrew the democratically elected government of Mohamed Morsi, massacre has become the new normal in Cairo. In 2011, Egypt seemed to have reached a turning point -- but it ended up turning 360 degrees. We are back to a "temporary" martial law that will probably last for years. However, in the Middle East as a whole -- and probably in Egypt, too -- the revolutionary story is far from over. In Syria, a civil war rages that is increasingly sectarian in character. In Tunisia, protests against the Islamist government are growing in the wake of yet another assassination of a secularist politician. In Libya, violence between rival militias is on the increase. There, as well as in Iraq, we are seeing car bombs and mass jailbreaks.Jihadist violence is spreading like an epidemic as far afield as Mali and Niger. Yemen has become so dangerous that two weeks ago Britain and the United States had to evacuate their embassies in the capital, Sana'a. Only in the wealthy monarchies of the Gulf does an uneasy stability persist. But it depends heavily on the high price of oil, which allows the various royal dynasties to bribe their peoples into docility. Less wealthy monarchs, such as the king of Jordan, fear for their thrones. The Arab Spring was supposed to usher in a more democratic political order in the Middle East. In the United States, conservatives and liberals alike rejoiced in early 2011 at the prospect of a new Egypt run by cool young Google executives. This was to be a Twitter-feed revolution. Instead, the immediate beneficiaries were bearded Islamists committed to the imposition of Sharia. One Islamist faction -- the Muslim Brotherhood -- may have bungled its chance to rule in Egypt. But others are still riding high.

The chance for an effective Western intervention to help topple the Syrian dictator has been more or less blown precisely because extreme jihadist groups have taken over the war against President Bashar al-Assad. Osama bin Laden may be dead, but al-Qaeda is very much alive. It was the interception of a secret message between Ayman al-Zawahiri, its chief, and Nasser al-Wuhayshi, leader of the Yemen-based al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, that earlier this month prompted America to shut down 19 diplomatic posts throughout the region -- a humiliating illustration of weakness by the superpower that once dominated the Middle East.

____________________________________________________________________

January 2013, CEPS drafted a commentary on The EU’s External Action towards the Middle East: Resolution required, in which is addressed that one can foresee certain foreign policy challenges that the EU will have to address this year. Cultivating workable ties with Ukraine, Russia and other neighbours in the east, reviving the transatlantic partnership in trade, rebalancing alliances with Asian countries, and pooling and sharing defence capabilities will all command the attention of those who shape the EU’s external action. But the number one challenge that will take up most of the
Foreign Affairs Council’s time is the Middle East.

Contributions have also to come up with the Middle East peace process where, to render the problem even more complex, it is not only the usual suspects, but also new actors such as Turkey, Brazil, and Qatar that want to have a say. So to remain relevant the European Union will have to invent new instruments and new tools, and draft a new narrative of what it is about. indeed, the extent to which Europe has lost confidence is “striking”, and Vimont believes that “we have to change the mood”.
Europe seems to have forgotten its extraordinary past performance, and the numerous international agreements that it has been able to conclude in the last 20 years, and become an inward-looking continent full of fear and concern. Thus, by putting its house in order through the establishment of a new administration, the EU will also provide a message of hope. Third countries have been waiting decades for this to happen. Vis-à-vis these countries, the fundamental step for the EU will be to establish a constructive dialogue based on openness and the ability to listen.

Until recently Europe had taken a somewhat patronising attitude towards third countries, with partners feeling as if they were being “pushed in a certain direction”. Now the aim will be to give rise to a “true and genuine partnership”, including with countries like Tunisia and Egypt, which are “looking for dignity”. This will be a formidable task.

Countries of the Arab Spring are in crisis; violence of ultraconservative Muslims, growing economic problems, authority vacuum. Is democratic reform actually possible? The short answer is no. 2011 should be seen as 1848, as the moment when the people first initiate the fall of the repressive state. It can take decades till institutions are established, on which a viable democratic system can be built. But currently, the events of the driving force, which is a dangerous situation.

Ideologies are depleted. The on modernize liberalism of the 30's and 40 failed, Arab nationalism failed. Of the fundamentalism is life artificially prolonged by the war against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan and the Iranian revolution, that is to say by the glow of something else that was promising. But now, it is really discredited.

A more likely scenario if things are not reversed in the good directions, is a series of failed states and social and an economic morass that the region will change into a source of misery.

Syria is no longer Syria. Think of warlords and the death of the urban Syria. There is concern about the impact of the war in the region.
The three countries in North Africa are in a fragile stage in their development. But in all these three states failure is not yet a settled matter. There is still a chance to lift out of the morass and draw the right course of action.

One change is that people take to the streets if something does not please. The region has entered a new era, as in 1848.

In July 2013 the paper 'Scenarios Assessment and Transitions towards a Sustainable Euro-Mediterranean in 2030' was published, in which is examined and assessed various possible scenarios that could play out in EU-Mediterranean relations over the next two decades. It offers also recommendations towards long-term sustainable socio-economic development in the region.

A masterclass at the Erasmus University Rotterdam on the 'Unrest in the Arab world' was attended by more than 50 students. Specialists from the Clingendael Institute, gave their views and insights about the consequences of the Arab Revolt, the battle for Libya (read the secret plan to take Tripoli), where the principle of responsibility to protect (RtP) was performed and Syria and on the role and consequences for the EU. Some articles (in Foreign Affairs, CFR, Press Europe (*) were recommended to study.

Anticipating the lectures, some discussions amoung students were already started: 'we consider our moral values higher than embedded moral values in the Middle East', 'accept that there are differences', 'not too much interference with each other' and 'surveying both sides' were some train of thoughts. Certain movements and developments, such as the Arab uprise, are not possible to predict. It can be said that the uprise is not a problem in itself. It is about demonstrations, due to desperation and claiming rights, such as (honest division of) work and money. However, the revolt, in the mean time also called 'MENA', has serious consequences for world-politics. It touches the Arab Israeli conflict, supply of oil is an item, and terrorism has become more on the stage. It is not anymore only about riots, but also painful surgeries (Libya, Syria) are at stake. The events take place in Europe's back-yard and Europe has to act to solve. Surgeries are only sound if there is danger for social peace and security. Governments has forfeited their sovereignty, which will shift to the communities. Freedom, role of women and education would deliver progress.

A momentum is when geopolitical interests will come into force. In the end, democracy will be the best solution, but such a form of government has to be accepted. The role for the EU was also questioned.

The EU as a foreign policy actor was discussed, as EU's (divided) reactions to the revolts and the current policy proposals were. Concerning proposals, partnership for democracy, communication on markets, money, mobility, jobs and youth, as migration should be on the agenda. Turkey was mentioned, what country has been seen as a model.

It's a great uprising for democracy and freedom, independence and human rights. And it’s happening for the first time since the fall of the Ottoman Empire. All the Arab countries essentially grew out of the disintegration of this empire. Some do have a separate history as a nation state, like Iran, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia to some degree, but the colonial era had an immense impact on domestic politics. There thus arose authoritarian state structures, because the new states tried to create an idea of what it means to be a Syrian, Iraqi, Jordanian, and so on. The uprisings do have roots within the societies themselves and are calling for a new kind of politics. New television stations broadcast very independently, and that is also something new in this region. Thanks to them, a new kind of political awareness, a new understanding of politics and thus new demands were all able to emerge. These are demands for accountability for those in power, and for social justice.Does this mean that Arab societies are now overcoming this legacy of authoritarianism? What has actually happened?
To understand the phenomenon of authoritarianism in this region, we must realise that the countries are heirs to a violent period of colonialism and then the post-colonial resistance. The military leaders installed themselves at the top, and not any organically developed structures of state. In Europe, these structures evolved over the centuries. There was the French Revolution, two world wars, Hitler, Mussolini’s wars and Franco’s wars. Civil society in Europe developed very slowly, and so there grew out of it a tried and tested and viable democracy. The Arab world, though, never had that "luxury of having a history." But now the structures that grew from the bottom up have rebelled against the authority of the state and its sovereignty. There’s no road back.What do the Arab revolutions mean for Europe?
There are many security and strategic challenges, because the political terrain is changing. There are governments emerging that will listen more to their societies, and societies emerging that will demand a foreign policy independent of the West. It is no coincidence that Egypt and Tunisia did not support intervention in Libya. Egypt is also preparing to renew relations with Iran, which until recently was a complete taboo. The EU and the U.S. will have to prepare for situations that will arise in the region, which they will be able to control far less than they were able to just last year. Here we see similarities with Latin America, where the regimes had previously been much more docile with regards to the West. Just as imperialist interventions into their affairs is no longer possible there, no longer will they be possible in western Asia, either.It is something like a second wave of decolonisation? Less direct political influence of the West, but for all that, greater influence of Western ideas?
Definitely. After all, there was no open anti-Americanism on display in the Arab revolutions. Turkey also cooperates with Europe, yet pursues its own goals as well. Personally, I think it's a good thing. That is, it does help the cause of peace throughout the region. In the Middle East we need a security strategy that does not serve the interests of outside players.How do you evaluate the policies of the West towards the Arab revolutions?
The European Union should have a policy much more independent of the U.S. than it has had till now. This has been manifested in many respects, like Iraq, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and most recently Iran. Europe should pursue its own interests. Iran will have to be drawn to the negotiating table. The policy of marginalising and sanctioning that country has failed. Iran's nuclear project is unstoppable, and there is no military solution. Everybody knows it. And the European Union is a better partner for this dialogue than the U.S., because it’s not weighed down by any historical baggage. Strategic considerations also play a role here. For example, how will we transport oil and gas from Afghanistan in the future? Would it not be better to bring the pipeline through India, Pakistan and Iran than through Russia? Likewise, the Libyan operation was a mistake. Europe is closely intertwined with the Islamic and Arab world and has to admit it.If the Libyan operation was a mistake, would you rather have seen Europe not intervene in Libya? Even if it meant having to look on as Gaddafi massacred the opposition?
If it had been possible at the outset to organise a conference that brought together the regional players, where Gaddafi and the opposition sat down together, that would have been the right way. If there had been a diplomatic initiative at the very beginning, then I think that Gaddafi would not have reacted the way he did in the end. When you see there is some other solution, you hesitate to massacre your own population. Military intervention, on the contrary, made the violence in Libya worse. You cannot subjugate people by bombing them, or intervene militarily to create a new situation. Who do you think is defending Gaddafi's regime? He still has some support. It's not just down to hiring mercenaries. What will happen with the remnants of that regime? Strategic diplomacy could resolve the deadlock.

Is Libya therefore another Iraq for the West, just closer to the borders of Europe?
Nobody knows exactly what the movement in eastern Libya is. It's far from being just liberals and democrats. There are lots of different tribal forces with their own agendas, and jihadis too. Al-Qaeda is rejoicing over this situation, because these events can be integrated into its world-view of the conflict between Islam and the West. A military solution would not be a happy one.

Europe, with its history of war and authoritarianism not long in the past, is often quick to promote democracy, human rights and the rule of law as the values it wants to see other states adopt.But the unrest sweeping North Africa and the Middle East, bringing down authoritarian rulers in Egypt and Tunisia, has forced it to face an uncomfortable truth: for years it turned a blind eye to such undemocratic regimes, favoring stability and a semblance of order over the risk of political unrest or chaos.

A big threat, as already evidenced in Tunisia, where thousands of people have fled by boat to Italy, is migration, an issue that could easily spread to other regional states. "Civil unrest can spill over into other countries and contribute potentially to further radicalization of certain groups and it can have very significant spill over effects on the Middle East peace process," said O'Donnell. "The problem is that the few incentives the EU could offer -- liberalizing trade in agricultural goods and facilitating free movement of people -- it has been very averse to deliver." Not only have countries in southern Europe resisted opening markets to competing goods from North Africa, such as citrus fruits, tomatoes and olive oils, populations across Europe don't want to see visa rules relaxed to allow in more migrants.

Visa-free for North Africa is not going to fly -- there are limits. This is the difference between offering membership perspectives and not doing so. If you're not doing that, then your leverage is limited. While the EU can step up programs to promote democracy, it would have to work hard to rebuild its credibility among reformists in North Africa.
The EU has miscalculated badly over the last decade in equating the status quo with stability. It really has to show the EU is willing to live up to its commitments to integrate North African economies and political systems into a genuine project of regional integration.

The challenge for the EU is not so much having an influence -- its vast trading power and the attractions of a marketplace with 500 million consumers give it that -- but ensuring it brings that influence to bear quickly and in the right way. If we're seen to be seriously behind the curve, there is the risk of getting caught on the wrong side of history," said Youngs, pointing out that past experience has shown the risks of a radical backlash if heightened expectations of change after pro-democracy uprisings are not met.

"The international community has to act quite quickly and show that political change can be accompanied by really tangible economic and social change." But with major vested interests in the region -- not least in the oil and gas sectors, in which North African states are big suppliers to the EU -- the bloc as a whole is likely to remain extremely cautious in its approach and to renewed unrest.
EU members with close historical ties in the region, particularly France and Italy, also frequently take positions that conflict with northern European member states. "There comes the question of how they relate to countries with regimes still in place," said O'Donnell. "I don't see the EU transforming its approach to Libya, for example.

"But it's going to be very difficult for the EU to say it fully supports democratic transition in Egypt while not raising matters with Egypt's neighbors, when Egypt's neighbors are going to be quite uncomfortable with what's happening in Egypt."

At least the Council of Europe can devote oneself to bring solutions concerning the unrest. This organisation of 47 member states, representing a population of 800m and based on legal standards is already specialised and experienced in bringing in human rights, democracy, rule of law and cultural co-operation. The Council of Europe is one of the oldest international organisations working towards European integration, having been founded in 1949. It is distinct from the European Union (EU) which has common policies, binding laws and only twenty-seven members.

EuroMeSCo, the main network of research centres and institutes on policy and security in the Mediterranean, warns of the fragility of the political transitions in Egypt and Tunisia and proposed, in a declaration addressed to the EU (see below), a series of measures to provide support for the consolidation of stable and inclusive democracies in these countries. The declaration has been presented 3 March 2011 in Brussels.
During the gathering, prevention of instability was stressed.

As introduction facts were given about commitments in cooperation and money, trade with the EU, GDP-growth and years of schooling. It was also said that the enormous transformation in order to built more free societies was not expected. In the past work was done as far as it could be done.

It is urgent that action is to be taken soon and to remind that it is in the first place about the regio and not about Europe. Although the European Union fosters the change, its views are also focussed on dangers such as political humanitarian crisis.