Time for small Gulf states to flex their political muscle

Resourceful and stable UAE and Qatar have gained the most from the leadership vacuum in the region

Abdulkhaleq Abdullah, 11/13/11

The balance of power in the Gulf and the region at large has been dramatically altered during 2011 on at least two fronts. First the influence of the big regional powers has diminished noticeably. Second, the political influence of the small states, particularly Qatar and the UAE has increased measurably and they are comfortably in the driving seat.

The ongoing Arab Spring is a game-changer and has already created a power and a leadership vacuum. Nearly all the major regional powers, Iran, Turkey, Israel, Egypt, Iraq, Syria and even Saudi Arabia are diminished at least by an inch, more or less. All of them are badly bruised and are strategically weaker than they were at the beginning of 2011. Their hard as well as their soft power is at its lowest at the moment. The region is visibly leaderless.

Egypt is totally preoccupied by its post-revolution domestic politics and needs years to make a comeback as a credible regional power. Iraq was irreparably knocked out as a regional power since 2003 and will stay off balance for years to come. Turkey, the darling of the neo-Islamists has made a politically embarrassing 180-degree turn in Syria and flip-flopped on so many occasions during the Arab Spring.

Iran is fading as a revolutionary model and is stuck to its ideological reading of the Arab Spring. It has to deal with mounting international pressure and is about to lose Syria, its most strategic regional ally.

http://gulfnews.com/opinions/columnists/time-for-small-gulf-states-to-flex-their-political-muscle-1.929092

Why did Arab League move on Syria?

Ben Wedeman, CNN, 11/13/11

Cairo (CNN) -- I strolled through the halls of the Arab League's headquarters in Cairo the other day, perusing all the family photos of Arab leaders at various summit meetings over the years.

There was deposed Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, deposed and violently disposed of Libyan "Brother Leader" Moammar Gadhafi, exiled Tunisian President Zine Abedine Ben Ali, Yemen's beleaguered President Ali Abdullah Saleh, and Syria's embattled President Bashar Al-Assad.

Uneasy, I thought, must sit the other heads of state featured in those photos.

But it was those surviving leaders, of such less-than-democratic countries as Saudi Arabia, Algeria and Sudan, to name a few, who instructed their foreign ministers to vote Saturday to suspend Syria from the Arab League over its bloody suppression of the eight-month-old uprising there.

In the final months of 2011, the future is looking very uncertain for the creaking Arab political order. Egypt and Tunisia are no longer solid, reliable members of the bloc of conservative, pro-Western "moderate" Arab regimes the United States cobbled together in the aftermath of the October 1973 Arab-Israeli war.

Revolutions and revolts -- finished and ongoing -- must be depriving many rulers of a good night's sleep.

The citizens of the Arab world have finally had enough of the tired charades of the past.

Increasingly endangered are the sham referendums where presidents won 99 percent of votes, where hardly anyone took the time to cast a ballot, the "parties" that were little more than mafias with empty slogans, and the state intelligence thugs who were a law unto themselves.

That stuff just doesn't cut it anymore.

As we strolled together through a ransacked intelligence headquarters in Sabha, Libya, a few months ago, one man told me: "We used to fear our rulers. Now they fear us."

This year almost every Arab state, from the Atlantic to the Gulf, has had to at least go through the motions of initiating political reform.

And while they'd be loathe to share their true motivations, I suspect Arab rulers didn't vote against Syria because they are new converts to people power or support the bloodied opponents of al-Assad. No, there is more to this vote than the so-called "Arab Spring."

As much as aging Arab autocrats fear their people, they also fear Iran. The last 10 years have been good for Iran.

First, the United States led an international coalition to oust Iran's bitter enemies, the Taliban, from power in Afghanistan.

Less than two years later, the Americans did it again in Iraq, bringing down another implacable foe of Iran, Saddam Hussein, and then installing a new political order in Baghdad much more friendly to Tehran.

In 2006 the Americans backed Israel's ill-fated summer war against Iran's Lebanese ally, Hezbollah, which emerged from the 33-day conflict stronger than ever.

In 2007, Hamas, also friends with Iran, ousted the U.S.-backed Fatah faction of Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas from Gaza. Iran was an enthusiastic backer of the revolt against the leaders of Bahrain earlier this year, though that uprising was crushed with Saudi help.

In the meantime, there is growing fear over Iran's perceived nuclear ambitions, those fears stoked by regular pronouncements over the past two decades from Tel Aviv that Iran "is on the verge of producing a nuclear weapon."

Against this backdrop is an across-the-board diminution of American power in the Middle East.

At the end of this year the United States will end its military presence in Iraq, and soon afterward, it will do the same in Afghanistan.

The Obama administration, with 2012 elections looming and after several half-hearted false starts and high-profile humiliations by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, appears to have given up trying to broker real peace between Israel and the Palestinians.

Above and beyond regional issues, the U.S. economy -- and thus, its political clout -- is in decline. Increasingly, America is viewed in the Middle East as an economically bankrupt, militarily and diplomatically overextended, withering superpower.

In short, a huge vacuum looms in the region, and Iran could be the chief beneficiary.

Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf states are alarmed, and are eager to cut Iran down to size. The uprising in Syria went a long way to undercut Iran's oldest and most reliable Arab ally in Damascus, and Saturday's vote to suspend Syria from the Arab League was an added bonus. Syria is now isolated more than ever before, which means Iran's other allies in the region -- Hamas and Hezbollah -- could suffer, too.

There are other players in this great game.

Turkey, having been repeatedly rebuffed in its attempts to gain membership in the European Union, has struck out on its own under Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan.

Missing in the emerging regional equation are any Arab counterweights to a resurgent Turkey, but more immediately, Iran.

Saddam Hussein, who fought an 8-year war with Iran, has been replaced by a government in Baghdad with close ties to Tehran. Egypt, the Arab world's most populous nation and once one of the main pillars of the old order, is in the throes of post-revolutionary upheaval.

The surviving members of those group photos at the Arab League are clutching at anything they can to make sure they can live for another summit meeting -- and another group photo.

http://edition.cnn.com/2011/11/12/opinion/analysis-arab-league-syria-vote/index.html?hpt=op_t1

自從阿拉伯人民群起爭取自己的權益和政權以來，敘利亞政府領導人憑藉自己在中東地位舉足輕重，西方勢力投鼠忌器，因而展開血腥鎮壓。但阿拉伯人一向慓悍，抗議活動沒有屈服。

目前卡達菲已走到末路，阿薩德即將面臨人民及國際社會的制裁。

Russia warns Syrian ruler he may face 'sad fate'

VLADIMIR ISACHENKOV, 08/04/11

MOSCOW (AP) — Russian President Dmitry Medvedev said Thursday he has warned Syria's ruler that he will face a "sad fate" if he fails to introduce reforms in his country and open a peaceful dialogue with the opposition.

In remarks carried by Russian news agencies, Medvedev said he has delivered this message to Syrian President Bashar Assad.

An offensive by Syrian forces against anti-government dissent in the city of Hama, backed by tanks and snipers, has killed scores of people since Sunday.

"Regrettably, large numbers of people are dying there. That causes us grave concern," Medvedev was quoted as saying.

"That's why both on a personal level and in the letters I sent to him (Assad) I have emphasized that it's necessary to urgently conduct reforms, negotiate with the opposition, restore civil peace, and create a modern state.

"If he fails to do that, he will face a sad fate. And in the end we will also have to make some decisions. We are watching how the situation is developing. It's changing, and our approach is changing as well."

Medvedev and Russia's most powerful politician, Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, have long urged Assad to find a compromise with the opposition. In June, Putin warned Assad against using "political instruments of 40 years ago." But at the same time, Moscow had warned the West against interfering with Syrian affairs and objected to a U.N. resolution.

U.S. and European members of the U.N. Security Council had been pressing for months for a legally binding resolution that would strongly condemn Syria.

Russia — which has had close political ties with Syria since Soviet times and provided it with weapons — had urged Assad to find a compromise with the opposition but warned that the West shouldn't interfere in Syrian affairs with such a resolution.

But on Wednesday, after Russia and other countries dropped their long-standing opposition, the U.N. Security Council finally responded to the escalating violence in Syria by condemning Assad's forces for attacking civilians and committing human rights violations.

The presidential statement adopted by the council, which is weaker than a legally binding resolution, urges Syrian authorities to immediately end all violence and launch an inclusive political process that will allow the Syrian people to fully exercise "fundamental freedoms ... including that of expression and peaceful assembly."

http://news.yahoo.com/russia-warns-syrian-ruler-may-face-sad-fate-161639187.html

Security Council Breaks Silence on Syria's Violence Against Civilians

Uri Friedman, The Atlantic Wire, 08/03/11

After days of debate about how to respond to the Syrian government's bloody military assault on Hama, the 15-member U.N. Security Council has issued a statement condemning the "widespread violations of human rights and the use of force against civilians by the Syrian authorities," according to Bloomberg. The U.N. decision-making body expressed "grave concern at the deteriorating situation in Syria" and "profound regret at the death of many hundreds of people" (the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights says 1,629 civilians and 374 members of the security forces have been killed since pro-democracy protests began on March 15).

Related: Syria Might Not Get That Human Rights Council Seat, After All

Those words were not arrived at easily. Russia and China, among others, long opposed any Security Council action out of fear that it would precipitate another Libya-style military intervention. And while today's statement was adopted unanimously, Lebanon--an ally of Syria's and the only Arab country on the council--dissociated itself from the text, a procedure that MSNBC says hasn't been used in 35 years. Several reports are also pointing out that the measure falls short of what the U.S. and its European allies were hoping for. Today's "presidential statement," Al Jazeera notes, isn't as "weighty" as a formal resolution, and makes no mention of a U.N. Human Rights Council investigation into the Syrian crackdown. The statement also issues threats and pleas to both sides of the conflict, warning that "those responsible for the violence should be held accountable" and urging "all sides to act with utmost restraint, and to refrain from reprisals, including attacks against state institutions." The council claims there's only one solution to the current crisis:

An inclusive and Syrian-led political process, with the aim of effectively addressing the legitimate aspirations and concerns of the population which will allow the full exercise of fundamental freedoms for its entire population, including that of expression and peaceful assembly.

http://news.yahoo.com/security-council-breaks-silence-syrias-violence-against-civilians-203658579.html

Unrest in Syria: What you need to know

Zachary Roth

The uprising in Libya, which provoked military intervention by the United States and its allies to avert a brutal government crackdown, has dominated this week's headlines. But meanwhile, there's new unrest in yet another Middle Eastern nation--one with perhaps greater strategic implications for the United States

Could the regime of Syrian president Bashar al-Assad be set to go the way of the dictatorships in Egypt and Tunisia, which were toppled last month by massive popular protests? And what would that mean for the U.S.?

Here's a rundown on the current situation in Syria:

What exactly has been happening on the ground?

Mass protests against the government have been going on since last week, and on Wednesday, demonstrators in the southern city of Dara'a were killed by al-Assad's security forces while taking refuge in a mosque. The number of casualties hasn't been confirmed, but some witnesses have put it as high as 100.

The deaths prompted even bigger anti-government demonstrations in Dara'a yesterday, and today the protests spread to the capital city of Damascus, where people called out: "Dara'a is Syria" and "We will sacrifice ourselves for Syria." In response, supporters of the president chanted back: "God, Syria, and Bashar, that's all."

Fifteen children in Dara'a were arrested after writing graffiti calling for an end to al-Assad's rule. All were under the age of 14. That sparked demonstrations last week demanding the release of the kids--protests quelled by government security forces using tear gas, water cannons, and live ammunition. In response, anger steadily rose this week, leading to Wednesday's protests at the mosque which triggered more government violence.

What are the protesters' grievances?

Like their counterparts in Egypt, Tunisia, and other countries in the region, the protesters want democratic reforms--for instance, more freedom for political parties--as well as a more open press, an end to corruption and cronyism, increased economic opportunities, and stronger constitutional rights.

Syria has been under emergency law since 1963, which has allowed the government to arrest people without warrants and imprison them without trial. Al-Assad's father ruled the country from 1971 until 2000, when al-Assad assumed office. Foreign reporters operate in Syria only with great difficulty--one reason why there's been relatively little recent coverage of events.

How has the government responded?

The government has responded with a mix of mild concessions, violence, and propaganda. It said yesterday that it would "study" lifting emergency rule and allowing more political parties, would consider a new law to increase press freedoms, and would raise the salaries of public workers.

But the regime has also instigated a crackdown. According to human rights groups, in addition to the violence at the mosque on Wednesday, anti-government activists have been arrested, some for their activities online. And al-Assad's camp has sought to use anti-Israel and anti-American sentiment for its own purposes: A government media adviser charged yesterday that the protests hamper Syria's "ability to be a pillar of resistance against Zionism and U.S. schemes."

How is the U.S. reacting so far?

Yesterday, the White House issued a statement strongly condemning Wednesday's attacks and the arrests of human-rights activists. A State Department spokesman declared: "Words are words. We'll obviously look for action."

For now, any kind of military intervention is out of the question, especially since the United States looks likely to be engaged in Libya for weeks at least. Two Republican senators yesterday urged the administration to begin a "sustained campaign of outreach" to the opposition. But America's immediate power to affect the situation appears limited.

What are the implications of this for Americans?

Al-Assad's government has close ties to Iran, and has long had chilly relations with the United States. Plus, there's evidence that it has sought to initiate a nuclear program. So if the Syrian government ultimately were to fall and be replaced by a more democratic, pro-U.S. alternative, America's ability to promote its vital interests in the region--fighting terrorism and extremism, protecting Israel, and ensuring a stable oil supply--could expand. Still, it's difficult to predict how any instability might play out.

Beyond that, the United States has an interest in standing on the side of democracy and human rights and preventing a humanitarian crisis -- one reason for the Libya intervention. If al-Assad's regime were to threaten mass killings on the scale that briefly emerged as a possibility in Libya, the Obama administration and its allies would likely come under intense pressure to act, though their room to maneuver would still appear very limited. For now though, we're not at that point.

(Anti and pro-al-Assad protesters clash after Friday prayers in Damascus, Syria, March 25, 2011.: Muzaffar Salman/AP)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thelookout/20110325/ts_yblog_thelookout/unrest-in-syria-what-you-need-to-know