Beyond Egypt: the changing face of the Middle East

Daily Times Friday, February 18, 2011

COMMENT: Beyond Egypt: the changing face of the Middle East — Dr Mohammad Taqi

The Saudis are deeply worried by the Bahrain-like events where the demographic makeup of the population and regime are lopsided and the socio-political unrest has the potential to topple the regime

The toppling, within a month of each other, of two autocratic rulers, due to popular uprisings, is a first in North Africa and the Middle East (ME). Well, as a placard in the Tahrir Square read last week: “Two Down, Twenty To Go!” These events have monumental geopolitical implications for the broader region — a region where despots and destitution both abound.

We noted last week that the US pundits, wearing their geostrategic interest blinders, had completely missed the ball on Egypt. On the eve of Hosni Mubarak’s disgraceful exit, Zbigniew Brzezinski — in a state of denial matched only by Mubarak himself — was still talking about how democratic transitions in the ME could really have adverse outcomes! I was reminded of Benazir Bhutto’s lament that such US and western double-speak treats democracy as a non-universal value, applied only selectively in pursuit of foreign policy objectives. She wrote in her Reconciliation: Islam, Democracy and the West::

“Here again, one can only wonder how different the history of the Middle East, the Arab world, and the Muslim world would have been, if Egypt, the cultural leader of the Arab world, had been encouraged and allowed to develop a sustained, viable democratic government. It could very well have triggered the domino effect of democracy throughout the ME that the United States hoped to achieve with its intervention in Iraq in 2003.”

Benazir was spot-on about Egypt’s pivotal position in the Arab world and her book is a must read in the backdrop of the Tahrir uprising. The way things are unfolding in the Arab capitals from Algiers to Amman, it is no longer a matter of if, but of when the dominoes will start falling. The key questions are how would such a change start and what would be the extent of it? The Rock of Gibraltar is in a sea of uncertainty since the status quo is no longer acceptable to the — largely young — Arab population.

Whether it is the people’s perception of the economic inequalities in society or a desire for civil liberties, it would not be placated by the autocracy’s belated perestroika from above. It is premature to say how events will unravel in the Maghreb and the ME because the objective conditions in each country will ultimately determine the course and extent of change. However, it is clear that the one-size-fits-all model of revolutionary change will not be applicable any more. It is the inspiration and not the revolution itself that has become the biggest Egyptian export to the region. For future political changes in the ME to succeed, there cannot be copycat upheavals. The secularists and the Islamists both cannot afford to ignore the ground realities, including the pan-Arab aspiration for democracy.

A traditional classification of the Arab world has the oil-rich monarchies with sparse populations on the one hand and the states without oil but with sizeable populations, on the other. Historically, the countries without oil have had strong opposition movements, which, despite severe state repression, maintain a certain level of political organisation. Algeria, Syria, Jordan and Palestine fall under this category and until last week included Egypt as well. Yemen, with its tribal structures intact is rather unique but also belongs in this group.

The West and the US have no love lost for the regimes at the helm in these states, except for Jordan, and are likely to remain neutral towards, if not encouraging of the change. Jordan — essentially a US-Israeli protectorate — had remained a cornerstone, along with Egypt and Saudi Arabia, of the American ME policy. Nothing would rattle the Saudis and Americans more than an imminent political change in Jordan. But despite that, it is likely that a fairly representative constitutional monarchy, accommodating even the Islamist Action Front is in the offing. But if one were to take a pick, Abdelaziz Bouteflika appears to be the next one out the door, leaving behind an Algeria not too different from post-Mubarak Egypt.

A key question is whether the oil-rich countries like Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the UAE and smaller sheikhdoms are immune from an Egypt-style change. The UAE with its liberal economy and society would perhaps be the last one from this group to experience any major upheaval. And while many would like to see a regime change in Riyadh, the monarchy appears relatively safe in the short to midterm. The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia’s (KSA’s) unique geography with population, business, political and religious centres being far apart from each other, near absence of past or present political activity — notwithstanding one political party created last week — and coffers flush with cash, suggest that the rentier model of state may still work for perhaps another generation. Outside of some unexpected external force causing a major shift in the kingdom’s dynamics resulting in geographic as well as regime change, the impetus for transformation coming from the liberalised royals and restive youth would result only in a veneer of openness.

The Saudis, however, are deeply worried by the Bahrain-like events where the demographic makeup of the population and regime are lopsided and the socio-political unrest has the potential to topple the regime. Similar events in Kuwait can trigger uprisings by the population in the oil-rich eastern KSA, which can become a pain if not a threat for the kingdom.

Pertinent to note are the events in a non-Arab entity, i.e. Iran, which can have an impact on two Levant states. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad wanted the world to believe that the Egyptians were following Khomeini’s lead but the Iranian opposition showed that the converse is true. The desperate call by the hardliner Iranian MPs to execute the opposition leaders has lifted the regime’s façade of strength. What had started in the Muharram of 2009 will end like the Muharram of 1979 — the fall from power and grace of the tyrants. This will remove key support that Iran extends to Syria and Hezbollah, leading to a weakened regime in Syria and strengthened anti-Hezbollah forces in Lebanon. A regime change in Iran could drag down Bashar al-Assad with it or at least tamper with his tremendous capacity to use brute force.

Alexis de Tocqueville had said that the power of the periodical press is second only to that of the people. The social media has now upended the traditional media. But it is the people who ultimately remain the most powerful agents of change and only they will determine what the changing face of the Middle East looks like.

The writer can be reached at mazdaki@me.com

US policy in Egypt: potential and pitfalls

Badshah Khan: the frontier’s grand old man

Salmaan Taseer: the content soul

Salmaan Taseer: assassinated on a perilous path

Tripping democracy — again?

Daily Times Thursday, December 30, 2010

COMMENT: Tripping democracy — again? —Dr Mohammad Taqi



Benazir Bhutto wrote extensively about reconciliation between the Islamic world and the west. Unfortunately, she did not live to see it materialise. But even before that she had started a rapprochement with Mian Nawaz Sharif and had outlined a roadmap for it too

http://tinyurl.com/25byw2q

I write these lines on the evening of December 27, 2010 at exactly the same time when Benazir Bhutto breathed her last, three years ago. Her martyrdom remains one of those immense tragedies where one cannot forget the place where one was or the thoughts that crossed one’s mind upon receiving the tragic news.

I was visiting Lahore to see Barrister Aitzaz Ahsan who was under house arrest at the time, with his residence having been designated a sub-jail. Thanks to his family, I managed to slip past the police to see him for almost an hour-long session in his living room. After seeing Barrister sahib, I was ushered back to his law chambers next to the residence. But that is not really what I wish to reminisce about here. Walking into his office, I heard his family and associates talking about a bomb blast at the PPP’s Liaquat Bagh rally and that perhaps Benazir Bhutto had succumbed. It was the dark, cold, blood-soaked evening of December 27, 2007. And I clearly remember the first thought that passed my mind upon hearing the heartrending news.

It was almost like a flashback and relegating the hectic talk around me to the background, I thought of the first time I saw Benazir Bhutto and the first words I heard from her. It was at her mammoth rally at the Cunningham (Jinnah) Park in Peshawar circa May 1986. Peshawar was her second or third stopover after returning to Pakistan from exile in April that year. The news of her historic welcome at Lahore had already reached far and wide. As a young worker of the Movement for the Restoration for Democracy (MRD), I had decided along with my other colleagues from the Pashtun nationalist and progressive parties that we would attend the PPP rally. None of us was a member of the PPP or its students’ wing but having developed a great working relationship with the PPP under the aegis of the MRD, we came in hordes, and early. The rally was scheduled to start around 2:00 pm or so but we came in at 10:00 am only to find that the park was already packed. But Benazir Bhutto’s procession did not arrive till very late in the evening. But it is not even the size of the procession or the magnitude of the rally that I wish to remember. Benazir Bhutto’s first words from that stage were in Pashto: “Za za, Zia za” (Zia must go). The predominantly Pashtun audience immediately bonded with her and erupted in a chorus of ‘Za za, Zia za, za za, Zia za’, calling upon the military dictator Ziaul Haq to go, to leave, to vanish from the political scene. Hearing the news of her death, this is the political statement I remembered hearing from Benazir Bhutto as if it was yesterday.

But did the ghost of Ziaul Haq’s Islamo-fascism ever leave us? Did that ‘go Zia go’ slogan ever materialise? The stark, unfortunate reality is no, it did not. The birds of the Ziaist feather are flocking together again, nay, political vultures are hovering over the current PPP government. They always do. After those 1986 rallies, Zia was forced to cobble together a king’s party. He created his version of the Muslim League and many, including the current prime minister, hopped on to that anti-Bhutto bandwagon.

As a party, that particular Muslim League was not a winning horse on its own but bringing together the Bhutto-haters from across the political spectrum became the establishment’s favourite trick to either keep the PPP out of power or to dislodge its governments, which it has managed to form despite all odds. No one could have put it better than the senior columnist and friend Kamran Shafi who had told the television anchor Nasim Zehra: “Fauj jamhooriyat ko thibbiyan laga rahi hai” (the army keeps trying to trip democracy over). Nothing sums up the relationship of the Pakistani establishment with the left-of-centre political parties, especially the PPP better.

The establishment’s inherent mistrust of the PPP remains entrenched largely in the latter’s popular roots and, to an extent, in both Zulfikar Ali Bhutto and Benazir Bhutto’s maverick style of leadership. Even when the shadows of political adjustments or reconciliation with the establishment have lurked over the PPP’s coming to power, the former remained deeply suspicious of the PPP leadership and feared their independent streak.

Over the last decade, the establishment has included Mian Nawaz Sharif in the list of the leaders it fears. The reason simply being that with a reasonable mass following, the politicians draw political legitimacy from the consent of those governed and tend to free themselves of the dependence on the establishment. This independence — however small it might be — is unpalatable for the deep state because unlike politicians it has no other way to seek political legitimacy. Even the most brutal martial law regimes ultimately had to seek the fig-leaf of rubber-stamp parliaments, ‘mandates’ from the Supreme Court or doctored referenda. No matter how strong the ruling establishment might be, its desire to rule (directly) is eventually incongruent with the nature of the modern nation state.

This fact is not completely lost on the Pakistani establishment but unable to reconcile to this reality, it continues to attempt every so often to manufacture dissent against the democratically elected dispensations. Its allies — with some variation in names and faces — in such attempts to trip democracy remain the usual parasites like the MQM, JUI, JI, PML-Q and Imran Khan. Fortunately, Mian Nawaz Sharif and his PML are way past such blatant intrigues and over the term of the present set-up have shown political maturity that has kept many adventurists at bay.

Benazir Bhutto wrote extensively about reconciliation between the Islamic world and the west. Unfortunately, she did not live to see it materialise. But even before that she had started a rapprochement with Mian Nawaz Sharif and had outlined a roadmap for it too. On the eve of Benazir Bhutto’s third death anniversary, the beat of the political war-drums is getting louder. Nothing would put a damper on those yearning for snap polls, in-house change, benevolent dictatorship or the ‘Chinese model’, except a robust revival of the PPP-PML-N partnership. Benazir Bhutto knew that Zia’s ghost lurks under the surface of such proposals. She would have wanted the PPP and the PML-N to stick together post-haste or prepare to be tripped over, along with democracy — again.

The writer can be reached at mazdaki@me.com

The Pamir Knot and beyond

Daily Times	Thursday, December 23, 2010

COMMENT: The Pamir Knot and beyond —Dr Mohammad Taqi

http://tinyurl.com/26zcb9d

 

There is nothing really ideological or fraternal about the Chinese investments in Pakistan, as some Pakistani newspapers would like us to believe. Interestingly, while the Pakistani media has a knack for comparing everything to India, it has really remained mum over premier Jiabao’s visit to Delhi

The relationship between the US and Pakistani intelligence agencies appears to be moving from playing uneasy footsie to a fairly sordid affair. The blowing of the CIA’s Islamabad station chief’s cover, allegedly at the behest of the host country’s spooks, has not gone down well with the US. That this happened on the eve of the Chinese premier Wen Jiabao’s much-trumpeted visit to Pakistan raises a question if Pakistan is using grandpa Wen to help fend off the ‘big bully’ US.

The Chinese leader’s visit, in turn, came on the heels of the US strategic review of the Afghan war chiding Pakistan and asking it to do more to fight the Islamist terrorists operating from within its borders. This review has not set any benchmarks — at least publicly — to gauge Pakistan’s success in what is being demanded of it. Additionally, President Barack Obama, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Defence Secretary Robert Gates have reiterated in separate statements their concern about Pakistan’s role in the Afghan war.

Wen Jiabao obviously did not disappoint his hosts, and speaking to the joint session of the Pakistani parliament said what they really wanted to hear: “Pakistan was at the front of the international fight against terrorism and made big sacrifices and important contributions, which were obvious to all. The international community should affirm that and give great support as well as respect the path of development chosen by Pakistan. The fight against terrorism should not focus on specific religions or ethnic groups, but rather on eradicating the root factors breeding terrorism.”

While appearing to be a shot in the arm for the Pakistani regional policy, Mr Jiabao’s speech reinforces what is already known about Sino-Pak relations and the Chinese ambitions in the second decade of the 21st century. The Pakistani policy planners, especially those directly or indirectly associated with its ruling establishment, take a vicarious pride in the strides China has made and tend to believe that in the coming decade it would surpass the US as a global power.

However, the Chinese quest to revive the land-based Silk Route and develop jumping boards to Africa like the Gwadar port, point to its significant handicap in overcoming its geographical limitations. Resource-hungry China might take more than 10 years to develop a navy to be competitive with South Korea and Japan-supported US, even in the Pacific Rim. It is therefore, imperative for China to develop cheap and relatively direct access to resources, especially fossil fuels, from Central Asia, the Persian Gulf and Africa.

There is nothing really ideological or fraternal about the Chinese investments in Pakistan, as some Pakistani newspapers would like us to believe. Interestingly, while the Pakistani media has a knack for comparing everything to India, it has really remained mum over premier Jiabao’s visit to Delhi. A right-wing contemporary in its editorial praising China for its ‘stellar words and deeds’ vis-à-vis Pakistan opted to black-out the fact that just days ago the Chinese leader was quoting from the Upanishads, eulogising Mahatma Gandhi and buoyantly claiming Manmohan Singh’s friendship. With about $ 60 billion in exports, China has become India’s largest trading partner. By 2015, this sum is expected to rise to around a whopping $ 100 billion. The $ 30 billion of Chinese investment in Pakistan over the next five years does not look that massive after all. The point remains that it is the confluence of economic and geo-strategic interests — not words from scriptures or leaders — that dictate the Chinese or any other nation’s interest in Pakistan and for that matter in India.

That China will expand manufacturing exchanges, develop the transport and (nuclear) energy sectors in Pakistan, and even do a currency swap agreement, is not moot. However, what it might not tolerate is very similar to the world demands about countering the terror networks operating in and out of Pakistan. For China to have viable, uninterrupted resource supply routes from Central Asia and through Pakistan, it has to have a western border free of the jihadist menace. To metamorphose from a global moneylender to a global power, China will be confronting the question of how to tackle jihadism sooner than later. It may have saved the skins of the likes of General Hamid Gul — even at the UN level — but doing business in the global economy would entail China actually policing such characters rather than encouraging or protecting them.

The Chinese global interests, therefore, are more congruent with the US, and perhaps even India, than a Pakistani establishment with a jihadist mindset fossilised in the past. Internally, China is extremely sensitive about any socio-political upheavals that could pitch its impoverished central and western provinces against the affluent coastal regions and potentially lead to the unrest prevalent on the eve of Chairman Mao’s revolution. Issues like Tibet and Uighur autonomy are thus taken quite seriously, and dealt with harshly, by the Chinese. Moreover, China’s status as the world’s ATM machine is hugely dependent on its trade with the US and western consumer societies. While it would love to see the Pamir Knot and northern Silk Road revived with economic vigour, China would not be interested in undoing the Gordian knot of Afghanistan with the tip of its sword and neither would it give Pakistan a free hand to do so — a fact not lost on the Pak-Afghan policy planners in the US.

The New York Times (NYT) report that the US military seeks to expand raids inside Pakistan appears to be part of this seemingly endless game of analysing the projection of power, perception of strength or weakness and posturing of the geo-strategic players. Speaking to this writer, a CENTCOM spokesman, Lieutenant Colonel Michael Lawhorn cited the International Security Assistant Force statement, which categorically rejects the NYT report and claims everything to be hunky dory between the US and Pakistan: “There is absolutely no truth to reporting in the NYT...Cross-border coordination has and continues to disrupt and dismantle insurgent networks in select areas, with significant operations on both sides of the border removing large numbers of insurgent leaders and fighters.”

The last part of the statement is ambiguous about who exactly is conducting those raids but seems to indicate that for now the US planners have opted to ignore grandpa Wen’s words and innuendo in Pakistan. They seem to be focused more on the great-grandpa Hu Jintao’s Washington, DC visit next month.

The writer can be reached at mazdaki@me.com