Muslim East: revolutions and counter-revolutions

Power is not given up voluntarily, at least not by those who have usurped it by force in the first place. The Muslim East (Middle East) is witnessing unprecedented uprisings by peoples that were hitherto considered too apathetic to move. There was a sense of resignation until, that is, the uprising in Tunisia sparked by the self-immolation of Mohamed Bouazizi, the street vendor who could not take the public insults of a female police officer any longer, changed everything. His act set the entire Muslim East ablaze; the flames are still raging. How many dictators will ultimately be consumed is still uncertain but a clearer understanding of the reality is crucial.



Long entrenched dictators can be dislodged from power; that is often the easy part. It is not the dictators but the system that maintains them in power that must be better understood. Dictators do not rule in a vacuum; they represent the tip of the iceberg. The ingredients that make up this iceberg are the military, the police, the bureaucracy, the political parties (the ones permitted to operate), judges, courts and a vast network of patronage in which businessmen and politicians develop close relations to help sustain the system and the dictator in power. Since everyone’s personal interests are tied to the system, it is not so easy to dismantle. In fact, the system would often sacrifice the individual in order to dissipate public anger and help stabilize and situation. Tunisia falls into this category.

Let us consider specific examples. Both in Tunisia and Egypt, two long-serving dictators — Zine el-Abidine and Hosni Mubarak — were driven from office within a short period. Yet it would be wrong to assume that the systems that sustained them have also gone. In both countries, vested interests are fighting back to subvert gains made by the people. The military appears to be the first but not the only line of defence. There is another, more invidious factor at work: withdrawal of capital from society, leaving protesters and the disadvantaged even more vulnerable. This is evident in both countries.

Billions have been taken out of each country and there is little likelihood that this money would be returned as long as the political environment remains uncertain. Moneyed classes are also linked with foreign financial interests. In fact, they often work in tandem to advance each other’s interests. Foreign governments, international financial institutions such as the World Bank, the IMF and foreign banks withhold capital at the most critical juncture to force governments to tailor their policies to suit external players. If money is given it comes with powerful strings attached. It is during times of upheavals that governments most urgently need cash because production is disrupted while workers still have to be paid. These are the people that live from one weekly wage to the next.

Further, many societies especially Egypt, Tunisia and Jordan, are also dependent on tourism for revenue that dries up in times of political turmoil. Why would foreign tourists wish to visit a country engulfed in riots? Naturally, it affects the livelihood of that segment of society that services the tourist industry. Under such conditions, it becomes easier to turn one group of people against another. This has been attempted in Egypt where government-sponsored thugs, disguised as street vendors, were unleashed against the protesters camped in Tahrir Square accusing them of undermining their livelihood. Revolutionary fervor in the absence of power and authority to make decisions can take people only so far. This is the dilemma facing the young protesters in Egypt. They understand the challenges facing them but appear powerless on many issues. It would be unrealistic to assume that they will gain their rights without further sacrifices and vigilance against subversion.

This is the story of the revolutionaries. There are also counter-revolutions underway in places like Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Yemen. After overcoming the initial shock of losing two dictators in rapid succession, especially Mubarak of Egypt who was viewed as the lynchpin of the colonial occupation of the Muslim East, the Saudis were able to formulate a counter-revolutionary strategy. Their first line of attack was Bahrain where they dispatched troops to crush the people’s aspirations. This has largely been successful. They are also deeply involved in Yemen where President Ali Abdullah Saleh, badly injured in a missile strike on his residence on June 3, is undergoing treatment in a Riyadh hospital. He refuses to relinquish power and the Saudis do not appear keen to nudge him out. In contrast, the Saudis are actively involved in undermining regimes in Libya and Syria with Western help and to plant their own agents in power.

The reasons for undermining the regimes in Libya and Syria are not the same. In Libya the aim is to subvert Colonel Muammar Qaddafi’s plans to break loose of the Western economic and financial stranglehold, especially in Africa. This is seen as a threat to Western economic hegemony that could inspire people elsewhere to emulate his example and hasten collapse of the West’s financial system. Syria does not pose a financial threat but it is part of the resistance front against Zionist colonialism. Israel’s weakening would undermine Western strategic and military dominance in the region. In both Libya and Syria, the Saudis are acting as Western Zionist agents by financing anti-government rebels.

While there is no single theory that fits all Middle Eastern uprisings, the struggles of peoples in these lands are not only for fundamental rights. There are also external players involved in manipulating local grievances in order to advance their own agenda. This is most clearly evident in Libya and Syria where the people’s legitimate grievances are being exploited for Western political and geo-strategic purposes. In Bahrain, the situation is reversed: the people’s legitimate demands are being suppressed in order to maintain the rule of a corrupt monarchy subservient to the West.

Libya and Bahrain: contrasting Western attitudes

Zafar Bangash

The West’s hypocrisy stands exposed yet again in the contrasting policies toward uprisings in Libya and Bahrain. The US and allies Britain and France pressed the UN Security Council on March 17 to impose a no-fly zone on Libya. In Bahrain, on the other hand, 2,000 troops, mainly Saudis from the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), were rushed in on March 13 where they promptly perpetrated a bloodbath against unarmed peaceful civilians. The Saudi, Bahraini and Emirati troops also invaded hospitals dragging the wounded from their beds and throwing them in the streets. Doctors were also beaten up. Despite such barbarism by Western-backed Middle Eastern tyrannies, the US and its allies remain unmoved. The lives of Bahrainis are clearly unimportant compared to their vested interests. The people of Bahrain are asking for the same rights as people elsewhere in the Middle East: dignity, freedom and fair elections.

In Libya’s case, the West’s wrath has been directed at Colonel Muammar Qaddafi. True, Qaddafi is neither a democrat nor loved by his people but the manner in which he has been targeted while ignoring the brutality unleashed by Saudi and Bahraini troops on unarmed civilians in Bahrain clearly exposes Western hypocrisy. Is Hamad ibn Isa al-Khalifa of Bahrain or Abdullah ibn Abdul Aziz al-Saud of Saudi Arabia any less brutal or corrupt than Qaddafi?

Immediately after the Security Council vote, US President Barack Obama started issuing threats: Qaddafi must immediately comply; he must stop all attacks against civilians and he must withdraw his troops from areas recaptured from the rebels. Obama also borrowed language from his notorious predecessor George Bush: “these demands are not negotiable.” Obama, the president for change, has now surpassed even Bush in resorting to raw force despite US woes in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, which have bankrupted the US economy.

Numerous targets were hit in the first cruise missile strikes on Libyan cities on March 19. The date coincides with the Western crusade launched against Iraq in 2003 resulting in 1.5 million deaths. Neither Obama nor his British and French counterparts are likely to lose any sleep over the killing of Arabs; they have honed their murderous skills over hundreds of years. The latest assault on Libya is merely a continuation of the colonial enterprise launched behind the veneer of a Security Council resolution. The crucial question is: what right do Western rulers have to decide who should rule in Libya or anywhere else?

There is mounting evidence that the Saudi invasion of Bahrain was part of a larger plan involving both Raymond Davis, the CIA undercover agent who murdered two Pakistanis at point blank range in Lahore, Pakistan on January 27, as well as an attempt to prevent their own shaky hold on power in Riyadh. The Saudis were permitted to invade and occupy another country in exchange for securing the release of Davis. The murders became a bone of contention between an irate Pakistani public already seething under US drone attacks that have killed hundreds of innocent people, and the US whose CIA operative shot dead two Pakistanis in broad daylight in a busy street in Lahore. The Saudis arranged for blood money to be paid to relatives of the deceased in exchange for Davis’s release. The much-maligned Shari‘ah law was invoked to get Davis off the hook. So, Shari‘ah is OK if it facilitates the release of an American murderer but not OK if Muslims want to apply it in their lives?

The other point is also significant. The Saudis do not want disturbances spreading to the kingdom, at least not in any significant way. There were demonstrations in al-Qatif on March 10 and in Riyadh and Jeddah on March 11 but these were ruthlessly suppressed. The Saudis would rather fight their battle for survival in the streets of Manama than shooting Saudis in the streets of Riyadh or Jeddah. The Saudis view any challenge to the status quo in the region as a threat to their hold on power. Any change is also seen as benefitting Islamic Iran whose growing influence the Saudis fear.

The uprising in Bahrain and now gathering momentum in Yemen sends shivers down the Saudis’ collective spine. They fear their grip on power becoming loose. But it is Bahrain that worries the Saudis the most. The tiny Gulf state has a Shi‘i majority ruled by the oppressive Khalifa family that is closely linked with the Americans whose naval Fifth Fleet prowls the Persian Gulf from there. This explains why the Americans have been so lukewarm in supporting the struggle of the Bahraini people.



Zafar Bangash is Director of the Institute of Contemporary Islamic Thought

A new Western crusade: this time against Libya

By Zafar Bangash

The West’s attack on Libya is yet another crusade launched against a Muslim country on the pretext of protecting its people. Pope Urban II would be pleased to learn that his disciples are still marching on as good “Christian soldiers” against another group of “heathens” in the Muslim world nearly a thousand years after his sermon on Mount Clermont. Colonel Muammar Qaddafi does not have to be our favourite tyrant but like Saddam Husain of Iraq, he has enjoyed Western support for decades. Western multinationals salivate at the prospect of consuming his sweet crude. Now they can have their belly full.

Interestingly, too, the UN Security Council was pressed into service to pass a resolution (#1973), imposing a “no-fly zone” over Libya on March 17, ostensibly to “protect” the Libyan people. Twenty years ago, a similar no-fly zone was imposed on Iraq but without even the formality of going through the motion of a Security Council resolution. An estimated 1.5 million Iraqis were killed as a result of sanctions and the Western-imposed no fly zone. On May 12, 1996, when Leslie Stahl of CBS 60 Minutes program asked Madeleine Albright, then US ambassador to the UN, whether the death of 560,000 children was worth the price for ousting Saddam from power, the latter, without hesitation, said it was! Would it be any different in Libya?

Let us look at the lineup of countries attacking Libya: the US, Britain, France, Italy and Canada. Italy repudiated its friendship treaty with Libya and US President Barack Obama said Qaddafi had lost his legitimacy. Did Qaddafi ever have legitimacy; if yes, when and how did he lose it? If not, why were the same Western powers eager to deal with him before the recent troubles? Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair had visited Qaddafi in his tent in March 2004. The Libyan dictator also received former US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in 2008. Qaddafi famously referred to her as “that black woman.” French President Nicolas Sarkozy and Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi both hosted Qaddafi in their capitals a few months before the uprisings started in the Middle East. So what has changed to make Qaddafi the bad boy of the Middle East again so quickly?

True, like Saddam, Qaddafi has had a rocky relationship with the West. From being the West’s darling to mad dog and then back into their good books, he has been through many ups and downs. Qaddafi’s current pariah status has nothing to do with the West’s argument of “humanitarian intervention” to save Libyan lives. Since when have Western rulers become concerned about the plight of Libyans or Muslims? If they do not care for the lives of their own friends — look at how the children of poor families are being sacrificed in Afghanistan and Iraq — why should they care about Libyans?

We need to understand what is afoot in Libya. Despite claims to the contrary, Western troops are already operating on the ground in Libya under the cover of “protecting” Western diplomats but actually providing training to the rebels. Even with the deeply flawed no-fly resolution that does not authorize attacks on Libyan ground forces or armored columns such as tanks, that is precisely what Western bombers are doing. This is creeping occupation of Libya as the world’s attention is diverted to the nuclear disaster in Japan. What might be the reason for the latest Western crusade?

Libyan oil, much coveted by the West because of its low sulphur content, has already been mentioned. Similarly, the US has frozen about $32 billion in Libyan assets under Executive Order 13566. Libya’s frozen assets represent a significant portion of its wealth, according to the Washington Post (March 23, 2011). “In 2009, Libya had a gross domestic product of $62 billion; its sovereign wealth fund is estimated at $40 billion and its central bank reserves at $110 billion. The European Union has added the central bank, the wealth fund and three other Libyan institutions to its sanctions — two weeks after the US action [of February 25],” according to the Post. Britain, not to be left behind, has seized more than $19 billion in Libyan assets.” The looting of Libya has begun in earnest by thieves that have honed their robbing skills over centuries.

Neither Qaddafi nor a successor regime — whatever its shape or color — will ever see this money again. Americans have a habit of stealing others’ wealth, whether by freezing their assets or robbing them through direct invasion and occupation. The US froze $40 billion of Iranian assets in 1980 and barring a few million the rest have been usurped. The Saudis have invested more than one trillion dollars in the US economy. They, too, are not likely to see any of this, especially given the precarious state of the US economy.

But the West’s crusade has another, more sinister purpose. Libya will serve as a beach-head for Western penetration into sub-Saharan Africa that is rich in minerals. Chad, Niger and Sudan have vast mineral deposits that the West covets. This also fits into the election of Obama as president of the United States in 2008. With a black man in the white house, the people of Africa as well as African Americans at home would not be too concerned if the US were to attack and occupy parts of Africa. After all, nobody would accuse Obama of racism. The American establishment has had it all neatly figured out.

A hint to the permanence of Western military intervention was given by US Defence Secretary Robert Gates when he said there was no definite answer about the duration of the Libyan campaign. But he did reveal what was afoot. “Let’s just call a spade a spade,” he said in what a no-fly zone over Libya would entail. “A no-fly zone begins with an attack on Libya to destroy air defences. That’s the way you do a no-fly zone.” A closer look at what Gates said reveals that there is no end in sight. Let us also recall the statement of Dick Cheney, former US vice president about the “war on terror”. He said it may last 50 to 100 years. We can now begin to get a glimpse into the thinking of Western policy-makers.

Wars necessarily create humanitarian crises. There are already nearly 100,000 refugees trying to flee Libya. These include Egyptians, Tunisians, Algerians and citizens of sub-Saharan African countries as well as poor Bangladeshis, Indians and Pakistanis. The West would use their plight as a pretext to send in “humanitarian” aid and workers. Then their “protection” would be used as a pretext for sending in large numbers of ground troops. Libya would once again be colonized directly.

We can see also that while the no-fly zone resolution was authorized by the UN Security Council, the military operations have been taken over by France and Britain and placed under NATO command. Thus, NATO powers have, once again, set themselves up as “authoritative judges of the world common good.”

Libyans clamoring for Western support to help them topple Qaddafi will rue that day when they wake up. Foreign intervention has never brought liberation to any people. Horace Campbell, Professor of African American studies and political science at Syracuse University and currently working on a book on AFRICOM has said: “US involvement in the Libyan bombing is being turned into a public relations ploy for AFRICOM (US Africa Command). AFRICOM is fundamentally a front for US military contractors like Dyncorp, MPRI and KBR operating in Africa. US military planners who benefit from the revolving door of privatization of warfare are delighted by the opportunity to give AFRICOM credibility under the facade of the Libyan intervention. No African country has agreed to let AFRICOM onto the continent. It has 1,500 people operating out of Stuttgart, Germany. If Libya is indeed partitioned, that new state could provide a base for AFRICOM.”

Libyans must wake up before they end up in even worse shape than they are under Qaddafi, however bad he may be. There are better ways to seek liberation than foreign help. It always comes with long strings attached and ends up enslaving rather than freeing people.