Neither an Arab Spring nor Revolutions

After the euphoria, the optimism and the hope, it is time to come back to reality and assess with a cool head events in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA). The speed of the successive uprisings was so great that it was legitimate to conclude that we were entering a radically new era. Today, more than six months after the fall of the Tunisian and Egyptian dictators, critical questions are arising. It is legitimate to ask what is really happening in the two countries. Everywhere there is confusion: more than 110 political parties are running in the coming Tunisian parliamentary elections, while Egypt is witnessing secret negotiations to protect members of the old regime—especially Army commanders. The political landscape in Tunisia has become murky and in Egypt there is a feeling that the army is hijacking the uprising; that some leaders are playing a double game.

“Revolutions take time,” we are told; not to hurry. History shows that freedom has a price. True. We must remain committed, dedicated and optimistic, yet neither excessively idealistic or naïve. The situation in Tunisia, and even moreso in Egypt, gives cause for concern: in both countries the political landscape closely resembles chaos. Polarization between secular and Islamist trends prevents any serious discussion about the main social and economic challenges facing the respective countries. The Armed Forces are watching, if not monitoring, developments within Tunisian and Egyptian society, while foreign countries are readjusting their positions and strategies. It may well be true that we will not return to the old dictatorships but it is unclear what kind of democracy we will get. Some think it is simply too soon to tell. We would suggest that it is not a question of time but rather a problem of substance and of geopolitical considerations. What we are witnessing is far from being an Arab spring.

Looking closely at Libya, these questions become even more critical and the confusion, deeper. What will the future hold now that France, Britain and the United States—acting through NATO—have freed it from Muammar Qaddafi? Who are the people who make up the Transitional National Council (TNC)? How can they make such rapid decisions about the distribution of the country’s oil production, so obviously and effortlessly favoring the Western countries? Behind the fine words of democracy, freedom and Libyan dignity, what games are being played to control and take over the country’s wealth? The scenario reminds us of Iraq: things are still unsettled, Qaddafi has disappeared, and very soon the situation will be under control. The control will be economic and geopolitical rather than a democratic path towards freedom. Confusion, yes—but clearly not a revolution.

The Great Powers seem to be in conflict over the destiny of the Syrian regime. It took six months for France, Britain and the United States to ask Bashar al-Assad to step down. While they are quite timidly asking him to leave, China and Russia appear to be helping them to do nothing. No UN resolution, no clear statement; there is no clear support for the Syrian uprising. Once again, it is not a question of time, nor a question of democracy; geopolitical considerations are the decisive factor. Syrian blood reflects the value of the country’s geographical position: it can and will be shed in the name of political calculations. The newly-established Syrian National Council is aptly not asking for a foreign intervention but requesting international and diplomatic support: beyond words, they are getting nothing. The West, China and Russia are worried about the Syrian Islamists, proving once again that nothing has changed. The Great Powers care nothing for democracy; they will remain silent while civilians are massacred as long as their interests are protected. The Yemeni or Bahraini people may well feel forgotten: they are indeed, for their cause, their hope, their blood merit no sacrifices by the mighty.

The Turkish government is attempting to become more involved. It has organized conferences, workshops and meetings with Arab leaders and activists. But is it acting with a new political and geopolitical vision or is it seeking economic influence? The key question is to assess what latitude the Turkish government enjoys today to initiate new alliances and original dynamics in MENA. Is it an independent player taking advantage of the competition between the United States, the European countries, Israel, China and Russia? Does Turkey have the potential to bring more clarity to the current confusion? The answer is far from obvious: Turkey appears to be attempting to reconcile “good will” with significant economic interests and geopolitical alliances.

These are critical times. We must work toward a holistic regional approach, bearing in mind the combined political, economic and geopolitical dimensions of the problem. The picture is less rosy and more daunting than it would appear at first emotional glance. What we see happening around us is neither an “Arab spring” nor a “Revolution.” Something is changing in MENA in a very strange way. The Arab Awakening remains a confused reality, an enigma. It is not easy to share and respect the hopes and the optimism of the populations as we assess the cynical calculations of governments and politicians. The wisest attitude seems to combine consistency and in-depth study, to adopt an ethical stance that values dreams without forgetting to expose inconvenient truths, lies and corruption, whether of the dictators or the liberators, of enemies as well as friends.