Are we really free? What is freedom? Is our government being honest with us concerning it's internal & external operations? Is it time for real change? Do we lay it all on the line for real change & true freedom?
It seems that in the area known as the middle east & northern Africa many of the people there have asked these questions & in answering them have risen to the challenge for the call for CHANGE!
If the current uprisings fail to galvanize the creation of strong states, the terror organization will be quick to move in and set up bases.
The latest on crackdowns in the Mideast and U.S. responses
This story was originally published on ProPublica.
As protests -- and crackdowns -- have been rippling through the Middle East, the U.S. response has varied by country.
We've been tracking what's happening and how the United States has responded in our overview of Middle East crackdowns. Here's an updated version with the latest on developments in the region and how U.S. strategy is playing out:
LIBYA
Relationship status with United States: De-friended
Libya and the United States have been in a slow thaw over the last decade. The United States restored full diplomatic relations with its government in 2006, after the country showed signs of cooperation in the areas of nonproliferation and counterterrorism, though the United States has long considered the country's dictator, Col. Muammar Qaddafi, to be a bit strange and unpredictable, describing him as "notoriously mercurial" in U.S. diplomatic cables (more background on the U.S. relationship with Libya).
What's been happening: Though it's difficult getting an exact figure on how many have died in the escalating violence in Libya, by most accounts hundreds of protesters have been killed by the regime of Muammar Qaddafi and his hired mercenaries.
As we noted this week, Qaddafi has clung to power, vowing to fight "until the last drop of my blood." Qaddafi's maintains a stronghold in Tripoli, the besieged capital city, while the opposition has taken control of eastern Libya. On Thursday, Qaddafi blamed the uprising on the influence of al-Qaeda. Libyan officials told the State Department that the government now considers journalists who entered the country "illegally" to be "al-Qaeda collaborators."
U.S. response: President Obama addressed the situation in Libya on Wednesday at length, announcing that Secretary Clinton would be traveling to Geneva on Monday to discuss the situation in Libya with international leaders.
"We will hold the Libyan Government fully responsible for this," State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley told reporters this week. The U.S. has focused on getting American citizens in Libya to safety and said all options are on the table in terms of potential sanctions against the country. So far none have been announced, and the United States has not called for Qaddafi's ouster, saying that "what happens to the leadership of Libya is up to the Libyan people."
BAHRAIN
Relationship status with United States: BFF, though a bit awkward lately
The small oil-producing country and financial center has played host to a robust U.S. military presence as home of the U.S. Navy's Fifth Fleet. Bahrain's Sunni rulers -- who rule over a majority-Shi'ite population -- keep "close to their American protectors," according to a 2008 WikiLeaks cable.
What's been happening: Last week, government forces unleashed brutal attacks on crowds of protesters and mourners, wounding hundreds and killing seven after they had declared the protests illegal. Last Thursday, the Bahraini government defended the crackdown as "a very important step that had to happen" to prevent the country from falling into "a sectarian abyss."
The situation has recently calmed down, and security forces have been ordered off the streets. Though the opposition doesn't agree on everything -- some protesters have rejected the Sunni ruling family altogether -- their core demands have included the release of political prisoners and a fully elected government, Reuters reported. The government has signaled intentions to begin a national dialogue and this week released hundreds of political prisoners.
U.S. response: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton praised Bahrain's leaders earlier this week for opening dialogue after last week's violence. She called on the government to follow with "concrete actions and reforms."
Last week, after days of issuing statements of concern about the violence, Clinton spoke by phone with Bahrain's foreign minister and "stressed the need to seriously engage all sectors of society in a constructive, consultative dialogue." She cited the need for continued reform and reiterated that Bahrain is a "friend and ally." (Related: See our post about the praise that the United States lavished on Bahrain just two months prior to these attacks.)
The Washington Post reported on Sunday that the U.S. government had used public encouragement and private pressure on the Bahraini government to end its crackdown on protesters. Adm. Mike Mullen arrived in Bahrain yesterday as part of a trip to the Middle East and met with the king and the crown prince. National Security Adviser Tom Donilon also spoke with Bahrain's crown prince yesterday, expressing "strong support" for steps taken to open dialogue.
YEMEN
Relationship status with United States: Frenemies
In a press briefing earlier this month, Press Secretary Robert Gibbs stated, "Our relationship with the government of Yemen is incredibly important in addressing the counterterrorism threat that exists there." As WikiLeaks cables revealed last fall, the country's president, Ali Abdullah Saleh, has allowed secret U.S. air strikesplaying a double game -- diverting U.S. aid to not go after al-Qaeda and instead to fight domestic rebels. against suspected al-Qaeda sites and covered them up, claiming they were conducted by the Yemeni military. However, some analysts have said Yemen is
What's been happening: At least a dozen people are reported to have been killed since the protests began in Yemen. Though demonstrations appeared to be peaceful on Friday, some protesters last week were beaten by Yemeni security forces, according to Human Rights Watch. The Financial Times reported on Wednesday that nine members of parliament have resigned in protest of the government's violence against demonstrators.
Yemen's President Ali Abdullah Saleh said this week that he won't step down but will open a dialogue with protesters. On Wednesday he instructed security forces to "thwart all clashes" between pro- and anti-government protesters -- and to offer protection for demonstrators.
U.S. response: Earlier this month, President Obama called Yemen's President Saleh and "asked that Yemeni security forces show restraint and refrain from violence" against demonstrators. He also urged Yemen to take forceful action against al-Qaeda, according to the State Department. The State Department's P.J. Crowley also tweeted about the necessity of foreign aid to Yemen, saying that potential cuts would "constrain our ability to help Yemen" confront al-Qaeda."
ALGERIA
Relationship status with U.S.: It's complicated
As U.S. diplomatic cables show, relations between the United States and Algeria have warmed gradually in recent years. In a February 2008 cable, U.S. diplomats called Algerian military intelligence "a prickly, paranoid group to work with," but noted that cooperation had paid dividends. A cable sent early last year noted Algeria's strategic importance in the fight against al-Qaeda in the region.
What's been happening:
According to the BBC, sporadic protests in Algeria have been continuing since early January, mostly triggered by economic conditions. Algerian security forces arrested dozens of protesters and police attacked some journalists in crackdowns, but the government has since promised reforms and lifted an emergency law that had banned protests and gave police broad powers to detain citizens.
U.S. response:
On Thursday the president made a statement commending Algeria's government for taking "an important step forward" by lifting the emergency law, calling it a "positive sign" that Algeria is listening to the concerns of its people.
The State Department's Crowley had previously released a statement noting the protests and calling "for restraint on the part of the security services."
IRAN
Relationship status with United States: Enemies
The U.S. currently has sanctions against Iran and has a now 30-year history of tension.
What's been happening:
Members of the Iranian Parliament called for the leaders of the protest movement to be executed. The government has also clamped down hard on protest organizers. At least three protestors have been reported killed.
U.S. response:
The U.S. response to Iran has been harsher than to some of the other governments suppressing protests. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton issued a statement on Wednesday calling out Iranian security forces for having beaten, detained and killed peaceful protesters and for persecuting ethnic minorities, human rights advocates and political activists. "The steady deterioration in human rights conditions in Iran has obliged the international community to speak out time and time again," Clinton said, while sanctioning two more Iranian officials for the abuses.
State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley had previously stated that the United States condemned the violence in Iran "in the strongest terms." Asked in an early briefing why the State Department is "condemning what is happening in Iran" and not taking the same position on crackdowns elsewhere, Crowley said, "Well, actually, in the other countries there is greater respect for the rights of the citizens. I mean, we are watching developments in other countries, including Yemen, including Algeria, including Bahrain. And our advice is the same."
STILL DEVELOPING:
IRAQ
At least nine protesters were killed in Iraq on Friday as protesters in several cities participated in "Day of Rage" demonstrations to call for an end to corruption, the Washington Post reports. Iraqi officials had urged the people to stay away, warning that the protests seem "suspicious" and could be infiltrated by terrorists, but tens of thousands turned out anyway -- in some cities, police and security guards opened fire on the crowds.
SAUDI ARABIA
While some protests have been going on in parts of Saudi Arabia, in an effort to stave off larger protests, Saudi King Abdullah this week announced an estimated $37 billion in pay raises, unemployment benefits and housing help. Critics have warned that the gesture isn't a substitute for meaningful political reform, the Guardian reported. The State Department said Thursday that it was "in touch with the Saudis" but did not have further comment.
Click here to see Libyan leader's speech-http://english.aljazeera.net/video/africa/2011/02/2011225173024971457.htmlNo sooner did former US president George W. Bush come into power in January 2001 than a much vaunted neo-conservative doctrine came into full swing, wreaking havoc across the Middle East. Throughout the eight years of the Bush presidency, the levers of power - the political, the economic, the scholarly and, importantly, the military - were all employed towards one ultimate goal: The project for the new American century.
Bush's neo-con backers had prepared the manual for his presidency well before time. With their man in power, the greatest force of Western power since the Roman Empire set about changing the world in the name of neo-conservatism, to "promote American global leadership", we were told.
At the receiving end of the mighty American military-industrial complex were the people of the Arab world. The basic premise was to utilise maximum US force, power and influence to create a new Middle East, one obedient to the interests and objectives of the US. The central focus was the preservation of the superiority of Israel and the utilisation of American hard-power to eliminate any threats posed to it. The benign undercurrent, we were told, was the need to spread democracy across the region. After all, democracies do not fight wars against one other.
The scorecard of the Bush doctrine is there for all to see: "Shock and awe" was unleashed against Iraq in the pursuit of this project; the Palestinians in Gaza were collectively imprisoned for having the audacity to vote for Hamas; Lebanon was brutalised by Israel with the tacit backing of the US in an effort to destroy Hezbollah; Iran became the new public enemy number one (after Iraq had been dealt with of course); the Gulf states went along quietly arming themselves in the name of stability and North African dictators were given free rein to fight "Islamism" - also in the name of stability.
With American hyper-power on full display over this period, there was little doubting the contention that in the realm of international relations, "the end of history" was indeed being reached in the absence of any challenger to the formidable US military might. "Liberty" to Arabs, it seemed, was being brought on the back of American battle tanks. The destruction wrought on the region over this period was apparently "the birth pangs" of a new Middle East.
It's the people, stupid
How times change. The human and capital cost, however, of the Iraq adventure almost bled the US economy dry. The invasion became so bogged down that the political will to continue the war soon weakened. The thought of expanding the military adventure to other lands similarly evaporated. Post-Bush, the Americans were now left grappling with "soft-power", to persuade, to diplomatically engage with Arab/Iranian leaderships in order to resolve disputes. In the midst of this power play in the region, one constituency which the US had long ignored (and continues to ignore) is the people.
Toppling disobedient leaders and oiling the wheels of pliant ones proved useful so long as the populations of these countries remained voiceless. As the people begin to find their voices, however, the Middle East as we have long known it is beginning to alter. Unfortunately for the decision-makers in the US (and their policy advisers and legions of "intellectual" think tanks) the dramatic changes are not in the direction that they had conceived.
The catalyst for the political earthquake that we are currently witnessing was a massive popular uprising in Tunisia at the end of 2010. Emboldened by the overthrow of the brutal regime of Zine El Abidine Ben Ali, the people of Egypt then took to the streets demanding reform. In just 18 days, Egyptian civil society, which we had been told by regional "experts" either did not exist or was spineless, broke the shackles of oppression and overcame a dictator whose regime had become synonymous with abuse and corruption. Egypt had finally been released from 30 years of political imprisonment.
That Hosni Mubarak continued to breed fear about the "chaos" that his removal would unleash and his foreign backers continued to maintain the need for "stability" and "orderly" change, showed the total lack of understanding on their part of the momentous changes that were being played out. The revolutionary bug has now spread across the wider region with people in Algeria, Yemen, Bahrain and Libya currently battling despotism, while leaderships in Jordan, Syria and Morocco (to name but a few) consider ways of preventing the tide of "people power" from sweeping their shores.
'Islands of stability'
Consider for a moment the extent to which various US administrations have suffered from an ailment which, for wont of a better description, we will call "foot in mouth syndrome". The shah of Iran was an "island of stability" in the troubled Middle East, according to the then US president, Jimmy Carter. A short time after these illustrious words were spoken, Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi was dethroned; Iran had witnessed an Islamic revolution and US policy in the country was found lacking. Around the time that Iran’s new Islamic leadership swept to power, Egypt too was undergoing change, this time in the form of the presidency of Hosni Mubarak who came to power in 1981 following his predecessor’s assassination.
However, after almost 30 years of stern one-man rule, Egyptian civil society revolted against Mubarak’s despotism, seeking his ouster in January 2011, precisely a decade after Bush’s first inauguration. What were the very first utterances of the US administration under Barack Obama, as protesters gathered on Egypt’s streets? "Our assessment is that the Egyptian government is stable ..." said Hillary Clinton, the US secretary of state. Her assessment, reminiscent of the meanderings about Iran, could not have been more wrong.
The islands of stability that the US has traditionally favoured are not the same sort that the people of the Arab world have desired. While Iraq under Saddam Hussein was ripe for invasion and "democratic change", the hunger for reform on the part of populations in other parts of the region also subjected to Saddam-like repression was not felt by the US. Where the American military brought democracy to Iraq, the Arab people are now battling to bring democracy to themselves. Should we then be surprised that the neo-con intellectual machine that planned change in the Middle East under Bush is now largely silent? While their project has failed, a new Arab people’s project is beginning to blossom.
If any clear evidence of US opposition to the people's wishes in the region were needed, the Obama administration willingly obliged on February 18. The UN Security Council (UNSC) held a vote to condemn Israeli settlement building in the occupied West Bank as illegal and to demand an immediate end to all such activity. Settlement building is a particular sore among Palestinians and the wider Arab population. While 14 out of the 15 UNSC members backed the resolution, the US issued its first veto under Obama, damning the Palestinian Territories to further Israeli expansionism - well in keeping with the American spirit of defying global opinion. The PR spin on the veto will no doubt attempt to portray the US measure as some sort of noble endeavour. The nobleness was certainly in Israel's favour.
Moment in history
When I was an undergraduate, the most fascinating, most closely scrutinised event that all students of the Middle East were exposed to was the 1979 Islamic revolution in Iran. That was a truly momentous event. The repercussions for the Middle East were staggering. Political Islam came to the fore as an academic discipline. The political power play in the region shifted with alliances quickly emerging against Iran for fear that its brand of revolutionary zeal would spread. That revolution continues to captivate.
More than 30 years later, however, the new crop of undergraduates will be evaluating perhaps an even more momentous event: That of February 11, 2011, when Egypt, the Arab world’s most populous nation, one at the core of the region’s political, economic and security affairs, defeated its very own despotism, rid itself of fear and raised expectations of a new era of political relations in the Middle East. Incidentally, Mubarak was forced out precisely 32 years from the day when the shah of Iran was deposed.
While the people of Tunisia wrote the introduction to what we can call the unfolding "project for the new Arab century", the people of Egypt have just completed its defining first chapter. What conclusions can be drawn from these historic events is far too early to gauge. What is certain, however, is that many more chapters will be written before the political dust settles. Safe to say, nevertheless, that the birth pangs of a new Middle East are now definitely being felt, but not in ways that many outsiders imagined.
Mohammed Khan is a political analyst based in the UAE.
The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial policy.
