Change For The Worse ["Arab Spring"]

New regimes that have replaced or are replacing the old in the Arab world are dominated by hardline Islamists. India should be worried by the changes.

The Government has faced criticism in Western capitals and even from its own ‘liberal intelligentsia’ for not supporting Western attempts for ‘regime change’ in those countries labelled as ‘rogue states,’ or are said to be acquiring ‘weapons of mass destruction’. This Western propensity for ‘regime change’ was justified ideologically, as the Soviet Union was falling apart and finally collapsed on December 25, 1991. In his thesis entitled, The End of History, American scholar Francis Fukuyama then proclaimed,“What we are witnessing is not just the end of the Cold War, but the end of history as such; that is the end of Man’s ideological evolution and the universalisation of western liberal democracy as the final form of human Government.” Even as American aircraft commenced bombing Iraq in August 1990, President George W Bush announced that he was set to “forge for ourselves and for future generations a New World Order.”

While Mr Fukuyama and Mr Bush did not spell out what the fault lines would be in the post-Cold War world, American Academic Samuel Huntington was more explicit. In his thesis, Clash of Civilizations and Remaking of the World Order, Mr Huntington held the ideological conflicts of the Cold War would be replaced by civilisational conflicts “prevalent between Muslims and non-Muslims”. Huntington held that the clash would be between Islamic resurgence, coupled with the demographic explosion of Islam, and the values that Western civilisation believed are universal and should be accepted by all civilisations. Interestingly, Huntington drew attention to differences between what he called as “Western Civilisations” comprising the US, Western and Central Europe and Australia on the one hand and the “Orthodox Christian World” comprising Russia, its western and Caucasian neighbours, Serbia, Greece and Cyprus, on the other.

In Huntington’s world view, Russia, China and India are “swing civilisations” and could make common cause with either the Western or Islamic civilisations, depending on the circumstances. He noted that Russia faces Islamic separatism on its South, but cooperates with Islamic countries to counter external support for such aspirations. He added that India and China do likewise, though China is keen on undermining Western influence by close ties with major Islamic countries like Saudi Arabia and Iran. While what Huntington said about the likely view of countries like Russia, India and China, all of whom have significant Muslim minorities, are controversial and debatable, one has to look at the results of what has transpired in the relations between what he calls the “Western Civilisation” and the Islamic world, in the years following the end of the Cold War. Even as President Bush spoke about a New World Order, his forces backed by his Nato allies and a coalition ranging from Australia to Syria, (now a target for ‘regime change’), invaded Iraq. The invasion ensured that the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait was reversed and an American military presence established in Saudi Arabia. It was this American deployment in Saudi Arabia that led to Osama bin Laden, a former CIA asset, to becoming an anti-Western jihadi, who was to stage the 9/11 attack. This attack triggered President Bush’s ‘Crusade’ against Taliban-ruled Afghanistan, then the epicentre for Osama bin Laden’s ‘International Islamic Front for Jihad against Jews and Crusaders’.

In the meantime, the American invasion of Iraq in 1990 led to the deaths of an estimated 35,000 Iraqi citizens. The subsequent sanctions sanctified by the UN and peculiarly interpreted by the US, led to the deaths of an estimated half a million Iraqi children, because of the absence of medicines and adequate nutrition. Referring to these tragic deaths, former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright had stated, “This is a hard choice, but we think the price is worth it.” When the second American invasion of Iraq occurred in 2003, an estimated 1,51,000 Iraqis were killed. Nine years after the second American invasion, Iraq is engulfed by Shia-Sunni convulsions, superimposed on its historical Arab-Kurdish animosity. Moreover, the American actions had an unintended consequence that Huntington did not envisage. We now have a sharp Shia-Sunni divide across the Arab and the Muslim world. Iraq, which placed its Arab heritage over sectarian concerns during the rule of Saddam Hussein, distrusts Saudi Arabia and has moved closer to Iran.

The ‘Arab Spring’, which was the outcome of popular demonstrations in Tunisia and Egypt, has produced regime change in Egypt, Tunisia and Yemen. There is no doubt that Libya’s Muammar Gaddafi was a tyrant. But like Iraq’s Saddam Hussein, he was a strong opponent of religious fundamentalism and medieval practices. According to the International Crisis Group, Gaddafi overthrow has led to national fragmentation, with Libya coming under the control of around 100 separate militias. Libya’s new Western- installed ruler Mustafa Abdul Jalil has proclaimed that secular law would be replaced by Shari’ah law as its ‘basic source’ of governance. Mr Jalil has vowed to introduce Islamic banking and revoke Gaddafi’s ban on polygamy. In Egypt, recent elections have produced a parliamentary majority comprising Wahhabi and Salafist elements dominated by the Muslim Brotherhood, which has proclaimed: “God is our objective, the Quran is our Constitution, the Prophet is our leader, jihad is the only way and death for the sake of God, the highest of our aspirations.” In Tunisia, recent elections have produced a strong presence of Islamists in Parliament. And in Syria, a secular but brutal and minority-dominated Alawite regime is being challenged by a Sunni opposition, with significant Wahhabi tendencies, backed by a coalition of the US, the European Union, Conservative Gulf Arab Sunni monarchies headed by Saudi Arabia and Qatar, apart from neighbouring, secular Turkey.

These developments are going to inevitably impact on the stability in the Persian Gulf, where six million Indians, who remit over $30 billion annually, live. The Gulf is also from where India gets over 70 per cent of its oil supplies. We have a situation, wherein historical Iranian-Arab rivalries have been accentuated by a growing Shia-Sunni divide. To add to these complications is the American determination to contain the influence of Iran’s clerical rulers and roll back its nuclear weapons capabilities. India can no longer continue to chant its mantra of ‘non-interference’ in the internal affairs of others. While rejecting foreign-sponsored regime change, each development will have to be addressed, bearing its mind its regional dimensions and impact our interests, including the welfare of our nationals in West Asia and the security of our energy supplies.

Hard to take anyone seriously who does not make sure his facts are correct

but in spite of that I think he does have a point for India and for the USA

New regimes that have replaced or are replacing the old in the Arab world are dominated by hardline Islamists. India should be worried by the changes.

And well they should be. However, these new regimes must realize (well, they should if they are smart), that their decent into Islamic zealotry has not gone un-noticed.

In fact, it has prompted even more outrage and intolerance to even everyday peaceful Islam (some do say there is such a thing) in the everyday western world. For my part, I don't trust any Muslim, American or not precisely because their milquetoast admonitions of their beloved Islamic brethren are by and large false.

I wouldn't hire one, befriend one, or even attempt to understand one. Tolerance? Hell NO!

Take your diseased religion back to where you or your family came from. Keep the peace and don't even try to pull your crap in this country. You aren't welcomed here, and I can damned well bet you I'm not the only one who feels this way.

Someone, anyone, please help me with this.
What nation would want to ally themselves with a backwards islamic perspective? Most people want to be apart of the modern world and see and feel the benefits of progress. Show me where Islam has contributed to modern man and his development, advancement and achievement. (7% of all useful patents trace back to New York. 95% of all new inventions were made in the US last year. So I ask, why would anyone want to participate, align or live in the dark, backwards past that Islam represents?

At what point are the people of islam going to ask tehmselves about their failings?

The problem, as it has always been, is that they have a lot of oil and gas. A colonialisation and re-capture of these resources from these Islamist animals should be a high priority for the sane, civilised nations of the world.

>We now have a sharp Shia-Sunni divide across the Arab and the Muslim world.

Is this author stupid?
We have had this divide since Fatima raised the green flag in 909 and Saladin returned the Caliphate to Sunni rule in 1171.

It has waxed and waned, but never ended at all.

What’s really going to be interesting is when fracking and other new energy technologies take oil back below $20/barrel. The money that’s holding the Arab world relatively pacified will not be there.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.