Thomas Friedman reveals the Detestable self through ‘There be Dragons’

When Samuel Huntington wrote the ‘Clash of Civilisations’ after the disintegration of USSR, he funneled the odious orientalism of Middle East, Africa and Asia. For him, it was just US and Japan that deserved to dominate. Ten years later, after the September 2001 attacks, Edward Said answered him back with his ‘Clash of Ignorance.’. The title promises the satire at Huntington who was now being judged by an occidentalist.

In 2012, Thomas Friedman, the world renowned Pulitzer award winning New York Times columnist wrote ‘There be Dragons‘. Perhaps his zionist side has added to his complacency when he describes Middle East being the area of ‘dangerous and uncharted locations.’ He states that ‘ In medieval times, areas known to be dangerous or uncharted were often labeled on maps with the warning: “Beware, here be dragons.” That is surely how mapmakers would be labeling the whole Middle East today.’

Without wasting ten more years in this process, I want to answer him immediately for the delusions he carries in his tirade against North Africa, Middle East and West Asia.

1. He states ‘We also tend to believe that inside every autocracy is a democracy dying to get out, but that might not be true in the Middle East.‘

We cannot criticise Lenin, Stalin or Mao for what communism eventually became during their regime because they always lacked the intellectual honesty of Karl Marx. Communism failed. Disastrously. But worse that that is the transformation of democracy into ‘dictatorship of the government.’ Friedman does not mention that when countries like Iran gained their democracy in the early 1950s, it was CIA and America that executed the coup and snatched it away. He does not understand the significance when Ayatollah Khameini stated ‘We believe in democracy and we also believe in freedom, but we do not believe in liberal democracy.’ Perhaps, he considers Saudi Arabia that functions without even a constitution, more competent than other Middle Eastern countries. Also, if democracy is so important, why is Turkey, that has revamped itself for getting a membership in the EU for the past one decade, not respected and used as a snitch? Perhaps, George Bush thought he would make ‘democracy halaal’ in Iraq by invading it. But we all know, it added to the civil war. So, Friedman does not mention the incompetency of western powers to even establish what they believe in. And we do not even need to go to Palestine and how Israel created the Second Holocaust, worse than what Hitler did, to throw Muslims and Christians out of their own homeland. If Friedman craves to see Middle East democratic, he should understand that US had played the role of a ‘devil’s advocate’ in using this entire region as a chess board where his opponents just lost.

2. He states ‘When the iron lid of autocracy comes off, Middle east falls back, not on liberalism, but Islamism, sectarianism, tribalism or military rule.‘

Hardly before 1989 when Salman Rushdie’s book ‘Satanic Verses’ was released, no one knew or talked about Islamism. Later, the 9/11 attacks added to the Islamophobia. Today, the western powers think that ‘Shariah Law’ and ‘Islam’ is connected with ‘terrorism’ or ‘jihad’. In reality, this is not the case. Its not justice to blame Islam when Christianity also has its own loopholes. No one criticizes the Church in Greece or even orders an investigation into the millions of euros that are stored. If they did, Greece, I promise, would not have been in debt. To the outside ignorant public, it is stated that countries like Greece, Italy, Ireland, etc are facing recession because they were ‘welfare states’. If one investigates their economy, what they are facing right now is the result of ‘fiscal irresponsibility’. Anyways, coming back to the point, the ‘Church’ is not questioned. So, if that kind of pattern is followed for Western countries, why can’t the government by mosque or even its sovereignty be such a problem? Friedman does not mention that Muslim Brotherhood, for the past several decades have been carrying out grassroots changes in Egypt, Jordan, Yemen and to a certain extent in Syria.  As far as Salafists are concerned, even the people of Egypt know that they do not want them to rule.

As far as sectarianism is concerned, Friedman forgets that western powers, themselves, have been using this major issue to cause further chaos. He does not talk about Lebanon where the Maronite Christians have been used as an instrument by Roman and French powers to hate Sunnis, Shias, Druze and Kurds. I can not debate about tribalism because Friedman perhaps might find everyone a ‘tribal’ if he is not from US or Israel. And as far as military rule is concerned, he perhaps once again forgot that its US which has been actually strengthening the military of countries like Egypt, Israel, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan by giving them aids and arms.

3.  He states ‘Almost four years ago, we elected a black man, whose name was Barack, whose grandfather was a Muslim, to lead us out of our worst economic crisis in a century.’

Well, when it comes to Barack Obama, his first identity is not the “president’ but a ‘black man’. Friedman thinks that after 200 years and a civil crisis, America could ‘Make it happen.’ But he doesnot mention that ‘Right now, we are forcing the same black man to go on war with Iran’, or he does not mention that ‘ we are trying to make this man whose grandfather was a Muslim force for military intervention in Syria’. You know, what the funny part here is? If Obama does it, he would be called nothing but a stooge like George Bush. If he doesnot, his competitors like Mitt Romney and Ron Paul would call him a coward. Friedman thinks that the civil war in America is over because people are not dying anymore. But what about Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iraq, where they are being killed?

4. He states ‘You see in Syria how quickly the regime turned the democracy push there into a sectarian war.’

Western powers should not touch the subject of Syria which has become a case of international conspiracy than that of civil war. The western media’s propaganda does not talk about how Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Israel are funding the Free Syrian army by giving them arms. One does not need to think twice for knowing how is behind these proxies. Bashar al Assad has been easily caused the ‘Tyrant’, ‘ The replica of Hafez who caused the massacre in Hamas 30 years back.’. No one knows the reality but everyone judges them. Al Jazeera has been as zionist as ever, in its broadcast, often manufacturing news rather than reporting it. And also, what happened in Libya? There was ‘No Fly Zone’ and the cunning twist of UN’s resolution to causie regime change. Colonel Gadaffi was killed. What happened next? The Libyan Transitional Council is still not able to contain the militancy. But who cares? If Libya could not succeed, its Libya’s problem. No one should question the impeccability of US, Britain and France.

5. He states ‘U.S. troops accidentally burned some Korans, and President Obama apologized. Afghans nevertheless went on a weeklong rampage, killing innocent Americans in response — and no Afghan leader, even our allies, dared to stand up and say: “Wait, this is wrong. Every week in Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iraq, Muslim suicide bombers kill other Muslims — holy people created in the image of God — and there’s barely a peep. Yet the accidental burning of holy books by Americans sparks outbursts and killings. What does our reaction say about us?

Firstly, there is a propaganda by media to just state news that contains suicide bombers killing people in Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iraq. They want to create this public opinion that these countries are unsafe, froth with turmoil and terrorists- and eventually, should be dominated. Its all psychological how this grooming is done. I must ask Friedman how he would react if Afghanis burnt his ‘Old Testament’ or the ‘Bible of Jews’? Jews still consider themselves as victims to what happened decades back. So, why should the natives of Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq forget so soon? They too have faced deaths.

And what difference does it make if Obama did apologize? Friedman criticises Taliban and Al-Qaeda without actually naming them. But then, who created Taliban? Who created Al-Qaeda? He forgets that drone attacks still continue in Pakistan (recently, have started in Syria). He does not go into the depth of why Muslims kill other Muslims. He does not frame them into Pathans or the tribals in Waziristan or the Muhajirs in Karachi.For him, they are one and the same. Muslims killing each other would have been an issue in 1979 when USSR had conquered Afghanistan, now it does not matter. US is in a uni-polar world, an excellent example of social darwinism.

Morals and ethics have no place in real politik. But justice has. Friedman should know that when he points one finger at others, three fingers are pointing at him. Its ignorance and unfortunate use of racism by Friedman to write this article, creating further perceptions for a common American who does not actually know what is happening.

If dragons have to be there, they aren’t in locations but inside of people.

Arming of revolutionaries: A shrewd tactics in international diplomacy

Active promotion of revolutions has been very prominent right from 1790s when the French revolutionaries jumped on the bandwagon for internationalist diplomacy. Over the years, this process of ‘exporting the revolutions‘ has been used by super-powers to thrash the flawed government of developing countries and impose imperialism. They mostly express their impeccability when questioned about the clandestine manner in which they train outside revolutionaries, militants and rebels. But there are few who pay the price. For example, ‘By challenging the legitimacy of all foreign interventions, Bolsheviks invited all foreign governments to challenge their own.’ Interestingly, the Syrian uprising has provided an opportunistic platform to western powers to use their alliances and hegemony to overthrow Assad regime.

In a meeting of  Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud al-Faisal with US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Saudi Arabia has backed the arming of Syrian guerrilla groups. Riyadh has been transporting arms to Syria through the Sunni tribal ally groups in Iraq and Lebanon. As Sheikh Hamad bin Jassim al-Thani, Qatar’s prime minister has also backed the arming of Syrian rebels. FSA is being funneled with Russian Anti-tank missiles and sophisticated weapons system from various sympathizers from Assad’s military. Even Libyan interim leader Mustafa Abdul Jalil has supported Syrian rebels as around 600 Libyans have transported on Syrian soil to fight as volunteers.

The Free Syrian Army which is disorganized, cluttered into groups of rebels, has definitely become a fiction mailbox, pretending to reach out to innocent civilians. Marc Lynch has intelligently questioned if the process of arming FSA would lead to any immediate results. He predicts three outcomes out of this phenomenon. First, the rebels use the arms for their defence or secondly, they overpower the Syrian military and force them to surrender.  Finally, the rebels and the military can even out each other’s power and eventually negotiate. What most powers do not think about is that since FSA contains several groups, often splitting due to their lack of agreement. The entire rat race to get arms would cause severe competition in these armed gangs, leading to further chaos and militancy.

Unfortunately, Syria is not like China or Iran where the foreign interventionists and their real agendas can be filtered or understood. For example, the British Embassy in Peking was burnt by Red Guards during the Cultural Revolution in 1967. The US Embassy seizure in Tehran in 1979 during the  Iranian revolution has permanently soured US-Iran relations. At the same time, history is replete with examples where the ‘Syria chapter’ has been repeated, on and on.

• Soviet provisions used to supply arms, training and advisers through Comintern to underground military units in communist countries.
• Chinese supported the Vietnam for opposition to France from 1950-1954.
• Cuba provided aid to Sandinista National Liberation Front in Nicaragua after 1977.
• People’s Democratic Republic of Yemen provided bases and trainings to arm guerrillas to Oman and North Yemen. After its establishment in 1967, it also deployed guerrillas for sporadic clashes with Saudi Arabia.
• Bolsheviks attempted to assist revolutionaries in Mongolia, Iran and Poland in the 1920s.
• Iran supported militants in Iraq, Lebanon and Afghanistan.

On the other hand, just like Russia is supporting arms supplies to Syria, USSR was also involved in arming China and Vietnam during 1950s, Cuba and Vietnam during 1960s and Angola and Mozambique during 1970s. Well, it was Cuba and Vietnam which caused US and USSR to drift apart, eventually dodging the nuclear war in 1962.

Therefore, this entire trend of arming the revolutionaries by powerful nations is not new. One can find the residue of  Marxist internationalist agenda of creating continuous and inevitable world wide revolutionary upheaval in such attempts. Very often, the thin defining line differentiating revolution from nationalism is erased.

In Syria, the uprisings are being used as an ‘instrument’ where the internationalism of western and Arab powers is being adopted for their own selfish interests rather than social justice and social order. There is an evident gap in the overlapping of revolutionary aspiration and capability because most of the Syrian rebels are fighting on abstract and anonymous grounds. It makes them vulnerable and eventuate into mortals fighting on lost cause.

‘Friends of Syria’: Dictatorship of Futile International Diplomacy

The much hyped ‘Friends of Syria’ Conference taking place today in Tunisia is nothing but an embarrassment that US, EU and Arab League would remember.

More than 80 countries are participating in this international conference. Its only Lebanon, China and Russia who chose to ‘disassociate’ themselves from the event. Interestingly, the event is being funded by Qatar (hotel arrangements, travel tickets, bookings) while Tunisia maintains the administrative formality of executing it.

Moncef Marzouki, the President of Tunisia stated in an interview with Al Jazeera that he does not want military intervention in Syria. Syria would not be another Libya because events in this country have gone far more complex and intertwined. He once again urged the need to convince Russia to be supportive.

‘Too many cooks spoil the broth’

FOS itself is divided. Though the draft declaration is still being circulated, the communique states that they would not be supplying arms to Free Syrian Army and Syrian National Council.

While, members of the SNC who are currently in Tunisia have stated that it does not matter what is officially stated, they would eventually be armed.

This is one of the first and very apparent rift that exists in FOS. Well, its obvious to happen this way because such a high number of diplomatic representation at an international issue would have their own polemics, agendas and black propagandas.

‘Just to Impress Russia’

Few countries like Tunisia want to lower down the tone of the communique so that Russia can also be involved in their process, at a later stage. This idea, seems ‘Utopian’ and boorish enough for other Arabian countries who demand a military intervention at any cost (like Qatar).

So one can ponder the impact any declaration that FOS would eventually have if everything done is being customised for Russia or China? Just like the Thursday conference on Somalia in London, this entire FOS facade would be nothing but a posh and unnecessary expenditure for the diplomats, serving no purpose, what so ever.

‘Do not lecture Syria’

Ammar Waqqaf of the Syrian Social Club has stated that ‘If FOS wants humanitarian aid, one must talk directly to the Syrian government rather than lecturing it. Syria is self sufficient in terms of food and medical supply. It can take care of itself.’

He also states that it is assumed that the rebellions are concerned with the lives of the normal civilians, but in reality, they are not. In fact, the rebellions try to show that they have a control over the situation in respective district, but in reality, they are not even musketeers.

‘Differences with SNC’

As if the rifts in FOS were not enough, SNC too is facing opposition from the opposition. The National Coordination for Committee for Democratic Change (NCCDC) boycotted its presence in the FOS. They believe that FOS would be biased in praising SNC and there is not point in having any other Syrian Opposition group in the conference if such partiality continues.

NCCDC believes that it has more contacts in Syria and capability to use its soft power than SNC. In fact, it is based in Damascus itself. Also, NCCDC, chaired by Hassen Abdel Azim, is largely based inside Syria unlike SNC that is based in Istanbul.

Conclusion

If Karl Marx, Engels, Lenin and Guevera were still alive, they would have found nothing abysmal with the Syrian uprising. In fact, it includes every normative demand for being called a ‘revolution’ that has crossed the discursive, generative and paradigmatic process to eventuate into one.

Also, everything from international support, foreign intervention, ambitious yet abstract demands are present. Thomas Paine, perhaps would have credited American revolution of 1763 to be their godfather while Edmund Burke would have written another ‘Reflections’ to rebuke it.

But there’s one subtle point which they all thought but never wrote about. The point is, ‘Sometimes, revolutionaries themselves become part of international conspiracies.’

Reality of Syrian opposition, Assad’s leaked interview and Return of Kofi Annan

Last year, Patrick Cockburn had revealed how both Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch did not have concrete evidence to justify that Gadaffi was involved in causing war crimes and inhuman massacres in Libya.

This year, once again, Cockburn takes another polemic ideology and debates if ‘the preponderance of youtube videos, tweets, blogs and texts from Syrian opposition are actually true?’

In an interesting analysis in The Independent, he states :

‘YouTube pictures may have played a positive role in the uprisings of the Arab Spring, but the international media is largely mute about how easy it is to manipulate them. Pictured from the right angle, a small demonstration can be made to look like a gathering of tens of thousands. Shootings in one street in one town can be used to manufacture “evidence” of shooting in a dozen towns. Demonstrations need not be genuine events luckily captured on mobile phone cameras by concerned citizens; frequently the only reason for the protest is to provide material for YouTube. Television companies are not going to reject or underline the stage management of film that is free, dramatic, up to date – and which they could not match with regular correspondents and film crews even if they spent a lot of money.’

He further adds,

‘In the print press, bloggers get an equally easy ride, even though there is no proof that they know anything about what is going on. Hence the ease with which a male American student in Scotland was able to pretend to be a persecuted lesbian in Damascus. Since the Iraq war, even the most intensely partisan bloggers have been presented as sources of objective information. Tarnished though they may now be, they still have a certain cachet and credibility.’

Also, there’s another interesting incident that has currently taken place.

Bashar’s leaked interview

The hacker group Anonymous attacked the mail server of Syrian Ministry and 100s of emails have been leaked in this process. One of them reveals how Bashar actually planned before the much hyped interview with Barbara Walters. Eventually, the interview just showed him as an incompetent, hairy brained and boorish dictator, often dumb when asked questions regarding his own country.

Here goes the attached manuscript of the leaked PDF of Bashar’s Interview.

‘Its Annan, Koffi Annan’

Indeed, the situation is mushrooming with paroxysm of sarcasm and stupidity. Anyways, what is important right now is the much awaited ‘Friends of Syria’ meeting at Tunisia today morning and also what Kofi Annan does, after being requested to be the joint special envoy on Syria.

Well, it depends because he could not stop the invasion of Iraq by US inspite of being the UN Secretary General at that time. The Ghanaian native, winner of Nobel Peace prize in 2001 and acknowledged for his reforms in the Rwandan genocide, perhaps can turn tables in Syria.

Why Turkey should not criticise Syria?

As the city of Homs is being bombard by Syrian forces, Turkey’s anger is making it forget that ‘People who live in glass houses should not throw stones at others.’ The frantic Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu is marching to Washington, to lick his own wounds with Hillary Clinton and conspire for another international action against Assad.

Turkey which has often been called as The Sick Man of Europe and even Human Cancer by British PM David Lloyd George after the First World War, today stands in an oblivion. Its not social justice to blame Syria for 6000 death when Turkey’s own shadows are egregiously blood-soaked. The modern country which has cowardly declined to accept the killing of thousands of Armenians under the Ottoman Empire in 1915 still does not accept it as genocide.

‘If you criticize, you are dead’

If it is banned in Syria to criticise Assad, the same jail sentence would be delivered in Turkey if anyone criticizes Ataturk. Even if we try to overlook this fact by crediting that yes, Mustafa Kamal was the hero of Turkey’s war of Independence and lets not trouble his soul, what about the current PM? Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, the man who is audaciously changing Turkey so that it becomes a member of EU by 2015 does not allow criticism to his own policies. The ego has bustled to the cost of Turkey’s foreign relations with US and Israel.

Turkey and Syria: Friends with no Benefits

PM Erdogan states that Turkey was an ally of Syria. Well, perhaps he thinks that no one remembers Ankara’s prickly relation with Damascus. Syria wanted the Turkish province of Hatay which was awarded  to Turkey after a referendum when the French pulled out in 1930s. Also, what about the grudge of the Syrians over the water flow of Euphrates River. One must not forget that the World Bank did not finance the famous Ataturk Dam on Turkey’s Euphrates River because it knew that domination would prevail and Turkey did not clearly mention how much water it would allow to flow into Iraq and Syria. Tehran, Damascus and Baghdad have always been Turkey’s enemy.

The Kurdish Question

Turning again to human rights, Turkey itself can not pretend to be a humanitarian neighbor by creating a buffer zone with Syria because Turkey is known for brutual abuse of human rights. Especially, what about the Kurdish question? The thousands of PKK rebels, often found similar to Hamas in Palestine are fighting for their rights and independence for years. Kurds have been facing an 80 year long ban. They are even called the ‘world’s largest nation without a state’. Currently, there are 25 million Kurds. To defend itself, Turkey calls them as ‘Mountain Turks’ rather than actually identifying them.

What if Turkey was Kurdey?

Ahmet Altan, the prominent leftist journalist in Turkey sarcastically questions that what would have happened if Turkey was Kurdey and if Turks became the minority in it? How would Turkey feel if they were called as ‘Oceanic Kurds‘ and never given their own existence? Thankfully,  Kemal Mustafa made Turkey what it is. One should remember that when he fought at the beaches of Gallipoli, he said to his men, ‘I do not ask you to attack, I am ordering you to die.’ He is the same man who told King Edward VIII that Turks were not taught to be servants. Just like Voltaire condemned the role of State and Church during French Revolution, this man abolished the existence of Caliphate in Turkey and made it what it is today.

Conclusion

Both Turkey and Syria are very different from each other, in terms of their democratic and dictatorship regimes, culture, belief, religious majorities and minorities, etc. I do not wish to ignore the massive deaths of innocent civilians in Syria by trying to criticise Turkey. My main aim is to reveal the double standards in international diplomacy and how countries like Turkey who have blood on their own face, who are having difficuly in gulping their own saliva, should be neutral. They should not fight for the defence of others, if they themselves can not deliver justice in their own country.

Syria: A Battlefield for Russia, China, US, EU and Arab League

So, finally, Russia and China did veto the UN Security Resolution against Syria. The 15-nation-international organisation is cracking, one by one.

But is this good news or bad news? Is Syria saved or just put into another turmoil?

Russia’s Tears at Tartus

Sergei Lavrov, the Foreign Minister of Russia clearly stated that his country would not accept the Moroccan drafted and Arab League Sponsored UN  Resolution. He demands a clear post resolution scheme to candidly hide the mere simple and selfish fact that Russia cant face another enormous loss like it did in Libya. Also, both these countries have been defying arms embargo and publicly accepted to be involved in arms trade. From the very Cold war era, Russia has been suppling arms to Syria, it has a naval base (its only) in Syria’s Tartus which it simply can not wipe out to dust.

China’s subtle revenge

While China, the mute and very cunning spectator has not given huge headlines defending itself. The reason put forward is the same as defended by Russia. But then, one must know,  when it comes to China, you are fighting an emerging economical power. Very quietly, behind the scenes, China is also engrossed in investing in several Latin American countries who are still wounded by imperialism to form its own nest. The usage of soft power is quite tricky as several Chinese countrymen are also being deported to small countries in Africa to start their own business. And above all, Chinese relations with US and the European Union has not been a bed of roses. So, when its time for subtle revenge, its basically is the time, only for it.

European Union’s silence

Nicholas Sarkozy was here, there, everywhere when it came to imposing a no-fly-zone in Libya. Interestingly, he is quite silent or perhaps, absent in the entire case of Syria. Well, the 2012 French elections can be one of the main reasons. He wants to run for the second successive term and thus, nothing means more to him that the months of ‘April’ and ‘May’.

Though, there have been rumors that France has been training members of the Free Syrian Army in Lebanon and Turkey.

As far as other countries are concerned, Germany which has for years, after the world wars, acted like a follower, is perhaps looking at the monetary aspect of the resolution. You do not need Adolf Hitler to reveal that this resolution, if passed, would cause further chaos, foreign intervention. The Euro Zone crisis  has left other nations crippled and at Germany’s mercy, as England does not really care a damn about it. Germany, if clever, does not have a choice.

In the same context, there is no point even trying to think about what Italy, Greece, Ireland can manage to do.

America’s stand

Obama is busy facing the skeletons in his closet and at the same time, fighting to secure his second consecutive term in US Presidential elections. Congressmen Ron Paul is more of a headache than Assad. Also, Obama can not be rude with Russia, especially after he started the arms control treaty called New Start with Russia.

Hillary Clinton, in an obvious angry mood called the Security council as a ‘neutered organisation’.

Russia has been criticised for being extravagant with the veto power. Well, under Vitaly Churkin’s reign, Russia has just vetoed 4 times. Few analysts have applauded this fact because a security council should give as much importance to a veto as it gives to acceptance.

And for heaven’s sake, America should not be even questioning the role of veto. Its futile to even count how many times USA has vetoed any resolution against Israel. So, perhaps, whatever is happening right now, is just justice.

Arab League’s Plan

Once upon a time, Crusaders took over the west and in their response, the Ottoman Empire revealed its power to nab them in their clutches. Then came the European invaders armed with colonization and imperialism, all set to ruin the Middle East. But that was not the end. The emergence of Muslim Brotherhood, Al-Qaeda, Iranian revolution, Hamas and Hizbollah again threatened the world which already was witnessing world wars and cold war.

From then on, the stalemate has continued between the east and the west. What the current uprising has done, is not only create another issue like Israel and Palestine but has also given a chance for Arabs to fight for their dominance. Arabs do not want Iran and for that matter, they do not want the Alawite Shiite to rule. Its sectarian and its bloody violence.

Conclusion

All of this, states one thing. None of them- Russia, China, US, EU or AU are there to actually protect the innocent citizens who are being slain off in Syria. International politics here is a murky gamble, where everyone is playing their own cards, just to prove their power. The same goes for Assad who has been called as a ‘Dictator by Accident.’ Well, he is not. History has been trying to forgive Napolean, Adolf Hitler, Stalin and Churchill. The quote that ‘One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter’ does not hold true anymore.

Especially, when the concept of ‘Freedom’ has been butchered.

Russia and China against UN’s draft resolution for Syria

As Syria is replacing Iran’s title of ‘North Korea in the Mediterranean’, the country witnesses 11 month crackdown with the death of 5400 civilians. The highly awaited meeting of UN’s Security Council in New York went as expected. Both China and Russia stated that they would veto against the Moroccan authored draft resolution, if accepted by the Security Council. Nabil Elaraby, the Secretary General of Arab League along with Sheikh Thani, the PM of Qatar have been quite vocal against Syria.

The current resolution gives 15 days to Assad for handing over the power to his deputy Farouk al Shaara, who is currently the vice president of the country. He has served as a Syrian Foreign Minister from 1984-2006. He is known for playing an important role in maintaining Syria’s relationship with Lebanon and Israel. Last July, Farouk held government meetings, speaking about the transition to a truly pluralistic democratic state.

Meanwhile, an Israeli newspaper Maariv has stated that farouk arrived in Moscow in December to discuss the possibility of providing political asylum to Bashar al- Assad and his family.

Arab League’s smart act

In a quite smart and diplomatic act, Arab League sent a 165 member mission to Syria. These international monitors revealed that 400 people have died since their deployment. These numbers created further chaos and blemished the image of Assad. The League still has 100 members in Syria, as an act to show the western world how they do care for the civilians in Syria but sadly, can not play an integral role in stopping the deaths. Hence, nothing is going to work apart from the draft resolution of the Security Council.

But is this a cunning step to turn Syria into another LIbya. The ‘Right to Protect’ Act was twisted by NATO in the Resolution 1973 which was passed by UN last year. The resolution was meant to protect the civilians and not to cause regime change, which eventually, it did. Both Russia and China, who had not been very vocal during the time of Libya, regretted their cowardice. They not only faced heavy economical losses but even the wide perception that their foreign policies and opinions do not matter in the western hegemony.

Russia and China’s support

Its not only communism which is common in both the countries. One must remember Stalin and how he butchered his own men before the Second World War. Also, one must not forget the Tianmen Protests in China in 1989, killing hundreds of protestors.

The same lineage can be scrutinised in Hama Massacre that took place in Syria when the then President Hafez killed thousands of Sunni Muslim protestors against his regime.

Perhaps, the Syrian tyranny gives power to both Russia and China.

The paranoia and sense of madness continues. Especially, if its the deciding point of elections. Both Russia and China are going to have elections this year. Vladimir Puntin, running for the Presidential elections has been criticising Medvedev for being a neutral spectator during Libya.

Also, Russia has its naval base at the port city of Tartus. Its the only passage for Russia to the Mediterranean. The Russian- Syrian trade relations value $4 billion dollars while the Chinese Syrian trade amounts to more than $1.8 dollars.

Russia has been selling fighter jets, anti-ship cruise missiles and fighters to Syria right from the start of Cold War.

China started its diplomatic relations with Syria from 1956 and continues to maintain it.

All of this can be seen as a subtle polarizing of the world into two political power associations.

Anti-Imperialism or For Sovereignity

The entire Arab uprising, creating chaotic dominoes effect, has become a struggle between foreign intervention and protection of a country’s own sovereignty. America continues with a soft power approach but ultimately its strong on ‘You are with us or against us’ principle.

One must know that Syria is also different from Libya from  a very interesting angle. In Libya, it was Gadaffi and the rebels. While, in Syria, it is Bashar al Assad, the rebels and a catalysing population of religious extremists and terrorists who are also involved in killing innocent civilians. Its difficult to say who trains them. There are rumours that western countries are training them, especially France in Lebanon and Turkey so that they can revolt against the government.

Hence, its a million dollar question if Assad would actually resign or might become another Gadaffi for Syria.

Would Muslim Brotherhood form ‘Islamic Republic of Egypt’ ?

With Muslim Brotherhood sweeping the majority of seats in the current Egyptian elections, it makes one question if democracy has just progressed to become a choice between two unpleasant options. In terms of philosophical logic, nothing but a ‘Morton’s fork.’ Is the entire narrative of the Arab unrest just a false dilemma, reducing the entire Middle Eastern world into an unending battle of good versus the evil, or is there more to it, than what meets the eye?

‘Past of Muslim Brotherhood’

In the past 20 years, around 45,000 members of Muslim Brotherhood have been jailed in Egypt alone. Demonstrations, Islamic teachings, conspiracies against the dictators, altercation with the governing body- all led to their doomsday. Though, often, these dissidents did get released, yet eventually leading to their even more organised and established network in their history that dates to more than 80 years. Eventually, the ousting of Mubarak proved to be their gain. No longer they had to be underground or limit themselves into silence. Ready to plunge and play the safest bet, MB’s Freedom and Justice Party is all geared up to make the right move.

“Salafists Vs Muslim Brotherhood’

But what remains a big debate is- Would they convert Egypt into the “Islamic Republic of Egypt? MB is known for their aversion against Israel and Palestine. It is feared that they would manipulate the foreign policy of the new democratic state into abhorrence towards these two conflict prone countries. Last Friday, more than 5,000 protesters supporting MB had chanted slogans against the Jews, asking them to be banished from their land. Another main focus would also be the rights that minorities like Coptic Christians and women would gain after the drafting of the constitution. Adding to the turmoil is the ongoing victory of other Salafist party that are known for being ultra-conservative and very singular with their point of view. Interestingly, they were too conservative to such an extent that the posters carrying the names of their female candidates had pictures of flowers rather than the concerned candidate. Not very liberal, and a bit outspoken about their orthodox rules, Salafists have already declared they would organise different curriculum for girls and boys, restrict alcohol and censor arts and entertainment. Supporters of MB state that FJP would never form a coalition with the Salafists as they are more liberal, democratic and believe in pluralism.

‘Languishing revolutionaries’

No doubt, the natality and uprising has demanded a price, higher than money. The revolutionaries and youth groups that had started the entire spark are now, looming in their agony, flooded with financial barricades and lack of advertising. Yet, one can imagine that if they too, came in power, they could have caused a ‘squatter sovereignty’ rather than a ‘popular sovereignty’ which anyways is not realistic in the current liberal model that Egypt wants to hold. If the entire process of secularism is lost then what would be the fundamental basis of the ‘social contract’ that would function between the people and the government?

‘Idea of democracy’

Moreover, what happens in Egypt would not be just limited to its boundaries. Any effect would cause the most populous Arab country to produce a dominoes effect to its neighbours and international superpowers. That makes us this that a western, European and to a certain extent, colonial model of democracy the only saviour from dictatorships? Yes, we can not have the abstract sustenance of a ‘philosopher king’ in this respect of public administration, as it would eventually cause political mayhem. Also, just to believe that there are two sides to the uprising, one good and the other bad, stirs the idea of ‘manichaeism’ to a greater degree. Its not necessary that one needs to be with the Muslim Brotherhood or against it. There can be grey shades in the political practice that does not involve distinction. Though, nothing in life, administration, or governance is gained, till its not distinctively followed with a faith, irrespective of visible shortcomings that only cowardice notices.

Romanticized Revolutions: Fall of dictators, justice and Syrian diaspora

When Thomas Friedman questions in his article, ‘Will the past bury the future in Arab world or will the future bury the past?’, he seems to naturally tussle with ‘how to define the Arab spring’. Very often, such definitions, do not contain the power of romanticizing the revolution but on the contrary, assimilate them in hollow, abstract units that lose their utter meaning.

‘Difference between Gadaffi, Ben Ali and Mubarak?

In this post, I would attempt to question on certain areas which have yet not been debated, vehemently at the international platform. The first one, remains on how do you describe justice? Justice of the fall of the dictators. In Tunisia and Egypt, both Ben Ali and Mubarak, respectively had not been butchered or assassinated like Gadaffi was. These two dictators, who are still alive, have been toppled and are undergoing trials which do not mention a concrete day of their doomsday in their respective country’s Supreme Courts. Since, the revolution was against their dictatorship, as they has become a murky face of ruthless domination, is subjecting them to court proceedings is what the common man wants? So, should they too, be subjected to be slaughtered by their rebels? On the other hand, the termination of Gadaffi’s lonely breath, meant something greater for Libya. In case, it actually did, for how long and for what kind of utilitarian good? One man’s food is another man’s poison- a proverb coming to life in the Middle Eastern politics. But it still remains a vacuum that were these two fates, one of legislative justice and the other of barbarian justice- the only two fates for these dictators?

‘Real and taught revolution’

Secondly, turning to the difference between a real revolution and a transported revolution.. What happened in Tunisia, sparked the entire Arab uprising. In a real revolution, the citizens know the reason they have to fight for. While, in a transported revolution, they are taught the reason why they should fight for. Like an infectious disease, the wrath mushroomed, each having the loophole of ‘unknown destinations’. It is said, ‘If you do not know where you have to go, then any road will take you there.’. This abstract philosophy can be actually seen in Egypt where people are left wondering, that did they participate in just another military coup or was it a real remonstration. In the taught revolution, there is imitation, lack of leadership and fragmentation. Just because your neighbor did it, you too, should do it. Yes, there was socio-economic disparity, modernized slavery, absence of freedom and expression. But at the same time, at least, there was a representative parliament with its own decorum that knew its ways. Right now, nations fighting for drafting their constitution under the majority of Islamic parties will definitely rely on religion as their new form of domination. So, where is the independence and idea of secularism that needed?

‘Syria’s tomorrow’

Thirdly, what would happen, if Syria too, faces the same destiny as Tunisia, Egypt and Libya. The dictator dies or is ousted, the public still fights against the interim government, more bloodshed and lack of rational unity. Very interestingly, the Arab League has started imposing sanctions on Syria, in my personal opinion, more to shove off the foreign intervention rather than to actually weaken the opposition against Assad. How much would this show off work, depends on time. And so does, the outcome of whatever happens beyond that.

Why no one would win Egypt?

With the cries of ‘national salvation’ mushrooming in around 20,000 people, quite vehemently, at Tahrir Sqaure right now, it speaks that the Arab revolution has still not seen the termination. Unfortunately, as 28th November approaches quickly, the compulsive fact that Egypt would still not be won, stands audacious.

Amr Hamzawy, the liberal parliamentary candidate has stated that it is not the outcome that matters but the entire symbolism that the elections took place. Though, the elected parliament would be transitory but it does not undermine its influence in drafting the constitution of one of the most populous Arab countries that demands democracy and a representative parliament. Though, is it a safe bet then? To have people killed and injured for a mere disguise of victory for the opportunistic capitalism.

‘Muslim Brotherhood: the Bogeyman’

To start with, the Muslim Brotherhood with its Freedom and Justice Party has major chances of victory. One can see what happened in Tunisia. The main Islamist party ‘Ennahada’ won. But this fact has troubled several Republicans in US administration. Muslim Brotherhood, has always been witnessed as a bogeyman by America, like an embodiment of terror without actual mass and flesh. With Coptic Christians being killed in sectarian violence in Egypt, no doubt, Obama administration has been accused of doing exactly what is wrong in the entire Arab uprising. Though, Obama and Clinton are asking the Military council to loosen their grip over the protestors, they do not want to be seen publicly, as making decisions or even influencing the scenario. Or, for the matter, even blunt communication. The Egyptians will not like it. So, once again, America is in a lurch. What to support then? Their own vested interests in their foreign policy or their advertised support to democracy? They already dread that the Muslim brotherhood, often called as the Godfather of Al-Qaeda by Americans, would support their interests if elected?

‘Cracks in the  Military Council’

Now, every government, what so ever, has always witnessed a widening gap between the soldiers and the police. Though, the same happening in an interim government trying to crush down demonstrations is another interesting point. The Central Security Force, ie, the riot control police force has been always seen as low class and less intelligent when compared to the SCAF. (Supreme Council of Armed Forces).In fact, they have been summoned as ‘knuckle-draggers’. Adding to the mayhem, the riot police also holds a grudge against the SCAF as during the intitial January 25 revolutions, they were asked to winthdraw from Tahrir as they could not contain the uprising and hence, the soldiers were appointed. Now, SCAF plays a very intelligent role in the entire process. They do not publicly appear on the streets but they are secretly supplying equipments and vehicles to the riot control police. No doubt, they hold the ultimate executive powers in Egypt. Sadly, the military council is turning into nothing but a black box, with its own cracks appearing, slowly.

‘Fiasco of voters and parties’

Now turning to, who would come to vote? Around 20-30% of the voters would vote for  Muslim Brotherhood. The next 20% would vote for the elite Copt community while the rest of the 50% voters of the 50 million population are in the ‘cant say category’. And to vote for whom? Suddenly, there are tens of parties surfacing in the election scenario. Few strict Islamists, others liberal. Defection from Muslim Brotherhood, inter party conflicts for higher political hierarchy, aims and objectives-everything is a lot of information to gulp down in a  go. The youth who carried on the revolution has to face financial constraints of their own in marketing themselves into a legal party. Few of them, like the April 6 Movement and Coalition for Revolution Change have just become fading names, carrying  a symbiosis with established coalitions.

The slogans have changed. Rather than Mubarak, it is ‘Tantawi, go back’. Did Egyptians fight for what is currently happening? Well, the transition from military dictatorship  to  a civil government will never happen smoothly in the current world, but at what cost do we lose Egypt then?

P.S: Image from Palestine Chronicle.