British Middle East policy unfolded: rebirth of European policy in Middle East?

The residents of the UK might have an impression that the Great Britain and Prime Minister Cameron have taken a lead in Western response to clashes in Libya. Indeed the British government dedicated the whole day of March 18 to developments in Middle East. Mr Cameron spoke in Commons about the government decision to enforce UN resolution on Libya to stop brutal attacks on Libyan opposition. Then interviews to British media followed and finally a whole speech by the British PM on the Scottish Conservative party spring conference in Perth was about Middle East policy.

As David Cameron used to do in the course of Libyan turmoil he openly spoke about concerns and reasonability of British lead in Libyan government containment. The venue in Scotland from where Mr. Cameron made his comprehensive policy disclosure today was remarkably rigid warning to Libyan government. The British response has not derived from purely international commitments, but from national interests as well that suffered from brutality and inhuman attacks of Libyan regime.

Thus messages were clear and severe: Colonel Kaddafi should go out of power, but no occupation will be undertaken because that would be against the will of Arab people. Prime Minster articulated and responded to major concerns about British government steps in Middle East affairs.

One of the most persisting interrogations was if the British government would pursue from now on the similar policy towards other countries of unrest – Bahrain and Zimbabwe, or wherever in Middle East the uprising against authoritarian regimes  takes place or might take place: Bahrain, Yemen, Saudi Arabia? Mr Cameron’s answer was clear, although disputable for some champions of Arab revolution enlargement: Bahrain and Libya are different  countries and different cases. Bahrain ruler has already been committed to promote certain reforms and civic dialogue, whereas Libyan authorities did not.

Many observers indicated to another minor, but still important differentiation between the US and the UK stand. British government has been more radical in their view of the future of Libya turmoil: Kaddafi should go and enforcement of UN resolution conceived no-fly zone and other necessary measures to stop brutal offence of Libyan citizens. As the Prime Ministers speech came after Libyan response to UN resolution and declared cease-fire, one can conclude from Mr. Cameron’s disclosure that some other military actions are quite consequent, if attacks on opposition continue.  In the meantime any similarity with Iraq occupation was refuted, and occupation was denounced as contradicting the will of Arab people. 

The US president Obama has been more cautious later in the evening, but clearer: no ground operations will be undertaken. The US administration approach is understandable as the Iraq occupation worked as major factor of concern when contemplating any military undertaking against Libyan government. Thus the anti-Kaddafi campaign might also be marked as the first ever conspicuously European lead undertaking in Middle East since Suez crisis and so called Tripartite Aggression by France and Britain in cooperation with Israel in 1957.

However circumstances are considerably reverse.  Kaddafi might still be associated with anti-Western sentiments in Arab world, but the anti-Kaddafi partnerships is different this time and grounded on support from the League of Arab States and certain spectrum of aspirations in the midst of Arab citizens.  Does the uprising in Arab world denote the rise of European policy in Middle East? The time and again we may see how essential changes in world policy were engendered by the movement of Arab citizens.   

Dictatorships and dictatorships: where is the West in equation of many unknowns?

Let us speak about dictatorships in simple but still academic language. It does merely mean a will of minority imposed on the interests of the rest of people. We may speak about dictatorship, whenever such narrow group constituted a political organization and used the strength of the government institutions to forcefully impose their will on the people. The minority might be composed of variety of narrow groups – family, clan, regional grouping, religious community, political party.  The most conspicuous example of the latter case was the Soviet regime, which was rested on the superiority of communist party elite. 

Keep in mind that historically there used to be societies that legalized superiority of certain groups. Those were autocracy monarchies that ruled for the interests of nobility. In Middle East few such monarchies survived. Their resilience to resist and suppress the growing strive toward democracy and government accountability could be bigger than the capacity of allegedly elected presidents or leaders to keep staying in power.  

No did only formal legitimacy of dynasties provided sustainability for monarchies, but also oil reserves and partnerships with the West.  However after the World War II the historical momentum has come for democratization in Middle East, value of citizenship has emerged, legitimacy corrections via election has become declared foundation stone of political power. Egypt and Libya, as well as few other Arab countries, such as Syria, Iraq, Yemen underwent anti-monarchic nationalist revolutions that were coloured with a sense of anti-imperialism.  Decolonization of Tunisia and Algeria followed Egyptian revolution of 1952 and consequently enhanced the sense of anti-colonialism

.

The problem of those revolutions was that they ended up with resurrection of minority dictatorship. In a search of legitimacy some newly established republican dictatorships drifted towards partnerships with the West (Egypt and Libya lately), others sustained their anti-Western track and rhetoric for the same purpose (Syria and Iraq until the US lead intervention).

Popular indignation in Tunisia and especially rigorous and stubborn struggle of Egyptians stirred up the whole range of aspirations and grievances.  Unlike the previous experiences of the Middle East now all multipliers and unknown quantities have come to a single equation: The West, autocratic monarchies, anti-western dictatorships, and toppled pro-western dictatorships should now go along with aspirations for democracy and renovation and the rising sense of dignity. Equation is new but determinants seem not much changed.

For some time Kaddafi struggled for the interest of all dictatorships trying to establish a successful suppression precedent against popular movement. However factors of equation still are not the same as forty years ago. I would say the country citizens have changed to affect the former equilibrium, and secondly the West has become more sensitive about human rights and democracy and more accountable with their own citizens.

Nevertheless, proofs of new policy in Middle East still are not visible. Monarchies assembled in Arab States Leagues to give up a dictator whom they did not like anyway, but the price was the safeguard of the next of kin – al-Khalifa dynasty in Bahrain. Gulf Cooperation Council first decided to support non-fly zone to be imposed on Libya and promoted appropriate decision at the League of Arab States  last weekend. Then on Monday the Gulf Council countries sent troops to confine protest and unrest in Bahrain. 

Have old allies come to arrangement once again: monarchies and the West? What instruments have been left for anti-western dictatorships? Who will benefit of the unleashed popular rigor? Have not we seen the same equation with the same multipliers in the past few decades?  What is new in the Western policy in Middle East, if any might be asserted?If there is a single factor that cold change the old equation, it is people of Middle East.

“London is hotbed of pro-Arab movement”: George Galloway spoke to SOAS students.

The wording about London in the title belongs to an Israeli think-tank chair and was sounded at a turbulent student gathering at the School of Oriental and African Studies featuring the contribution by George Galloway, former UK Parliament member and rigorous campaigner for Palestinians rights.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Galloway

 

In concluding part of Q&A session George Galloway exclaimed that he is happy to see the Great Arab Revolution unleashed.  SOAS students from different countries were united to condemn the Western plot of renovating dictatorships in Middle East. Western interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq have not brought any dividends to democracy in those countries.  Rampant corruption, piles of social problems, injustice and clash of group interests were the most visible outcomes of armed “democracy” incursions.

The West does not want democracy for developing countries. Dictators better serve for Western interests than actual power of the people. Kaddafi is dictator, but he should only be toppled by Libyans themselves, and by no means through any military intervention by the West.   It has been a kind of discovery to see how big mistrust towards the West was generated in democratically thinking student community. 

On a more theoretical level the assessment given by the gathering to the recent uprising in Arab world called it anti-imperialistic democratic revolution. Having seen such mistrust towards the West hesitations of the Western governments  to undertake any military pressure on Libyan government become well understood. The stubborn resistance of Libyan leadership to any military campaign might enhance anti-western aspirations not only in Arab countries.  And Colonel Kaddafi has been long aiming to the leadership of anti-imperialistic fight in Arab world and Africa.

MENA discussion day at SOAS: indignation was beyond poverty challenges!

Yesterday March 7, 2011 was marked by two big Middle East discussion events at the School of Oriental and African Studies in London . The lunch time discussion was a panel of SOAS researchers and faculty featuring a contribution by a participant from Tahrir Square movement.  Especially remarkable was an evening panel of three formidable thinkers and actors of Middle East policy discourse:  Sir Malcolm Rifkind, former Defence and Foreign Secretary of the UK, and current member of British parliament;  Mr. Amir Taheri, former Editor-in Chief of Iranian Keyhan and French Jeune Afrique, international journalist and writer; and Mr.  Abd al-Bari Atwan, outstanding Palestinian journalist, the editor-in chief of the London-based Arab newspaper Al-Quds Al-Arabi.

Discussion boosted many reflections and, I believe, controversial perceptions by attending participants. Disclosure of those impressions might take more space than a single blog posting provides. I will only highlight hereby one point of mutual agreement and one point of conflicting views articulated by a variety of contributors.   

Public indignation was not rested on merely poverty challenges (Prof. Gilbert Anchcar – SOAS Development Studies Department); it was not a revolt of poor people, regimes in Egypt and Tunisia fell victims of their economic success (Amir Taheri); the developments were rooted in bitter sense of humiliation and resentment (Abd al-Bari Atwan); regimes have not been able to establish a stable state model to combine Islamic identity, economic growth and institutional balance (Sir Malcolm Rifkind).

What the evening panelists did disagree was about how far beyond national borders did reasons of people resentment go? What were wider regional context and the role of the West that engendered the uprising? Mr. Abd al-Bari Atwan has gained the audience support while stressing upon commonality of Arab challenges and disappointments about social injustice and struggle for legitimate demands and peace in Middle East. The earlier young Tahrir Square activist’s  disclosure that it was not a facebook, but disappointments of Palestinians’ struggle and implications of Iraq invasions, which brought the people to raise their voices, had actually resonated with this view point. 

Amir Taheri was not leaning to recognize the resurrection of Arab unity, or commonality: his view has emphasized the social nature of resentment and referred to middle class revolution, which has not taken placed yet until an actual overhaul comes to the system of government institutions.  The time of pan-Arab nationalism has been left in fifties of the last century, -  claimed Mr. Tahiri.

The concluding point that conveyed the emotional stand of the international student audience was sounded by a student girl in her address to former Foreign Secretary : the sense of disappointment and resentments were engendered by the US and UK support to aggressor and its unfair claims – to Israel.

I have been all the time in touch with my compatriots in Azerbaijan, political scientists and journalists who had had considerable international experience and civil society practices. Remarks of a renown civil society activist, journalist has been concurrent with the cry of a young lady in SOAS: “I am sure that roots of all evil in the world: terrorism, discredit  upon democracy, advancement of political Islam,  antidemocratic regimes in Moslem world and  threats to the peace go to the unfair  American policy coordinated with Israel. ”

“Enterprise government” in Great Britain: we need it more in our region!

It took only about ten minutes for UK Prime Minister David Cameron to explain fundamentals of his government policy and respond to many concerns about the track taken in domestic and foreign affairs. Mr. Cameron delivered his short speech at conservative party spring conference in Cardiff today.

The government will struggle against biggest state budget deficit in the history of the United Kingdom – 38 billion British pounds. The government will do it by public expense cuts and refocusing on small business sector to reduce unemployment and generate citizen incomes. Speaking most concisely Mr. Cameron defined the policy priority as promoting “enterprise culture” and pushing the rise of small enterprises. 

Mr. Cameron told he is “going to watch banks as a hawk” to make sure money goes to small business people.  Similarly in social services citizens will advance responsible to secure against misuse of public funds.  Commentators doubt as in market economy it might bring to the rise of bank interest for private sector, consumer prices and hardly improve citizen welfare.   

There is nothing strange in such approach by conservative government, which used to be a party of private owners. However the impressive aspect is that the emphasis is done on wider entrepreneurs, and guaranties were articulated to boost small business, which covers a considerable part of population. More cautious responses to the PM speech noticed that no details were disclosed to judge if it is a right trajectory of domestic policy? More details will be evident when the financial year starts in April. 

However for me as a listener of the speech British policy appeared very open and transparent.  Less than year ago elected government makes brave and open steps to propose and pursues declared policy, undertaking all consequence risks.  Decentralization of public expenditure might be demanded at this very economic situation of the UK. Labour party are also suggesting cuts, but as they say not in such radical scope and systemic overhauls of public sector. 

Economic forecasts do not always work well and any radical shifts can be unexpectedly successful and undesirably disastrous effect.  And what we might be very sympathetic about is the UK government eloquence, rigor and readiness to bare the risk and stay responsible. 

Is shifting a gravity to private enterprises and citizens responsibility a single way for the UK out of economic hardships,  I can hardly judge, but the overhaul of enormous regulatory domination of governments,  boosting citizen initiatives, sweeping the economic structure and make actually private business relations inside the pubic sector transparent -  are heavily demanded  in countries of our region. Thus the enterprise economy is tailored for us indeed, as well as “enterprise government” is impatiently welcome.

LSE Director resigned: is access to prestigious education shrinking for ruling families?

Many realities of contemporary world are revisited consequently to upheavals in Arab world. Over decades offspring of many ruling families from so called third world used to go to most prestigious educational institutions in the West. Now after Libyan turmoil has broken out news has come that Sir Howard Davies,  the director of the London School of Economics has resigned over its links to Libyan leader  Muammar Kaddafi.

In his resignation letter Sir Davies refuted any relation of LSE degree awarded to Muammar Kaddafi’s son Sayf al-Islam to £300,000 for research accepted by LSE from a foundation run by its alumna . “Sir Howard Davies said he recognised the university's reputation had "suffered" and he had to quit.” - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12642636

Views are sounded that the whole LSE council should resign once the Institution was so much linked to illegal revenues of Libyan dictator. I believe that the reputation of LSE will be saved, perhaps it would entail more resignations.  However the question here is, if those illegal sources have become evident after clashes took place in streets of Benghazi? And can we expect any essential policy changes in Western Universities towards similar cases?

Difficult times might come to children of repressive regime family members striving to get education in prestigious Universities. However the credibility of western system of education might be further affected if that took a shape of simple discrimination. Thus a robust policy and indicators are to be set up to rule such occasions.

On the others side has not the time come for regimes to build quality and transparent education opportunities in their respective countries to make good education accessible for wider population in the homeland?