The unmaking of the Arab world

Fahmi Howeidi is a leading Egyptian political and social scholar and author, and one of the Arab world’s most prominent columnists. Following is my abridgment of his syndicated think piece this week:

There is a sort of overlap in tuning in on the revolution and the government in Egypt.

That’s caused either by incessant media campaigns denigrating the revolution in the public eye or by the torrent of government crises news, which make people lose sight of the revolution’s achievements.

In effect, the Egypt revolution ended a reign of corruption and tyranny and returned the country to its people. It brought a Pharaonic era to a close, restored civil liberties, ended minority rule and empowered the masses to have the final say on their government.

But why did Egypt’s post-revolution administration stumble?

One explanation is that decade-long tyranny not only destroyed Egypt’s political and economic present, but its future as well.

The other explanation is the preclusion of all and sundry from Egyptian politics save for a restricted group of loyalists handpicked by the former president.

As a result, the political class was neither coached in managing state affairs nor shown the ropes of state administration.

This political class was also shut out from any communal endeavor to promote the national interest through state institutions.

Egypt’s post-revolution administration crisis can thus be blamed on a host of factors, including:

• The classic tension that dawns each time a revolution brings down a regime and tries to replace it
• The heavy legacy left by the deposed regime, such as the ruination of politics, the economy, state institutions and society.
• Mismanagement of state affairs by President Mohamed Morsi and his team and their reneging of election promises.
• Immaturity of opposition figures
• The tug-of-war among some nationalist camp components
• Lawlessness, which also undermines economic activity
• External pressures.

Everyone in Egypt is now aware that although it made good progress over the years in running its own business, the Muslim Brotherhood did not make the grade in reigning over and managing society.

That is the root cause of the current crisis, which led to the political stalemate in Egypt.

Overcoming the political deadlock requires a lot of wisdom, courage and foresight, all of which seem lacking – at least for the foreseeable future.

(2)

In the case of all four or five Arab Spring countries, revolt proved much more profound and far-reaching than actual or prospective regime change.

The new manifestations that are kept in the public eye day and night by the media touch only the surface of the spirit of rebellion, which drove ordinary citizens to protest loudly against oppression, corruption and social injustice.

The discrepancy made me distinguish between what I call the “tumultuous spring” and the “silent” variety.

“Tumultuous spring” came out in the open and called for regime change in some countries.

By contrast, the “silent spring” chose to express itself calmly through the social media.

Its aim is regime reform, but not regime change. It falls in the category of “reformist spring” as opposed to “revolutionary spring.”

The open letter calling for reform, which Saudi cleric Salman al-Odah posted last month on Facebook and Twitter falls in the latter category. Odah specifically called for ending the practice of media control, information censorship and the release of political prisoners.

Other reformists made similar appeals elsewhere in the Gulf.

(3)

From this perspective, I believe the pan-Arab nation is meanwhile facing an existential impasse that needs addressing.

While historic change looms on the horizon, a vacuum hangs on the Arab arena.

Observers fail to spot a leader or a plan the Arabs can rally around or defend.

When focusing on the Arab arena, all they spot are three endeavors: the Turks are expanding economically, the Iranian politically and the Israelis through land grabs to build settlements.

Moreover, changes on the ground suggest the region’s maps are being reconfigured and a new Sykes-Picot Agreement is being contemplated.

The pointers:

• Iraq faces partition after having been steamrolled by the United States invasion. Iraqi Kurdistan has almost seceded, and nothing keeps the lid on its independence other than the absence of a public declaration of self-determination preceded by a ban on hoisting the Iraqi national flag on its territory. A forceful call is also being made to divide Iraq into three regions – one for Kurds, another for Shiites and the third for Sunnis.
• Syria is poised to follow suit, especially that its regime seems on its last legs so far. Should the Assad regime fall, contingency plans are already in place to declare an Alawite state along the country’s coastline. In anticipation, Syria’s central bank reserves have reportedly been moved to Latakia, whose seaport and airport are being upgraded.
• The side-effects of the Syrian regime’s collapse would allow for (a) a shift in the balance of power in Lebanon at Hezbollah’s expense (b) a shot in the arm to the Sunni uprising in Iraq (c) a rekindling of the Kurdish issue, which explains Turkey’s recent preemptive peace deal with PKK leader Abdullah Ocalan, and (d) rethinking and re-planning in Tehran, particularly that a blitz by Israel on its nuclear facilities is not off the table yet.
• The Palestinians of the West Bank and Gaza Strip remain in limbo and the risks of a third Intifada erupting mount.
• Sudan’s South has broken away from its North.
• In Yemen, calls are growing louder all the time for the secession of the South.
• Morocco is grappling with the Tamazight movement’s political demands shortly after recognizing the Tamazight language in its new constitution.
• Over and above the widening schism between its Sunnis and Shiites, the Arab world finds itself riven by rifts between the Salafi movement and Ennahda Movement in Tunisia, between Salafis and the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, and between Salafis and seculars in Algeria.

These are ample indicators of how the Arab world is liable to break up. The process of restructuring it is quietly moving ahead while it remains unfazed or unaware. 

Cement and wheat at the Doha summit

By Jamal Khashoggi, Saudi Arabia’s analyst, author and kingpin of the impending Al Arab TV news channel writing today for pan-Arab al-Hayat

Obviously, the Doha summit did not discuss cement price rises or production shortages in the Arab world.

Nor did it dwell on the Arabs’ growing demand for wheat that their vast arable lands -- including the water-rich ones -- fail to meet.

The summit, as usual, considered the pan-Arab nation’s “fateful issues at this critical juncture,” chiefly the current Syria crisis.

It would have been useful if someone had wondered out loud, “Who will rebuild Syria?

“Can the output of Arab cement factories meet demand?

“And how can we make available tons of wheat to feed the hungry mouths in the currently critical political turmoil?”

Therein lies the importance of discussing the subject of cement and wheat in the Arab world.

It might sound odd to ask, “Who will build the New Syria?” when the Arabs have yet to find a way of stopping the destruction of Old Syria and the killings in it.

Equally odd is to ask, “Who will provide the daily 250 million bread loafs Egyptians need under their Second Republic when their politicians keep quarrelling over the Attorney General’s legitimacy?”

We better wise up, harden our hearts, ponder unemotionally and set up committees to address these issues.

A group of about 45 Syrians representing all hues of the Syrian opposition, including former officials who deserted the regime, last year set up “The Day After” workshop in Berlin in association with two institutes – one German (SWP) and another American (USIP).

They did wonderful work in planning what to do in post-Assad Syria.

They outlined the roadmap to a peaceful transition to democracy, the rule of law and security, constitution making, economic recovery and reconstruction (see Syria and “The Day After” Project for full details).

But of course “The Day After” workshop did not discuss the issue of cement, of which Old Syria produced not more than six million tons annually.

Only God knows how many months it would take Syria’s cement plants to resume production.

The Arab world’s top cement producer is Egypt, with an annual output of 48 million tons.

Saudi Arabia comes next with 42 million tons a year.

Although both countries try to expand their respective production capacities, their cement prices keep cropping up because of increasing demand for housing units in each.

Most probably local demand for Saudi cement will heat up after the Kingdom issued final regulations on real estate financing, leasing and the supervision of financial companies as it tries to ease a housing shortage by opening up its mortgage market and enacting the first home-loans law.

So who will supply cement for the Syrians if the Saudis ban exporting their cement and the Egyptians need every bit of theirs? And who will finance Syria’s reconstruction in the first place?

Syria, after all, is unlike Libya, which was also ravaged by war. But oil-rich Libya has the cash. Syria’s oil production is wanting, save for 300,000 barrels per day, part of which is exported with the revenue going to the coffers of President Bashar al-Assad and his relatives.

Moreover, destruction in Libya pales in comparison to Syria’s devastation.

Will Turkish and Saudi concerns rush to invest in the New Syria, or will the huge offshore funds held by Syrians solve the problem?

And before wondering about Syria’s prospective cement suppliers, Syrians need much time to rebuild their state institutions, draft a constitution and organize elections.

Wheat is another Arab collective concern.

Saudi Arabia, for instance, will scrap wheat growing in 2015 after absurd consumption exhausted its future generations’ non-renewable groundwater resources.

The Kingdom does not need more than three million tons of wheat a year and has all the cash to import it from Russia or Australia. But Egypt produces only half of its annual consumption of 19 million tons at a time when its net foreign currency reserves are down to $13.5 billion, barely enough to cover three months of its imports of essential goods and oil.

Also, unlike Saudi Arabia, Egypt did not build grain silos, which means storage costs are added on to its wheat prices.

Theoretically, the solution for all Arabs is in their fertile lands in Iraq, Syria, Sudan and Algeria.

Politics, however, prompted Saudi Arabia to try leasing Russian farmland to grow wheat through private companies it controls. The kingdom overlooked Algeria, whose military are far from being amenable to negotiations.

After its revolution, Egypt discovered Sudan to its south, where it plans cultivating about one million feddan (or 420,000 hectares) in the long term, once its politicians stop squabbling over the country’s Attorney General and other petty issues.

I used the metaphor of “cement and wheat” to highlight the interconnection of Arabs. Despite borders keeping us apart, our disparate customs duties, one country like Saudi Arabia supporting the cement industry and another like Egypt choosing not to, the Saudis having the experience and money to grow wheat and the Sudanese having the land, water and workforce… we are all prone to be affected by economic changes elsewhere.

The reference is chiefly to changes affecting essential commodities, such as iron, cement, wheat and fertilizers – all of which have internationally-quoted prices.

We ought to accelerate Arab economic unity plans, bring down trade barriers and focus on the economy and quality of life, which are the mainstays of the Arab Spring.

Had we helped Egypt tackle the economy before plunging into politics head on, Egypt would not have been suffocating in a seemingly open-ended political crisis.

Egypt could have done without its ridiculous cycle of protests and counter-protests, charges and counter-charges, and blows and counter-blows – all leading to the erosion of all human values, including the Egyptian citizen’s dignity.

Syria, where the revolution has yet to triumph, is also in the throes of accusations and counter-accusations with the media already evoking the strife in Egypt in order to guard against a replay of the Muslim Brotherhood’s role in the Syrian revolution.

Better wait for the Syrian revolution to prevail before taking on the Muslim Brotherhood.

Any cause for optimism in all this?

Yes, when “cement and wheat” top the Arab politician’s priorities.

Six reasons why Syria’s rebellion is into Year 3

“With respect to Syria,” President Barack Obama said yesterday at his joint press conference with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in Jerusalem, “the United States continues to work with allies and friends and the Syrian opposition to hasten the end of Assad’s rule, to stop the violence against the Syrian people, and begin the transition towards a new government that respects the rights of all its people. Assad has lost his legitimacy to lead by attacking the Syrian people with almost every conventional weapon in his arsenal, including Scud missiles…”

Mauritania's Muhammad bin Mukhtar al-Shinqiti

But with the start this week of Syria’s third year of rebellion, the question remains: Why is ending Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s rule taking so long?

The overriding reasons are six, according to an outstanding scholar, analyst and author from Mauritania, Muhammad bin Mukhtar al-Shinqiti, writing for the “Viewpoint” section of Aljazeera.net.

Shinqiti has a bachelor's degree in Sharia law, a master’s in business administration from Columbia Southern University in Orange Beach, Alabama, and a PhD in the history of religions from the University of Texas at Austin.

In his think piece for Aljazeera, Shinqiti explains the six impediments to ending Assad’s rule at a gallop:

One:

Unlike in Tunisia, Egypt and Yemen, the makeup of the army in Syria is sectarian. Ninety percent of its commanding officers and key battalions are Alawite. Breaking its cohesion is time-consuming and costly.

Giving added strength to Assad’s regime is the mobilization for its defense of the region’s Shiite infrastructure – all the way from Lebanon to Iran. The enlistment takes in most Arab Shiite elites in the region.

Two:

The second impediment is Russia’s support of Assad’s savagery, a stand that can be explained culturally and strategically.

Culturally, French political thinker and historian Alexis de Tocqueville envisaged in the 19^th century two great nations – America and Russia – advancing toward world supremacy in the 20^th century.

“All other peoples seem to have nearly reached their natural limits and to need nothing but to preserve them; but these two are growing,” he wrote, adding:

“The American fights against natural obstacles; the Russian is at grips with men. The former combats the wilderness and barbarism; the latter, civilization with all its arms. America’s conquests are made with the plowshare, Russia’s with the sword. To attain their aims, the former relies on personal interest and gives free scope to the unguided strength and common sense of individuals. The latter in a sense concentrates the whole power of society in one man. One has freedom as the principal means of action; the other has servitude.”

You can blame Moscow’s stance vis-à-vis the Syrian revolution on the culture of “servitude” that is still prevailing in Russia. The largest country in Europe continues to be ruled by a KGB officer, Vladimir Putin, whose administration frowns at the Syrian revolution’s victory prospects for fear of its template resurfacing elsewhere.

Strategically, the Putin administration’s politics on Mediterranean shores are a Cold War throwback.

The culture of “servitude” is equally dominant in China, a single-party state.

Three:

Halfhearted backing from Arab governments is the third factor taxing the Syrian people’s rebellion. Libya and Qatar have been the only two Arab states to stand solidly behind the Syrian revolution. Most of the others sufficed with lukewarm diplomatic support. Some stand by Assad either openly or covertly. Algerian army generals oppose any serious step against the regime lest the Arab Spring reaches their country’s borders. Iraq backs Assad to the hilt for shocking sectarian reasons. Lebanon is two sectarian halves.

There is no better indicator of the Arab state’s halfhearted backing of the Syrian people than their choice of two Arab envoys to Syria – namely, Sudan’s Gen. Mohammed al-Dabi and Algeria’s Lakhdar Brahimi. Both Sudan and Algeria are ruled by the military that simply abhor the Arab Spring.

Compare such official Arab apathy with Iran’s unwavering support of Assad financially, politically and militarily at a time when Iran’s defeat in Syria is now a key Arab strategic priority.

Four:

The fourth hurdle is Turkey’s hesitancy in arming the Syrian rebels. Turkey made available to the Syrian people two lung transplants, one for humanitarian aid and the other for political breathing. Without them, the Syrian people’s suffering would have been intolerable and the chances of their revolution’s success little.

As a strategic bridge between East and West, Turkey is a regional heavyweight, except that it seems unwilling to take strategic risks and remains committed to the West’s ban on arming Syrian rebels.

Short of this changing, Syria will remain an open wound on Turkish borders and Turkey will likely loose its sympathetic Arab street as well as prospective strategic interests in Arab Spring countries.

Five:

The fifth hurdle standing in the way of a dash to victory in Syria is the duplicity of America and Europe’s political elites. They are deliberately starving the Syrian revolution of weapons in order to pooh-pooh and lay siege to the Arab Spring.

Despite the deep chasm between the American and Russian positions on the revolt, for instance, both sides agree on wrecking Syria. America wants Syria destroyed to see Assad out while Russia wants Syria destroyed to keep Assad in.

The West’s embargo on arming the Syrian people is nothing more than a license to the regime to keep killing. It is a replay of the West imposing the embargo on arming Bosnian Muslims once it ascertained the Serbs had secured arms supply lines from Russia.

Six:

The sixth cause of the stalemate after two years is the Israeli position and the weight the position carries in American and European decision-making circles.  

A (May 2011 Tel Aviv-datelined) report in the Christian Science Monitor said Assad’s downfall would remove a key player in the Iran-led alliance threatening the Jewish state, but Assad’s Syria has been a stable neighbor and maintained a regional balance that Israeli officials and analysts fear could crumble.

The report quoted Giora Eilan, a former national security adviser under former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, as saying Sharon once slammed an Israeli who suggested that regime change in Syria. “Sharon said, ‘Are you crazy?’” he recalls. “The best for the time being, is having a Bashar Assad who is fighting for his legitimacy.’”

Arab League allows members to arm the FSA

Syria's empty Arab League seat (top) and three dissenters, clockwise from R.:Medelci, Zibari and Mansour

Each of the 22 Arab League member states is now free to offer military aid to the Free Syrian Army (FSA) fighting forces loyal to President Bashar al-Assad.

The 22-member bloc also wants the Syrian National Coalition of Revolutionary and Opposition Forces “to form an executive body to take up Syria’s [Arab League] seat” and represent Syria at the impending Arab summit in about three weeks.

The league suspended Syria's membership in November 2011 after the Assad regime failed to abide by an Arab peace plan that sought to end the conflict.

Meeting in Cairo yesterday, the Arab League Council of Foreign Ministers resolved:

1. To reaffirm recognition of the Syrian National Coalition of Revolutionary and Opposition Forces as the sole representative of the Syrian people and the chief interlocutor with the League of Arab States.

2. To invite the Syrian National Coalition of Revolutionary and Opposition Forces to form an executive body to take up Syria’s seat at the Arab League, plus its organizations, councils and branches, and to participate in the upcoming two-day Arab League summit to be held in Doha on March 26-27. That will be the case until an elected government assumes office in Syria. This [decision] is in recognition of the Syrian people’s sacrifices and extraordinary circumstances.

3. To reaffirm continuation of the quest for a political solution to the Syrian crisis and to uphold the right of individual member states to offer, as they choose, all means of self-defense -- including military – to prop up the steadfastness of the Syrian people and Free Syrian Army.

4. To convene an international conference at the UN for rebuilding Syria.

The resolution carried three footnotes.

One said Algeria expressed a reservation on the second article.

Another said Iraq took issue with the second and third articles.

The last said Lebanon “dissociated” itself from the resolution altogether.

Algeria, Iraq and Lebanon were represented at the meeting by their respective foreign ministers – namely Mourad Medelci, Hoshiar Zebari and Adnan Mansour.

Syria’s own foreign ministry reacted by restating its "rejection of any role for the Arab League in a peaceful resolution of the crisis in Syria," accusing the League of being hostage to Qatar and Saudi Arabia and manipulated by the "monarchies of money, oil and gas."

Lebanon’s al-Akhbar, which speaks for Assad and Hezbollah, said “العرب للسوريين: اقتتِلوا”  -- i.e. the Arabs effectively tell Syrians to keep up their internecine warfare.

Al-Akhbar commentator Hassan Olayk separately defends Adnan Mansour, who represents the Shiite Amal Movement in the Beirut government. Olayk says the Lebanese foreign minister simply called for peace in warmongering times championed by oil-rich kingdoms.

By contrast, Rajeh el-Khoury, who writes for Lebanon’s independent daily an-Nahar, wonders: “Are we in the Republic of Lebanon or the independent Republic of Adnan Mansour, who yesterday stood at the Arab League and talk as if he were the foreign minister of Syria and Assad’s spokesman?”

The Arab League met in Cairo on the same day the UN refugee agency was saying the number of Syrians who have fled their war-ravaged country and are seeking assistance has now topped the one million mark.

"With a million people in flight, millions more displaced internally, and thousands of people continuing to cross the border every day, Syria is spiraling toward full-scale disaster," the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, Antonio Guterres, said in Geneva.

The Syria conflict is also depriving hundreds of thousands of children of their education.

Among findings in an education assessment conducted by UNICEF and released this week:

• At least 2,400 schools have been damaged or destroyed, including 772 in Idlib (50 per cent of the total), 300 in Aleppo and another 300 in Deraa;
• Over 1,500 schools are being used as shelters for displaced persons;
• More than 110 teachers and other staff have been killed and many others are no longer reporting for work. In Idlib, for example, teacher attendance is no more than 55 per cent;
• In Aleppo, children attendance rate has dropped to as low as 6 per cent.

Syria healthcare system has also collapsed, according to medical charity Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF).

MSF said in a report published today that hospitals, doctors and patients had come under direct attack, and many trained medical staff had fled abroad.

One-third of public hospitals are no longer functioning and healthcare has been forced underground, MSF said in a summary by the BBC .

The charity has more than 200 staff working in rebel-held areas of Syria.

It said repeated requests to the government for wider access had not been granted.

Despite its limited access, the charity said it had carried out more than 20,000 consultations and 1,560 surgical procedures since the start of the conflict in March 2011.

It has also opened three hospitals in opposition-held northern regions.

But MSF said the conflict had "made a mockery of the concept of healthcare".

"Medical aid is being targeted, hospitals destroyed and medical personnel captured," said MSF's Dr Marie-Pierre Allie.

The exodus of trained medical staff had left inexperienced workers trying to provide care, the charity said.

"Dentists are performing minor surgeries, pharmacists are treating patients and young people are volunteering to work as nurses," the report said.

Doctors had been labeled "enemies of the state" for treating the injured and both sides were now using hospitals as a war strategy, MSF said.

While government air raids targeted medical facilities, the rebels had begun to label their facilities "Free Syrian Army hospitals", increasing the risk of attack.

Increasingly, medical care has been forced underground, with makeshift hospitals set up in caves, homes and farms.

But MSF says these facilities are still being targeted in air raids.

Saudi monarch now at daggers drawn with Assad

Saudi Arabia is now throwing its full weight behind the drive to rid Syria of President Bashar al-Assad.

King Abdullah

King Abdullah yesterday called a two-day emergency summit of Muslim nations in three weeks time to address “the dangers of fragmentation and seditions” they are facing.

Assumptions the planned August 14-15 summit is also linked to the Syria crisis were enhanced by another announcement from the Saudi monarch. He ordered the launch today of a nationwide fundraising campaign to help “our brothers in Syria.”

This is reminiscent of the mid-1980s, when Saudi public fund-raisers generated financial support for liberating Afghanistan from the Soviets.

Political analyst Sarkis Naoum, in his column this morning for Beirut’s independent daily an-Nahar, says Gulf heavyweight Saudi Arabia has “assumed the captaincy of Arab players backing the Syrian revolution politically as well as with arms, training and cash to help it topple Assad and his regime.”

The Kingdom’s motive he writes, “is not only to safeguard the interests, rights and freedoms of the majority of Syrians, but to face up to the challenge Iran is posing” to Saud Arabia’s Gulf and Arab partners after Iran made serious inroads in the Arab world’s heartland.

Naoum says insiders got wind last week of Saudi Arabia’s resolve and commitment to push Assad out when King Abdullah appointed Prince Bandar Bin Sultan, the kingdom’s ambassador to the United States for 22 years, as the new chief of General Intelligence.

“And it is an open secret that Prince Bandar has been championing a face-off with Syria in Lebanon since at least 2005,” Naoum writes.

Saudi Arabia, in the eyes of Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, is “the most hostile country to Special Envoy Kofi Annan and his Syria mission,” according to a report published this morning in Hezbollah and Syria’s Lebanese mouthpiece al-Akhbar.

The report penned for al-Akhbar by journalist Nasser Sharara appears simultaneously on Syria’s state-run Champress website.

According to Sharara:

The relationship between Lavrov and Annan “is close-knit.”  When Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Muallem once complained to Lavrov that Annan was not appreciating the Syrian regime’s goodwill initiatives, “Lavrov said: He (Annan) does nothing before consulting me first.”

Upholding the Annan mission is Lavrov’s brainchild. He believes the most hostile state to Annan and his Syria mission is Saudi Arabia. In many of his diplomatic contacts, Lavrov keeps asking: “Why doesn’t Riyadh receive Annan, albeit once?”

In his meetings with European Union ambassadors in Moscow, Lavrov cited three Syria-related Russian concerns: (1) Syria sliding to Muslim Brotherhood rule that would destabilize Central Asia (2) The empowerment of Muslim extremists and al-Qaeda members who are now threatening Algeria and the South African Development Community and (3) The safety of a 45,000-strong Russian community in Syria.

Ghassan Charbel, editor-in-chief of the pan-Arab daily al-Hayat, quotes one of Vladimir Putin’s recent interlocutors as saying, “The Russian president acts as if the West and Turkey fell into the Syria crisis trap. He says the West and Turkey posture but are unable to intervene militarily; they also fail to mobilize the UN Security Council to remove Assad.”

The interlocutor – who also heard Putin say Moscow can’t accept the massacre or ejection of Syria’s minorities -- left with the impression Russia is set on continuing to take advantage of the entrapment of its opponents.

Charbel says, “Putin’s Russia hates Western human rights and welfare organizations. It doesn’t want to see the disease spreading and infecting its Muslims. China has similar concerns in this respect. Russia could be reminding the United States of the need to redraw zones of influence and address such pending issues as ballistic missile defense systems.

“Developments on the ground in Syria foretell the derailment of Russia’s exploitation of what it deems to be its detractors’ snare.

“Clearly, the Syrian regime is still able to fight. But it is no longer able to exit the tunnel.

“Happenings in Damascus and Aleppo may change the scene. Russia was asking the West to pay for a solution. Developments could yet force Russia to pay for a doorway. Russia could still discover she walked into a trap herself after losing a bet in Syria and alienating the Arab, Islamic and Western worlds.

“Iran in turn will ultimately discover the magnitude of the trap in which she fell. Her stand on the Syria crisis adds to her Arab, Islamic and international isolation. It also exposes her to risks in a region full of surprises.

“Having previously reaped the benefits of America’s Iraq entrapment, Iran may now have to pay the price of her ambush in Syria. And so does Hezbollah…”

Sending Arab forces to Syria on the table

By the late M. Kahil, from my press archives

A suggestion to send Arab troops to Syria will be considered by Arab League foreign ministers at their Saturday meeting in Cairo, according to Arab League Secretary-General Nabil Elaraby.

Qatar’s emir, Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa al-Thani, told CBS News on Saturday Arab troops may have to step in to halt the bloodshed in Syria.

Arab observers already deployed in Syria have failed to stop the violence there. President Bashar al-Assad’s forces killed another 32 civilians across the country on Sunday, according to activists quoted today by Aljazeera.

Amr Moussa, Elaraby’s predecessor at the helm of the Arab League and is now a serious contender for the presidency in Egypt, is openly supportive of Sheikh Hamad’s idea.

“It’s a serious proposal that should be discussed by the Arab states to determine those for or against, which countries intend manning the force, and the force’s task. This suggestion should be mulled over in depth,” Moussa tells Lebanese an-Nahar daily’s Khalil Fleyhane in an exclusive interview published this morning.

By mid-day local time today, an ongoing online public opinion poll running on the Aljazeera.net portal showed 83 percent of 10,372 respondents in favor of “sending Arab troops to Syria to protect demonstrators there.” Only 17 percent, or 1,759 respondents, had voted against by this time of writing.

But it is far from clear what role would be envisaged for the Arab troops in Syria. Would they be mandated to serve as an interventional, deterrent or peacekeeping force?

Some 35 years ago, the Arab League created a military intervention force to stop Lebanon’s civil war. When created in 1976, the so-called ADF (Arab Deterrent Force) originally comprised contingents from Syria, Saudi Arabia, Libya, Sudan, UAE, among others. By 1979, the ADF had metamorphosed into a purely Syrian occupation force that ruled Lebanon until 2005.

“Is sending troops to Syria viable? Who will do that, given the do or die defense of Assad’s regime by Iraq, Algeria and Lebanon?” Tariq Alhomayed asks in his Monday editorial for the Saudi daily Asharq Alawsat. Should most Arab and foreign states want to stop the killing machine in Syria, he says, it’s not enough to send Arab troops there. The move should be made either under the aegis of the UN Security Council or through creation of what is known as a “coalition of the willing.” Its objective would be to carve a buffer zone in Syria with Turkey’s help. The zone would hasten the regime’s fall by encouraging mass defections from the Syrian army.

Titles of two think pieces I like at Egypt’s shorouknews.com:

• “Washington learning Arabic and the Moslem Brothers English,” by Mohamed al-Menshawi
• “Why did Tunisia’s revolution rejuvenate and Egypt’s go gray?” by Wael Kandeel