Who killed the “Arab Spring”?

Ghassan Charbel, editor-in-chief of pan-Arab al-Hayat, penned this think piece in Arabic

Where are the young men and women who nearly three years ago crammed the plazas and public squares calling for the downfall of who they called the tyrant or the dictator or the despot?

Do they remember the victory signs they raised when they heard news of his escape or his standing down or his killing?

Do they recall the dreams they dared reflect upon in those days and their talk of democracy, state institutions, transparency, the transfer of power and the respect of human rights?

Was their behavior actually motivated by their fervor, their innocence or their naïveté?

Were they alien to their communities and ignorant of the degree of injustice permeating their depths and the wells of hatred waiting for an opportunity to explode?

Did it escape them that the problem is basically cultural rather than political and that it is not enough to open the ballot boxes to turn over the page of the past?

Did it escape them as well that centuries of darkness contributed to the incarceration of the Arab intellect and its disablement, rendering the Arab individual incapable of handling the keys to the future?

I have been obsessed for weeks by an irritating question: “Who killed the ‘Arab Spring’?”

That’s why I seize the opportunity of coming across anyone of the major players in the said “Spring” to ask for his assessment – especially now that some of the said ‘Spring’s’ theaters shut out the advocates of democracy and of modern state-building.

I will not name my respondents because our discussions were not to be published.

The man played an important role in his country’s “Arab Spring” when he dealt a painful blow to the despot under whose portrait he served for several years.

I asked him the question, “Who killed the ‘Arab Spring’?”

“I don’t know,” he replied.

“What you call the ‘Spring’ may have come early, before our societies became ready to embrace a transformation of this magnitude.

“It turned out we still live in the depths of history.

“With the tyrants’ fall, our societies began spewing all the blood, pus, hatreds, coercions and reprisals that accumulated in their guts.

“I think the transitional phase will be daunting and extended. In any case the French Revolution took eight decades before settling down.”

He added:

“We are in a terrible state of underdevelopment. Watch the screens. A university professor talks as if he has yet to enter the era of reading and writing.

“Look at nation-states, like for example Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Bahrain that are now paying the price of what took place between Ali and Muawiyah.

“We discuss globalization and technology and then go to sleep in the caves of history.

“Our capitals are closer to abattoirs overflowing with suicide bombers and assassins.

“Our countries fail to provide regular power supplies to their citizens.

“Our societies participated in killing the ‘Arab Spring’ by letting the prisoners of history take the lead.”

Another player put forward a different reading.

He said the most prominent killers of the “Arab Spring” are those who rushed to mold it, casting an image of their own interests.

He said the West acted as a crook, especially Obama’s America. Washington wanted the phenomenon to serve the policy she adopted years earlier – in essence the policy of promoting to power what she calls moderate Islam, thinking that the latter could contain terror.

He added: The Muslim Brothers, who were the better organized and widespread movement in the community, took this as an historic opportunity to devour it all.

He also said Turkey played a role in killing the “Arab Spring” when she considered a “Brotherhood Spring” victory gives her a trump card in her strategic wrestling with Iran.

He said Qatar used her financial might and international relations to prop up the “Brotherhood Spring” alongside Turkey.

Russia, he remarked was focusing on stifling the “Muslim Spring” lest it turned into a card in the hands of the West or spread to her vicinity.

He said Russia found in Syria’s events a chance to kill the “Arab Spring.” Iran was of the same opinion but for different purposes.

The two men’s words helped me understand what is now going on in more than one Arab country.

I got convinced the “Arab Spring” killers were more than one.

Most probably a stormy season is just about to kick off – a long and painful transition season.

The first condition for moving into the future is to exit the caves of history and bury the illusions of ready-made solutions.

Egypt: My gloomy crystal ball reading

Egypt’s brilliant columnist and high-profile talk show host Imad Adeeb wrote this think piece in Arabic for the country's al-Watan news-paper:

Will we be “spiraling down” or “reaching a compromise” in Egypt?

What’s in the cards – more frenzy, demonstrations, violence and bloodshed, or the boon of commonsense, wisdom, moderation and serious negotiations?

It seems – and God knows best – that tension, escalation and bloodshed will prevail in the near and medium terms.

I sense further internecine bloodletting on public squares and streets and in Egyptian cities and provinces.

I see hundreds if not thousands killed and injured in the few coming weeks.

I see attacks on police stations, government buildings, party headquarters, public facilities, security directorates and military barracks.

I see the emergence of unconventional weapons in the upcoming battles, including the “Grenov” (RPG-18), rocket launchers and anti-aircraft missiles.

I see the beginnings of sectarian strife in the provinces and the appearance of weapons stockpiled for months in mosque and church basements.

I see all sides’ political elites keeping up their hysterics and inflammatory speeches calling for violence, killings and the total exclusion -- if not its erasure from history and geography -- of the opposite side.

Regrettably, I see no prospect of an imminent compromise.

I don’t see words of wisdom reaching open minds. Nor do I see an atmosphere conducive to dialogue between the parties to the crisis.

The tragic irony is the crisis we were controlling lately has now transformed into a crisis controlling us.

The problem that was running deep is now running out of anyone’s control.

The big tragedy is that nothing can lead to a solution or a compromise. Muslim Brotherhood rule won’t lead to stability. And shutting out the Brothers won’t restore calm.

Since January 2011, we tried a president with a military background, military council rule and a president from the Muslim Brotherhood. We are now trying an honorable man’s rule as interim president.

Despite these variations and experiences, we still haven’t found the desired solution.

We went through a revolution in January 2011 and another in June 2013 and saw the army intercede and millions take to the streets on both occasions.

No event, regime, revolution or coup d’état pacified people or restored their aplomb and satisfaction.

How can Egyptian society recoup its serenity, calm and stability?

It’s a great question worth pondering and answering.

Egypt’s Brotherhood, wristwatch and volcano

Gen, Abdel Fattah al-Sisi

The head of Egypt's armed forces gave politicians 48 hours this late afternoon to answer demands made by the Egyptian people or the military would offer its own "roadmap for the future."

In a statement read on state television, General Abdel Fattah al-Sisi called mass protests on Sunday, which called for Islamist President Mohamed Mursi to resign, an "unprecedented" expression of the popular will.

Earlier this morning, the mass circulation newspaper al-Hayat published this think piece on Egypt penned in Arabic by its editor-in-chief Ghassan Charbel:

President Mohamed Morsi is entitled to say:

• He is the first civilian to be elected president in Egypt
• He entered the presidential palace on the strength of a popular vote rather than riding a tank
• With the exception of Ahmad Shafiq, opposition leaders Mohamed ElBaradei, Amr Moussa and Hamdeen Sabahi visited him at the Ittihadiya Palace
• The world recognized his legitimacy and welcomed him as president
• Egyptian voters mandated him for a full [four-year] term and it is improper to cut it short under street pressure.
• He is eligible to say all this, but his duty is also to check his watch.

Mohamed Morsi can say:

• He is not an isolated president
• The group he comes from has deep roots in Egyptian society
• Islamists won’t accept the removal of Egypt’s first Islamist president
• He is capable of mobilizing millions of loyalists in face of the opposition’s millions and he can get Brotherhood minders to guard the palace should the army equivocate on his protection.

Despite this, it’s the president’s duty to check his watch.

At the same time, the president can’t accuse the crowds gathered yesterday at Tahrir Square and opposite his palace of being remnants and thugs yearning for the former regime.

This gimmick has been so overused that it just doesn’t hold water today.

He can’t say the millions who signed the Tamarrud petition [demanding his resignation] are liberals involved in a Zionist-American plot to abort the revival plan he carried to the palace.

The president cannot deny his first year in office was marred by terrible chaos and growing splits at street level and by discontent among non-partisans who voted for him lest Shafiq’s victory led to the old regime’s restitution.

Likewise, the president cannot contest the figures of economic meltdown, soaring unemployment and poverty and declining services and security.

Nor can he disprove the impression that the Brotherhood’s first year in power unmasked its dearth of experience and qualified cadres and its incapacity to manage state affairs.

Two weeks ago my journalistic inquisitiveness took me on a visit to Egypt. I did not want to write about the big showdown there from afar.

The showdown concerns the Brothers in Egypt and everywhere else. It also relates to political Islam and the Arab Spring’s outcome.

I met with both opposition and Brotherhood leaders.

I sounded out media people and ordinary citizens who imagined the (25 January 2011) revolution would throw open the doors of hope, make bread more readily available, and revitalize Egypt so she can recoup her identity, spirit and soul.

On leaving Cairo in the evening, I was very concerned about the days ahead.

I felt millions of Egyptians were deeply perturbed, fearful as never before and primed to burst in anger.

One is nervous about Egypt going bankrupt.

Another is anxious about someone tampering with Egypt’s spirit.

A third says the Brotherhood regime is the “Mubarak regime but with Islamist features.”

A fourth suggests the state is eroding, that “Brotherhood-ization” will lead to internecine strife over “retrieving the revolution from those who stole it.”

A fifth suggests the army should make a move before the volcano erupts.

I also felt:

• Hosni Mubarak stunned Egyptians by his speedy downfall, catching political forces by surprise and unprepared
• The Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF) acted like someone grasping a hot coal but eager to pass it to someone else. As a result, SCAF took a rash decision and erred
• The Brothers -- rather than make a “big sacrifice” – chose to put their fate and Egypt’s on the line by contesting the presidential elections on the urging of a few of their careerist politicians.

Morsi misread the revolution’s messages and the mandate’s constrains. Mistakes piled up with mishandlings of the constitution, of the judiciary and of Egypt’s spirit and identity components.

The accumulation of mistakes rekindled the revolution’s hot ambers. The flowing lava presages a volcanic eruption.

The Brothers entered the presidential palace before their time, and their precipitous entry awakened the volcano.

It’s hard to see the Brothers cave in to Tamarrud’s protests.

What is certain though is that Morsi’s stay at the palace will prove exhausting to the Brotherhood and the country. There is nothing worse than sitting on the fringes of a volcano.

Middle East change for the better or worse?

Abdul Rahman al-Rashed, general manager of AlArabiya TV, penned this analysis in Arabic for today’s edition of Saudi Asharq Alawsat.

 When one regime was toppled – namely, Saddam Hussein’s -- analysts parroted, “New Middle East.”

We’re now without the regimes of Hosni Mubarak, Moammar Gadhafi and Zinedine Ben Ali. Ali Saleh’s regime will most probably fade away, followed by Bashar al-Assad’s. Regimes governing more than 100 million Arabs have evaporated. The map of today’s Middle East is full of holes waiting to see who fills them and how.

Winds continue shifting the region’s sands. Turkey and Iran, yesterday’s allies, have now fallen out like never before. Syria, Libya, Hamas and Qatar used to present an active and united front at the region’s conferences and journeys. Egypt and Saudi Arabia were the region’s primary address. No summits, negotiations or alliances got a green light without Mubarak’s Egypt.

The region swings like a clock’s pendulum. It’s always hard to escape its magnet. We face a newly emerging situation. Foreign alliances, regional blocs and diplomatic, or at times military, clashes were the hallmark of the “Old Middle East.”

“We have to forget about Egypt, probably for another five years,” an Arab official told me in a conversation on how to coalesce against mounting Iranian bullying. “We have to try approaching the (Ottoman) Sublime Porte in Ankara.’

When gauging the speed of a year’s change in the Middle East, I remembered the bid in 2010 to build a four-way alliance involving Iran, Turkey, Syria and Iraq. It was akin to the (1955) Baghdad Pact but aimed against the GCC-Egypt-Jordan camp. That’s why Turkey was invited to the Arab summit in Libya. There, a proposed Arab Neighborhood Policy took aback the GCC-Egypt-Jordan group. ANP was meant to co-opt Tehran and Ankara into the Arab club, chiefly to weaken Riyadh and Cairo and boost the Iran-Syria line.

The proposal was aborted for breaching Arab League bylaws and soliciting outside parties against the Cairo-Riyadh tandem.

With the “New Middle East” still taking shape, it’s too early to determine its directions. But some sound bombs have shuffled the cards already.

The Muslim Brothers, who will set policy in Cairo for the next four years, are traditional allies of the Iranian regime, hostile to the West and opposed to peace with Israel. They signaled their readiness to change their positions. So how will the “New Cairo” deal with the three sides, i.e. Iran, the West and Israel?

In numerous statements, the Muslim Brothers and Salafists expressed their commitment to the peace treaty with Israel and a special relationship with the West. Which leaves Iran. But looming crises -- such as war with Iran, continued conflict with Israel and Iraq’s explosive situation – will unveil the true colors of the Muslim Brothers and Salafists in due time.

As for Turkey, her options to build new game plans are wide open. She has two dangerous front lines, one with Syria, the other with Iraq. She has to reconsider her old policy.

The Middle East thus looks set for a makeover – perhaps for the better or maybe not.