In each case the authoritarian rulers assert that there were foreign conspiracies against their regimes. Of course, the most convenient culprits were always America and Israel. Although America has restored its ties with Libya and enjoyed a cozy relationship with Gaddhafi's regime in recent years, it was not until eastern Libya fell to the revolutionary forces that America joined other Western powers in calling for the Libyan dictator to step down. No Western leader wanted to repeat the shameful performance of either silence or tacit support for the Ben Ali and Mubarak regimes almost to the end.
America's primary strategic interest in Yemen centered on
fighting Al-Qaeda and its affiliates. As the Saleh regime has become one of the
most important U.S. allies in the region since 9/11, his charge that America was
conspiring against him was laughable.
America has been opposing Syria's foreign policy for decades,
especially its strategic alliance with Iran, Hizbollah in Lebanon, and the
Palestinian resistance movements. But for over two months after the protests
started the U.S. administration has yet to embrace regime change in Syria like
it did in Libya. The Syrian regime's assertion of a foreign conspiracy against
it due to its foreign policy might be true. But that's hardly news. What is most
certainly true is that the massive protests in the Syrian cities, towns, and
villages were expressions of the people's genuine longing for freedom,
democracy, and respect for their dignity.
As the casualties mount and international condemnations of
the regimes become widespread, the dictators employ a new tactic by charging
that there are armed "Islamic terrorist" groups tied to Al-Qaeda who are killing
the protesters and wreaking havoc upon society. In both Yemen and Syria, no one
was asking why only the anti-regime protesters were being killed or tortured at
the hands of these groups.
In Yemen, it was clear that the regime allowed some marginal
militant groups to take over a small town to kowtow the West into supporting it
to remain in power. In Syria, bodies of dozens of army officers turned up with
the claim that they were killed by these terrorist salafist groups. No one
questioned the fact that salafist groups in Syria have never favored a militant
approach nor had they presented themselves as an alternative to the regime. It
turned out that most of these army casualties were the result of on-site
execution style by high-ranking officers to those army recruits or low ranking
officers who refused to shoot at the protesters.
In an attempt to divide the people and polarize the society,
the regimes often played the sectarian card in a desperate attempt to pit one
side of society against the other, Sunnis against Alawites in Syria, Shias
against Sunnis in Bahrain, Sunnis against Zaydis in Yemen. Wisely, the majority
of the people in Syria and Yemen never fell for it as they continued to chant
"We are all one."
Ultimately, the main strategy of each regime is to regain the
initiative from the streets so they continue to use these different tactics in
order to split the opposition or wear down the people. Endless promises, delay
tactics, and old style propaganda techniques and maneuvers are utilized.
President Saleh employed his infamous delaying schemes to wear down the
opposition, thus promising to step down five different times as a result of the
Gulf Cooperation Council initiative, only to renege each time. Eventually, the
GCC itself completely abandoned its own initiative. The Syrian president
officially lifted the state of emergency. Yet since then, over 1200 people have
lost their lives and over 12,000 have been detained without trial. Ele ctricity as well as water and phone lines were cut off from
some cities that were under siege by the military for many days.
Each regime would further warn that the choice was not
between it and democracy, but rather between it and total anarchy. They caution
that if the regime falls, the society would then face unknown dangers that
threaten regional stability as well as foreign interests. Western governments
are especially vulnerable and sensitive to this threat, as they favor stability
and buy into the fear of the rising power and danger of Islamic groups. The
Tunisian and Egyptian experiences clearly exposed this ploy as a ruse.
Watching Hosni Mubarak, his sons, and other high-ranking officials
in Egypt dragged to prison and tried for political and financial corruption
solidified in the minds of these regimes the fate that awaits them. In essence,
the dictators and their cronies are fighting, not just to stay in power, but
also to literally escape punishment for their crimes.
Recently, Assad's cousin, Rami Makhlouf, a billionaire and business
tycoon infamous for his financial corruption practices, told the New York Times, "The decision of the
government now is that they decided to fight." He then continued, "As a person,
each one of us knows we cannot continue without staying united together. We will
sit here. We call it a fight until the end." He added later, "They should know
when we suffer, we will not suffer alone." Thus, this recognition by the most
corrupt elements in society that their fate is tied to the ruthless regime makes
the task for peaceful reforms or revolutionary change even harder to
realize.
But perhaps the most brutal and effective tactic to derail
any peaceful revolution is to drag the country into civil war. Col. Gaddhafi
used this tactic very early on in his confrontation with the opposition. He
promised not only to unleash the most sophisticated weapons in his arsenal
against his people, but also to hunt down every protester until they
unconditionally surrender. He further employed mercenaries that reportedly
killed hundreds of innocent civilians. In this endeavor, he relied on his sons
and other close relatives to lead the deadly military campaigns against the
opposition.
His message was simple: either my rule or chaos and death.
Although the opposition was not deterred and fought back with Western and
regional support, the damage to the cause of peaceful revolutionary change was
incalculable. There is no doubt that the Gaddhafi regime will inevitably fall.
But the real question is: at what price? After the bloody confrontation, could
the revolution in Libya still be able to claim the moral high ground? If not,
then how would the revolutionaries claim it back? Could they still assert their
independence?
Meanwhile the Yemeni dictator has been bracing for a fight.
He used the elite presidential guards unit led by his son, as well as other
military battalions led by his nephews, to harass the protesters during their
massive demonstrations. Despite the many attempts to draw the peaceful
protesters into a violent confrontation with over 1,000 casualties, the
protesters have insisted on maintaining their peaceful strategy and have refused
to be intimidated or ensnared. Recently, President Saleh initiated a fight with
the head of the biggest Yemeni tribe, Hashed, in a brazen attempt to further
confuse the situation on the ground and change the subject. In the face of the
determined will of the Yemeni people, it seems that all his efforts to stay in
power will be in vain.
In Syria, newly defected members of the ruling party claim
that President Assad has pledged to fight till the bitter end. They claim that
the lesson of Hama during his late father's reign was not lost on the young
president. In 1982, an insurrection in the central city of Hama was met by the
elder Assad with a ruthless crack down that resulted in 20,000 dead and
thousands more injured. Maher Al-Assad, the president's younger brother has been
leading the military crack down in the last two months, while other members of
his family have been directing the death squads around the country. It seems
that this time the regime has met its match in a determined populace, and is
unable to maintain its power using brutality, intimidation and fear.
In Bahrain, the minority Sunni ruling family failed to enact
significant reforms or engage in a meaningful dialogue with its Shi'a majority
constituency. As the peaceful demonstrations grew and the security crackdowns
failed, the regime assisted by Saudi Arabia's army and other GCC troops,
employed even more repressive measures in the tiny Persian Gulf island that may
have momentarily stopped the protests, but intensified the rage and hatred of
the regime.
Regional players such as Israel and the Saudi ruling family,
as well as other international players are very nervous about the popular
discontent and the changes sweeping the region. The status quo has benefited
these regimes and the international order for a long time. But as President
Barack Obama recently observed, "The events of the past six months show us that
strategies of repression and strategies of diversion will not work anymore." He
further continued, "There are times in the course of history when the actions of
ordinary citizens spark movements for change because they speak to a longing for
freedom that has been building up for years. In too many countries, power has
been concentrated in the hands of a few."
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
1
1
1
