COMMENT Arab autocrats aiding
terrorism By Emile Nakhleh
The rising specter of terrorism in Syria
shows that by clinging to power and refusing to
implement meaningful reforms, Arab autocrats in
Syria, Bahrain, and elsewhere are indirectly
contributing to the resurgence of terrorism in
their societies. Arab protests started peacefully,
but almost in every country regime repression and
torture ultimately pushed popular revolts toward
violence.
This cynical calculus allowed
Arab autocrats to claim that protests were
directed from the outside and resistance was the
work of terrorist groups. In Egypt and Tunisia,
regimes fell while popular protests were still
peaceful.
In Yemen and Libya, regimes
refused to leave and instead used bloody
repression. While they failed to quell protests, some
opposition groups were
forced to militarize. In Bahrain and Syria,
regimes have changed the narrative from human
rights and reform to sectarianism, using the
divide and rule approach. Their self-fulfilling
prophecy of terrorism has come to pass because of
their conscious policy to discredit the opposition
and shore up their legitimacy.
While
successful in the short-run, this policy is
destined to fail in the long run. Domestic
terrorist groups that could emerge from the
opposition would not only target regime assets;
they will go after the United States' and other
Western economic interests and personnel in those
countries.
In Bahrain, for instance, Sunni
vigilantes and even some government officials are
encouraged by elements within the ruling family to
direct their anger against Americans for their
perceived support of pro-reform dissidents. Some
regime conservatives increasingly view the
Americans, the Shi'ite majority, and Iran as an
unholy alliance undermining the Khalifa rule.
The recently appointed Minister of
Information Samira Rajab is anti-Shi'ite,
anti-American and a fan of former Iraqi leader
Saddam Hussein. She blames foreign media and
outside provocateurs for the problems in her
country - a similar narrative to that of the
Bashir al-Assad regime in Syria.
The
traditional faction within the Bahraini ruling
family, including the prime minister, is turning
to Saudi Arabia for support. The king and his son
the crown prince Salman are committed to an
independent and more inclusive country.
Unfortunately, they have been marginalized by the
older members of the family council and their
younger xenophobic Sunni supporters.
By
inviting Bahrain's crown prince to Washington last
week, the administration was sending a signal to
the conservative faction that it still supports
the king and his son and their plan to seek
meaningful dialogue with the opposition. The other
part of Washington's message is that the
resumption of some arms shipments that were halted
after last year's uprising applied to the coast
guard and would not be used against the Bahraini
people.
It gave Salman something to take
back, but indirectly signaled to the old guard
that the young prince, not his great uncle, is the
preferred interlocutor with Washington. To save
face, the old guard has touted the release of the
arms as a sign that they are still in Washington's
graces.
It's clear that Saudi Arabia is
trying to expand its hegemony over the rest of the
Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), beginning with
Bahrain. Prime Minister Prince Khalifa Bin Salman
Al Khalifa and his supporters within the ruling
family no longer seem to care about the
sovereignty of Bahrain or its historically liberal
tradition. Their main concern is their own
survival. In the 1980s I wrote a book on the GCC
and highlighted some of the challenges that would
face the organization down the line. I'm afraid,
it's coming home to roost.
If the proposed
Saudi-Bahraini federation is concluded, Bahrain
would cease to exist as an independent state and
would become a province under Saudi suzerainty.
The Saudis and their Khalifa quislings would
expand their repression of the Shi'ite community
and Sunni human-rights activists in the name of
fighting Shi'ism and Iran. The opposition will
likely arm, and domestic terrorist groups would
emerge in both countries.
In Syria,
human-rights protests similarly started peacefully
but have been forced to defend themselves with
arms confiscated from the military and obtained
from the outside. The Assad regime continues to
kill and torture civilians. Like Bahrain, Assad is
blaming foreign provocateurs and terrorists for
the bloodshed. The regime's acceptance of the
former UN secretary Kofi Annan's plan is a ruse to
placate the international community and buy the
regime more time.
The Annan plan is doomed
to fail because the regime views the domestic
situation as a zero-sum game. It believes its
survival can only be assured through continued
repression and control. Negotiating with the
opposition is a fantasy that Assad cannot afford
to indulge in if his Alawite minority rule is to
survive.
Since 9/11, Arab autocrats have
cooperated closely on counter-terrorism with the
US and other Western countries. At the same time,
they branded domestic dissidents and pro-democracy
activists as radicals and urged western
governments not to fret over their harsh tactics
against their citizens.
Arab regimes
mistakenly thought that autocracy, not democracy,
was critical for fighting terrorism and that
Western support for human rights in Arab countries
would dilute such an effort. Because Arab
autocrats were pliant partners, Western
governments, unfortunately, became addicted to
autocracy, which in turn helped autocrats become
more entrenched.
Arab rulers seem to
forget that many non-Western democracies,
including Muslim Indonesia and Turkey, also have
been strong partners with Western governments in
fighting terrorism. The fall of the dictators in
Egypt, Tunisia, Yemen, and Libya would not
preclude these countries from fighting terrorism.
Arab Islamic autocrats cooperate in the
fight against terrorism to preserve their rule;
whereas democracies do so to protect their
societies and way of life.
Washington and
other Western capitals should make it clear to the
remaining Arab dictators, in word and in deed that
the game is up. They must implement genuine
political reform or step aside. The world cannot
tolerate a resurgence of terrorism because of
their repressive rule and sectarian politics.
(This article is run
courtesy of Lobelog Foreign
Policy, a project of Inter Press Service
(IPS) and Jim Lobe, who has served as Washington
DC correspondent and chief of the Washington
bureau, IPS.)
Head
Office: Unit B, 16/F, Li Dong Building, No. 9 Li Yuen Street East,
Central, Hong Kong Thailand Bureau:
11/13 Petchkasem Road, Hua Hin, Prachuab Kirikhan, Thailand 77110
