This says it all.
BTW, Foreign Affairs is simply the very best scholarly journal there is
about world events. I am a subscriber and recommend it highly.
Best experts in all fields --nations, regions, cultures--
and everything well written and thoroughly researched.
I am especially appreciative that, among other things, the articles in the
journal
rarely refer to MSM stereotypes in their reporting or analysis. Like the
word
"fundamentalism" which is tossed around by so many journalists as if they
knew what they are talking about. Hence, say the word "fundamentalism"
and most people assume --while not understanding the world, either--
what it means or may mean in different contexts.
Here we have an article that is all about so-called "fundamentalists" in
Islam
which makes it clear just what is going on by not misusing that word as a
catch-all for anything that the press dislikes and is judged to be narrow
minded.
Anyway, an outstanding article guaranteed to make it clear that US media
stories
about the "Arab Spring" have just about all been superficial , based
largely on
wishful thinking, and half-baked.
The outcomes in each country have been manipulated behind the scenes by
the Saudis on behalf of Wahhabi interests. All the while as the MSM
has said nothing about this reality.
Nothing.
And, O yes, the United States has been paying to undermine democracy
in Arab countries --every time someone fills up the family car with
gasoline.
Which, of course, neither party has much interest in actually doing
anything about.
Billy
-------------------------------------------------------------
Foreign Affairs
Saudi Arabia's Invisible Hand
in the Arab Spring
How the Kingdom is Wielding Influence Across the Middle East
_John R. Bradley_ (http://www.foreignaffairs.com/author/john-r-bradley)
October 13, 2011
On October 4, a brief, ominous release came from the state-controlled Saudi
Press Agency in Riyadh acknowledging that there had been violent clashes
in the eastern city of Qatif between restive Shiites and Saudi security
forces. It reported that "a group of instigators of sedition, discord and
unrest" had assembled in the heart of the kingdom's oil-rich region, armed
with
Molotov cocktails. As authorities cleared the protesters, 11 officers were
wounded. The government made clear it would respond to any further dissent
by "any mercenary or misled person" with "an iron fist." Meanwhile, it
pointed the finger of blame for the riots at a "foreign country," a thinly
veiled reference to archrival Iran.
Saudi Arabia has played a singular role throughout the Arab Spring. With a
guiding hand -- and often an iron fist -- Riyadh has worked tirelessly to
stage manage affairs across the entire region. In fact, if there was a
moment of the Arab revolt that sounded the death knell for a broad and rapid
transition to representative government across the Middle East, it came on the
last day of February, when Saudi tanks rolled across the border to help
put down the mass uprising that threatened the powers that be in neighboring
Bahrain. The invasion served an immediate strategic goal: The show of force
gave Riyadh's fellow Sunni monarchy in Manama the muscle it needed to keep
control of its Shia-majority population and, in turn, its hold on power.
But that was hardly the only advantage King Abdullah bin Abdulaziz Al-Saud
gained. The aggression quelled momentum in Saudi Arabia's oil-rich eastern
province among the newly restive Shia minority who had been taking cues
from Bahrain. The column of tanks also served as a symbolic shot across the
bow of Iran: The brazen move was a clear signal from Riyadh to every state in
the Middle East that it would stop at nothing, ranging from soft diplomacy
to full-on military engagement, in its determination to lead a region-wide
counterrevolution.
>From the Arab Spring's beginning, Riyadh reached directly into local
conflicts. As far back as January, the kingdom offered refuge to Tunisia's
deposed leader, Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali. Eager that popular justice not become
the norm for Arab dictators, Riyadh has steadfastly refused to extradite Ben
Ali to stand trial. (He remains in Riyadh to this day.) Moreover, Ben Ali's
statements, issued through his lawyer, have consistently called on
Tunisians to continue the path of "modernization." For fear of upsetting his
Saudi
hosts, he has not been able to express what must be his horror as a
secularist at the dramatic emergence of Ennahda ("Awakening"), the main
Islamist
party, on the Tunisian political scene. Ennahda's meteoric rise is widely
believed to be, at least in part, bankrolled by Saudi Arabia and other
Persian Gulf countries.
Islamists across the region are working in Riyadh's favor.
Islamists across the region are working in Riyadh's favor. As with the fall
of former Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, the Saudis gained newfound
influence with the Muslim Brotherhood and its even more hard-line Salfi
allies, who reportedly take funds from the Saudis. The Muslim Brotherhood has
vaulted to prominence in the post-Mubarak era. It draws hundreds of thousands
to rallies. It looks set to sweep forthcoming elections. After all, it is
telling that Muslim Brotherhood members took refuge in Saudi Arabia during
the decades of persecution under former Egyptian President Gamal Abdel
Nasser. Today, the party makes a good partner for Riyadh, as it never utters
even a whisper of criticism of what more radical Islamist outfits denounce as
the Saudi royal family's treacherous ties with the West. If Saudi Arabia
desperately backed Mubarak to his last days, in post-revolutionary Egypt the
kingdom is now closely connected to the country's new political power
brokers.
All of this makes the situation in Yemen look quite familiar. When
President Ali Abdullah Saleh was injured in the June bombing of his
presidential
palace, he fled to (where else?) Saudi Arabia. When Saleh returned to his
country last month, he found himself more indebted to Riyadh than ever.
Essentially, Saudi medics had saved his life, and in a tribal region such
personal debts are not quickly forgotten. But Saleh may not matter much: In
the
capital of Sana'a, the exhausted protesters have largely departed the main
square they had occupied. It has been taken over by activists from Islah (or,
the Islamist Congregation for Reform), the country's main Islamist party.
Islah was founded by leading members of the powerful, Saudi-backed Hashid
tribal confederation, whose decision to turn against Saleh was a key moment
in the uprising. Whichever side emerges triumphant from the power struggle
now under way, the Saudis have both eventualities -- either Saleh or the
Hashids -- covered.
Looking at the future of the Middle East, perhaps the most decisive change
could come in Syria. It was with a heavy dose of irony that King Abdullah
condemned Syria for the murderous crackdown Damascus was waging against its
own popular rebellion in early August. Of course, Riyadh has a less than
exemplary human rights record, to say the least. Likewise, King Abdullah's
announcement that he was withdrawing Saudi Arabia's ambassador to Damascus
was less a protest against the savage brutality of the Syrian regime (if it
was at all) as it was another chapter in Riyadh's ongoing effort to loosen
Iran's grasp on the region's counterrevolution. The simultaneous decision by
fellow Gulf Cooperation Council members -- Kuwait and Bahrain -- to
likewise withdraw their ambassadors, followed by a communiqué from the Arab
League expressing predictably muted misgivings about Damascus' ongoing
massacres, indicated the kingdom's ability to line up allies and make them
dance to
the tune of the regional powerhouse.
If the Syrian regime collapses (which is hardly imminent but appearing more
and more possible as peaceful demonstrations give way to armed
insurrection), it would mean the end not only of a brutal dictatorship but
also of the
only other ostensibly secular Arab country apart from Tunisia -- another
boon for Riyadh. However, in light of Saudi Arabia's hardened stance, the
real question is what it envisions would happen in Syria if the regime were
overthrown. Riyadh's hope, clearly, is that a post-Assad Syria would align
itself with a new Sunni-led, more anti-Iran government in Damascus. That may
be hoping against hope, at least in the short term, because Syria is more
likely to descend into a bloody, sectarian-driven civil war than witness a
smooth transition to a new government. Riyadh, though, is banking on the
Muslim Brotherhood and its allies ultimately coming out on top. It is
certainly true that, since most Syrians are Sunnis and the Muslim Brotherhood
is
the best organized of the opposition groups, they are the most likely to
fill the vacuum in the long term.
If the Arab Spring had any hope of ushering in greater freedom and
democracy, it would have had to challenge from the beginning the influence of
Saudi
Arabia, the region's Washington-allied superpower and its most
antidemocratic, repressive regime. That is a tall order indeed. The tragic
irony of
the uprisings is that the exact opposite happened.
--
Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community
<[email protected]>
Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism
Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org
