LESSONS FROM THE ARAB SPRING
The events unfolding in North Africa and the Middle East are often referred to nowadays as the most remarkable phenomenon in global affairs of the 21st century. The transformation processes which shook the region reflect a quite natural desire of people there to live in a better social environment, have more opportunities for self-expression, participate in political life and enjoy economic welfare – an aspiration that they should not be deprived of, and we, the international community, should strongly support.
Experts have long ago started pointing to the fragility of authoritarian regimes in a number of Arab countries and high probability of social and political turmoil. In fact, Russian diplomacy was highlighting that prospect as early as 2010. But it was indeed hardly possible to predict the scale and rapidness of the wave of change that hit the region. In my view, the lesson is clear: today, no state in the region or beyond is immune to social perturbations unless it modernises itself, addresses acute socio-economic and political problems left unresolved for decades and satisfies basic needs of the population.
These processes are far from being completed, and it seems rather difficult to assess their further evolution since they are often accompanied by painful civilisational, ethnic and confessional as well as economic and political fractures putting regional stability at risk.
In this regard, it is yet too early to make final judgement on the lessons of the Arab Spring: it is not easy to mentally put aside specific aspects and see the picture as a whole – in other words, to see the forest behind the trees. For that, we need to wait for constitutional transformations and planned democratic elections and see the path political forces that are coming to power will choose.
The role of the international community, to put it briefly, is to help the transformation period bring the Arab world more gains than losses. Russia – maybe better than any other country – knows the true price of revolutions. We are aware of the fact that revolutionary changes inevitably mean not only a rollback in social and economic development, but also human suffering and sacrifices. That is why we stand for a gradual and peaceful transformation in the region of North Africa and the Middle East.
Surprisingly, this is not obvious for everybody. As mass popular movements were growing in the region, two major approaches came to dominate first the expert discussions on which course of action external players and the international community as a whole should choose, and later practical steps of states as well – either help the people of the region define their future on their own or, making use of the softening, or de-facto collapse of the previously too rigid regimes, try to shape a new political reality to their own liking.
Recent events have made it obvious once more that attempts to impose democracy from the outside can – and often do – produce an exactly opposite result. It wakes up underground forces, including religious extremists, who try to change the vector of a certain country’s development and challenge its secular system.
Examples are abundant. Take the complicated situation in Iraq and the still unresolved crisis in Afghanistan. There is more than enough evidence that things have not been running smoothly in Libya since the overthrow of Muammar Gaddafi. The wave of instability has reached countries further down in the Sahel-Sahara region. I may only mention the situation in Mali. Egypt, the historic leader of the Arab world and for decades the lynchpin of whatever fragile stability in the Middle East, a country where the actual transition of power was not accompanied by large outbreaks of violence, is still far from calm waters. The recent political turmoil over the parliamentary and subsequent presidential elections has minimised Egypt’s regional standing. Besides, reports of a growing number of ethnic clashes and violations of rights of the Christian community cannot but cause concern.
Perhaps, I should also refer to events that have been unfolding in Bahrain in the last several days (that are notably almost totally ignored by Western media), with the police violently cracking down on peaceful demonstrators.
There are more than enough reasons to adopt a balanced and moderate approach towards today’s most acute situation in the region – the Syrian crisis. Naturally, after what happed in Libya, it has become impossible to follow the pattern of vague decisions in the UN Security Council which leave free space for arbitrary interpretation. The Libyan people still feel the consequences of irresponsible actions by some of our partners. It is also a lesson, in a way.
That is why it is important to understand what is really going on in Syria and what can be done to overcome the current painful stage of its history. Unfortunately, there is still a lack of qualified and fair analysis of the events in Syria and their possible implications. Instead, we often have to deal with black-and-white propaganda clichés. At the same time, one should ask oneself – how does the government that has allegedly lost popular support manage to stay in power for more than a year despite far-reaching sanctions adopted by its main economic partners? If fear were the only reason, why did not it help other authoritarian rulers?
Obviously, the Syrian leadership bears the main responsibility for the crisis that hit the country. It had not embarked on the road of reforms in time and had not drawn necessary lessons from the deepest changes affecting the region. That is correct. However, another factor is true as well. Syria is a multiconfessional state where Sunni and Shia Muslims live side by side with Alawis, Orthodox and other Christians, Druses and Kurds. And undisputedly, over the last decades freedom of worship has de facto existed in Syria. Today, however, representatives of religious minorities fear that this tradition can be broken if the regime is overthrown. Indeed, historically Syria was never at the bottom of the list in any rating of human rights and basic freedoms. In fact, its place was much higher than that of some countries whose leaders today try to give Damascus lessons of democracy.
So, without the slightest reason or inclination to act as an advocate of the Syrian President, I would challenge those who see the only way to settle the crisis in forcing Bashar al Assad out of power immediately despite the will of quite a large part of the Syrians associating their welfare and security with the current regime, and claim that the most probable outcome of this course of events would be Syria sinking into the chaos of a protracted and bloody civil war with unpredictable consequents for the broader Middle East region. The role of responsible external actors should be that of helping the Syrian people avoid this and ensure that a Syrian-led political process leads to a transition that meets the legitimate aspirations of the Syrian people and enables them independently and democratically to determine their own future.
It is obvious that continued, and perhaps numerically expanded presence of UN observers is essential. That is precisely why Russia has submitted a draft UN Security Council Resolution to that effect. And this view was fully supported by the Special Envoy Kofi Annan during his talks in Moscow over the last two days.
In the real conditions of today’s Syria, orientation towards unilateral support of the opposition, and particularly of its most militant part, will not lead to a rapid establishment of peace in this country and hence is contrary to the goal of protecting civilian population. It seems as if elements of a big regional geopolitical game dominate here. The latest piece of evidence confirming that conclusion has been the attempt to turn the UN observer mission into a bargaining chip, coupled with blackmailing Russia and China over a possible UN Security Council Resolution. Instead of rushing towards further sanctions and insisting on engaging Chapter VII of the UN Charter, thus opening the road to armed intervention, Western countries should live up to their commitments taken at the Geneva meeting of the Action Group on Syria, namely (and I quote) to “apply joint and sustained pressure on the parties in Syria” in order to secure full implementation of Kofi Annan’s 6-point plan and Security Council Resolutions 2042 and 2043. Without that, I dare say, bloodshed such as what we have been seeing in Damascus these last few days will go on. If we wish above all to stop the bloodshed, and that is exactly what we should focus on, notably seek a durable ceasefire first of all and contribute to launching an inclusive pan-Syrian dialogue to enable the Syrians themselves to elaborate a formula for a peaceful resolution of the crisis. That explains the Russian position on Syria.
In this regard, Yemen is a glaring example of how crisis situations can be settled. There, the parties directly involved managed to reach a compromise following long and strenuous efforts and thanks to the important role of the Gulf Cooperation Council. Yemen’s example has proved: to settle an internal conflict, all parties directly involved should be confident that the international community will act on the basis of firm principles, speaking with one voice and seeking to stop the violence and ensure conflict settlement through a comprehensive dialogue.
Only thus can the Middle East region be prevented from descending into bloody wars and anarchy and stay, as some like to say now, on the right side of history. We are confident that other scenarios implying outside interference in Syria – from blocking undesirable TV channels to piling sanctions upon restrictions to scaling up arms supplies to the opposition forces and air strikes – none of that will bring peace, neither to Syria, nor to the region as a whole.
We also cannot afford to forget the remaining protracted conflicts in the region, first and foremost the Israeli-Palestinian one. Clearly, the ongoing large-scale transformation in the Arab world does not contribute to their resolution. True, everyone is preoccupied today with acute domestic problems. At the same time, it seems like certain international actors are so much engaged in the Libyan and Syrian cases that they have no time left to address chronic regional conflicts. Meanwhile, progress in settling the Palestinian problem could improve the general atmosphere in the Middle East, ease confrontation and calm down extremist sentiments.
And another, more general observation. The Arab revolutions show a clear tendency in those countries towards going back to the historic roots of their civilisation. At this stage, it is reflected in broad public support for parties and movements acting under the banner of Islam. Actually, this phenomenon goes beyond the Arab world: suffice is to mention Turkey that increasingly tends to position itself as a self-standing centre of power and a prominent actor in the Muslim world and in the broader Middle East region. In the context of a multidimensional geopolitical reality where no single system is able to dominate economics, politics and ideology on a global scale, we can expect still higher weight of the factor of civilisational identity in global affairs.
With regard to practical politics, it can only mean one thing: attempts to impose one’s own system of values upon others have absolutely no chance of success and can only result in a dangerous increase in intercivilisational frictions. Of course, that is not to say that we should fully abandon exercising influence upon each other. But this should be done in a fair and open manner through enhancing the export of one’s own culture, education and research while fully respecting civilisational values of other nations as a prerequisite for maintaining the world’s diversity.
I would like to conclude on an optimistic note, expressing the hope that the changes taking place today in many countries of the region of North Africa and Middle East will have a positive effect and will ultimately let us see these countries get stronger and enter a qualitatively new stage of political, social and economic development. I am confident that it is in the interest of all the international community.
