“ 'tis ripened winter crop. Sun got unleashed, and dissipated streams 'round”
I.Ilf and E.Petrov
The Little Golden Calf
Political landscape of the Middle East today reminds of a land ploughed and partially sowed with the edge cutting technologies. In the center on the bottomland meadows of Nile - the greens are rich. But it’s not clear yet what springs up – useful democratic grains or Salafi weeds.
In Maghreb, the land of the sunset, the sowing is random, on two contrasting plots but with similar results. The green dominates both in Libya and in former white-blue Tunisia. But this is not the green of the “Green book” shade or the color of tourists’ umbrellas at Djebra island – it’s a color of Islamic headbands. Liberated inhabitants of Benghazi started to build a new life discussing a vitally important topic of sexual minorities and their attitude made a contrasting difference to that of the tolerant Europe. Apparently, representatives of gay communities have to wait long to be elected into Arabic parliaments. What an alarming sign!
In Mashriq, the land of sunrise, the landscape is not so idyllic. In Iraq the seeds of democracy have to bore the poor soil asphalted by tracks of American tanks. Beirut and Damascus are the front-line cities where the land is shaken by explosions. In Yemen, the country of 1001 nights tales and mud-brick towers of Shibam and Seiyun, the touch string of a bomb, laid under a stodgy building of tribal democracy of kingship in the Arabic (Persian) Gulf, is already burning with sparkles and hisses.
Nearby, on the other coast of the Persian (Arabic) Gulf is Iran, a country of the victorious democratic Islamism (Shiism).
A bit to the North is Turkey - a country with an Islamic (Sunnite) democracy and an island of stability on the edge of a rampant and simmering region
Still farther is Afghanistan, smelling with gun powder and opium and loud with explosions.
The only common feature on this picture is an alarmingly thickening greenish gloom of civil wars and revolutions.
Bifurcated reality
Weird beginning for a serious article?
Possibly.
But not more weird than the current phenomenon of the Middle East. “Arab spring” that only yesterday promised so much to the world, suddenly stumbled in Libya and went to a skid in Syria. And then the life turned contradictory to our perceptions. All of a sudden parliamentary elections were won by not exactly the right guys or exactly not the right guys. Democratically elected leadership of oil-reach Cyrenaica decided to separate from the brothers-in-arms in Tripoli. It can hardly improve the situation in Iraq, that only conventionally is a unified state.
The further – the more. A unity in the Arab League deeply cracked on Sunnites- Shiites line. As a consequence, moderate and radical forces in Arab world started to trade places. Peaceful Sunnites of the Gulf today openly support a strike on a radically Shia Iran.
All in all – everything got mixed up in the Arab house. And it’s impossible to tell the riot from revolution, moderate from radical, humanitarian interventions from subversive activities against legally elected governments.
Under such unusual (putting it mildly) conditions, quotations from I.Ilf and E. Petrov works come to the mind faster than phrases of Z. Brzezinski and F.Fukuyama.
Though, I’ve been too hasty about Fukuyama. In a wonderful article “The Future of history”, published in January issue of “Russia in Global Policy” he formulated two points that, in my opinion, touch upon significant characteristics of the algorithms defining the new reality in Arab world. The first point is the following – in the phase of a long-term transformation, entered by the region, the mobilization functions performed in Europe by nationalism under similar historical conditions, in the Middle East will be undertaken by a religion. The second point – in the functioning market economy democracy turns into a commodity.
Ideas expressed by Fukuyama are, as always, questionable. And that’ the plus for them. It’s high time to “fit test” events in Arab world on the experience and the logic of the global historical process (which, in principle, improves the possible forecasting of their further development). First of all it refers to Fukuyama’s interpretation of the paradox that Islamists seized the initiative at the Middle East. The logic is the following: the system of international relations in Europe since 1648 (Westphalian peace) was based on the respect of sovereignty of nations-states. In the present conditions, due to the erosion of sovereignty notion, that was induced by Europe itself (after EU creation), and globalization of human rights issues, the role of an accelerator for modernization transformation of the Arab world can be play be a religion, including Islam.
In general it seems that in the Middle East variant for the equation “sovereignty-democracy” the denominator (peacemaker) can be represented by Islam. But subject to the condition that current tensions between Sunnites and Shiites shall not reach a chronic phase with a political overtone.
Fukuyama rightfully mentioned that there are fewer differences between two denominations in Islam than dogmatic and ceremonial differences between Catholics and Protestants. But Europe managed to finish the wars of Counter-Reformation by twined agreements: in Munster – on political issues and in Osnabruck – on religious tolerance. This actually made the Westphalian peace a starting point in the formation of modern Europe as a democratic commonwealth of nations following the basic principles of international law that with the time became universal.
The Great Middle East needs its own Westphalian peace.
Under the “Arab spring” environment, that aggravated the problem of ethnic and religious minorities, agreements on the inter-confessional modus vivendi, possibly even on a larger scale, become the ultimate prerequisite for the progress of democratization and associated general recovery of regional situation.
Of course, we mean the process rather than a result.
Syrian knot
In the logic of the regional situation development the crisis in Syria, mainly populated by Sunnites but with a Shia’s (Alawi) minority at power, made the next foothold on national sovereignty and democracy confrontation. It outstands by the active involvement of Iran and Turkey into Syrian affairs. These countries hold the opposite sides of barricades and by many are perceived as informal leaders of Shia and Sunni denominations in Islam.
In the early period of “Arab spring” it even caused rumors about a certain “triangle” of regional states with a possible radical program. Though, afterward Turkey, that only yesterday maintained a productive dialog with Damascus ,decisively consolidated with opponents of B.Asada regime and speculations on the axis Teheran-Damascus-Ankara lost the topicality.
Of course, for Iran the Ba’ath regime in Syria – the last stronghold of Arab nationalism remains an important ally. But it’s a tactical unit, a kind of a marriage of convenience. The commonality of both countries is first of all manifested by the similar approach to the regional agenda where the liberation of Golan Heights, occupied by Israel, is a priority issue for Damascus. Therefore – the aspiration to conduct an independent policy and rejection of an outside dictate. While the understanding of a development vector (theocracy or secular state) differs significantly in Damascus and Teheran.
The zigzags of Turkey’s line in Syrian affairs (as well as its regional policy as a whole) are predefined by a complex of external and internal factors that often go the opposite ways. Among them are historically complicated relations with neighbors, presence of 12 million of Alawi minority in border regions with Syria, Kurds and Turkomen, solidarity with NATO allies and the understanding of inevitable democratic transformation in the region. The attitude of Turkey follows the changes in these factors.
In Syrian situation, Turkey, due to its ambivalent Eurasian
“demo-Islamic” self-identification, has to maneuver to avoid the key threat of a direct involvement into the force action against Iran. But in no case this diminishes the intermediary potential of Ankara – rather vice versa.
Under the current conditions only Turkey with its growing authority in the region and in the world is able to act as a mediator between Shiites and Sunnites, Iran and «Gulfists» or mainly Saudi Arabia as the safekeeper of key Islamic relics. The mission of C.Annan acting as a co-representative of UNO and AL in Syria offers beneficial perspectives thereto.
The arguments against this development of events are clear. The intensity of anti-Iran emotions in the Gulf is also clear with a due justification. But it’s also obvious that the escalation of tension around Iran and Syria brings the world to a dangerous line.
It’s time to stop.
These words express the position of Russia towards the current crisis in Syria. Defending these positions we have sometimes to go against the stream acting as a constructive opponent to our partners in the USA and European Union. But, maybe, just those heated discussions give birth to the democratization of international relations, to the introduction of pluralistic principles into the interstate communications that already became universal on the national level.
Russia has a centuries-long experience in a compromised regulation of inter-ethnic and inter-confession conflicts. Our position on the crises in Iran and Syria is impregnated with genetic memories of wars in the Caucasus in XIX century, participation in the “Big Game” on the Middle East, Afghanistan epopee, two Chechen wars and many other things. We won and lost wars and we know that in a historical horizon the use of force is not the solution for the problem, but surrender to it.
The seeds of democracy will come up in the Middle East if we not stop them from ripening.
