The Implications of Changes in the Middle East and North Africa

Dong Manyuan

The Implications of Changes in the Middle East and North Africa

Dong Manyuan

I. The Domino Effects Caused by Governmental Change in Tunisia and Egypt

Mohamed Bouazizi, a 26-year-old Tunisian university grad turned street vendor, set himself on fire in his home city on December 17th, 2010 in protest of the confiscation of his wares and the harassment and humiliation that was inflicted on him by a municipal official and her aides. This incident became a catalyst for the great unrest and regional changes across many countries in the Middle East and North Africa.

As a result of his actions, anti-government demonstrations were incited in nine large- or medium-sized cities throughout Tunisia, including the capital of Tunis, in protest of social and political issues in the country. In addition, the protesters were calling for measures to improve social well-being, curb inflation, increase employment, uphold social justice, and tackle corruption. Zine El Abidine Ben Ali, who was president at the time, ordered a military crack-down, which resulted in many casualties, but the protest went on.

In order to hold on to his power, Ben Ali took a series of measures, including imposing a curfew in the capital city, dissolving the government, and holding general elections ahead of schedule. Not being swayed by these measures, the antigovernment forces and the public increased their demands by calling for increases in democracy and Ben Ali’s abdication. Political leaders in the U.S. and the EU made repeated statements urging Ben Ali to step down in order to allow for a democratic transformation. The anti-government street movements in Tunisia were described by U.S. and European media as the “Jasmine Revolution.” On January 14th, 2011, as a result of internal and external pressures, Ben Ali was exiled to Saudi Arabia, effectively ending his 24 years of rule. The parliamentary speaker Fouad Mebazaa took over as acting president and Ben Ali’s Prime Minister, Mohamed Ghannouchi, formed a united government. On February 27th, Ghannouchi resigned as prime minister, and the 84-year-old Beji Caid-Essebsi was named his replacement. On March 3rd, the acting President Fouad Mebazaa declared that the election for the constituent assembly to formulate a new constitution would be scheduled for July 24th.

The unrest in Tunisia sparked anti-government demonstrations in Cairo, the capital of Egypt, in addition to at least ten other large- and medium-sized cities. On top of their demands to curb inflation, expand employment, investigate corrupt officials, and improve poor people’s livelihoods, the public also demanded that President Muhammad Hosni Mubarak, who had been in power for more than 30 years, step down. In response, Mubarak first ordered the police to dispel the antigovernment protesters, blocked the Internet and increased his control of the media. He also, however, appointed a vice president on an emergent basis, twice dissolved the government, and committed himself to political reform and improvement of the people’s livelihood. On top of this, Mubarak stated that he would not seek reelection after the current presidency ended. Despite this, large numbers of demonstrators continued to occupy Tahrir Square in Cairo day and night. A large number of casualties resulted from police efforts to dispel the protesters by force. Riots were incited in some places, numerous shops were looted, and treasures in the Egypt Museum were stolen. In addition, hundreds of prisoners escaped following the prison raids by some religious extremist organizations. Social order was destabilized.

The governmental changes in Tunisia and Egypt sparked a domino effect across the Middle East and North Africa.

After unrest broke out in Egypt, U.S. and EU leaders made public statements demanding that Mubarak step down. The unrest was described by the U.S. and European media as the Arab Uprising, the Arab Spring or the Arab Democratic Revolution. After losing his support from the Egyptian military, Mubarak resigned on February 11th and the military took over the government, dissolved the parliament, and suspended the Constitution. Vowing to lift a 30-year emergency state when the crisis ended, the military promised that parliamentary and presidential elections would be held no later than the end of 2011, and Mubarak was placed in hospital detention in the Red Sea resort of Sharm el-Sheikh.

The governmental changes in Tunisia and Egypt sparked a domino effect across the Middle East and North Africa. Antigovernment demonstrations or protests of different scales have taken place or are currently taking place in Libya, Syria, Yemen, Bahrain, Oman, Jordan, Algeria, Lebanon, Iraq, Sudan, Mauritania, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates and Kuwait. The unrest in Libya escalated into a war as a result of military intervention from the West. The unrest in Yemen pushed the country to the brink of civil war and fragmentation by rivaling tribes. The anti-government street movement in Syria has evolved into conflicts among different religious and ethnic groups. Government reshuffling has taken place in Oman, Jordan, Bahrain, Morocco, Kuwait and Lebanon. A 19-year state of emergency ended in Algeria and the government committed itself to giving the public sufficient democratic freedoms. Bashir, the Sudanese President, declared that he would not run in next election after his presidency ended in 2015. Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki declared that he would not run for a third term.

II. Libya, Yemen and Syria: Regional Hot Spots

Rich in oil resources and composed of hundreds of big or small tribes, Libya used to be the richest country in Africa. On September 1st, 1969, Gaddafi led the “Free Officers Organization”to launch a military coup, successfully overthrowing the Idrisid Dynasty. As a result, the Libyan Arab Republic was founded, which was renamed as the Great Socialist People’s Libyan Arab Jamahiriya in April 1986. Since then, Gaddafi was in power for 42 years. Being a maverick, Gaddafi had offended a lot of the leaders of Arab countries and had all along been opposing the United States, Israel, and other countries in the West. He was also under sanctions by the West and the UN. He adjusted his policies in the wake of the 9/11 by agreeing to mobilize $ 2.7 billion to compensate families of the 270 Lockerbie bombing victims, announcing that Libya was ending its programs to make weapons of mass destruction and supporting the U.S. and Europe’s fight against Al-Qaeda. The U.S. and Europe nevertheless still regarded him as an alien and consistently had been trying to get rid of him as soon as possible.

Beginning on January 31st, demonstrations and protests had been taking place in Benghazi, Libya’s second largest city, and Tripoli, Libya’s capital, demanding that Gaddafi to step down. Learning from the “mistakes” of Ali and Mubarak, Gaddafi insisted on cracking down on anti-government protests nationwide. Western countries, including the U.S., the UK, and France reacted to this immediately by condemning Gaddafi’s“atrocities,” claiming that “Gaddafi has lost governing legitimacy and should step down.” With support from Western countries, Libya’s opposition forces grew rapidly. Gaddafi’s regime was split and quite a few ministers and diplomatic envoys defected. On February 29th, in open opposition to the Gaddafi regime, supporters of former Justice Minister Jalil set up the“National Transition Council (NTC)” in Benghazi with an aim of “overthrowing Gaddafi and realizing democratic transition.”French President Nicolas Sarkozy took the lead in recognizing the NTC. In the several months that followed, 33 countries and international organizations announced their recognition of the NTC.

In order to realize an earlier fall of the Gaddafi regime, the U.S., UK and France pushed the UN Security Council to adopt Resolution 1970 and Resolution 1973 to impose sanctions and a “no-fly zone” against Libya. The U.S., the UK and France had stepped beyond Resolution 1973 to launch massive air strikes and other military interventions beginning on March 19th, and in the meantime had been providing Libya’s opposition forces with funding, military equipment, and personnel training. On March 31st, the United States turned over command of the operation to NATO. Encouraging France and the UK to play leading roles, the United States provided logistical support, reconnaissance, and decapitation strikes. On June 27th, the United States, the UK and France pushed the International Criminal Court to issue an arrest warrant for Gaddafi, accusing him of crimes against humanity. This also helped make the West’s military intervention seem more “l(fā)egitimate”.

From March 19th to the end of July, NATO launched over 10,000 air strikes against Libya’s government troops; the air strikes basically destroyed Libya’s surface to air missile systems as well as over 50% of the country’s tanks, heavy artillery, and armored cars. In order to defend against air strikes, the government troops changed tactics in early June by hiding their heavy weaponry and using its advantages in close fighting, night fighting, and street battles, all with a view of preserving their strength. Storing a large reserve of military resources, the government troops held fast to strongholds, such as Tripoli, preparing to give the anti-government troops a heavy blow and in the meantime imposing a heavier burden on the European NATO forces. The government troops hoped that NATO, which could no longer afford the heavy economic cost of the war and did not dare to deploy ground forces, would seek political negotiation and in this way the Libya Government could deal with the West on a more protracted basis.

Situated in the southwest of the Arabian Peninsula, Yemen has been divided and united time and time again throughout history. In July of 1994, the North united the South by force. Yemen’s President, Ali Abdullah Saleh, had been in power for 33 years. Saleh is committed to maintaining the common interest of all Arab nations and he is a hardliner in following strong anti-Israel policies and opposing Egypt and Jordan’s policy of making peace with Israel. He is also opposed to the Oslo Agreement, which was struck by Arafat of the Palestinian Liberation Organization with Israel. He supported Saddam’s move to occupy Kuwait by force. Therefore, he has long been regarded as a thorn in the flesh of the United States and Europe. The United States Navy destroyer USS Cole (DDG-67) was attacked by Al Qaeda on October 12th, 2000 while it was harbored and refueling in the Yemeni port city of Aden. The United States and Europe declared that Yemen was a ‘hotbed for terrorism’ and has since been repeatedly imposing pressure on Saleh. In the wake of 9/11, Saleh adjusted his foreign policy with an aim of improving relations with the United States. The steps he had taken included condemning Al Qaeda’s attacks on the United States, cleaning up Al Qaeda branches across the Peninsula, and supporting the Arab Peace Initiative. Yemen increased its high-level exchange of visits with the United States, the UK, France, and Germany, and its trade relations with these countries have expanded consistently. There has also been an increase in U.S. and EU economic and military assistance to Yemen. In spite of such developments, the United States and Europe still take Saleh to be a “dictator” as well as one of the“barriers” obstructing the democratization of the Arab world.

Starting on January 27th, protests against the government took place in over ten cities, including the capital city of Sana’a. The protesters accused the government of improper constitutional revision and protested again high prices, the high unemployment level, and corruption. They demanded that Saleh step down. On February 3rd, nearly 600,000 people participated in a “Friday of Rage” rally. Western politicians, including the U.S. President, the Secretary of State, the French President and the British Prime Minister, all signaled their support for the democratic demands of the Yemeni public. In response to the pressures coming from both home and abroad, Saleh made a statement saying that he would not stay beyond 2013.

Saleh’s position made the opposition forces even angrier. The Yemeni public accused him of cheating the people and demanded an immediate handover of power by al-Ahmar, the head of Hashid, Yemen’s biggest tribe, as well as the heads of some tribes in the South. On March 8th, the troops were split. Some military leaders refused to crack down on protesters. The Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) pressured Saleh to hand over power. On April 23rd, Saleh agreed to hand over power but he reneged on his commitment twice. On June 3rd, al-Ahmar ordered an attack on the Presidential Palace. Saleh, wounded in the attack, was sent to Saudi Arabia for medical treatment and Vice President Abd-Rabbu Mansour Hadi took over as acting president.

The street movement in the Middle East and North Africa was also repeated in Syria. As a major military power in the Middle East and the birthplace of the Arab revitalization movement, Syria has experienced all of the Middle Eastern wars and has all along been following anti-U.S., anti-Israel, and anti-West policies. Syria occupied Lebanon in 1976 by force, before withdrawing in 2005 under pressure from the West. Forming a “special relationship” with Iran, Syria has been assisting Hezbollah in its fight against Israel and providing the main headquarters of the Hamas movement. Resultingly, it was thus defined by the United States and Europe as a “rogue state,” a“state sponsor of terrorism,” and a “tyranny outpost.” The al-Assad family has been ruling Syria for 41 years, beginning in 1970 when Hafez al-Assad initiated the “Corrective Movement.”Bashar al-Assad, the current president, has been in power for 11 years since he took on the presidency in 2000.

Anti-government protests have been taking place since March 15th in major cities such as Damascus, Halab, Al Hasakah, Daraa, Dayr az Zawr, and Hamah. In these protests, the people have demanded political reforms and the basic protection of human rights. Over 3,000 people were arrested by the military and police. The next day, thousands of people went on with their protests in the above-mentioned cities. Syria’s Interior Ministry briefed foreign media by saying that demonstrations giving support to President Bashar took place in many places. Being very unhappy with the response measures and statements by various officials, President Bashar successively dismissed and replaced the Prime Minister, the Interior Minister, and governors of Daraa and Hamah. He ordered the military to use tanks, armored vehicles, and helicopters to put down the protests and gave the green light to the special forces to move into Umayyad mosque in Damascus to round up the organizers of the demonstrations and protests. From early April to mid June, the government forces quelled the anti-government activities in the cities of Daraa, Homs, Kyrgyz Ershu Gul and Hamah. The situation was thus basically under control. As reported by the Middle Eastern media, hundreds of people died and thousands more were injured. The casualty figure reported by Western media was even larger. Official statements by Syria accused the foreign media of exaggerating the number of casualties. After the large-scale anti-government demonstrations were suppressed, the Muslim Brotherhood, the Kurds, and the Druz carried out guerrilla wars with government troops in the North, which resulted in casualties being suffered by the military and police. The government thus stepped up its efforts to clean up the opposition and defined its military action as a fight against terrorists. The military actions of the government drove 7,000 people to seek refuge in Turkey.

When using military means to restore stability, President Bashar, in response to pressure from both home and abroad, also took some appeasement measures, including revoking the Emergency Law, announcing a general amnesty, criticizing the military for its “overreaction,” and committing his government to political reforms. But these measures were not duly appreciated by the opposition forces. The U.S. and the EU continuously exerted their influence in hope of bringing about changes in Syria. Obama repeatedly accused President Bashar of “repressing a democratic movement.” Leaders from the EU, the UK, France and Italy all echoed Obama’s statement. On April 29th, Obama, under the pretense of human rights abuses, ordered that sanctions by the U.S. be imposed on Syria’s senior officials, including President Bashar, and that the assets of these people be frozen. The EU also initiated similar sanctions against Syria.

The United Nations Human Rights Council adopted a resolution backed by 15 member states that condemned Syria. On May 20th, Obama said that President Bashar “should get out of the way.” On July 11th, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton sharpened U.S. criticism of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad by saying the Syrian leader has “l(fā)ost legitimacy.” She went on to say that “President Assad is not indispensable, and we have absolutely nothing invested in him remaining in power.”

III. Internal and External Factors Giving Rise to Regional Changes

The unrest in the Middle East and North Africa, as a result of recurrent and incurable internal and external contradictions over years, marked the biggest change in the region’s situation since 9/11 and the Iraq War. Featuring large-scale chaos, the unrest is still somewhat undefined in its nature. However, it is easy to see that internal factors are the fundamental causes and external factors are the conditions.

First, except a small number of oil producing countries, the majority of Arab countries, being unable to catch up with economic globalization, became vulnerable economic groups. Moreover, these countries’ industrial structures are limited and not complimentary. Their natural resources are scarce and the ratio between input and output is also low. All these factors result in a slow progress in terms of their comprehensive national power. As such, the countries are poor, as well as the people. The governments have no sufficient resources to stimulate economic growth and improve their people’s livelihood. Being weak in terms of international competitiveness, these countries find it impossible to get rich returns by way of various regional and cross-regional economic and trade cooperation frameworks. Although almost all Arab states have repeatedly formulated their own five-year plans or ten-year plans for economic and social development, and the leaderships have also made a lot of commitments to the people, most of them have suffered from economic deterioration resulting from the international financial crisis. In front of the crisis, the governments in this region are unable to do what the people hope them to do. Feeling fooled by the government and its leadership, people at last released their anger through protest. This is the most fundamental cause of the large-scale chaos.

The unrest is a result of recurrent and incurable internal and external contradictions over years.

Second, governments of most Arab states have been unable to address the people’s wellbeing, social justice, and corruption. First, the people are under great pressure from a high inflation rate and high prices. Between 2008 and 2010, the inflation rates of 12 Arab countries ranged between 12% and 16% and the inflation rate of Iraq was floating between 30.7% and 47.6%. Second, there are a big number of young and unemployed people who feel helpless and desperate. The average unemployment rate in the Arab world in 2010 was 14% and the unemployment rates for the young people in Egypt, Tunisia, Yemen and Algeria were floating between 35% and 45%. Third, state leaders and their families are grabbing large state assets and official corruption is rampant. Leaders of Tunisia, Egypt, Jordan and Yemen have been found to possess overseas assets and bank accounts. The judicial departments of Tunisia and Egypt have started investigations into the respective corruption cases of Ben Ali and Mubarak. Four, the gap between the rich and the poor is large with a fraction number of people being wealthy and the majority of people suffering from poverty. According to reports released by the Arab League and the UNDP, there were a total of 140 million people living under the poverty line in the Arab world in 2009. Five, the governmental, economic and social efficiencies are low and the risk is great in terms of social management and governance.

The above problems exist in almost all the Arab countries, no matter whether they are hereditary dynasties, authoritarian states or forced “electoral democracies.” And this represents the fundamental cause of this round of “street revolutions.”

Third, the extremist forces of Islamism incited the public with a view of destroying the state order. Extremist Islamist forces exist with varying strengths and influences in most Arab states, and they all advocate the overthrow of secular, corrupt and “betraying regimes,” prevention of infiltration of other ideologies and lifestyles and a “return” to the past when the prophet founded Islam so as to make the economy, politics, laws and social life all Islamic. The extremist forces, making use of the various problems and social conflicts in the Arab world, have been trying to extend their social support and add fuel to the riots by preaching and religious charity activities. Their purpose is to grab hold of power and change the ruling regime by making use of both ‘legitimate’ and terrorist tactics. In the course of the current unrest, organizations such as the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and Syria, Nahda in Tunisia, the Islamic Salvation Front in Algeria have been fixing on the question of people’s livelihoods and official corruption and calling for social justice and democratic progress. All the while, they have been artfully hiding their slogans of extremism. This way, their political influence and social base has been further expanded, constituting a potential challenge to the secular elements of the above-mentioned countries.

Fourth, the efforts made by Western countries, led by the U.S., to influence these countries in the name of “democracy,”“human rights,” and “freedom of speech” have worked. The U.S. along with Europe has never given up their efforts to introduce the Arab world to their own political systems, institutions, ideologies and lifestyles. The U.S. Administration of George W. Bush promoted the Great Middle East Initiative as well as“transformational diplomacy.” Obama, by making speeches at Cairo University and the Turkish Parliament, was selling the western values of “democracy,” “human rights,” and “freedom of speech” in addition to making a “friendly” gesture to the Islamic world. Immediately after the “street revolution” broke out in Tunisia and Egypt, leaders from the United States, Germany, France and the UK gave their support to the unrest by calling for a handover of power by Ben Ali and Mubarak. They pressured the militaries of these two countries not to take any measures of repression and later imposed pressure on the presidents of Yemen and Syria to step down with an aim of realizing a “democratic transformation.” Reports in the field on western media added fuel to the fire. In addition, internet and blogs have been playing a special part in promoting the “street revolution.”

Fifth, struggles and conflicts among different tribes and religious groups all represent an important cause for the internal unrest that has swept some Arab countries. After taking power in 1968, Gaddafi all long tried to depress the tribe of Senuss in Cyrenaica, which was the ruling foundation of the old Idrisid Dynasty. Following the West’s military intervention, the Senuss became a major force supporting the National Transition Council. The old and young diehards of the old Idrisid Dynasty hoped to be restored to power by driving away Gaddafi. The Qaddadfa tribe, which Gaddafi belonged to, used to be a small tribe and has now been transformed into the country’s third largest tribe, all thanks to Gaddafi’s 42-year rule. By collaborating with Wafrala, the largest tribe in Libya, and the Tuareg and Megraha, Qaddadfa has been controlling the distribution of the country’s power and resources. The decision by Gaddafi to kill 8 military officers of Warfala sowed the seeds of dissatisfaction among the tribe, which now no longer gives its support to Gaddafi and aims to share the country’s power after Gaddafi steps aside together with Senuss, Warfala and Megraha.

In Yemen, internal conflicts among tribes and religious groups made the political unrest even more complicated, which not only weakened the ruling foundation of President Saleh but also put the country on the brink of being divided again. Support from the Hashid tribe was the key reason for President Saleh’s 33 years of rule. The Hashid tribe is good at fighting and once organized 100,000 armed personnel to support Saleh in the 1994 civil war. The core of the Hashid tribe is the al-Ahmar family and the old al-Ahmar used to serve as the speaker of the Parliament. He died in Saudi Arabia on December 29th, 2007 and the cause of his death has been questioned. The young al-Ahmar, the successor, asserted that Saleh is accountable for his death. After anti-Saleh demonstrations broke out, the young al-Ahmar stood with the anti-government forces and lead the tribal armed force to carry out fierce fighting with the government troops in the capital city. On June 3rd, the young al-Ahmar ordered an attack on the residential palace, severely injuring Saleh. In addition to the tribes, conflicts among different religious groups are also an important reason for the potential separation of the country. Roughly 52% of Yemen’s population is Sunni Muslim and lives in the southern part of the country. Meanwhile the Shia Muslims, which account for 46% of the total population, are in the northern part of the country and control the political power and have the power to allocate the country’s resources. The Sunnis have tried many times to expand their own power, including an aborted attempt to gain independence in 1994. After unrest broke out this time, Saleh had no energy to tackle the south’s independence aspirations, which resulted in a growth of different tribal armed forces.

Unrest and chaos in Syria and Bahrain are also accompanied by complicated factors arising from religious groups. Approximately 74% of Syria’s population is Sunni, but the Assad family, who has been in power for roughly 41 years, is of the Alawite sect of Shiism, which accounts for only 13% of the total population. The Muslim Brotherhood, the main religious organization of Sunnis, has over the years been trying to overthrow the rule of Assad, an endeavor that has invariably ended in failure. In the current unrest, the Muslim Brotherhood changed its tactics by turning itself into a political group that combined both political campaign and armed struggles with an aim of toppling Bashir through the use of external support. Almost 85% of Bahrain’s residents believe in Islam, with Shiism accounting for 70% and Sunnism accounting for 30% of the total population. Bahrain’s royal family is Sunni and forms a “holy alliance” with the royal families of Saudi Arabia and the UAE to suppress Shiites. Shia Islam in Bahrain went to the streets in an attempt to change the status quo, under which a majority was ruled by a minority. In order to get hold of its ruling position, the Bahrain family asked Saudi Arabia and the UAE to interfere with force, helping to quell the anti-government riots.

IV. The Implications of the Regional Changes and Development Trends

Changes in the Middle East and North Africa will exert profound impacts on the regional situation, power distribution, and the influence of big powers in the region.

First, political transformation will take place in Tunisia, Egypt and Yemen. Ben Ali and Mubarak, the authoritarian rulers respectively from Tunisia and Egypt, have already stepped aside. With their constitutions being revised, future leaders in the two countries will be elected by democratic process, and they will be limited to two terms. Old politics and life-long presidencies will become a thing of the past. It is still uncertain whether President Saleh of Yemen can return and continue to rule the country, but it is certain that he will step down sooner or later. There is a strong force in Yemen that opposes Saleh’s authority, including the Hashid tribe, the military’s 1st Armored Division led by Brig. Gen. Ali Mohsen al-Ahmar, and major tribes from the South. It is certain that Saleh has not yet given up his hope to return to the country, mainly because he has high expectations of the Yemeni Republican Guard, which is under the command of this own son. As long as Saleh refuses to step aside, the possibility of a civil war or a separation between the north and the south will remain high. If Saleh leaves the scene for good, other political forces will probably, by reaching compromise among one another, complete the revision of the constitution and hold a new general election in which the lifelong presidency will be abolished. The future governments of Tunisia, Egypt and Yemen will give priority to relations with the U.S. and Europe, but not at the cost of relations with emerging economies as well as major developing countries.

Changes in the Middle East and North Africa will exert profound impacts on the influence of big powers in the region.

Second, the 42-year-long rule by Gaddafi has been overthrown, but the turbulent situation in Libya will not come to an end in the short term. In fact, its future direction is still unclear. There are three main reasons for this uncertainty: firstly, the opposition forces reached a temporary coalition under the banner of “overthrowing Qaddafi.” After Qaddafi was overthrown, the conflict of interest between all the opposition factions was quickly exposed, with its focus concentrating on who is entitled to control the national power and the allocation of natural resources. Secondly, the contradictions between east and west are increasingly being brought to light, a fact that is mainly manifested in the struggle between the tribe of Senuss of the old Idrisid Dynasty and the tribes in the west such as Tuareg, Megraha. Thirdly, the Maghreb branch of al-Qaeda strengthened itself amid the turbulence of the situation of Libya, while the opposition forces and tribal union was unable to restrain the expansion of the Islamic fundamentalist force and its challenge to the future government. Therefore, Libya will become another battlefield between secularism and fundamentalism.

Third, having a strong capability to control the situation, the Bashar regime in Syria will not be easy to overthrow. Similar to Libya, there are three reasons: firstly, following 41 years of rule, Syria’s armed forces, together with its police, constitutional and intelligence departments, are extremely loyal to the al-Assad family. The crackdown on anti-government activities has been heavy-handed and efficient. Any move by anti-government forces, once it emerges, is tackled and the government is in good control of the situation. Secondly, the U.S. and European countries, deeply involved in the war in Libya, are not able to put in sufficient resources to change the Bashar regime, which gives the latter a chance to gasp for breath. Thirdly, the special relationship between Syria and Iran has been further consolidated. Iran has been providing Syria with support in economic, military and intelligence fields, and the two countries have coordinated well with each other in responding to the U.S. and the European countries.

Fourth, with the strategic pressure on it greatly alleviated, Iran will play a bigger role in the region. Over a certain period to come, the United States, Europe and most Arab countries will not be able to use most of their energy and resources to deal with Iran. Making use of this favorable situation, Iran will speed up its nuclear program and the modernization of its military equipment and try to change the quality of the Street Revolution of Arab countries by exporting its own Islamic Revolution so as to increase its space of strategic maneuver. Since the break-out of unrest in the Middle East and North Africa, Iran’s influence has increased on Shiites in such countries as Bahrain, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and Yemen. Defining the unrest as an Islamic revival, Iran has tried to develop a revival area for Shiites covering Lebanon in the West, Iraq in the middle, and Bahrain, Saudi Arabia and Yemen in the South. The supreme spiritual leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and President Ahmedinejad have repeatedly called upon the Muslims in Arab countries to engage in their own Islamic Revolutions, a call that has been echoed by the leaders of Hezbollah and Hamas.

Fifth, Arab leaders’ trust in the U.S. and Europe has been reduced on the whole, a development that will impact the United States and Europe’s efforts to promote their strategy in the Middle East. All rulers in Arab countries have a sense of insecurity. They learned from the stories of Ben Ali and Hosni Mubarak that the U.S. and Europe will attempt to ‘transform the Middle East through democracy,’ even if they have to disregard their “old friendships.” The U.S. and Europe did not appreciate the “contributions” made by Mubarak and Ben Ali when they supported the U.S.’s strategy in the Middle East, first upholding the Camp David Accords, then supporting the Oslo Accords, and then offering a hand in the fight against terrorism. They abandoned their two allies at their critical moments. Leaders of Arab states have also been awakened to the fact that the U.S. and Europe are settling old scores with Gaddafi and other leaders, disregarding their previous efforts to “correct past mistakes” in a bid to force them to step down in succession. These people now in power are worried that once they run into any crisis, the U.S. and Europe will do the same. In order to seek collective self-defense, the Gulf Cooperation Council, which is composed of 6 countries and headed by Saudi Arabia, agreed to set up a League of Monarchist Countries, including Jordon and Morocco, in an attempt to protect themselves from the shock of unrest.

Sixth, Israel’s security environment is improving and Israel is faced with an opportunity to divide and disintegrate the Arab countries. With Arab countries busy responding to the unrest, Israel is able to not only stick to its tough position on such issues as the Peace Process but also say no with confidence to the United States. On May 19th, Obama proposed in his speech on Middle East policies that peace talks between Palestine and Israel be restarted on the basis of the borders established before the “Six-Day War” in 1967. The proposal, however, was firmly opposed by Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Obama subsequently had to adjust his position. In the wake of the unrest and change, Arab countries have an urgent need to promote economic recovery by way of regional cooperation, which might result in a situation in which countries like Tunisia, Egypt, Morocco, Qatar, Jordan and Bahrain, under pressure from the United States, will develop substantial relations with Israel which would lead to further disintegration among Arab countries.

Seventh, with its role in the region being increased markedly, Turkey will develop into an important force in determining the direction of the Middle East and North Africa. Turkey has been getting involved with great caution in order to strategically position itself for the post-transition period of the Middle East and North Africa. At the beginning of the unrest, Turkey tried to get close to the position of the Arab League, the African Union (AU), and the Organization of the Islamic Conference. It gave support to the activities of the Arab Spring and the anti-government forces of Tunisia and Egypt and endorsed UN Security Resolution 1970 and 1973. However, Turkey refused to participate in NATO’s air strikes against Libya. When the situation developed in an unfavorable manner for Gaddafi and Bashir, Turkey changed its position and committed itself to making good office in helping Gaddafi to get settled in other countries, as well as condemning Bashir’s “despotic rule.” When accepting 7,000 refugees from Syria, Turkey created a “buffer zone” at the border between Turkey and Syria by stationing troops therein. In order to seize the moral high ground and seek favor with people in the Arab world, Turkey supports restarting peace talks between Palestine and Israel on the basis of the borders prior to the ‘Six-Day War” in 1967, and it is prepared to send humanitarian fleets again in defiance of the blockade imposed by Israeli troops on Gaza. In the meantime, Turkey’s financial groups and companies are planning to revive the markets of countries in unrest.

Eighth, the policies of the U.S. and Europe towards Middle East and North Africa are undergoing constant change and adjustment, all aiming to protect their respective strategic interests. The U.S. policies are being adjusted in the following way. Firstly, idealism is being balanced by a new sense of pragmatism. For instance, the changes taking place in Tunisia and Egypt and the unrest in the Gulf States are being treated differently. Secondly, the high ground of international law is being prioritized and the interventionist acts are thus being“l(fā)egitimized.” For instance, efforts were made to push the UN Security Council and the International Criminal Court to adopt Resolution 1970 and Resolution 1973 and issue an arrest warrant for Gaddafi. Thirdly, using “multilateralism,” the U.S. asked its western and regional allies to be on the front while it gave support in the back. In order to make the situation in the Middle East and North Africa develop in its favor, the U.S. adjusted its regional and country policies in real time. Given the identical interests between Europe and the United States, European countries such as France, the UK and Italy stepped up their military intervention against Libya in an attempt to realize an early regime change and promote the Union for the Mediterranean. Their real purpose is to seize energy resources and market share and “return to Africa” with North Africa as a launching pad. The deep involvement of the U.S. in the unrest of the Middle East and North Africa is an important development of “neo-interventionism,” and the “human rights above sovereignty” element can be found therein.

Ninth, the situation in the Middle East and North Africa over the coming 3-5years will feature sluggish growth, high oil prices, political instability, and an expanded social base for extremist Islamist forces and a destructive social order. For instance, the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Yemen will conduct regional coordination, including strategic coordination, and thus increase its influence. Al Qaeda has formed a geostrategic belt linking Transcaucasia, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Yemen and Somalia. Giving support to the new leadership of Ayman al-Zawahiri, different affiliates of Al Qaeda vowed revenge for Bin Laden’s death and are determined to “punish” the traitors of the Islamic world and the pro-American regimes. They have made some terrorist attacks in an attempt to demonstrate their strengths and increase their own influence. Al Qaeda declared Southern Yemeni Abyan Province an “Islamic Emirate” and plans to turn South Yemen into an Islamic country.

From the above analysis, it can be concluded that the situation in the Middle East and North Africa will continue to change. The impact of these changes will not be confined to the region itself and the ripple effects might reach Central Asia, South Asia, Africa and Southeast Asia. This field demands further observation and research in line with the global strategic situation.

Dong Manyuan is Senior Research Fellow and Vice President of China Institute of International Studies.