Turkey Will Stay The Course, Whoever Wins In The Arab Revolts

By Sema Kalaycioglu 

The initial impact on Turkey of the Arab uprisings is economic. From Libya alone, Turkey had to evacuate nearly 25,000 workers within two months.

Considering the households that relying on the salaries and profits of those workers and their contractors, Turkey has to face an unexpected economic contraction for the short and medium terms.

Unless new overseas opportunities are found immediately, Turkey is also likely to experience further deterioration in its current account deficit because of this sharp reduction in workers’ remittances and declining exports to countries in turmoil. The preferences of new establishments in Egypt and Tunisia to keep Turkey as a trade partner should not drastically change.

However, there is a growing need to replace the Libyan market with new options to avoid further export revenue loss for Turkey. The old regimes in Libya and Egypt meant certainty and continuity for Turkish contractors, exporters and investors. So far, the interim situation has produced only uncertainty.

The Arab revolt imposes additional security costs on Turkey. Beyond participating in the NATO mission in Libya, Turkey has had to take extra measures to guard its border with Syria against an influx of illegal immigrants and refugees, and more importantly against infiltration of terrorists and suicide bombers.

Additional land and naval border controls means cumbersome screening processes that impose additional nominal and real costs for the country.

Turkey has displayed a clear preference toward the Middle East in recent years. By turning its back on the International Monetary Fund and proving itself an economic success on its own merits, Turkey has also attracted the appreciation and envy of its Arab neighbors.

With its growing anti-Israel gestures, Turkey has found an increasingly favorable atmosphere in the Arab Middle East for its boisterous regional political assertions and economic muscle. However, even if political establishments of a more religious inclination replace the old secular ones in the Arab Middle East, it is not certain whether and for how long such a favorable climate for Turkey will persist.

In Yemen, Tunisia and Egypt, drastic changes that work against Turkey should not be expected. As long as the Assad regime stays in power, good relations with Syria are likely to last as well. However, the situation is not clear for Libya. After all, Turkey has changed its diplomatic position on Libya four times since the start of the turmoil there: from supporting Moammar Gadhafi to demanding that he step down.

If by any chance Gadhafi wins the struggle, it is not clear how Turkey might mend the loss of confidence. And if the opposition wins in Libya, Turkey may need a new confidence-building strategy despite its humanitarian support for rebel forces and its participation in the NATO campaign against the Gadhafi regime.

All hell has broken loose in the Arab Middle East. As a consequence, the peoples of Syria, Libya and Egypt are further impoverished. This may mean the continuation of social unrest in those countries for the foreseeable future unless foreign aid and assistance arrive. It is not easy to predict in what direction radical forces will take these societies and their politics.

It is not implausible that the Arab revolt will trim Turkey’s ambitions and chances of becoming a regional leader or power. Therefore it is wiser for Turkey to confine its role to economics rather than politics in the region. Turkey would do well to extend as much aid and assistance as possible to Middle East countries in need.

The lack of democratic practice in most of the Middle East and North Africa still prevents us from knowing how Arab populations perceive the role Turkey is to play in the region. Some studies, for example, indicate that countries in the region appreciate Turkey and the mediation role it volunteers to play in political disputes.

However, in old and new Arab establishments alike, the street (like the masses in Turkey) puts a premium on Turkish condemnation of Israel. The more tension Turkey seems to have with Israel over issues relating to Palestine in general and Gaza in particular, the more support the Turkish government finds in the Middle East as well as at home.

Therefore, unless there is progress in the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, Turkey is likely to continue using its anti-Israel rhetoric in the hope of yielding domestic and regional political reward in the short and medium-run. Yet beyond appreciative responses, no tangible reward is certain. There is no guarantee that Turkey will even get sizable economic contracts from new Arab regimes. More important, if there is no Arab support on unresolved issues like Cyprus or Turkey’s European Union membership, the political reward will be confined solely to gains in political prestige by Turkish leaders.

Turkey is likely to maintain the same foreign policy line no matter which faction gains power in Libya, Syria, Egypt or elsewhere. In order to maintain its political role in the Arab world, it will continue to institute good relations with new establishments and invest in anti-Israel sentiments that are so popular with the Arab street. The Turkish government will not officially or unofficially admit disappointment with its attempts at mediating peace initiatives in the region. Its anti-Israel rhetoric shows its determination to keep the Palestinian issue active on the Turkish foreign policy agenda. The government will continue to claim to be “the voice of the most oppressed” until either a two-state solution is reached or the ruling Justice and Development Party bows out of office – whichever comes first.

-This commentary was published in The Daily Star on 13/06/2011. It first appeared at bitterlemons-international.org, an online newsletter
-Sema Kalaycioglu is a professor of economics

The Sacred And The Secular - Promoting Muslim Democracy

By Asef Bayat 

The presence of religion in public space challenges our ideas about the roles of faith in our lives and politics.

Over the last centuries, proponents of secularisation have claimed that as societies modernise, the role of religion in public and private life diminishes. For them, modern rationality, science and the ideal of representative governments as sovereign replace religion as a source of authority, regulation and security.

But a new claim is that religion is necessary for us today, not despite modernity, but precisely because of it. Religion is required in the public space, it is argued, because only faith can amend the deficits and alleviate the pain caused by modern life. Since the 1970s, the secularisation thesis has been forced onto the defensive as a tide of religiosity - often “fundamentalist” in nature - gained renewed influence in the major traditions, including Christianity, Hinduism, Islam and Judaism. Religion has thus returned to overtly public and political matters.

But how closely can sacred teachings inform politics and governance?

The prism of the Muslim Middle East shows how the public role of religion has varied over time. In the late 19th century Middle East, several religious movements emerged in response to Islam’s encounter with the European colonial conquest and modernity.

Traditionalists such as Wahabis sought to preserve their culturally specific Islamic heritage.

The modernist trend, spearheaded by cosmopolitan leaders such as Jamal Eddin Afghani and Mohammad Abdou, advocated an evolving Islam that would coexist and flourish within this emerging modernity. And some people demanded separating Islam from the state entirely.

Middle East Muslim public life has for over a century been the site of rivalry between a minority wanting to entirely secularise their societies and Islamic traditionalists or fundamentalists who oppose many modern ideas and civil institutions.

Meanwhile, the majority of ordinary people have tried in their daily lives to marry their modern aspirations for basic rights and better material lives with their religious traditions.

The 1970s brought revived and aggressive religious engagement in society and politics. Iran’s Islamic Revolution of 1979 bolstered a new global era of religious politics in the Middle East and beyond by offering a tangible model of Islamic rule. That same year, Islamic militants seized the Grand Mosque of Mecca in a failed effort to dislodge the Saudi rulers. The shocking assault spurred radicalisation and accelerated the rivalry between Wahabi and Salafi trends.

By the mid-1990s, the public space in the Middle East was dominated by Islamic movements, institutions and sensibilities - in mosques, media, NGOs, education apparatus, judiciary and in the streets. More concretely, religious groups in Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan and Iran ruled through Islamic states.

But the realisation of an Islamic state carries within it contradictory seeds of its own decline.

History has shown that religious states of any faith inevitably lead to the secularisation of theology, for leaders, religious or not, must respond to day-to-day exigencies of governance. Sacred injunctions are bent, revised or cast aside to accommodate the requisites of governance or merely to justify power.

As in Iran, authorities will ignore laws, including the constitution, or proscribe people’s religious obligations, if such is deemed necessary to secure the “religious” state. Religion thus descends from the height of devotion and spirituality to be a pliable instrument to serve secular objectives.

Cynical secularisation of the sacred by the “Islamic” states is alienating many Muslim citizens. Secular, faithful and even many members of the ulema (Muslim spiritual leaders) have pleaded for the separation of religion from the state in order to restore both the sanctity of religion and the rationality of the state. Most of them are seeking a post-Islamist trajectory where faith is merged with freedom and Islam with democracy, in which a civil democratic state can work within a pious society.

Examples in the Muslim world, from Indonesia’s Prosperous Justice Party (PKS) to Morocco’s Justice and Development Party, as well as the current Arab Spring, are pointing towards post-Islamist polities.

For Muslim societies, not modernising is no longer an option. Only a secular democratic state respecting basic human rights for all can provide good and modern governance for the faithful and the secular alike. Under a secular democratic state religion can flourish while non-religious people and religious minorities remain secure.

-This commentary was published in The Jordan Times on 13/06/2011
-The writer is professor of sociology and Middle East studies, University of Illinois. His latest book, “Life as Politics: How Ordinary People Change the Middle East (2010)”, is published by Stanford University Press. This article is part of the series “Religion, Politics and the Public Space” in collaboration with the United Nations Alliance of Civilisations and its Global Experts project (www.theglobalexperts.org).

Kuwait: For Royals A Neutral Place

By Ahmed Al-Jarallah

The rays of the sun cannot be covered with a sieve. This statement best describes the ongoing dispute between members of the ruling family. It has become one of the hottest topics in some forums, newspapers and media outfits. However, every participant in discussions has been using the issue to implement their own agenda, whether it is right or not. It is now time to face the problem rather than simply alluding to it.

Unfortunately, there are disputes but everyone must realize that in systems similar to ours, disagreements remain within the boundaries of the ruling family. These disputes are settled within those borders and issues are resolved decisively even through coercion, if the need arises. The members of the ruling family should distance the public from their own disputes. They should not take sides, even if the agendas of certain parties are legal and constitutional. Their position and role entail that they remain neutral.

The Constitution guarantees the citizens’ freedom of expression and this is an indisputable matter. The citizens have the right to express their ideas. However, in the end, they remain citizens and not figures from the ruling family, which must prioritize the interests of the public before anything else. Whatever contradicts the interests of the country must be dealt with cautiously or rejected to avoid mixing things up.

We regret to remind anyone who wants to address issues concerning the people that he must first resolve conflicts between the ruling family members for them to be on solid ground every time they bring violators to book. It is even more regrettable that some members of the ruling family have participated in demonstrations organized by a small group. Although these demonstrations are limited, we still want to reiterate that they are ineffective, while those who participate in them have the right to voice their opinions and we have to listen to them and defend their right.

Some ruling family members, who are supposed to be neutral and above all agendas, are actually upping the tempo of these demonstrations. Their participation can be public or clandestine. Some of them even enflame public sentiments whenever disputes take place within the ruling family. These scenarios make us scared of what the future might bring us due to the irresponsible acts of a few people.

Ruling family members, who fight over concepts or positions, may think they can reach their goals through causing riots on the streets. They follow whatever movement takes place and try to compete with others in this regard. These members do not serve the ruling family, themselves or even the country, and this is something they should know. They must be deterred from embarking on such adventures as they are not rulers and they are not drums struck by sticks.

Yes, we cannot cover the rays of the sun with a sieve, because there is an apparent flaw. Nevertheless, the restoration must take place within the ruling house, which cannot be dealt with through leniency. It needs decisiveness as we are building a nation and citizens. We are establishing a relationship between a deep-rooted ruling house and citizens, who live according to the standards of the current times. Everyone must realize this, because in such matters, everybody shares the responsibility; hence, there is no room for blaming others. The members of the ruling house are here to rule, not to do anything else. They must understand that they are the rulers of this country, not competitors with its people. They must realize that the Al-Erada Square has its own people.

Even if the gatherings in the square succeed in bringing change, they will undoubtedly not be part of the new situation. They will be placed elsewhere. Ruling houses in the region and systems similar to ours have been pushing their members away from mistakes through leniency and rebuke. In such houses, the young do not dare stand in the face of the old. They obey the orders and if these rituals are not followed, they are scolded within the boundaries of the ruling family. This is how matters should be settled in Kuwait. We pray that they overcome whatever goes inside their souls, especially when they commit sins.

-This commentary was published in The Arab Times on 13/06/2011
-Ahmed Al-Jarallah is the editor-in-chief of The Arab Times and the daily Kuwaiti Assyassah

Where Is ‘Arab Spring’ Headed?

Abdullah Al Shayji writes: The main achievement so far has been the smashing of the psychological fear factor which has haunted generations 

In a region known for chronic instability and plagued for generations by autocratic rule and fragile political systems, it is hoped that the ongoing Arab Spring could be the remedy. But there is fear that this is easier said than done, and could be no more than wishful thinking. I hope I am wrong.

For after six months of the most poignant and unprecedented changes in Arab states and societies, which have rocked long-held beliefs, it is time to take stock of the situation. Some of the facts are obvious. What is happening is not revolution in the classic sense of the term. Revolution, by definition, is a total uprooting of an existing regime. Wikipedia defines revolution as "a fundamental change in power or organisational structures that takes place in a relatively short period of time ... Revolutions have occurred through human history and vary widely in terms of methods, duration, and motivating ideology. Their results include major changes in culture, economy and socio-political institutions".

Given this definition, what we have on our hands are not revolutions as we Arabs are fond of labelling them, but rather a major readjustment and realignment of what has been an awkward and unsustainable order which has prevailed for too long. This order has been called the ‘Arab exceptionalism' in which Arabs are seen as not being capable of reform and change when it comes to democracy, accountability, rule of law and peaceful and periodic transfer of power.

Now is the time for the Arab Spring to usher in what could be lasting change in the vicious cycle of stagnation. The uprisings took many in the region and beyond by surprise. They broke many taboos, changed many realities and seem to be setting in motion what is hoped will be irreversible gains sparked by decades of marginalisation, degradation and absolute rule by repressive and corrupt regimes. Everyone is hoping the existing order will come to an end. Thus the main achievement for the time-being has been the smashing of the psychological fear factor, which has haunted and gripped many generations and cowed them into submission.

Although all Arab uprisings from Tunisia to Egypt and from Syria to Yemen and Libya espouse peaceful and orderly change, two paradigms of change are emerging in these societies. The first is the semi-peaceful change with accepted collateral damage in the case of the Tunisian and Egyptian uprisings. Both autocratic leaders, Zine Al Abidine Bin Ali and Hosni Mubarak, were toppled in a relatively short time, but with the military and security junta still in power, with the main structure and personalities of the previous regimes intact. Now these two countries are going through the hard phase of consolidating power, of tinkering with the constitution to write off the legacy of the past. This painful phase is critical, as there are fears of a reversing of the gains, the iron-fisted military apparatus ruling through military tribunals and denying the right to demonstrations and freedom of expression.

Counter-revolutionary movement

Tunisia postponed its constitutional assembly elections to autumn, and Egypt civil societies and political parties are split over the need for a new constitution to be in place before the parliamentary and presidential elections take place. In the meantime, both countries endure disorder, chaos and economic pains. There are much lowered expectations for economic growth and rising unemployment and inflation in both countries. There are genuine fears today in these two societies about the hijacking these uprisings through counter-movements.

The second paradigm of change is the violent and bloody one. That is the case in Libya, Syria and Yemen, with attempts at change being countered by excessive use of force. This could lead not only to chaos and disorder, but also to civil wars, fragmentations and dismemberment of these countries and societies.

Libya has been witnessing for the past four months a bloody counter-revolutionary movement which has led to a stalemate, with thousands dead, and many more injured. Nato has just extended its military campaign until next September. Libya's heavy-handed approach seems to have encouraged the Yemeni and Syrian regimes. At the same time, the West's fear of another Libya-style debacle is dissuading any serious discussion of repeating the Libyan campaign in Syria and Yemen, thus emboldening both regimes — especially the one in Damascus, which believes it is the guarantor of stability in the region — to carry on with their brutality and oppression.

In the Yemeni case things are murky, after the assassination attempt on the President Ali Abdullah Saleh who is being treated in Saudi Arabia. GCC neighbours have a major stake in Yemen's stability. Jonathan Ruhe, in the National Interest, argues: "Post-Saleh Yemen would likely be even less stable, thus increasing the potential for a Byzantine civil war stretching from Sana'a to the hinterland."

Even Tony Blair, the Middle East quartet envoy, is arguing now that the Arab Spring is negatively impacting the peace process because it is making Israel worry about the potential of instability, especially with the major shifts and changes in Egypt. There is also fear of chaos and the ‘Islamist menace', which is a worrisome prospect.

In the final analysis, uprisings and revolutions are judged by the end results. There is genuine fear that the Arab Spring is turning towards a hot summer or even frigid winter.

Given this, we who live here and are impacted by what is unfolding in our region, have the right to ask where is the Arab Spring taking us. It is in our interests to achieve change through peaceful and orderly means. This will instil confidence in our ability to bring about change and will convince our detractors that Arabs, like all other societies who yearn for freedom, are capable of bringing about change and are not an exception.

-This commentary was published in The Gulf News on 13/06/2011
-Professor Abdullah Al Shayji is the Chairman of the Political Science Department, Kuwait University

US Nation-Building In The Wrong Place?

By Bernd Debusmann  

America's costly efforts at nation-building in Afghanistan and Iraq came under intense scrutiny this month in critical reports and a gloomy Senate hearing that prompted a memorable assertion. "If there is any nation in the world that really needs nation-building right now, it is the United States." That came from a Democratic Senator, Jim Webb, who continued: "When we are putting hundreds of billions of dollars into infrastructure in another country, it should only be done if we can articulate a vital national interest because we quite frankly need to be doing a lot more of that here.

Webb spoke at the confirmation hearing of the veteran diplomat President Barack Obama nominated to be his next ambassador to Afghanistan, Ryan Crocker, who faced questions from the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that left no doubt over the growing impatience of US lawmakers with a military and financial commitment that is producing limited progress.

Webb's juxtaposition of spending on Afghanistan and the state of things in the United States - a stalled economy, stubborn unemployment, an aging infrastructure - is made more often in online debates and private conversations than in official hearings. But it is a subtext for a debate likely to grow in the campaign for the 2012 elections and feature both Afghanistan and Iraq as money pits, object lessons for ill-conceived development projects, and lack of foresighted planning.

A report by the bi-partisan Commission on Wartime Contracting issued early in June set the tone. "US troop withdrawals from Afghanistan are scheduled to begin in July 2011, and the US military presence in Iraq is scheduled to end by December 31, 2011. But America will leave many legacies in both countries carrying large sustainment costs long into the future.

The commission, the report said, saw no sign that the Pentagon, the State Department and the US Agency for International Development were making plans to make sure that the governments of Iraq and Afghanistan could operate and maintain, on their own, the vast array of projects built under US government contracts, from schools and clinics to hospitals and power plants.

An examination of a decade's wartime contracting in the two countries, says the report, had identified tens of billions of dollars of waste. Unless the US paid prompt attention to the "how to" of maintaining, operating and paying for the projects it will leave behind, "the United States faces new waves of waste in Iraq and Afghanistan." One example of money already wasted, and beginning to waste even more: the Kabul Power Plant, built with $300 million in American taxpayer money. "It is little used and the cost to operate and maintain it is too great for the Afghan government to sustain from its own resources.

That raises a question: what resources? According to a World Bank estimate, 97 percent of Afghanistan's gross domestic product (GDP) comes from "spending related to the international military and donor community presence". Annual government revenues run to around $2.5 billion, funding the Afghan security forces costs more than twice as much.

The word "sustainability" sounds very much out of place in this context though it is sprinkled liberally through the Contracting Commission's report as well as a report issued a week later by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. It focused solely on Afghanistan and questioned the long-held theory that development projects in conflict zones helps to stabilize them.

That report pointed out that Afghanistan now receives more US civilian assistance ($320 million a month) than any other country and it addressed a problem which looks more difficult to solve than any other: "Foreign aid, when misspent, can fuel corruption ..." No doubt about that. Both in Afghanistan and Iraq corruption is the stuff of legend, featuring tales of government officials becoming multi-millionaires, warlords getting kickbacks for allowing development projects to go forward, contractors for the US government over-billing to the tune of tens of millions of dollars, suitcases stuffed with $100 notes being shipped out of Kabul airport, newly-rich Iraqis and Afghans buying extravagant mansions in Dubai. In Kabul, the word for this is "Afghaniscam".

Things are not getting better, notwithstanding dire warnings about the corrosive effect of badly-spent aid. In 2008, the year the Commission on Wartime Contracting was set up in response to reports on vast misappropriations in Afghanistan and Iraq, the two countries ranked 176th and 178th out of 180 on a widely-respected corruption index. It is put out annually by the Berlin-based watchdog group Transparency International.

On the 2010 list (of 178 countries), Iraq ranks 175th and Afghanistan 176th. Myanmar and Somalia occupy the bottom slots. Which helps explain the frustration about nation-building priorities Senator Webb expressed at the Senate hearing. He was one of the two senators who introduced a bill, in 2007, that led to the establishment of the Commission on Wartime Contracting. Its members need not fear running out of work. – Reuters

This analysis was published in The Kuwait Times on 13/06/2011

Ross’s Arbitration In The “Sahara”

By Mohammad el-Ashab 

Broadening the base of negotiations around the desert (the Sahara) after all the previous rounds only means that these were not going in the right direction. This is not only about opening a new channel in order to solve some aspects of the current crisis. It has also to do with asking for the help of new parties that could rid the negotiators of several problems.

The problem of representativeness in the negotiations of the desert has been addressed in a different context this time, the closest problems having to do with who would represents who. Returning to square one would have been out of the question had the process been a realistic one, noting that related resolutions by the Security Council had called for realism. However, the lack of realism was one of the major causes for the relapse. Thus, no agreement was reached concerning the referential aspect of the negotiations.

Morocco is saying that the plan to grant an autonomous rule to the desert’s governorates must constitute the platform that should be used to take off and to land in order to find a final solution. The Polisario is responding by saying that the self determination referendum will constitute the ultimate solution. The United Nations cannot possibly impose a solution that falls outside the formula of harmony of the type that is warranted in regional conflicts such as this one.

Practically speaking, the United Nations have found a harmonious framework that was formulated in the image of “a political solution.” The United Nations are right since they are incapable of canceling the previous decisions unless they practice a smart political cloning that would prevent them from being described as being biased. But the political solution remains loose and prone to having different interpretations, although it is nothing but a remedy that will yield the desired outcome, i.e. ending the dispute under the slogan of no winners and no losers.

The desert dispute originally started and continued under the obsession of representativeness. The distribution of people with desert origins between Morocco, the Tindouf Camps, and Mauritania served to complicate the picture and the stands. Thus, it was only natural for the efforts of the United Nations in coming up with the lists of the desert people to fail, which led in turn to the collapse of the entire referendum plan.

Yet, international mediator James Baker, who was behind the idea of looking for an alternative solution, is the same person who sketched the features of the negotiations between the concerned parties. In fact, he considered Morocco and the Polisario to be direct parties, while Algeria and Mauritania are just observers. The source of the defect in the current negotiations could be that he has transformed the old formula in defining the sides into a new framework. However, the partnership of the different sides in the failing consensus project is not equaled by their efforts to find a political solution. The biggest proof is that a dead end was reached, when the problem of the representativeness was brought up.

It might be that international delegate Christopher Ross, through his use of new mechanisms in order to support the choice of negotiations, has aimed at using the logic of persuasion in order to exhaust the negotiators. Indeed, he adopted the formula of unofficial negotiations, in order to prevent the repercussions of failure. Meanwhile, he pulled the negotiations towards the humanitarian dimensions and the issues of the ill use of the region’s wealth, and the demining process. All these are secondary issues that aim at pushing the negotiations towards a promising start. This means that the idea of expanding the representativeness of the population falls in the same context; however, this is a more important issue considering that the problem of the desert consists of the issue of representativeness before anything else.

Morocco was considerate enough to allow the participation of figures with desert origins in the negotiations rounds. This was an indicator to the fact that the dialogue taking place between the members of the same tribe becomes a useful one under the same tent. At the end of the day, some desert people are loyal to Morocco, while their brothers and cousins are not. Thus, this dialogue might lead to an agreement.

If the desert people from both sides are able to reach a final conviction concerning the usefulness of the negotiations sponsored by Ross, then this will constitute the biggest breakthrough. It will be able to remove the most difficult obstacles, namely the ongoing differences between Morocco and Algeria, which started in the desert and extended all over the place.

No one but Ross knows to where he is leading the ship of the negotiations. However, he did make an evocative sign on the early days of his appointment when the point of view of the Maghreb Union was mixed with the project of settlement. This sign was sufficient to understand the long-term strategy.

This commentary was published in al-Hayat on 12/06/2011

Syria And The Arab Silence…Again

By Tariq Alhomayed 

The French are astonished, and they are right to be, by the Arab silence towards the Syrian regime's brutal suppression of its own citizens, over the past three months. France and Turkey, the al-Assad regime's closest allies in the past, have broken there silence, as has the West, whilst the Arabs are still silent!

Ankara, which was Syria's godparent both in the region and internationally, broke its silence and spoke about Syria's atrocities against women, children and the elderly, and it is suffice to note that more than 4 thousand Syrians have now fled to Turkey. The French defended Bashar al-Assad's regime in the past, and marketed it regionally and internationally as well. Yet here they are today trying to unite the international community against the Damascus regime, in order to put an end to its repressive actions, where it has used aircraft to kill its citizens. Meanwhile the Arabs, all Arabs, continue to remain silent. The death toll of innocent Syrians has surpassed one thousand, not to mention the tens of thousands of prisoners and those reported missing, yet the Arabs have not uttered a single word!

Footage was released every day revealing the crimes committed by the regime against the Syrians, and still the Arabs did not speak. The footage revealed the humiliation and torture of children, youths and the elderly. We saw an old man moaning as he was kicked in the face, by the Syrian regime's men. We saw a group of these men take a photo standing on the back of the Syrian man, after they had kicked him with their shoes. We heard the Turkish Prime Minister talking about the brutality of the Syrian regime, and how it was now difficult for him to defend it, yet the Arabs did not say a single word condemning the regime in Damascus. Demonstrations are prevalent in Syrian cities and towns, even the most obscure ones, with everyone coming out against the regime. There have been protests in Homs, Hama, Latakia, Aleppo and Damascus, and young officers have begun to dissent from the army, and join the so-called "free officers", yet again the Arabs have not said a single word.

Thus the question today is: When will the Arabs say the right thing about what is happening to the unarmed Syrians? I raised this question earlier, and I will put it forward again today. How can the Arabs rise up against Gaddafi, and call for the international community to take a decisive stand against him, while they do nothing about the Syrian regime, neither the GCC or the Arab League, the latter being an organization which has surely past its expiration date. If we are to call a spade a spade, then it is sad that the Iranian regime, along with Hassan Nasrallah and some in Lebanon, which itself is a country in need of a moral and political revolution, are standing with the regime in Damascus, while the Arabs so far have not stood with the defenseless Syrian people who long for freedom and dignity, the two most basic rights!

It is true that politics is a matter of interests and realism, the art of opportunity, but that does not mean we should discount the ethical and humanitarian dimension. In the past Europe and America rushed to protect the Muslims in Yugoslavia from [Slobodan] Milosevic, and also in the heart of Europe. At this time there was no mention of the fact that it was in [Europe and America's] interests for Islam to be weakened in Europe, but rather it was a matter of ethical and humanitarian values. When will the Arabs do the equivalent for the Syrians, who have no one to protect them except God?

-This commentary was published in Asharq al-Awsat on 12/06/2011
-Tariq Alhomayed is the editor-in-chief of Asharq al-Awsat