By Koh Choon Hwee 16 June 2011 Dr. Martin Indyk, the Vice President and Director of the Foreign Policy program at the Brookings Institution, began his presentation at the Middle East Institute (MEI) by positing the pessimistic view of the protests in the Arab world. That cynical narrative declares that the protests have caused a spike in oil prices, adversely affected the economic recovery of the US and bode ill for stability in the Middle East. Yet, Dr. Indyk contended that if we adopted an optimistic perspective, we would see that the Arab people are redeeming their dignity through asserting their demands for freedom and human rights. If the protest movements succeed, governments will become more accountable, increasing stability in the region over time. Although all the factors for the protests had been latent for quite some time – such as high unemployment rates, and the developing youth “bulge” – nobody predicted the events of the Arab Spring. The growing prevalence of satellite television and Arabic news channels that reached millions of households in every Arab country inadvertently created an Arab community across borders that could not be controlled by governments. According to Dr. Indyk, the fall of Saddam Hussein in 2003 and the cognizance of how quickly his regime crumbled with the invasion of the US marked a defining moment for the Arab people, who registered the fallibility of their authoritarian regimes behind their impervious fronts. He understood the present developments in the Middle East as marking three types of changes. Firstly, we have Tunisia and Egypt, where the revolution has already taken place and are now experiencing the difficult transition to democracy. The second group comprises Libya, Yemen and Syria, countries which are currently going through the revolutionary stage. The last group includes kingdoms like Morocco, Kuwait, Oman, Jordan, the U.A.E., Qatar and Saudi Arabia – these monarchs possess greater religious and tribal legitimacy, some claiming lineage to the Prophet Muhammad.

Tunisia and Egypt: In Transition

In both of these cases, Dr. Indyk noted that the army was the midwife of the transition, in Egypt more so than in Tunisia. He also underscored the paramount importance of Egypt to the region as it is geographically located in the centre of the Middle East, is culturally important, and is demographically significant as one in every four Arabs is an Egyptian. Although economic factors, among others, triggered the protest movements in both countries, the revolutions have ironically further crippled their economies as tourism figures and foreign direct investment have fallen. Dr. Indyk saw the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt as playing the long game as it knows that it would be unable to meet the Egyptian public’s expectations. Hence, it does not seek to win a majority in the upcoming Egyptian elections; rather, it would wait for the secular parties to fail before stepping in and offering their alternative leadership at an opportune moment in the future. Dr. Indyk also does not believe the army is interested in taking over government in Tunisia and Egypt. The Egyptian army has an intense interest in preventing a blow-up in Gaza, as this would get Israel involved in the Gaza strip and might incite populist demand in Egypt to react militarily. Yet, the Egyptian army is not prepared to wage a war with Israel, as it will almost certainly lose the war as well as 1.3 billion dollars in annual American aid.

Libya, Yemen and Syria: In the Midst of Revolutionary Change

In all three cases there is a regime determined to cling to power by relying on a sectarian base of support and by resorting to violence. Syria is the most sectarian-based of the three, and Libya and Yemen have more tribal structures in place. In Libya, Dr. Indyk noted that time was working against Qadhafi as NATO is systematically weakening Qadhafi’s grip on power through bombing, and the embargo and sanctions prevent him from selling oil and from accessing his frozen assets. Hence, his ability to survive and pay mercenaries has decreased dramatically. At the same time, the opposition in Benghazi is gaining strength. According to Dr. Indyk, events in Syria will take much more time to pan out, as well as many more deaths. He contrasted the pattern of protests there with the pattern of protests in Egypt. In Egypt, hundreds of thousands of protesters gathered at Tahrir Square, and the army did not open fire on the people. In Syria, there were no major demonstrations in Damascus, as most of the Sunni business elites based in Damascus and Aleppo have not yet split with the regime. Most anti-government demonstrations are based in the outlying areas and cities. Despite the tight Syrian controls and pervasive military presence, Dr. Indyk commented that the opposition there is well-connected and that video footage was coming out of Syria every day. Turkey, which first managed a political breakthrough into the Arab world by allying with Syria, has now broken with Al-Asad and warned that it will move into Syria to create a safe haven. If it does so, this would be the first military intervention in Syria. Dr. Indyk noted the classic dictator’s dilemma which plagues Al-Asad : if he promises reforms and implements them now, they will be dismissed as being insincere. Further, revolutionaries will see him as being weak and demand more reforms. Yet, if he uses force, he will fuel the anger of the people and deepen the cycle of violence and repression. According to Dr. Indyk, it is only a matter of time before the Sunni elites break with Al-Asad, and he predicts, cautiously, that all the regimes in this category – Libya, Yemen, Syria – would be gone sooner rather than later.  

The ‘Club of Kings’: Morocco, Kuwait, Oman, Jordan, the U.A.E., Qatar, and Saudi Arabia

The Kings and Sheikhs differ from leaders of the Arab republics in that they possess greater religious legitimacy. For example, the kings of Morocco and Saudi Arabia claim lineage to the Prophet Muhammad. They also possess a tribal legitimacy and connection. Nevertheless, these countries have also seen serious protests. In Jordan, Morocco and Oman, the kings have promised widespread reform and paved the way towards constitutional monarchy, which Dr. Indyk considers as the only sensible way forward. Dr. Indyk views Bahrain as a special case, as Saudi Arabia would not allow a revolution to happen at its doorstep, especially given its proximity to its oil fields. He also saw a major rift between Saudi Arabia and the US since the time of Roosevelt, as what Obama did to Mubarak, a long-time American ally, Obama could also potentially do to the Saudis. Further, while the Saudis rely on the US for their external security, the Saudis also recognize that the US is a threat to their internal security. Dr. Indyk concluded that the US is losing its pillars of support in the Middle East – the Iranian pillar fell long ago, and now Mubarak is gone, and the Saudi pillar is on shaky grounds. The US will need to adapt to the momentous developments in the Middle East.