Khalil Matar

The prolonged civil war expected to ensue in Libya poses a great dilemma for the Arab people and a quasi-challenge to the United States. It is expected to spread to the rest of the Middle East from Yemen and Bahrain to Jordan and Saudi Arabia, and most likely other countries of the region. Both of these dilemmas and challenges can be summed up in a simple question: What next?

The fast developing situation in the Middle East forces us all to step back for a minute and think, Should everyone outside the region just sit back and watch? Should they intervene forcefully? Or should a peaceful plan for democracy be constructed in hopes of eliminating the chaos and violence that plagues the region? If the current political trends continue, the economies of the industrial world will suffer and their recovery will be much further off than originally thought.

The fall of leaders in both Egypt and Tunisia came at a relatively cheap cost in Third World terms. The presidents of both countries surrendered and left their posts because they had institutional militaries that stood up to them and defied their orders to shoot at protesters. Yet, the real change of regimes in these two countries and what will follow in the rest of the region are going to be expensive. In Yemen, Libya, Bahrain, and Oman so far, security forces have shot at protesters and are taking tribal and sectarian allegiances more seriously than institutional and national considerations. Human lives will be lost when the regimes of the region learn that a simple change of leadership will not make a sufficient difference.

Many officials in different regimes of the region are looking at the developments of Egypt post-Mubarak and Tunisia post-Ben Ali, fearing their fate will be similar to many officials forced to resign, arrested and facing corruption charges. Most have their assets frozen, if they’re not outrightly killed. The result: a tsunami of democracy hopefuls. Blood will be shed and chaos will prevail anywhere from a few months to few years.

Despite many thoughts to the contrary, or exaggerations by some governments, the Isalmists are sitting in the wings, awaiting the right time to jump to the forefront and take power. Some countries such as, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Jordan, and Libya are more susceptible to this development than others…. Just imagine if the Isalmists were to control oil wealth.

The whole governing system in the region will have to be changed. A change of those in power is not sufficient. The developments in Egypt and Tunisia have proven this so far. The degree of change needed will not happen through demonstrations or use of force. The societies are all militarized, whether through their tribal and sectarian mentalities or with actual weapons. Corruption has been a tool to guarantee the support of officials in non-tribal societies. Financial payoffs to tribes worked in those countries that did not have a modern civil system. New leaders will most likely resort to similar tactics used by current leaders. Iraq is such a case.

A civil society has to be built in the region before there can be democracy.

A few years ago, an Arab ambassador at the UN was asking for help because the Security Council was discussing human rights breaches in his country. He was told the whole Arab world supported him, not because that is an “infringement on his country’s sovereignty”, but because discussing such breaches “implies there is a human to have rights that are consequently breached… and that is rejected for that root cause!”

The United States can be a real leader in such a peaceful change. However, it cannot lead militarily. No matter how painful memories of Rwanda-Burundi are, dealing with the root causes of their conflicts is much more beneficial than creating a precedent in Libya that would not be followed in Bahrain or Saudi Arabia. This would lead to a new wave of accusations of “double-standard” and all further efforts would lose credibility.

The main instigator for a new plan will have to be financial. The United States can tell Arab leaders their huge financial interests invested around the world will be subject to sanctions, and support and investments by international corporations will be halted if they do not move according to a well devised plan to establish and energize a civil society. Honest elections would have to occur within a specified time frame with assistance from an international organization, the financing of which could be provided by wealthy countries in the region. Such an effort will be much more beneficial to the suffering people than instituting a no-fly zone or an International Criminal Court.

Another issue at hand is the Arab-Israeli conflict. It is true that current demonstrators are not placing this issue at the forefront of their movements. But these same people still harbor resentment for the use of force by the Israelis against the Palestinian people. It is a matter of time before the Palestinians take to the streets just like the rest of their Arab brethren. The United States and Israel should seize this opportunity to act and not take after the Arabs.

President Obama’s speech in Cairo instilled hope in the region’s youth. It is high time to turn general suggestions into an actual plan. Affecting Arab leaders’ wealth will be much more persuasive than using military force. The credibility of the United States is at stake once again.

June 23 2011