23 replies to this topic

[GeordieSaint]

I don't believe it has developed as many Western observers will have liked with secular/non-Islamist ideals being resoundedly quitened in places like Tunisia and Egypt. The Free Syrian Army are slowly being quitened by the Muslim Brotherhood in the Syrian conflict also. Therefore I have a read a comment on the internet today that the Arab Spring is fast becoming the Islamist Autumn.

Do you agree with this analogy? What are the implcations for the World and the international community?

[bowes]

I think that's pretty much the case and it's looking increasingly like diplomatic relations will be impossible to sustain due to repeated unprovoked mob violence. My largest concerns are how this will effect non Muslims, women and homosexuals in the Islamic world and how this will affect Muslims living in non Muslim countries.

[GeordieSaint]

I think that's pretty much the case and it's looking increasingly like diplomatic relations will be impossible to sustain due to repeated unprovoked mob violence.

Why? The Egyptian President has condemned the violence as has the Libyan political elite. Consequentely, such attacks will have little impact on diplomatic relations in my opinion. It might actually bring Western governments closer to these regimes...

I personally think if this trend of increased Islamism in the Muslim World continues, we will see another power bloc been created to rival the USA, China, India, Russia and EU. I don't mean economically but in institutions such as the UN and Arab League.

[Northern Sol]

Anyone who thought that Islamism was a spent force in the MENA and that the revolutions were democratic / liberal in character is a fool.

[Northern Sol]

Why? The Egyptian President has condemned the violence as has the Libyan political elite. Consequentely, such attacks will have little impact on diplomatic relations in my opinion. It might actually bring Western governments closer to these regimes...

I personally think if this trend of increased Islamism in the Muslim World continues, we will see another power bloc been created to rival the USA, China, India, Russia and EU. I don't mean economically but in institutions such as the UN and Arab League.

The Egyptian president condemned the "provocation" in the strongest language and then went on to ask Egyptians not to attack the embassies. He certainly did not condemn the violence. In fact the Muslim Brotherhood's Arabic twitter feed supported them.

[GeordieSaint]

The Egyptian president condemned the "provocation" in the strongest language and then went on to ask Egyptians not to attack the embassies. He certainly did not condemn the violence. In fact the Muslim Brotherhood's Arabic twitter feed supported them.

Ok, that sounds like I have read something incorrectly somewhere or he has been misquoted.

But back to the original question, what are the implications for the international community? Are we seeing the creation of another power bloc rather than the 'fragmented' Arab League?

[Northern Sol]

Ok, that sounds like I have read something incorrectly somewhere or he has been misquoted.

More than likely a damn fool Islamist apologist decided to interpret his words as a condemnation when if anything he has been stoking the fire. He was calling more demonstrations (albeit peaceful ones) even though there have already been deaths; any responsible politician would try to calm the situation down.

But back to the original question, what are the implications for the international community? Are we seeing the creation of another power bloc rather than the 'fragmented' Arab League?

I would not have thought so. Arabs are very good at in-fighting. Syria and Iraq were ruled by the same political party (Ba'ath) for decades and still managed to be deadly enemies.

[Wolford6]

The Arab Spring cost an absolute fortune in arms, fuel etc and none of those rebels could raise that sort of money. The fact that several countries all rebelled within months of each other indicated to me at the time that bit was being organised and funded by external forces.

It would seem that the funding must have come from America, Saudia Arabia, Iran, Russia or China. Of these, I would guess that America had most to gain. Either way, it's all gone belly up because Moslem countries apart from Turkey are all riven with tribal and religious factions that are easily roused to revenge and violence. In ten years time we'll be back to dictatorships tolerated by the West.

Let them get on with it; the last thing we need is to police another Iraq or Afghanistan.

[getdownmonkeyman]

What I am about to type may sound ridiculous, but here goes:

The only way that Muslim Arab countries can be structured is under a dictatorship. As has been previously mentioned, there are too many tribal factions and that is before you get to the Sunni/Sh'ia separation.

Quite simply, these countries are too fractious to work under a democratic system.

[Northern Sol]

The Arab Spring cost an absolute fortune in arms, fuel etc and none of those rebels could raise that sort of money. The fact that several countries all rebelled within months of each other indicated to me at the time that bit was being organised and funded by external forces.

It would seem that the funding must have come from America, Saudia Arabia, Iran, Russia or China. Of these, I would guess that America had most to gain. Either way, it's all gone belly up because Moslem countries apart from Turkey are all riven with tribal and religious factions that are easily roused to revenge and violence. In ten years time we'll be back to dictatorships tolerated by the West.

Let them get on with it; the last thing we need is to police another Iraq or Afghanistan.

Let me get this straight, the West tolerated dictatorships but the US had the most to gain from their overthrow? It doesn't make sense.

If you want to know where the money came from look at Saudi, Qatar and Turkey but bear in mind that countries like Libya already huge amounts of guns and fuel even in the Gaddafi era.

That several countries did so together is due to modern communications, when Tunisia fell, it was inevitable that other countries would also fall. Had Tunisia ended in a bloody mess then Egypt, Yemen, Syria etc would never have happened.

[Northern Sol]

What I am about to type may sound ridiculous, but here goes:

The only way that Muslim Arab countries can be structured is under a dictatorship. As has been previously mentioned, there are too many tribal factions and that is before you get to the Sunni/Sh'ia separation.

Quite simply, these countries are too fractious to work under a democratic system.

It is not ridiculous, it is often made to sound ridiculous by Guardianistas (and sometimes by the right as well) but these people go very quiet when their rosy tinted predictions go horribly wrong.

[GeordieSaint]

Let me get this straight, the West tolerated dictatorships but the US had the most to gain from their overthrow? It doesn't make sense.

Spot on. The regimes in Egypt, Tunisia, Bahrain etc were all friendly with the US and the West prior to the uprising. We stand to lose the most, especially the Israelis by what has happened.

However,despite the differences between tribes, sects, groups etc, you seem to dismiss the one unifying factor, Islam. All the new regimes have this factor at the heart of their movements and it does unite the populace. With the Brotherhood at the fore, I personally think we might see a new emboldened Arab League.

[Wolford6]

Let me get this straight, the West tolerated dictatorships but the US had the most to gain from their overthrow? It doesn't make sense.

If you want to know where the money came from look at Saudi, Qatar and Turkey but bear in mind that countries like Libya already huge amounts of guns and fuel even in the Gaddafi era.

That several countries did so together is due to modern communications, when Tunisia fell, it was inevitable that other countries would also fall. Had Tunisia ended in a bloody mess then Egypt, Yemen, Syria etc would never have happened.

1. it makes sense when you realise that internal strife in Arab countries: -
- makes Israel's position more secure
- reduces the likelihood of an Arab cartel holding the world to ransom over oil prices
- enables arms to be provided to the insurgent faction in exchange for future trading deals on oil-price and rebuilding projects.

2. Qatar is in thrall to the USA. The USA protects it from neighbouring states. None of the countries in the Trucial States region trust each other.

3. Turkey is already having trouble with both internal Moslem fundamentalists and the Kurds. It is desperate to join the EU and wouldn't do anything to compromise its desired future as a "western" state.

[GeordieSaint]

1. it makes sense when you realise that internal strife in Arab countries: -
- makes Israel's position more secure
- reduces the likelihood of an Arab cartel holding the world to ransom over oil prices
- enables arms to be provided to the insurgent faction in exchange for future trading deals on oil-price and rebuilding projects.

It doesn't make the Israeli position any stronger. They've lost a key player in the region, Mubarak. What is appearing in Egypt, Syria etc are Islamist regimes who are feverently anti- Israel. The result is truly hostile regimes surrounding Israel...

The only key oil player that has been affected is Libya. The key players in any Arab cartel would be Saudi Arabia and Iraq plus the other smaller gulf states.

I haven't seen any insurgents running around with C-8 rifles or firing Javelin missiles?! As NS states, it is the rich gulf states I.e. Saudi and Qatar funding these risings. They benefit, not the West.

[Northern Sol]

1. it makes sense when you realise that internal strife in Arab countries: -
- makes Israel's position more secure
- reduces the likelihood of an Arab cartel holding the world to ransom over oil prices
- enables arms to be provided to the insurgent faction in exchange for future trading deals on oil-price and rebuilding projects.

Israel is not more secure with the Muslim Brotherhood (sister organisation to Hamas) in power in Egypt and frankly whoever is in power in Tunisia, Libya or Yemen is largely irrelevant to them as they are too far away. Likewise if Jordan fell this would cause them serious problems.

There is already an Arab cartel holding the world to ransom and Tunsia, Egypt and Yemen have no oil anyway.

We sold arms to the whole region anyway as did the Yanks.

2. Qatar is in thrall to the USA. The USA protects it from neighbouring states. None of the countries in the Trucial States region trust each other.

Untrue, none like the Saudis and all are frightened of Iran. That's why Qatar is backing the opposition, Assad is in Iran's pocket.

3. Turkey is already having trouble with both internal Moslem fundamentalists and the Kurds. It is desperate to join the EU and wouldn't do anything to compromise its desired future as a "western" state.

10 years out of date. Turkey has abandoned its EU ambitions, is growing very rapidly without the West and is run by Islamists. They are backing the opposition because they trade a lot with the Arab world and don't wish to lose influence.

[Northern Sol]

Spot on. The regimes in Egypt, Tunisia, Bahrain etc were all friendly with the US and the West prior to the uprising. We stand to lose the most, especially the Israelis by what has happened.

However,despite the differences between tribes, sects, groups etc, you seem to dismiss the one unifying factor, Islam. All the new regimes have this factor at the heart of their movements and it does unite the populace. With the Brotherhood at the fore, I personally think we might see a new emboldened Arab League.

Arab nationalism also tried to unite the Arab world. It also failed.

[Northern Sol]

I haven't seen any insurgents running around with C-8 rifles or firing Javelin missiles?! As NS states, it is the rich gulf states I.e. Saudi and Qatar funding these risings. They benefit, not the West.

Indeed Saudi backs "democracy" in Syria because Syria is Sunni majority and this will mean one less Shi'ite government and one less friend for Iran. It is against reform in Bahrein for the opposite reasons. Bahrein is majority Shi'ite and they don't want an Iran friendly government near them.

[GeordieSaint]

Arab nationalism also tried to unite the Arab world. It also failed.

True. However, that concept ties in the ethnicity and there are big differences between an Iraqi Arab and a Libyan Arab etc. It's like suggesting a Bulgarian and a Frenchman are the same European stock... Islam on the other hand is the one binding factor from Morocco to Indonesia. The Brotherhood from Tunisia to Syria all discuss the Caliphate; countries with the Brotherhood at the fore are a very different proposition than 'relatively' secular Arab leaders such as Nasser, Assad, Mubarak etc.

[Northern Sol]

There are also significant differences between Islam in Syria and Islam in Tunisia. Islamists are generally intolerant of these differences, far more than Arab nationalists were intolerant of tribal differences.

There is also the issue that only a small number of Arab League states are controlled by Islamists. The others are the same odd mixture of military, monarchy and socialists that they ever were. They all have a vested interest in not having their regime overthrown by Islamists.

[Bedford Roughyed]

Ordinary people in Libya stormed a extremist camp yesterday and forced the extremists (linked to death of the USA ambassador) to flee. There is still plenty going on in these countries and it's far from settled.

(chuck in a few dodgy youtube videos to spice things up)