While much of what has come to be known as "the Arab Spring" remains a work in progress, there can be no doubt that a new dynamic has been unleashed across the region -- one that will have a profound impact as it continues to play out in the years to come.
What is most important to recognize is the fact that the developments that have unfolded since Tunisia have all been generated internally, putting to rest the patronizing mythology of the neo-conservatives and their ilk, who had long maintained that change could only come to the Arab World if induced by external (that is, Western) pressure. This was the view, for example, promulgated by Bernard Lewis, who once wrote that in the past change had only occurred in the "stagnant Middle East" when it had been "initiated by past European rulers". This theme was echoed more recently by Danielle Pletka of the American Enterprise Institute when she argued that if change were to come to the contemporary Arab World, "the West must hold open the door" and apply needed "outside pressure".
For some in the Bush administration, that was to be the role of the Iraq war. As it was envisioned (more as an apocalyptic fantasy, than a war), the U.S.-led invasion would not only topple the dictator ushering in a new democracy, it would also shock and shake up the region. Out of the ensuing chaos, they projected that a "new order" would be born -- a view enthusiastically supported by the New York Times' Tom Friedman who had long described the Arab World as an "ossified region" and who, therefore, congratulated the Bush administration for using the war to blast "a hole in the wall of Arab autocracy". And it was this same mind-set that caused then Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, and National Security Advisor, Condoleezza Rice to wax poetic about the "passing of old orders" in the aftermath of the war.
Neo-conservatives similarly projected that Israel's punishing blows against Gaza and Lebanon would play a transformative role, leading Rice to cavalierly dismiss the horrible devastation left in the wake of Israel's 2006 onslaught in Lebanon as "the birth pangs of a new Middle East".
These views, of course, were not only profoundly insensitive, they were dead wrong. Contrary to the Bush administration's ideologically inspired projections, the invasion and occupation of Iraq and Israel's war on its neighbors did not lead to democracy or even to progressive change. Instead, what was left in the wake of each of these conflicts was death and destruction, bitterness and suffering, and a deepened sectarian divide, coupled with a spreading of extremist fervor and intensified regional tension. Arab populations became roiled, Arab governments that had been making even modest moves toward change, pulled back and, overall, the region became more repressive and less free.
The movements that started in Tunisia and spread to Egypt and beyond, on the other hand, are far more deserving of the "birth pangs" designation. They have been inspirational -- creating a new pride amongst publics who had long felt deflated and powerless to make change. They have been contagious -- with tactics and slogans being copied or adapted to local settings, despite each country's unique characteristics. And they have been purely Arab and, it bears repeating, self-generated. There were no would be "Lawrences" or "Rumsfelds" at work in any of these uprisings fashioning themselves as the shapers of the Arab's destiny.
To be sure, circumstances differed from place to place -- Egypt is not Tunisia, nor can Yemen or Bahrain or Syria be seen as cast from the same mold. There were some common characteristics, but what inspired these revolts in each case were unique to each country.
Nevertheless, it is impossible to ignore the fact that what started in Tunis, and came to fruition in Egypt, has ignited a new sense of empowerment and possibility across the Arab World. And as young people have moved to non-violent protest and been met with violence, it has only hardened their resolve to demand change.
The story is far from over. Egypt and Tunisia remain unfinished, while the movements for change in Yemen, Bahrain and Syria have been frustrated by obstinacy and miscalculation. And Libya, for its part, has taken a detour -- with the role of NATO now fundamentally altering the course of this revolt, turning it into something quite different than "the Arab Spring". But even in this unsettled and uncertain state, there is a new spirit in evidence across the region. Even in governments where there is no demand for change, or where majorities are satisfied with their current circumstances, the dynamic of this region-wide revolt can be felt. Arabs have been inspired and imbued with a new sense of pride, governments will listen more carefully to citizen needs, and change will occur.
The path forward will have its obstacles and there will be setbacks, but the journey will continue. And when the history of this seminal period is written what will be noted is that the movements that launched it all and carried it through were started by Arabs, who took steps by themselves to create their own futures.
Dr. James J. Zogby is the author of Arab Voices: What They Are Saying to Us, and Why it Matters (Palgrave Macmillan, October 2010) and the founder and president of the Arab American Institute (AAI), a Washington, D.C.-based organization which serves as the political and policy research arm of the Arab American community.
Follow James Zogby on Twitter: www.twitter.com/AAIUSA
I hope the Arab people come fully to their senses and begin to recognize who and what their TRUE oppressors are. After all this time and all this political and religious manipulation, the outlook is not encouraging.
The American Colonials didn't care if indigenous tribes were Cherokee, Sioux, Navaho, Choctaw etc., the were just "Injuns"
There was no respect for ancient tribal land rights, religious beliefs, or anything that really
mattered to them Injuns. They were just in the way of our lust for exploitation.
The Middle East and Africa were treated the same way by the European Colonials.
Where alliances needed to be formed, they made sure the leaders were "friendlies" to their
exploitation.
The NeoCon mindset classifies ALL Muslims the same as the colonials classified those pesky
Native Americans.
The difference is that now those pesky native tribes in the Middles East, can't be bought off with beads and trinkets. Each tribe is fully aware of the potential wealth and security beneath their
rightful lands.
Egypt: Brotherhood leaders announce they'll implement Sharia
Sun, 17/04/2011
Mahmoud Ezzat, the Muslim Brotherhood's deputy Supreme Guide, said in a forum held in the Cairo district of Imbaba on Thursday that the group wants to establish an Islamic state after it achieves widespread popularity through its Freedom and Justice Party.
http://www.almasryalyoum.com/en/node/403687
If that is the platform they are running on and the Egyptian people elect them, then yes, that's still democracy.
If they can ignore a massive oil-spill off their own shores, and the economic meltdown to continue to scream that government regulation is bad and must be eliminated, is there any chance that they will acknowledge the role the racist attitude towards Arabs in particular (and Muslims in general) by Americans and Europeans has played in freezing out progress in the ME for the past century?
How likely is it that the people who have held that the best way for Americans in general to become better off is to let the wealthiest keep getting more and more of the wealth Americans in general create, and run up massive debts for Americans in general so that that can happen, even in the face of decades of evidence that all that does is make the rich richer, while the general American is lucky to they can maintain the position their parents held will be able to admit they are backing the wrong side in the ME?
Reality may be knocking on the neo-cons doors saying 'you were and are wrong', but the important neocons (those at the top, and those at the bottom) are too interested in either painting a picture over their followers windows, or looking at that picture and believing it to be reality, to listen.
However, I think he misunderstands or at least misses the bigger picture when it comes to the fundamental foundations of the popular protests sweeping the Arab world and beyond recently.
If the point that this is an internally generated protest movement is lost on some of the myopic, ethnocentirc members of our society so be it. For the most part people will believe whatever the want to believe, whether it bears any relation to the truth or not is for most people immaterial.
So what's the real connection that runs through all these protest movements that Zogby hints at but can't quite seem to grasp? It's so obvious and simple and so in front of his face that he can't even see it even as he's using it to make his blog post. It's communications technology and the rise of the universal data culture.
Anything we want to know is at our beck and call, we can talk to hundreds, thousands, and even millions of people all at once, and perhaps most importantly information now flows freely; even in relatively repressive regimes the new communications technology is used.
What this means, in the larger sense, is that we are finally gaining a racial memory and 'conversation or 'consciousness' . This combination is causing us to become sentient as a species, and this is just the beginning.
The first is the one that you make about communications technology, which I see as playing a facilitation role, i.e. it made what has happened possible.
The second point is that the desire for freedom was always there, hidden in the hearts of ordinary people; basically people very much like us in the west. It was waiting for the opportunity that the technology made possible.
The desire for freedom, or as a 1960s professor named Abraham Mazlow called it 'the opportunty for self actualization' lies in the heart of every human. It's just another one of the vast number of attributes that we all share whatever culture we belong to or whatever continent we live on.
And what we have in common vastly outweighs what we do not.
Is it really the availability of a new way to communicate, or that, when conditions are ripe, people will find some way to reach out and communicate with those around them?
Of course they use "WE" as they are in ABSOLUTE CONTROL.....
Fear the ONES in the Pipeline .... the ONES being groomed in the
Judeo-Christian Madrasah
which make the
Taliban Madrasah moderate by comparison!