Can Assad save his regime with radical reforms?

Palm Beach Gardens



Regime change in Syria may have wide impact on the entire Middle East. If the changes are genuine and well planned, they may activate the neglected Syrian track of the peace process with Israel; advance conflict resolution between Israel and Palestinians; and establish balanced relations with Lebanon. Creative Syrian reform could also help Hezbollah and Hamas better integrate in Lebanon and Palestine respectively. Reforms from Damascus could contribute to the stability of Iraq- through improved border control- and provide a model for political reform in Iran.

After two weeks of growing street protest, the reaction of President Assad to the uprising in his country is not clear yet. Will his response to the uprising be to lead the reform to save Syria or to dilute Syrian aspirations and continue his father’s patriarchal legacy? His speech on March 30 disappointed many observers. He acknowledged the need for serious reform but gave no specifics on planned action.

While there is sharp debate among Syrians on how best to introduce change, the Syrians generally believe that the regime is the root-cause of oppression and corruption rather than the president. This is not the case in Libya, where Colonel Gaddafi is both the source of trouble and the target of the uprising.

But Assad does not have an easy task in reforming a dynasty he has led for eleven years and his father founded forty- one years ago. Syria is a police state. The shadow of fear hovers over society. Politics is only for the ruling elite; others whisper when they discuss sensitive matters. State news is rhetorical. One hears about thousands of political prisoners and missing persons and learns not to ask probing questions. The emergency law and has been in operation for 48 years.

Religion and politics are separated less by intimidation than by law. The more secular the mosque and the church are, the less their leaders are monitored. Religious authority is limited by the state. Secularism makes the Syrian regime attractive to reformers who realize that sectarianism is a threat to national unity.

The ruling regime is largely made up of the Alawite sect, which constitutes only 15% of the population. In theory, this minority is an offshoot of Shieism. In practice, the Alawites are an ethnic community with a sectarian label. Like the Kurds and the Druze minorities of Syria, the Alawites are among the most secular of Arabs. The Christian minority, which includes ethnic Armenians, also tends to be secular. Two thirds of the Syrians are Sunnites. The Sunnites of Syria are not as demonstrative in their religious practice as the other Sunnites of the region.

The ruling party has given the Alawites privileges and advantages in politics and the economy. Assad’s extended family also dominates lucrative business. The regime tries to co-opt dissenting people of influence.

Does Bashar al Assad deserve to be trusted to lead change which the revolt is asking for? His professional international training is an asset. When former President Hafez al Assad died in 2000, his son Bashar left his London ophthalmology practice to replace his father. He is the “accidental autocrat”. Hafez al Assad bequeathed Bashar an iron-fisted regime, with many local and foreign enemies. Bashar entered a world in which stability and freedom compete in a zero-sum game.

Assad significant following in Syria should not be dismissed. He is secular with strong national pride and a yearning for social change and Arab unity. His progressive wife is trained in business, active in civil society and popular.

The Achilles heel of the Damascus leader is his cohorts at the helm. Bashar has been controlled and ill advised by a self-serving establishment, in which the military and the business elite are dominant. To survive in power, Assad has to embrace the revolt rather than attempt to discipline it. He should offer immediate, drastic reforms.

To appease the street protesters, Assad has recently dissolved the cabinet, released some political prisoners and promised to lift the law of emergency and to encourage party politics . He has also raised salaries and reduced the price of basic commodities.

However, for the people of the uprising, Assad’s offer is not enough. The protest continues as people demand radical change, including the release of all political prisoners, constitutional change and implementing of free elections. People aspire for having active civic society, vigorous political parties and a free market.

But such a serious level of political reform cannot be implemented by a system that does not trust people. The current regime must be fundamentally reformed. Will Assad have the courage and the backing to challenge the entrenched regime? Assad needs the power of the reformers to counter the self perpetuating establishment.

Many observers warn that disintegration of the Syrian regime could have destructive ramifications for the region. On the other hand, orderly regime reform could have a beneficial impact not only on Syria, but also on Lebanon, Israel, future Palestine, Jordan and Iraq.

Assad ‘s second term ends in three years. He could use this period to oversee regime reform. Will Bashar al-Assad live up to the expectations of a great nation in rapidly changing region?

The Arabs should not fully outsource Libya’s liberation

Palm Beach Gardens:

Where is the role of the Arab states in a multinational effort to save Libya? The Arab League has promised to be “visible” in the third north African uprising in recent weeks. But so far, in this costly operation, Arab help has been largely symbolic. The League is a diplomatic pan-Arab body, established in 1945 to represent the twenty two Arab speaking countries in North Africa, the Near East and the Arab Gulf states. This organization has never been forceful and responsive to the needs and aspirations of the 360 million people it is supposed to serve.

The reluctance of the Arab League to be active in Libya is due to the insecurity of the rulers to whom it is accountable. The regimes that have not been shaken yet wish to stop the Arab awakening, and the regimes that have already been shaken want the process of change to be slow, painless and limited.

For several decades, the Arabs have complained about foreign military presence in their countries. Yet now, to topple a hated and universally rejected ruler, the League has shied away from direct Arab action in favor of foreign intervention.

It is indeed shameful for the Arab League to fully outsource to the outside world the thorny job of liberating an Arab country hijacked by its dictator. The League should call upon Libya’s immediate neighbors who are especially suited to help in ending this crisis.

The West and the Arab states should adopt a division of labor in resolving this crisis. With overwhelming air power, the West will hopefully manage to dismantle the military forces of Gaddafi, albeit with difficulty to avoid the expected - and in some cases regime coerced - civilian victims.

To reinforce the logistics of confrontation with the adversary and facilitate suitable nation mending, Arab boots on Arab ground are needed. Now is the time for an Egyptian battalion to march into Libya from the east and a Tunisian battalion to march from the west to finish the rule of this despot. Once the Gaddafi loyalists face their Arab neighbors on the two borders, and once they asses the full impact of overwhelming air power, they would realize the futility of their situation and surrender. Most likely, Gaddafi would then finally be handed over, dead or alive, to the intervening Arab armies.

Loyalty to the Libyan regime has been largely bought by money and privilege. With mounting and solid international intervention, it may not be long before we hear of a growing defection by the top elements of the regime, even without Arab military intervention.

Currently, two factors would serve to extend the life of the Libyan regime: hesitation by the international community to fully support the operation and Arab grumbling over the proportionality of Western intervention.

In principle, preserving the unity of a failed-state is not easy. For several weeks, the political and military control of Libya has been divided between a Tripoli partially “loyalist” region and a Benghazi beleaguered, opposition region. The opposition is weak and lacks leadership. The risk of turning a revolution into a chaotic stalemate rises with time. Libya is now on the verge of civil war, partitioning, and exposure to infiltration by undesirable foreign militias.

In these economic hard times, the Western allies also need generous Arab contributions especially from the oil rich Gulf states in order to finance such a costly operation.

By participating in the saving of a failed neighbor state, Arabs would set a new model of conflict resolution, a historic model in which the region effectively empowers failing or failed states at the right moment, with or without international support.

As the people of the Arab Middle East strive for freedom, the Arab League should begin to reflect the new aspirations of its people, and move away from parroting the ideas of insecure rulers.

In Libya, Benghazi’s freedom fighters face a massacre

Authorized, decisive international intervention in Libya is urgent.

At the start of the Libyan uprising, demonstrators armed with freedom symbols faced soldiers armed with bullets. By cruelly suppressing its society, the Libyan regime has forfeited its legitimate sovereignty. As diplomats debate ending Gaddahfi’s rule , he is left free to murder the people demanding change.

The reaction of the US administration to events in Libya has been inconsistent. President Obama chose his words carefully when he said that Gaddahfi must leave office for the good of his people. But in a matter of days, as the ruthless colonel made territorial gains in fighting back the rebels, Obama sounded hesitant to expedite Gaddahfi ‘s departure. He said the “cost” for the removal of this despot maybe too high for the US.

Leaving Libya in the background this week, Secretary of State Hilary Clinton visits Cairo and Tunis to promote “freedom and democracy”. She has softly rebuked Saudi Arabia for sending soldiers to defend the rulers of Bahrain and called for “restraint” from both sides. Libya’s rapid advance in crushing the revolution does not seem to alarm the US. Washington coldly figures that as troubles in Bahrain escalate, Libya could wait for more convenient and risk free intervention.

America’s fear for the eventual tumbling of the Saudi ally factors highly in every US action in the region. The implication of a rapid fall of Libya terrifies many in Washington. Not as purported, the coolness of Washington to intervention in Libya seems like a matter of conflict of interest rather than a lesson learned from the Iraq war. For many American policy hawks, the Iraq war was worth its heavy cost; but when it comes to desperate Libyan nation even authorized international intervention sounds risky for those same hawks.

Libya’s revolution is at risk of failure. The Libyan army is heading east for a decisive battle with the rebels. A bloody battle is expected in Benghazi. The army has the capacity to kill while the rebels have only the will to overcome injustice.

Given the lack of symmetry in power, the Benghazi confrontation may soon turn into a massacre. The crushed rebellion would leave Libya with tens of thousands of innocent victims, a destroyed infrastructure, a demoralized nation, an angry region and a world community in a state of collective guilt.

A failure in Libya’s bid for freedom is not only a tragedy for a single nation; it is a reversal for the cause of freedom in the entire region. Despite their heroism, the rebel’s failure in Libya sends a comforting message to the Arab despots: bloody force works in suppressing opposition. Defeating the freedom fighters reinstates people’s fear of the ruler, the root cause of political stagnation in the Middle East.

Regardless of who wins the Benghazi battle, at the end of the day, the Libyan regime is fated for self destruction. As Gaddahfi’s rule is soaked in crime, deep in theft of national resources, accountable for massacres, and despised at home and abroad, it is doomed.

While it is difficult to imagine the Libyan regime surviving for long, when the eventual change in regime occurs, how the rebels come to power is important. In a state which has subdued its opposition for so long, cosmetic transfer of power should not replace genuine reform achieved by an empowered and proud opposition.

The wavering international community must not wait for a massacre to justify authorized, decisive intervention. Gaddahfi must be forced to step down sooner rather than later

Can the Arab Awakening bring peace to the Middle East?

Palm Beach Gardens, Florida - Israel has been monitoring the storm sweeping the Arab world with anxiety. For decades, the peace with Egypt has been governed by paper agreements rather than grassroots engagement between the two peoples. The overthrow of the Egyptian government and the contagious rebellion have raised Israeli concerns that this dramatic change could spell the end of the Camp David Accords and consequently terminate peace with Egypt.



Israelis are divided about whether now is the best time to make peace with the rest of the Arab world. The sceptics are worried that if the people of Egypt and Jordan unite and throw out their leaders, they could also throw out the peace treaty with Israel. But the pragmatists, on the other hand, argue that since Israel is still in a powerful position – enjoying military superiority and economic prosperity – now is the time to make a deal with the Palestinians and the rest of the Arab countries. This latter group reasons that as time passes, the power pendulum may shift and leave Israel with less leverage to make peace on their terms.



Indeed, lasting peace between Israel and the Arab world requires progressive integration of Israel into the region. One of the lessons one may draw from the revolutions is that Israel’s peace with select Middle East countries is much more fragile than a regional peace deal would be.



Israel’s Opposition Leader Tzipi Livni holds this read-the-signs view. In a recent letter to J Street, a US-based advocacy group committed to peacefully ending the Arab-Israeli conflict, she appealed to Israel’s leaders to seize the moment: “Recent momentous events in the region serve to highlight the unsustainable nature of the status quo and the need for initiative and courage in Israel's pursuit of peace and security with the Palestinians and across the Middle East.”



Livni’s emphasis on the need for Israel to pursue peace with the Palestinians as a step towards regional peace is perceptive: an incomplete peace is not lasting. The 1978 peace accord between then Egyptian President Anwar Sadat and former Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin ended the warfare between Israel and Egypt but ignored the ongoing occupation of Palestinian and Syrian land. By reaching a deal with the Palestinians, Israel could mitigate a source of great frustration and open the door for peace with the rest of the Arab world.



Beyond demonstrating the unsustainability of the status quo, the sweeping changes in the region could spell renewal both for the Israeli-Palestinian dynamic as well as for intra-Palestinian politics.



Palestinian factionalism has no doubt been an impediment to peace negotiations. Today, there are two Palestinian leaderships, Hamas dominating Gaza, and the Palestinian Authority representing the West Bank and East Jerusalem. The Palestinian spilt is also ideological: Hamas is religiously conservative and ambiguous about its political objectives, while the rest of Palestinians mobilise on purely nationalistic grounds and have explicitly accepted the two-state solution. The new political environment has already forced Palestinian leaders to take positive steps. Feeling the threat of revolt, the Palestinian Authority has already called for parliamentary elections to be held by September.



Moreover, the new leaders in Egypt may have a better chance than Mubarak did to press Hamas to participate in the elections, reunite with the Palestinian Authority and contribute to a probable new round of peace talks. To the young and educated Arab citizens who have been leading these revolutions, Gaza’s traditional leadership will otherwise seem increasingly regressive.



United, the Palestinians could be in a much stronger position to make commitments to Israel’s security and to building an independent modern state of their own. And if Egypt emerges as a leading force in a changing Middle East, it may be able to reintroduce the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative (API) with much greater impact. Unfairly, the API – which offers full relations between Israel and the Arab world in exchange for withdrawal to the 1967 borders – has been marginalised as an outdated document.



The current dramatic political change in the region must be embraced. There is an opportunity to expand the peace by making it applicable to Palestinians, comforting to Israel and relevant to all Arabs. What may appear as a crisis could be approached as an opportunity.

Are American Muslims radicalized ?

Palm Beach Gardens





On March 10, the US congress will conduct a hearing on the “radicalizing of Islam”. Labeling an entire community “radicalized” is offensive. The hearings charge Muslim Americans with insufficient cooperation with national security agents. But when consulted, these agents deny the validity of the charge.



American Muslims are aware of the need to reform religious education and socialization of the youth. They are aware of the need to promote creative interpretation of the faith. Since 9/11, the Muslim communities in America have been discussing internal reforms and ways to improve relations with the wider society. But reform takes time and only occurs voluntarily.



Human contact is an antidote for prejudice. When members of our church visited a mosque in West Palm Beach recently, they were overwhelmed with emotions. The visit was a gesture of solidarity and respect; our hosts in the mosque expressed a strong desire to deepen the exchange and the dialogue.



Over the last decade churches, mosques and synagogues have worked hard to build interfaith ethics, contacts of reconciliation, and solidarity among religious communities. It is hard to build trust but easy to lose it. Suddenly, a congressional committee declares an emergency about Muslims and Islam in America.



Bias feeds on bias. In America and abroad, Islamic fundamentalism has grown side by side with Christian fundamentalism. In our society, fundamentalism thrives in places of worship, on university campuses, in the mass media, the congress and political parties. Why is America alarmed about Muslim radicalization and not worried about Christian radicalization?



While fanatics vary in the ways they express violence, they are all destructive at varying levels. While Christian fundamentalist may not blow up planes or buildings, they do rupture human relations and support policies of war and privilege.



The March 10 hearings have already proven to be counterproductive. They have generated tremendous radicalization in attitude, dividing society into supporters and opponents of the congressional investigation.



In trying to “cure” Muslims from radicalization, the conservative elements of our society may be turning some Muslims toward a defiant position. Today, it may be hard to be an adult Muslim American and not feel humiliated. It may be difficult to be a young Muslim and not feel morally agitated. It may even be tempting for some US Muslim women to resist external forms of modernity by wearing the veil to assert their cultural identity out of pride.



The timing of the hearing is another factor of poor taste. While the world is watching the Middle East oust its dictators, America confronts its Arab community at home and turns on the floodlights to investigate their loyalty. As the Arab world is undergoing historic political reform this is the time to start new ways of cooperation between the Muslim community and the Western world.



Muslim Americans are agents of social change for the Muslim world; many also function as informal goodwill ambassadors for America in their countries of origin.



As president Obama has opined, Muslim Americans are not part of the problem, “they are part of the solution”.



The radicalization hearings radicalize.

The impact of Arab awakening on political Islam, oil and Palestine

Palm Beach Gardens: As Arab revolt spreads across borders, observers ponder consequences.

In a rapidly changing Mideast, the West is closely watching how the role of political Islam evolves, how upheaval impacts oil production and how power shift might affect the fate of Israel’s treaty with Egypt.

Regarding political Islam, skeptics expect to see fanatics in Egypt and Tunisia dominate the new politics. Post- revolution worst scenarios need not materialize. It is very possible that reformed regimes will move - not without reversals - toward democracy, by integrating religious movements as elements in a wider spectrum of political parties.

It is difficult to predict how religion will mix with politics in future- oriented Arab societies. It helps to note that extreme Muslim groups tend to thrive in freedom-starved societies. Police states allow fanatic groups to exist and organize, in return for being silent and passive. But when reform takes place, fanatic religious parties are likely to lose the self- serving protection of the state.

In Egypt, a pacified Islamic movement, the Muslim Brothers, has focused on a narrow agenda of social issues and failed to contribute significantly to state building. The Muslim Brothers have built a strong following by providing social services, promoting religious symbols, popularizing veils for women and “defending” Palestine rhetorically.

In the long run, the Muslim Brothers should have a tough time competing with progressive parties. That said, moderate elements of the Muslim Brothers could participate in building democracy. If Arab women could play an active role in state building, it will be a strong indication that the uprising has become a true revolution.

Muslim parties could participate in building a renewed society which is also faithful to Islamic tradition. A key factor in progress is separating the powers of the state by restricting the mosque and the church from dictating regressive legislation.

If Egypt and Tunisia continue to move in the direction of democracy, other liberated regimes will easily follow a sound trend in building democracy.

Like religion, oil is an important resource, which could be a blessing or a limitation. Unlike the consequences of change in Egypt and Tunisia, liberal reform of oil states directly affects the strategic interests of Western governments, in particular the US. America imports much of the Arab oil, exports a wide range of products and services worth hundreds of billions of dollars to conspicuously consuming, unpopular emirates and Kingdoms. Moreover, Washington has maintained an extensive military presence in the region and provides the lion’s share of national security to oil producing states.

Unlike recovery in Egypt and Tunisia, the road of oil-producing countries to political liberalization is treacherous. Libya’s current developments reveal how complicated political reform could be for countries which are steep in corruption and dependent on the outside world for national security.

The primary worry of the West should not be about the future of political Islam, but rather the peaceful transformation of oil producing countries. Avoiding regional chaos is the challenge of the next round of revolts which would significantly threaten long established international relations.

The West has to acknowledge that the political status quo of the oil- producing Arab states is unsustainable. More importantly, the West has to admit that it is a central stakeholder in a region which could explode as it “reforms”. The unraveling in Bahrain and Libya are just the start of far reaching upheaval.

It is not correct to assume that the US is neutral to what is happening in Libya and in Bahrain. A UN resolution could authorize the US to help Egypt and Tunisia in supporting the Libyan people to oust a teetering and dangerous regime.

Applying strong - not cosmetic- US pressure on all Arab oil-producing regimes to reform would avert potential revolutions. If the West truly embraces genuine reform in the Arab Gulf, it will contribute to a global effort of empowering all states which lack basic freedoms and solid industrial infrastructure. It is not by selling arms and extending foreign military presence that the West can provide security to rulers who are in desperate search of legitimacy.

The fate of Israel’s peace treaty with Egypt is the third area of concern to the West. While integrating political Islam is in the hands of Arab societies, and while reforming oil countries is a joint responsibility between Arabs and Americans, safeguarding Israel’s treaty with Egypt is directly connected with the outcome of the peace process.

Israel is justifiably worried about future relations with Egypt. To reinforce its agreement with Egyptians, Israelis must stop settlement building, in order to induce the Palestinians to return to the peace talks. By continuing illegal construction in the West bank and East Jerusalem, Israel might eventually force Egyptians to re-examine the rationale of the 1979 Camp David peace agreement. It was the late President Sadat’s intention to start the peace process in Egypt and to continue in implementing it with Palestine, Syria and Lebanon. Sadat was assassinated by those who believed that Israel was not willing to respond to the aspirations of Palestinians.

Egyptians are divided on whether to trust Israel’s readiness to make peace with the rest of the Arab world. By achieving peace with Palestinians, Syria and Lebanon, Israel will strengthen its peace with Egypt and come much closer to normalizing its relations with all Arab states.

This new Arab era is about freedom; it should be embraced regardless of its immediate impact on religion, oil or international relations. Eventually freedom leads to the common good.

Egypt and Libya can help Libya build a modern state

Palm Beach Gardens:
(Pulished in Palm Beach Post March 1, 2011)


Will Libya follow Tunisia and Egypt in forcing tyrants out? Moammar Gadhafi's days are numbered, as his people inch their way to depose him and the United Nations Security Council deliberates charging him with crimes against humanity. Historians will explain that the Libyan dictator abandoned reality long before he left power.



When a popular uprising is born, the ruler defends himself with old methods of oppression. When he discovers that old tactics do not work, he improvises with a series of new tactics, which bring him to the edge of a cliff. The longer the autocratic regime is stretched, the slower the reaction time to protest.



As the regime is about to collapse, American experts rush to tell us what will happen next. These experts are often off the mark. Pundits who have predicted that the Libyan leader will drag out this tragedy should think again. The mood of the region is contagious; the will of the protesters is formidable.



Some observers rush to judgment with cynical theories about the inability of the Libyan people to make political progress. On MSNBC's Morning Joe, Council on Foreign Relations President Richard Haass opined that Libya is rapidly turning into a Somalia-like failed state. He argued that the U.S. soon must station troops in Libya, to prevent terrorism. When asked if the U.S. should work with Europe to help Libya, he was hesitant. While Mr. Haass did not expressly advocate a significant U.S. military presence, his unilateral approach and narrow outlook on the future of Libya are questionable.



American military intervention in Libya would be a spoiler. The Arab street is highly suspicious of additional U.S. military missions in the region. A U.N.- approved, European/Egyptian surgical intervention would hasten the ouster of Gadhafi, reduce bloodshed and set the stage for Libyan-led, externally supported political renewal.



Commentary on Libya's political vacuum after the downfall of the dictator is sobering. Transition to democracy will take years in a country with a deep tribal structure. But asserting that post-Gadhafi Libya is heading to tribal rule is not helpful. Libya has an educated diaspora and a middle class eager to lay the foundation of a modern state.



Not only is there ambiguity on Libya's fate after the departure of its iron-fisted ruler, there is a paternalistic view on how to rebuild this fragile country. Could Arabs help one another through cross-border partnership? Why not think of new ways to empower this oil-rich Arab state, with language, culture and geography in mind. Libya borders Egypt and Tunisia, two countries that have just finished largely peaceful uprisings. These two already are engaged with state-building and reform. They are strategically positioned to help this small, endowed and vulnerable state.



In Libya, a vast and rich land of roughly 1 million square miles - more than three times the size of France - there are only 6 million inhabitants. In contrast, the 80 million Egyptians live in an area of about 600,000 square miles, 5 percent of which is cultivable. Egyptians are skilled; they would welcome the opportunity to work in Libya as advisers, legal consultants, engineers, teachers, doctors and social workers.



The ratio of land to people is also very favorable in Tunisia. Most of the 10 million Tunisians are educated. They have experience in civil society. They would be willing to share their knowledge with their neighbors. The West could offer Libya advanced technical assistance. At the same time, it could encourage and support Libya's neighbors to provide the lion's share of empowerment.



Three North African Arab countries have started a hopeful new era. Working together, they could serve as liberation models for the rest of the region.



Ghassan Michel Rubeiz, a resident of Palm Beach Gardens, has written for The Christian Science Monitor and the Arab-American News Services.