By Mohamad Zakaria

It’s not unusual that countries that have gone through a popular revolution afterwards face a period of instability. Post-revolution instability and insecurity was common throughout history in all the countries where revolutions succeeded. It took time for stability and prosperity to follow. The post-revolution period of instability and insecurity in the Arab world are no exceptions to that. The major international political powers’ competitions for more influence in the region, and their wish to continue to protect their interests, are contributing to prolong the post-revolution period of instability.

In this article, I attempt to discuss some of the consequences of the power struggles among the major global powers (USA, Russia, and China) in the Middle East on the post-revolutions’ success and on the ongoing revolutions’ success in the region.

Tunisia

Tunisia had few months of instability after the Tunisian uprising in 2011. However, the political parties managed to control the situation relatively fast after Tunisia had its first free and fair parliamentary election in its recent history since its independence from France in 1956.

The fact that most Tunisian people are well-educated and that their current political parties are being led by moderate leaders, have been instrumental in creating the environment for swift political compromises that  created the base for political stability in a relatively short post-revolution time. The political and economic indicators in Tunisia show that it is on correct path towards economic and political stability. However, such progress may only be sustainable if the major regional and international political players won’t further accelerate their competition in Tunisia.

Such scenario may very well happen. This is especially true after the Islamists have won the majority of votes in the parliament in the recent parliamentary elections and, as consequences, are leading, in coalition with a couple of  other major political parties, in the current transitional government in Tunisia. Neither France nor the USA or even the neighbouring countries are happy to see a government that is dominated by Islamists ruling Tunisia. Therefore, they may use their economic power to destabilise the economic situation and to try to make the investors abstain from investing in Tunisia. By this, they will make this government fail to improve the Tunisian people’s quality of life and decrease unemployment, the main reasons why the revolution in Tunisia started a year ago.

Egypt

Egypt was ruled by the same person for over 30 years where Mubarak, the former Egyptian president, and his loyalists were controlling the key positions in the country. Even though the former president himself was forced to step down on 11 February 2011, many of his loyalists are still in control of many key positions in the country.

Additional to that, some of the key international political powers that are afraid of any potential consequences of a strong and democratic Egypt, due to Egypt’s strategic location and due to its political influence in the Arab World, on their geopolitical interests in the region may also contribute to Egypt’s insecurity.

These days, whilst most people in Egypt are celebrating the first anniversary of toppling the Egypt former president Hosni Mubarak and his regime, others are demonstrating further because they believe the revolution hasn’t yet achieved all its goals.

The Egyptian parliament, after the successful parliamentary elections, is preparing to write a new constitution for Egypt that will clearly separate and guide the legislative and executive powers of the parliament, the government, and the president in Egypt. The new constitution will set a limit for the future president’s influence on the political decision-making, his term in office, and will also put a mechanism that enhances the role and influence of the parliament in the political decision-making in the country. Writing a modern and sustainable constitution that satisfies the needs of the people require some time and also a period of political stability, among many other things.

Therefore, the demands from political parties and some NGOs for immediate presidential elections that would replace the governing military council before any new constitution are successfully finalised, whether conscious or unconscious, are threatening to the democratic future of Egypt.

One of the reasons is that the elected president may not abide by any new constitution since he will be elected according to the current constitution that gives the president ultimate powers and doesn’t limit his time in office. This has been one of the demands of the Egyptian revolution against Hosni Mubarak.

Syria

The Syrian revolution started about 11 months ago and more than 8000 civilians in Syria have by now been killed by the Assad army and Assad’s loyalist militias (known as Shabiha) who are using excessive military power to crack down on the largely peaceful demonstrations. The Assad Family and their loyalists have been, for decades, governing Syria against the will of the citizens of Syrian by using security and military forces to eliminate any serious political opposition threat. As all the nations in the world that have the right for democratic political system where the people can freely choose their political leaders through fair and free elections, the Syrian people also have that right to choose their leadership that represent and govern them by democratic means.

Inspired by the revolutions in the neighbouring Arab countries, they have also been trying to demand political and economic reforms and they are doing so by demonstrating after the regime rejected and ignored all calls for political dialogue with the Syrians whether it’s with the exiled opposition  or with the opposition  inside Syria.

Being scared of having the same fate as Mubarak of Egypt and Bin Ali of Tunisia, the Assad and his loyalists have decided not to have peace with the majority of the Syrian people and to take serious steps to make political and economic reforms, but decided to silent the demonstrators by using excessive military power. However, the Assad’s army and security brutal use of force have led to more demonstrations in almost everywhere in Syria against his regime and also to soldiers’ defection from the national army, which re-grouped and formed what is now known as the Free Syrian Army (FSA).

The international community, including the Arab countries, have been extremely slow in their response to try to effectively protect the Syrian demonstrators from the brutality of the regime. Additional to that, the fact that Russia and China are protecting the current Syrian regime by blocking any potentially effective resolution at the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) that condemns the Assad regime is indeed giving the Assad regime more time to crack down on the people of Syria.

Russia and China may think they are protecting their geopolitical and economical interests in the region by continuing to support the Assad, their major political ally in the region, politically, economically, and also militarily, against the people of Syria. Indeed, such diplomacy may show Russia’s and China’s lack of serious long-term political vision in the region and a balanced strategy that may protect their interests in general, and also in Syria, particularly in the middle and long-run. Russia, until recently, was considered by many Arab states and people, including the Syrian people, as a friend of the Arabs. However, this attitude has dramatically changed since Russia vetoed the resolution to condemn the Assad regime’s use of brutal force in the UNSC. Even if the Syrian revolution may take a longer time to successfully achieve its goals and to eliminate the Assad regime, they will eventually succeed.

The Cold War’s mentality among the major international political players and their attempts to strengthen their influence in the Middle East region continue while disregarding the wishes and the needs of the Middle Eastern people. The USA has used its veto power in the UNSC several times and will, no doubt, continue doing so against any proposed resolutions in the UNSC that attempt to condemn the atrocities done the Israeli government against the Palestinian people or seriously force it to abide by the international law. For several days and since the use of veto by the Russia and China’s representatives in the UNSC against the resolution to condemn the Assad regime, the USA has been using the situation by trying to portray itself as the guardian of democracy in the world and by pretending that it is the main supporter of the people of the Middle East in their struggle for democracy and for the much needed political and economic reforms.

This is yet another proof of the hypocritical and opportunistic politics run by the USA government, in order to gain more geopolitical power and to regain some of the people’s support of the region that it has lost due to years of pro Israeli policies in the region which have made the USA government probably the most hated country among the people of the Middle East after Israel. The USA has supported the Arab dictators for decades and continues to support the tyrants that are still in power in the Middle East against the will of the citizens of these countries.

While the leaders of the revolutions in the Middle East will continue to actively and wisely engage themselves in international diplomacy to protect the gains of the revolutions and succeed in creating the environment that accelerates the post-revolutions’ stability, they will do so by putting the long-term interests of the people they are leading over the interests of the major international political powers.

If they fail to protect the interest of their nations and end up becoming tools in the hand of the major political power in the region, time will soon come when the people in the region will demonstrate against and topple them too.

Photo: Creative Commons license, openDemocracy (Title: Middle_East_Map)

(The opinions presented in this article represent those of the author and are not intended to represent the views of UF in any way, nor are they intended to represent the views of any organisation or company which the author represents. UF is a politically and religiously independent organisation.)

Speakers Karin Bender and Elina Peronius have recently spent months in Guatemala through SweFOR, a non-governmental organisation that is involved in peace observation and witness supporting activities. The event will focus on the issues facing the survivors and witnesses of the genocide committed in Guatemala. You will get a historical overview, as well as the opportunity to share the speakers’ personal first hand experience of the political and legal aftermaths of the conflict.

The seminar will be held in English. You must be 18 years or older due to alcohol serving regulations.

Entrance is free for UF members; non-members pay a 20 SEK entrance fee. We can arrange a membership card on the spot.

Som ett led i vår strävan att under våren belysa situationen i Mellanöstern bjuder vi nu in till seminarium under temat utvecklingen i Irak. Gästtalare är Hamin Hawrami, ansvarig för utrikespolitiska kontakter hos Kurdiska Demokratiska Partiet (KDP). Mr. Hawrami kommer bland annat att belysa aspekter av det amerikanska militära tillbakadragandet, religiösa konflikter och deras roll i sammanhanget samt demokratiseringen i Irakiska Kurdistan som autonom region.

Seminariet kommer att hållas på engelska.

Sofia Salejeva – Ordförande
Jon Gjonnes – Vice ordförande
Rickard Björkén – Sekreterare
Anna Ehnhage – Aktivitetsansvarig
Sofia Wallin – Aktivitetsansvarig (suppleant)
Dennis Besseling – Mentorskapsansvarig
Elin Liljenbladh – Medlemsansvarig
Gabriella Sá Gustafsson – Programansvarig
Anna Savolainen – Programansvarig (suppleant)
Carl Jensfelt – PR-ansvarig
Sanna Hyvönen – PR-ansvarig (suppleant)
Jesper Lundin – Reseansvarig
Meenakshi Malik – Redaktör
Lisa Backman – Redaktör (suppleant)
Henrik Berg – Kassör

We will be meeting and talking with Daniel Nord, SIPRI Deputy Director, who will address SIPRI and the nuclear weapon issue and Dr Paul Holtom, Programme Director of the SIPRI Arms Transfers Programme, who will give us an overview about arms transfers in the world.

The study visit starts at 14.00 and takes one hour. Registration is mandatory and is to be sent to aktivitet(at)ufstockholm.se no later than 19 February.

More information on when and where to meet up will be issued later. Please remember that the study visit is only for members. Membership, however, can be solved at the spot.

Questions? Please contact aktivitet(at)ufstockholm.se

Welcome!

Varje år bestämmer UFs medlemmar om en ny och aktuell ort att resa till. Gå med i resegruppen så kan du vara med och påverka! Kanske kan just ditt förslag bli vårt nästa resmål. Kolla på filmen från resan!

Under UFs representationsresa till Istanbul i November 2011 besökte och träffade vi bland annat:

Asli Toppare och Yeşim Erkan hos TEMA Foundation, Turkiets största miljöorganisation

Turkiets Utrikesdepartement i Istanbul

M. Haluk Ilıcak hos Turkiets EU-ministerium

Sofia Salejeva – Ordförande
Jon Gjonnes – Vice ordförande
Rickard Björkén – Sekreterare
Anna Ehnhage – Aktivitetsansvarig
Dennis Besseling – Mentorskapsansvarig
Elin Liljenbladh – Medlemsansvarig
Gabriella Sá Gustafsson – Programansvarig
Anna Savolainen – Programansvarig (suppleant)
Carl Jensfelt – PR-ansvarig
Sanna Hyvönen – PR-ansvarig (suppleant)
Jesper Lundin – Reseansvarig
Meenakshi Malik – Redaktör
Lisa Backman – Redaktör (suppleant)
(meddelas senare) – Kassör

Föreningsrevisorer:

Emma Lundstedt – Revisor
Lina Irstad – Revisor (suppleant)

Valberedning:

Lukus Fondin – Valberedning

Utdrag ur UF Stadgan
§ 6 Valberedningens uppgift är att bereda nyval och fyllnadsval vid årsmöte och höstmöte och föreslå personer till föreningens valbara poster. Valberedningen ska bestå av minst en person.

§ 7 Revisor och suppleant väljs på årsmötet och är ansvariga inför detta. Revisorn skall vara oberoende gentemot styrelsen. Revisorn ska utföra förvaltnings- och verksamhetsrevision.

§ 8 Styrelsen utgörs av ordförande samt de vid årsmötet valda ledamöterna, dock minst fem fysiska personer totalt. Ordförande väljs direkt av årsmötet. Styrelsen konstituerar sig själv.

Stadgar UF (pdf)
Dagordning (pdf)
Verksamhetsberättelse 2011 (pdf)
Verksamhetsplan 2012 (pdf)
Revisionsberättelse 2011 (pdf)

/Valberedningen UF
Elias Efvergren, Åsa Brannestam, Louiza Asoyan

By Elena Krivovyaz

The recent success of Russia in its gas activities remains one of the main stumbling-stones not only for the economical, but also political relationship between Russia and the EU. While Gazprom intensifies its key projects, Nord Stream and South Stream, the fear of Russian political expansion continue growing in Europe. However, the experts insist that this notion misses another important problem within the gas dispute.

Chessboard of energy market

As it is widely known, Russia remains the largest external gas supplier for EU, which imports about 60 percent of natural gas. Since the 1970s when the first gas contracts between Soviet Union and the Western countries – Austria, France and Italy, were signed, Russia’s share of EU gas import has gradually declined from 80 percent to 40 percent. This significant decrease became a result after Europe’s attempts to diversify its supply system. Whereas about 40 percent of natural gas is produced within Europe, UK, Netherlands, Denmark and Germany, the rest is imported from Russia, Norway and Algeria. These three countries almost cover about 80 percent of whole import in Europe, while the rest flows through the pipelines from Nigeria, Libya, Egypt and Qatar.

However, the level of gas imports is not identical to its actual use. EU’s present consumption of Russian gas accounts are about 25 percent of its total record while the import of Russian gas roughly doesn’t exceed 40 percent. If we compare this figure to the level of primary energy supply, the data shows that EU relies only on 6, 5 percent of Russian resources, which means that more than 90 percent of the energy demand in Europe, is satisfied by other countries.

Nevertheless, even if one consider the scale of EU’s gas consumption in total, the situation is far from Europe being sentenced to overdependence on Russia, assures Per Noel, an expert on energy policy. While Norway, Algeria and some African gas suppliers increase their energy export to EU, this hopeless scenario is unlikely to become true, he continues. Thus, in case if anything all of a sudden goes wrong in EU-Russian energy bilateral agreements or if domestic gas reserves ever reach exhaustion point, Europe will find alternative ways to recoup its losses of the Russian gas. But if suspected energy reliance on Russia is not that critical for Europe, then what all this ballyhoo is about, one might ask.

Powder keg syndrome

The problem is not about possible energy dependence on the Russian gas, as we might assume, but it has much more to do with the political implications for EU, as many Western politicians and experts assert. Russian gas is not only a source of energy, but an important political tool for Russia to accommodate its ambitions in European region, they assume. It was probably in 1997 that Brussels fairly realized for the first time that the relationship with Russia regarding the energy market would hardly become easygoing. That was the year when Russia refused to ratify The Energy Charter Treaty, a document which aimed to integrate energy sectors of EU and simultaneously limit Russia’s influence on it. Not to mention “gas wars” between Gazprom and Ukraine in 2006, 2008 and 2009 which European countries also felt on their conscience.

Military operations in Georgia became another conspicuous affirmation of Russia’s unwillingness to compromise on fundamental issues with the European parliament. And even if this threat of direct political intervention remains rather potential than actual, Russia’s influence on the EU energy policy makes many European countries feel like living on a powder keg.

Even though later on, after Ukrainian-Russian gas conflicts it was adjudicated by the court that Ukraine practiced sabotage over the Russian gas in 2006-2009, this fact couldn’t mitigate EU’s suffering under reiterated gas supply stoppage. It was also remarkable that in May, 2006, during Russia-EU summit held in Sochi, when European Union representatives suggested Putin’s administration to consider a program designed to depoliticize Russian gas supply in Europe, but it explicitly refused to do so.

In this case, the political aspect of energy supply relations between both sides points out to another major problem: the features of EU’s gas market, which lacks integrity and consistence and therefore, makes it almost impossible for EU to speak to Russia in one voice. Moreover, EU’s energy market is a vivid example of unequal power distribution, as only a minority of its states that fully takes advantage of unlimited gas supply and distribution, while Eastern and Central Europe are subjected to severe dependency on the Russian gas import. The latter feature is especially characteristic for a dozen of member states like Latvia, Slovakia, Estonia, Bulgaria and some others. That’s why many experts in energy policy share the opinion that Russia’s political strategy turns out to be rather divisive for European Union when it comes to gas. The Iron Curtain still divides Europe in two polar parts: West and East, states Per Noel in his document named: “Beyond the Dependence: How to Deal With Russian Gas?”.

The taps are on

There are even more extreme opinions regarding the EU and Russian gas relationship, like the one of Radoslaw Sikorski, former defense minister of Poland, who qualified Russia’s Nord Stream project similar to Molotov-Ribbentrope pact, which implied division of Europe into Western and Eastern parts and their direct subordination to Germany and Soviet Union respectively. Though this parallel lacks validation, it expressively indicates to the redundant level of mutuality between Russia and Germany together with Italy regarding energy projects. Nonetheless both parties enjoy their advantages. – Russia maintains its importance for the EU market and gains political and economical benefits, and Germany and Italy acquire a number of other privileges together with financial profit. In order to be fair, we might argue that there is, probably, no evil in the dominance of Germany and some other gas-beneficiaries in EU, but the gain of less privileged Member States, therefore, turns out to be rather indirect and in some way doubtful in a long-term political prospective.

Inasmuch Russia’s political and economical course remain the raw-material oriented and while stronger Western states delay with energy market integration, the gaseous -political games are on, unfortunately for other countries that might feel as pawns in a chess-game.

Photo: Creative Commons license, nist6ss (Title: Gas- Tamanna)

(The opinions presented in this article represent those of the author and are not intended to represent the views of UF in any way, nor are they intended to represent the views of any organisation or company which the author represents. UF is a politically and religiously independent organisation.)

Är du intresserad skicka då en intresseanmälan till resa@ufstockholm.se med namn och personnummer. OBS! UF kan endast erbjuda ett antal platser och ber därför ansökande om att motivera varför man vill följa med samt vad du skulle vilja se väl på plats i Israel! Sista dagen för intresseanmälan är den 10/2 och kort därefter kommer UF meddela vilka som har fått en plats på resan.

Mejla gärna vid övriga frågor annars kommer vi även finnas på plats på årsmötet den 7/2 för eventuella funderingar!

Välkommen med en intresseanmälan!