Dr. Prasanta Kumar Pradhan highlighted the causes and implications of ‘Arab Spring’ during his presentation. It was emphasised that the political turmoil in the Arab World was an event waiting to happen due to the dissatisfaction with the ruling elite. Undemocratic political system, authoritarian rulers, human rights violations, and social and economic equality contributed to the massive level of discontent amongst the people. However, electoral success of Islamist parties in Egypt and Tunisia has raised the question of whether the region is ready to embrace secular democracy.

It was noted that the fear of a protracted conflict in the Arab world has had its own regional and international repercussions. Sectarian discord especially the Shia-Sunni tension has only worsened in recent times and this has been reflected in a strained Saudi-Iran relationship. The biggest beneficiaries of the current crisis have been Saudi Arabia and Turkey and they have tried to play a very active role in the region. However, there has been no unanimity amongst the major powers (GCC, Arab league, China, Russia or the US) in coming up with a joint action programme to deal with the crisis.

It was pointed out that India has huge stakes in the Gulf, 65% of India’s oil comes from the Gulf and trade accounts for close to $120 bn and 6 million people of Indian origin stay in the region. Therefore what happens in the region will have implications for India as well. India’s response has been in tune with its traditional policy of non-alignment, non-intervention and allowing the people to shape and choose their own destiny. India has abstained during the UN resolutions on Libya and Syria while at the same time called for a cessation of hostilities and for finding an amicable solution through dialogue.

Mordechai Kedar from BESA discussed the ‘Arab Spring’ as a period of intense instability in the Gulf. Due to concentration of political power in the hands of a few elite, the ‘state’ was being looked upon as an illegitimate body by majority of citizens in most countries of the region. The history of unrest can be traced back to the era of colonialism wherein political power was divided amongst a select few. He emphasised that there is a distinct possibility of people clamouring for more autonomy in many districts of different countries, especially in Iraq, Yemen and Syria. This may even lead to demand for full independence similar to the Kurdistan movement. The rise of Islamic parties in Egypt is not an exception; “Islamization” with major repercussions will be witnessed in the future across the region. It was observed that Islamic parties generally do not adhere to international laws and with the Suez Canal now under the control of a Muslim party, things can only get worse for Western countries.

While talking about the reported spread of democracy in the Middle East, Prof. Kedar believed that Israel will be the first country to benefit if real democracy spread across the region, more so since it has been observed that real democracies do not fight amongst themselves. However, the probability of real democracy appears bleak in the immediate future. There is an absence of real democratic institutions in the form of equality before law, rule of law of the state, religious freedom, human rights, minority and women’s rights. Therefore, the ‘Arab Spring’ will continue to be unpredictable in the future; its repercussions will differ from state to state and acceptance of religious, ethnic and tribal divides will go a long way in determining the spread of real democracy in the region. It was noted that it is not yet clear as to whether West Asia is heading towards democracy or anarchy.

Eytan Gilboa from BESA highlighted a distinction between short term and long term developments in the region. In the long run, the spread of democracy is going to benefit not just Israel but also the entire region. But in the short term, the transition from autocracy to democracy will not be easy and is likely to be a long drawn process. In this context, the possibility of conflict between nations can not be ruled out. US policy in the Middle East, the question of Iran, terrorism and Palestinian negotiations will be the major sources of concern for Israel in the years to come. The recent turmoil is an indication that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not the most important problem in the region. The main priority for Israel is Iran due to the threat it represents. Negotiation with Palestine is not a priority for Israel. It was further stressed that Iran building a nuclear bomb would imply the absolute failure of the US policy in the region. Arab Spring has created many voids and a nuclear Iran is poised to fill some of them especially at a time when the US is perceived to be on its way out of the Middle East. A nuclear Iran can put pressure and intimidate other Gulf States and introduce radical Islamist influence in the existing Arab governments.

The contradiction in the position of major international powers in the region was deliberated upon by the speaker. It was noted that diplomacy has failed and Iran has aptly used the lack of unanimity amongst big international powers to buy time for its nuclear programme sanctions have not worked and on military option the US and Europe do not know what to do. It was pointed out that the irresponsible behaviour of Russia and China in deliberately taking opposite stands to that of the US has further complicated the situation.

It was noted that based on the history of Lebanon, Egypt and others, the road to democracy in West Asia will be a very complicated one. It was deliberated upon by the speaker that elections should be the last step in a process of democratization. Unlike in Egypt, democracy is all about initially establishing values, norms, democratic infrastructure and evolving institutions before elections are organized. The concern about Islamic regimes (of Muslim Brotherhood) coming into power in Egypt was raised. Such a development will not be in the interest of Israel. Section of Muslim Brotherhood of Egypt has already called for a review of the peace settlement with Israel. It was articulated by the speaker that the peace agreement between Israel and Egypt was never implemented fully as an agreement between two leaders was only ‘cold peace’. It was suggested that the Egypt-Israel Peace Agreement needs to be revisited given the developments still unfolding in Egypt. It was pointed out that the US policy on Egypt is perceived as abandoning of that nation. It was noted that there is a perception that the US is going out of West Asia and if this happens, Iran will fill this gap. The ineffectiveness of the United Nations was also touched upon by the speaker during the deliberation.

Dr. P. R. Kumaraswamy noted that India can view the region from two angles; a) North Africa, where India can be indifferent to the events unfolding in distant places like Tunisia, Libya and to a lesser extent Egypt; and b) the more important Persian Gulf where India has to be extremely careful about any action that it initiates. He identified role of four major powers in the region: Arab League, Turkey, Iran and the USA:

1. Arab League: In recent months the League has been very active and assertive. It was due to its assertive role that the UN passed the resolution on Libya. There was consensus on the action to be taken on the issue of Syria. It was noted by the speaker that the general regional consensus on Syria will imply that India cannot afford to be silent on the issue.
2. Turkey: The policy of zero problems with its neighbours may not be possible for Turkey to follow. It was articulated that Turkey will find it very difficult to continue an anti-Israel policy in order to just earn a few brownie points. Its influence in the region will be limited to the North African region.
3. USA: It was pointed out that the US still remains the dominant but declining power in Middle East. Greater indecisiveness in its foreign policy approach has resulted in its inability to influence events on the ground. With elections in the US due next year, the Middle East peace process is off the agenda. There appears to be no uniform US democratic agenda for the Middle East and at present it has only a country-specific plan. Its response in the region has been directionless. However, there appears to be no major alternative to the US in the region.
4. Iran: It was pointed out that in case of Iran again the US policy has not been very clear as to whether it wants to engage or disengage Iran. On the issue of sanctions it was noted that in early 1990s the sanctions could have been more effective but the US didn’t do much. In the current context, sanctions against Iran will not be very effective and military action is not a viable option. The question is whether the US can provide incentives to Iran to roll back the nuclear programme.

While talking about India’s Iran policy, Dr. Kumaraswamy lamented the lack of strategic thinking on Iran. It was noted that there have been no discussions on the possibility of Iran’s missiles being targeted eastwards towards India and the negative consequences of Iran’s weapons programme. Even the presence of an unknown Iranian ship close to Indian coast has failed to elicit any debate amongst the strategic community. India’s Iran dilemma is also linked to India’s nuclear deal with the US in the backdrop of a well chronicled US-Iran conflict.

However, if forced to make a choice between Israel and Iran, India will choose Iran due to the vast political and economic leverages that India can get by being associated with Iran. Similarly, if backed by a strong political leadership, India can choose Iran over the US on account of the same leverages. However, if faced with a choice between Iran and the Arab World, India cannot ignore the Arab nations due to economic, energy, strategic, political and cultural factors. Even though Arab countries are far more important that Iran yet the foreign policy discourse of India has not yet been internalized on its importance.

During the Discussion following important pointes were deliberated upon:

1. One of the major points of discussion was the nature of India’s response to Arab countries’ concern on Iran’s nuclear programme. It was felt that India will continue to maintain the current position but will not preach the non proliferation discourse since India itself has gone nuclear. But India will and should be more articulate in expressing its views that a nuclear Iran is not in anyone’s interest.
2. On the question of India’s options in the region, it was felt that it should recognize the diversity and internal dynamics of the region and be in step with it. Moreover India should also look at the possibility of Iran acting in concert with China.
3. On the question of Pakistan ‘angle’ in India’s Middle East and Gulf policy, it was felt that since the end of Cold War, India has deliberately tried to de-link Pakistan from its Middle East policy. India has in fact focussed, with increasing success, on convergence and commonality of interests with the countries of the region. The moment Pakistan is brought into the picture, the project becomes a non-starter.
4. It was felt that the talk about apparent US decline and its withdrawal from the region any time in the future is just a hypothetical case and the US will stay and be a dominant power in the region for years to come. On the question of strengthening its military presence in the region, an interesting historical fact was presented. Whenever the US has been in doubt about its Middle East policy, it has sent in its different naval fleets to the region. Maybe this is an indication of the present uncertain American policy in the region.
5. On the question of India’s policy of non-interference in Syria, it was felt that India needs to be very cautious while articulating its policy. It should not be singled out in the UN general Assembly but should instead adopt a more nuanced public discourse.
6. A major discussion took place on the reasons behind Russia and China taking a diametrically opposite stand to the American policies in the region. Some believed that Russia and China are trying to bring down the power and influence of the US and then step into the void left behind. In fact Russia may try to achieve superpower status by playing a more active and influential role in the region while China is working behind the scenes to achieve a peaceful global rise. One participant took recourse to the connecting vessels theory of Physics while referring to the role of Russia and China in the region and in explaining the interconnectedness of events. He felt that collapse of the regime in Syria will antagonize Iran since ‘Syria is the Trojan horse of the revolution into the Arab world through the success of Hezbollah’. Iran will surely act aggressively if the Syrian regime collapses. This in turn will affect Indian workers in the Gulf and oil prices will rise. Moreover, China which is addicted to Gulf oil will face domestic problems in the form of unemployment which will result in mass migration to Russia’s Far East leading to social tensions in Russia. This possibly explains why Russia and China are at the forefront to prevent any condemnation of Syria in the UN. They are also apprehensive that even mere condemnation will be a license to EU and US to launch a military attack on Syria.
7. In response to the steps that need to be taken to establish effective democracy in the region, it was felt that democracy building is a time consuming process and formation of interim governments acceptable to all with proportionate sharing of power could be a way ahead. But it may take a generation to have real democracy in the region. But in the meantime the real fear is of a nuclear Iran with superpower influence trying to manipulate moderate Islamists of the Middle East and make them move further away from democracy.
8. The effectiveness of the Arab League was also called into question. The fact that they have never been able to comprehensively deal with any Arab crisis in the past has put in doubt their ability to resolve any major conflict.
9. An interesting discussion took place on whether states like Iran, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and others acquiring nuclear weapons will lead to irresponsible behaviour or would they observe restraint? It was felt that even 30 years after the revolution in Iran, policies of that country continue to be aggressive and extremist and even Lebanon and Hamas are still not moderate. The President of Iran has denied holocaust and threatened to wipe off Israel and a nuclear Iran only complicates matters. Other powers too will seek nuclear weapons to balance each other. However, the major worry is of nuclear weapons falling into the hands of terrorists whose main goal post 9/11 appear to be destruction and murder.

Back to IDSA-BESA Dialogue page [+]