I was given the opportunity to attend a panel discussion by the Centre for International Policy Studies at the University of Ottawa on ‘The Arab Spring: One Year Later’. I wrote up a summary in case people were interested and could not attend. Any mistakes are my own.
On the panel was Dr. Peter Jones (uOttawa, a specialist on Iran), Dr. Omar Ashour (Exeter University, specialist on radical Islamic groups in Egypt) and Barak Barfi (research fellow New America foundation). The lecture was extremely relevant given the Canadian government’s emerging policy toward the region, the concerns about security threats to Canada emerging from the political upheaval and the Canadian government’s aggressive stance towards Iran and its nuclear weapons.
The first panellist, Dr. Omar Ashour, provided a brief overview of what happened after the Egyptian revolution on January 25, 2011. Islamic parties benefited considerably from the parliamentary elections but a military council, the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces, holds real power in the country. The original revolutionaries, who were largely secular, attempted to organize political parties but did not do very well in the parliamentary elections. However, some formerly radical Islamic radical groups, including some smaller groups which had been affiliated with Al Qaeda, have made a transition to becoming political parties and contested the recent parliamentary elections. Dr. Ashour felt that there were two paths that the political situation in Egypt could take. The best case scenario is that revolutionaries and the newly elected parliament work together in ousting the military from power. The worst case scenario is that the military stays in control by manipulating political tensions between secular and Islamic political parties. In the question period I asked Dr. Ashour if there was a danger that formerly radical Islamic groups would return to violence. Dr. Ashour indicated that as long as there was real progress made to democratization, these groups would remain within the political process.
The second speaker Barak Barfi, who spoke on the difficulty in controlling the weapons left behind by the Ghaddafi regime in Libya. A large number of surface to air missiles and other forms of munitions have not been properly accounted for. Regional governments such as Chad and Mali that depended on Ghadaffi’s aid are in a difficult position now that he has fallen. There is some concerned that radical Islamic groups may obtain the weapons left behind by the Ghadaffi regime. Concerns about Libya’s uranium deposits are overblown, as it would be very difficult for the type of uranium in Libya to be sold or smuggled.
The final speaker was Dr. Peter Jones. Dr. Jones indicated that there is very little prospect for political change in Iran currently. There is widespread dissatisfaction with the regime but few opposition leaders who have not been jailed. Most Iranians have little stomach for further political upheaval. The ‘Arab Spring’ has had a net negative effect on Iran’s foreign policy, it has destabilized its ally Syria and it has led Palestinian militant groups like Hamas to find new supporters. Dr. Jones believes that the Obama administration does not want regime change in Iran and would be able to live with a compromise over the nuclear program. However, there are segments of the US Congress and parts of the Israeli government that want regime change in Iran. Of particular note, the US Congress has passed sanctions against Iran which President cannot turn off without Congressional approval. Even if Iran compromises, the sanctions would be subject to a strongly anti-Iran US Congress. Much of the recent standoff and increase in tensions between Iran and the United States has to do with the sanctions passed. Iran interprets these as a tactic to change the regime. The danger in a hard-line approach is that it closes off diplomacy. Dr. Jones was very critical about Prime Minister Harper’s comments that the mentality of Iran’s leaders was such that they would not be dissuaded by mutually assured destruction and could use nuclear weapons, if they ever got them. Dr. Jones indicated that while the proliferation of Nuclear weapons to Iran would be a bad thing, but there is no evidence that the Iranian regime is actively pursuing nuclear weapons. However, it appears that the Iranian government wants to build the capacity to assemble nukes very quickly. This suggests that the purpose of Iran’s program is for deterrence against foreign aggression.
Overall the talk was a very useful perspective on the complexities of the Middle East. For the Canadian perspective, it suggests that supporting further democratic reforms in Egypt may be the best antidote to Islamic militancy, that we should be very sceptical of the Canadian government’s views on Iran and that the fall of Ghadaffi may have created serious regional issues for the North African region.
